Slashdot Mirror
Registry Hack Enables Continued Updates For Windows XP
DroidJason1 (3589319) writes "A registry workaround, which tricks Windows Update into thinking you are running Windows Embedded POSReady 2009, allows you to get free security updates until 2019. All you need is a simple 32bit or 64bit registry entry in order to make this work. POSReady 2009 is slated to receive security updates for another five years. Microsoft ended support for Windows XP on April 8th of 2014."
Get it while it's good. There's quite a few critical security updates.
Easy BitCoins
There's something called "Windows Embedded Piece Of Shit Ready 2009"?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
and who dont have a support contract (example medical and banks) the kinds of people who actually do updates anyway? or are they most likely pirated versions of XP?? also if one did this on a legal version of windows, would microsoft consider it a breech of the TOS? I havent been using XP in a number of years now but im not sure how useful this registry hack is going to be in real world scenarios
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
what's the difference between highly illegal, and illegal? Besides, what is so illegal about changing a registry key or value, or creating a registry key?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
a BSOD
Windows POSReady 2009 is actually Windows XP though, just stripped down and a lot of stuff removed. The same system files exist in the same versions and thus they have the same exploits and can be patched with the same code.
POSReady 2009 is basically a different "distro" of Windows XP that Microsoft is supporting until 2009. By changing that one registry entry, you get Windows Update to realize you're running that special distro, and you get patches.
What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry, browing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA, then creating a new key called PosReady, then creating a new dword in PosReady called "Installed" with a value of 00000001?
Digital:Convergence had much more claim to the cuecat scanner's security than this could ever command.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
POS versions of windows are almost identical to desktop versions. The difference is more in the license than in the functionality
In the loosest possible interpretation I can think of (and not one I agree with), you are committing fraud by misrepresenting something in order to get a good or a service.
But, if it's something as trivial as a registry key, which is available for users to update (and which sometimes MS themselves suggest) ... then I've got nothing.
I'm having a hard time believing it's perfectly legal to update one set of registry keys, while being illegal to update another. If they're so special and secret, they shouldn't be something you can update.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
And given that most of the people I know who have a machine still stuck on XP are using them for things that the POS version was built for (but before it was made available), this hits the exact audience Microsoft intended for POS. Not all vendors are willing to update to POS, and not all businesses can realistically rebuild their own systems and reinstall everything (or even have license to). This is the lesser of the two evils (use updates for a different version of Windows or have your embedded/POS/industrial PC vulnerable to attack). I strongly doubt Microsoft will go after anyone for this except possibly -vendors- who do the hack commercially. They may find a way around it and stop it from working, but they're not going to go after consumers if the consumer has a valid XP license. If they don't have a valid XP license, they're already breaking bigger laws, and MS would have gone after them if they could anyway.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
That's normal.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Point of Sale systems usually operate under more controlled conditions than end user machines. Would these updates keep your XP machine plausibly secure or highly vulnerable to threats not considered serious to point of sale systems? What about vulnerabilities in components not present in POSReady 2009 but used in XP?
Windows POSReady 2009 is actually Windows XP though, just stripped down and a lot of bug-ridden exploitable and memory hogging code removed. Almost the same system files exist in the same versions and thus they have many exploits in common and frequently can be patched with the same code.
There, fixed it for you.
I'm honestly a bit surprised that MS didn't bother to tie point-of-sale status to XP's license authentication mechanism, even in some relatively trivial way.
They were certainly willing to do that with some updates (anything where good old 'Windows Genuine Advantage' popped up) and, while the suitably motivated generally bypassed that without too much trouble, I imagine that that sort of wicked, wicked, circumvention made their legal position markedly less pleasant if MS wished to push the issue.
If it's just a registry key, no ties to the activation system at all, the situation starts to look a lot more like spoofing a browser UA to encourage the server to send you the version of the page it sends to some different browser.
What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry, browing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA, then creating a new key called PosReady, then creating a new dword in PosReady called "Installed" with a value of 00000001?
See Aaron Swartz: Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[12] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release.[13]
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry
... to get a service you don't have a license for. How is that not illegal?
Yeah. "Felony Registry Hack" will get you 10 to 20.
Changing the key is not illegal. Using that change to access data which Microsoft has explicitly deemed outside your legal access IS illegal.
As someone who works with POS Ready 2009 a lot (I write Point of Sale Software), the catch with this idea is that many (a great many) of the components in normal XP just don't exist in POSReady.
SO you may, or may not get updates for some parts of your OS - because Microsoft will not be writing updates for the rest.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
It'll void your warranty and then you won't be able to get anymore security updates!!
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
"This patch removes an exploit that caused some machines running Windows XP to apply updates for other operating systems. To learn more about the update, read this knowledge base article..."
If it's outside my legal access, then why does typing in eighteen plain-text keystrokes give me access to it?
If Microsoft didn't want updates to work between different products, then shouldn't those different products have been actually differentiated in their compiled executable files or libraries to make simple maintenance not provide a mechanism to do this?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I'm having a hard time believing it's perfectly legal to update one set of registry keys, while being illegal to update another. If they're so special and secret, they shouldn't be something you can update.
Since Microsoft offers paid updates for WinXP (at least for corporate customers),
it's not very hard to argue that the registry hack (at least for corporate customers) would qualify as theft of service.
For non-corporate users, Microsoft could argue "unauthorized access," but I can't see them taking the trouble to sue random home users.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I'm actually surprised that there isn't something else checking versioning in the compiled stuff that can't be readily changed. That it's a registry entry blows my mind. That's so lazy on their part that I have zero sympathy for them if people extend support for their OSes this way.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Yes... but many of the security flaws patched in the past have been in that 'stuff' you mention.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
And there-in lies the problem, "just stripped down and a lot of stuff removed" means that you almost certainly won't be getting patches for the stuff that has been removed, which is just as likely (if not more so) to be the parts that really need patching when the next 0-day comes along. Also, unless all the system files present truly are identical, then replacing random system files on a desktop XP system for a "stripped down" version might, and probably will, cause some functions to stop working. I can see two not necessarily mutually exclusive outcomes from this; people who deploy this are going to end up with a very false sense of security and a lot of systems are going to get hosed because of an update that isn't compatible with desktop XP.
In fact, I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to "accidentally" push out bad patches to deter this behaviour. I'm pretty sure they'd rather XP just cease to exist at this point given all the bad security press it's got them, and any opportunity to ram another nail into the coffin isn't exactly going to be unwelcome.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
What's illegal about it?
"Whoever ... knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer ... exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value ... shall be punished ..." - CFAA (18 USC 1030).
That's what. (Disclaimer: IANAL and therefore don't know what I am talking about).
Perhaps they can include an "update" to WindowsPOS(?) that is not an issue for POSes, but detrimental in non-POS use-cases?
You know, some of us have felt this way about the registry as long as it's been around.
It has always seemed like a cheap hack done by lazy people.
It's not secure or safe, it has always been subject to corruption and hacks, and looks like something which was grafted on by someone under time constraints that once it was in the wild they couldn't get away from.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
As low as $250 at some places!! And if you don't like the metro stuff, they still have Windows 7.
XP ceased to be available on June 30, 2008. That's approximately six years ago. According to Moore's estimate, that equates to three doubles of computing power: 2, 4, 8. Any computer that you can buy today is at least 8 times better than any XP computer. And, to top it off, the low end of the price range is half of what it was back then. So just go for it. Splurge, man!!!
I did not matter one bit when XP was released, it matters when a better alternative was available. Windows 7 is not even 5 years old, and 4 years ago Windows XP was still being sold with new netbooks. Those machines do not even run Windows 7 properly unless you upgrade the RAM.
What is so illegal about changing 0 to 1 and 1 to 0?
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
But whose anus?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Windows Update wouldn't work until I downloaded SP2 and installed it. Then I was able to "enjoy" several hours of downloading and installing updates via Windows Update
What I wonder about is, when I accepted an update and rebooted there were several patches to the updates. Why doesn't MS build the patches into the update?
I installed Windows Server 2003 to VMWare Player just yesterday. The activation server won't work anymore, so I had to make the dreaded call. The Pakistani sounding guy named "Phillip" was helpful but it would have been easier with Internet activation. He was very curious as to WHY I wanted to install Windows Server 2003.
Windows Update wouldn't work until I downloaded SP2 and installed it. Then I was able to "enjoy" several hours of downloading and installing updates via Windows Update
What I wonder about is, when I accepted an update and rebooted there were several patches to the updates. Why doesn't MS build the patches into the update?
That is because the certificates were replaced. Remember back in 2011 about one of the root CA servers being compromised. It was only one of the keys used to sign and not the full master but still MS updated its certificates to be safe.
You can download an update (forgot which KB) for both XP & Server 2003. Even XP out of the box wont run updates either without the fix. There is a fixit too that will change them for you.
http://saveie6.com/
I remember in the good old days when you were told your system is obsolete and to upgrade your OS after 3 years.
5 years is a long time for support.
http://saveie6.com/
I wouldn't be surprised if it is illegal, considering how broken our 'justice' system is.
If editing some data on your own equipment is all it takes to get Microsoft to give you service, and that's illegal, then something is indeed wrong.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
"Whoever ... knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer
Uh... it's my computer.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It's particularly weird given how touchy XP was about install media: even with a valid key and install medium that provided the same version(home, pro, etc.) it would inevitably whine if you used a retail key with OEM media, the reverse, or any other mismatched combination it happened to dislike, even if the result would be identical to what the poor sucker trying to install had a license key for.
Given that POS probably wasn't sold at a discount, I would have expected it to at least freak out at it being enabled on a system with a different category of license key and quite possibly to be something that would require a fresh install or major surgery to change after the fact.
Clearly this is a hypothetical argument that goes beyond the DeVry Juris Doctor syllabus, but replace "update" with "shove your dick in" and "set of registry keys" with "person's bodily orifice".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Yeah, I'm like *sure* they could totally get that right.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Since Msoft appears to have sold a product riddled with errors and security holes which has required years of updates to fix, it might be suggested that there is a continuing warranty obligation to provides updates to make the product fit for service? To suggest the customer should now pay money for extra fixes for continuing known faults looks more like blackmail than proper business ethics. Hip replacement recipients have a case against a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson over defects which poisoned them with cobalt and chrome. Anyone want to suggest they should just charge more for hip upgrades now?
POSReady 2009 combines the power and familiarity of Windows XP Professional with a smaller footprint and specific features for point of service (POS) computers.
Smaller footprint means fewer files. What ever is cut out of POSReady won't have any issues fixed.
The more updates the crappier it gets. Must of been the Brainteasers and White board tests fault. lol
The more complex the task, the simpler the steps need to be.
There is probably more to the whole POS installation than just the registry key.
I think someone just noticed that if you happen to only flip one of the many bits for the POS system that it would cause Windows Update to behave differently.
What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry, browing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA, then creating a new key called PosReady, then creating a new dword in PosReady called "Installed" with a value of 00000001?
No more illegal than disguising yourself as a legitimate copyright holder and fooling someone into letting you make a copy of a piece of media.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The true mind-blower of the registry is that even though it's API-based and therefore in theory they can replace it with impunity, they didn't and it still sucks.
The true mind-blower of Unix is how so many people defend their flat files unto death even when it makes zero sense, e.g. dpkg. dpkg desperately needs binary databases, perhaps kyotocabinet or hell just sqlite, anything would be better than the big ugly flat files. And even if those files were only caches of the flat files, and the big stupid ugly flat files still had to exist and be read and processed during updates, it would still be a big improvement. There was a thing called tdpkg which did it with a wrapper library (!) but dpkg has changed since it was written, and it no longer works.
A registry is still a good idea. The windows registry is still poo. I am still annoyed that even with stuff around like FUSE to make interim migration feasible, nobody has begun a major flat file replacement project.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
OH come on - just because something is easy to do automatically makes it legal. Is that your argument?
If you're not authorized to receive upgrades and/or support, and you knowingly misrepresent your system in some way in order get those upgrades and/or support. Well of course that's illegal.
If they're so special and secret, they shouldn't be something you can update.
Do you really believe that? If your life is so special and precious, it shouldn't be something I can so trivially extinguish with this here handgun.
Oops - And I told myself I wasn't going to use analogies, which inevitably end up driving the conversation in the direction of whether or not the analogy holds.
Sigh.
Why do slashdotters find these issues so hard to understand. The law is all about intent. If you intend to access services to which you are not entitled, the ease with which you do so is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not your actions are legal.
You can type in eighteen "plain text" keystrokes (whatever that means - aren't all keystrokes plain text? Anyway) and log into the Attorney General's gmail account. Well, if you knew the password you could. But the action is trivially simple. And that doesn't matter. And why would it? Would you want the law to be based on how difficult an action is to undertake? It's pretty easy to pull a trigger you know...
What if XP and POS share a DLL, but in POS they remove some functionality from the DLL. Then when there's a security update for the DLL, your XP system will end up downloading the updated DLL with missing functionality, and your XP system might become a doorstop.
Question: How is this any different from typing in a pirated key to a licensed copy of software you have installed in 'demo' mode today?
Answer: It isn't. You're not licensed to use the service, and enabling it on your machine, is a violation of the terms of that license.
what's the difference between highly illegal, and illegal? Besides, what is so illegal about changing a registry key or value, or creating a registry key?
Changing a registry key in and of itself isn't illegal. But doing so to misrepresent that you paid for something you didn't, and obtaining that something through the Internet violates at least two federal laws: wire fraud and the computer fraud and abuse act. You are gaining access to software hosted on a computer that don't rightfully have access to (computer fraud and abuse act), and you are causing false information to be sent on the Internet for financial gain (wire fraud). Both are federal felonies. In addition, you are probably committing several civil infractions including copyright violation and violation of license agreements. If you want to keep getting updates from Microsoft for XP you can pay for them like everyone else.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
This will only give a false sense of security. How many files are present in standard XP that *will not* be patched?
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Who gave you that idea? Certainly not Microsoft (or Apple, Google, etc)
But seriously, the server hosting the updates is NOT your computer, and by sending false identification information in order to access them, there is a good case to be made that you are committing fraud.After all, you must be granted access on the server to, at the very least, send the command to send you the update.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
As things stand, the POS editions have a lot of components that will not be fixed (because they are not there) that the main version has/needs.
Wake me up if/when a hack is released to make an XP install pose a a server 2003R2. That will buy me/us a full year of patches., nost likey illegal.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
If somebody were planning a bold replacement, it'd be neat to see something that actually took even slight advantage of the advances in what constitutes an acceptable database. With flat files, you can do some neat stuff by bringing a revision control system into the picture: see who made changes and when? No problem. Roll back a change? No problem. Diff what we are doing now with what we were doing six months ago? No problem. Spinning up a new machine? Just check out the configuration files and you are set. (I'm mostly a dabbler, so this never became my problem; but I imagine that a fully-robust implementation of this would be markedly more difficult, in that you'd need to know what was/wasn't critical to getting a network connection up and running, whether specific files were routinely churned so often as to be overwhelming, etc.; but for a hobby-scale handling of handpicked cases it's very convenient.)
.ini files that hang on in dark corners of Windows, or in the Unixlikes.)
If you went the database route, it'd be nice to see something designed with making querying, setting, and otherwise manipulating configurations (across any tractable number of systems that share enough authentication goo for it to work) something you get 'automatically' because of the fact that the config is in a database, rather than something you get, in bits and pieces, through specific utilities and hacks.
I think that that (aside from the relatively shallow learning curve, at least for applications whose config files aren't utter garbage) is what makes people so fond of text config files. You can modify them by hand; but because it's just text, basically anything that can spit strings and do useful things to them automatically serves as a potentially viable, even powerful, configuration editor. With binary configuration storage, you have a much more impoverished set of tools, in most cases (though a properly chosen binary format would be better off than ghastly legacy junk).
(The other factor, not strictly a consequence of registry vs. config files; but one that still seems to break down substantially, though not exclusively, along those lines, is what software vendors, especially 3rd party ones, choose to store: Even if you are totally satisfied with your registry editor tools, the unpleasant fact is that a lot of common software was clearly designed with absolutely no consideration of its configuration being edited except through the (usually GUI) interface it provides. Is it in the registry? Sure, the first run of the program created 50-odd dword values, each one more cryptic than the last. If you change a setting in the program and look again, sometimes you can see which one(s) changed. Obviously, absolutely nothing prevents an application with a text config file from doing the same, or worse, by just dumping a bunch of cryptic-fuck-you-hex values into its config; but some mixture of historical tradition and the implicit 'It's a text file, a human might read it...' pressure seems to keep that more restrained, whether it be in the assorted
What is so illegal about changing 0 to 1 and 1 to 0?
You'd be "circumventing an authorization control" or some other BS legal interpretation so they could throw the DMCA at you.
Not if it's Window 8.
That's why I install Classic Shell, which puts the S back in Windows.
You had a decade to gather five figures per year with which to replace your six-figure setup.
How about displaying profanity on a Windows system configured to use the POSReady updates but obviously not a genuine POSReady installation? During startup, it would identify as "Windows XP: PIece of Shit Ready".
it might be suggested that there is a continuing warranty obligation
After EOL, the EULA specifies that there is absolutely no warranty.
The Windows Update server is Microsoft's computer.
> After EOL, the EULA specifies that there is absolutely no warranty.
Don't know about your country, your laws, but in my country, under our laws, no EULA is valid in attempting to negate an implied warranty under law, and in fact, as I recall it, I think it's actually an offence to say in any sales agreement that there is no warranty... because apart from anything else, that would be misleading conduct...
I did not matter one bit when XP was released, it matters when a better alternative was available. Windows 7 is not even 5 years old, and 4 years ago Windows XP was still being sold with new netbooks. Those machines do not even run Windows 7 properly unless you upgrade the RAM.
Windows XP SP3 and Windows 7 memory requirements are similar. I'm not joking. Although, yeah, both of them can be quite tight in 1GB RAM.
Where are you from with such good laws? here in Australia we have some laws around it but they are utterly toothless where a simple disclaimer in the EULA that local laws take precedence avoids any legal problems (which everyone puts in) and besides which the warranties under law here are far less than most companies provide for software and many many years less than has been supplied for XP.
This is probably Microsoft leak, trying to cripple into unusable state the remaining XPs they didn't get to previously.
G'day. I'm up the road from you... Next you'll start telling me we have a "budget emergency"... B-).. Australian laws are actually strong... It's fraidy-cat consumers who are weak. The local laws that have to be mentioned in the local version of the EULA include laws on consumer warranties that contracts don't and can't override. Watch ABC's The Checkout or Google the ACCC and consumer warranties for details.
Besides., I own my entries in my registry if I wrote them. I don't make Msoft start sending me upgrades. I was kind enough to let them fix mistakes that otherwise might have caused me harm. So you reckon they want the publicity involved in explaining exactly how many faults and security holes their software had that threatened paying customers' livelihoods?
How is the "editing some data on your own equipment" relevant here? Unless you do it by mistake, or in research purposes.
But we are here talking about deliberately bypassing a security system, in order to get a paid service you have not paid for. Unless one argues the patches fall under "fair use" (nobody has, that I have seen), I don't understand how applying them is not stealing.
Now MS should have made an effort in the security here (turns out security by obscurity is bad security, after all...) , and I don't suggest any effort whatsoever should be used from the law enforcement side to hunt down the leachers. The only victim is MS, and they are in a position to fix this. But that doesn't make the leaching any less illegal, does it?
No, my argument is "which keys are legal to update and which aren't?"
Are they enumerated in advance? Is it only certain values? Does it change on a whim? What if I do it by accident?
So, if I push 6 into a registry key it's legal, but if I push 9 I've committed a crime? But if I touch another registry key it's completely illegal?
You're right, in this case the direction is "are you always such a fucking childish asshole, or just one Slashdot?" and "did the bad man touch you?".
Seriously, go back to screwing your sister.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Seems like MS would make a lot of dough if you were to enable these non-XP updates and then one of them bricked your box. Maybe it's a bit of a tinfoil hat idea, but I'm sure they're not going out of their way to make sure that enabling this registry key isn't going to make you a potential customer again.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
please point out any law that would make MS in any way shape or form on the hook for any warranty after EOL of life of XP. none of the Australian laws do anything like that as they only enforce minimum warranties. The original poster you replied to was completely correct, there is absolutely NONE after the EOL of product supplied by the license, EULA or LAW in Australia that would come into play here. Australian laws are only good for preventing ridiculous claims and extremely short warranties, beyond that they are no better than any other country.
Hex, or octal?
Windows XP was withdrawn from retail sale years ago. Typically, after Microsoft publishes Windows x+1, Microsoft keeps Windows x available for about one more year, continues to provide "mainstream support" for an additional year after end of sales, and provides security updates for five years after that. This is a total of seven years after the successor's introduction. How long does your country's implied warranty last?
It'll only work right if it's set as a 0 or 1 in trinary.
What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry, browing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA, then creating a new key called PosReady, then creating a new dword in PosReady called "Installed" with a value of 00000001?
See Aaron Swartz: Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[12] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release.[13]
And he actually had a legal account to access the JSTOR information, which he was accused of 'unlawfully accessing'. (Hint for them, don't give people accounts if you don't want the data accessed :rolleyes:).
What's illegal about it? Is it illegal to use Microsoft's provided tools to edit my registry, browing to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA, then creating a new key called PosReady, then creating a new dword in PosReady called "Installed" with a value of 00000001?
No more illegal than disguising yourself as a legitimate copyright holder and fooling someone into letting you make a copy of a piece of media.
Or no more illegal than me getting his CC info and using it online to go buy things. After all, I'm only using a browser and OS on my own system to access a site with the 'key' (CC info) I got, right? Why should that be illegal?
How is the "editing some data on your own equipment" relevant here? Unless you do it by mistake, or in research purposes.
Because it's your own god damn property. It's not like you're fucking with someone else's property.
I don't understand how applying them is not stealing.
Simple: You're not taking anything, and despise what Microsoft thinks about changing some data in the registry to 'fool' them, Microsoft still voluntarily sends you updates.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
The true mind-blower of Unix is how so many people defend their flat files unto death
And their scripts. Don't forget the piles upon piles of scripts that preclude any straightforward notion of what's going on. (Coincidentally, dpkg is a good example of this failure too.)
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
I had been running Easy Peasy on my Asus Eee 1000H, but I was having trouble maintaining a connection via 803.11n. To fix the problem, I fell back to Windows XP, but from the very beginning I was having troubles using Windows Update from even before the expiry date.
I installed this hack and was able to fix all my problems and my Asus is almost back and up to date. The final problem was Microsoft Security Essentials that refused to operate after April 18th, 2014. I uninstalled it and installed the free version of Avira -- problem solved. Plus, I have some applications that will not run on Windows 7, so this hack was a great boon.
Can't help but think it might well be more deliberate than lazy. The **staff** at MS want to create great products for their customers, it's only the shitheads in management that go out of their way to thwart customers. With Gates and the rest of the actual through-the-ranks programmers being pushed aside by the MBA-types there isn't anyone at the upper levels to speak of who would even know that you could block updates some other way, much less that it's almost trivially easy. And you can pretty much guarantee that none of the programmers want the job of keeping updates out of the wild (although I'm sure they could probably put some H-1B holder to the job if they thought it worthwhile).
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Ha - awesome. You insulted me. Good job.
So the thing is this - the ease with which it's possible to fake your system's credentials to receive support for which you haven't paid is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter how easy it is - the only thing that matters is whether or not you do it knowingly. If you, with intent and planning, put that number 9 into a registry key with the aim of extending the support beyond its legitimate date, then yes you have committed a crime (*)
Why is this not obvious?
* Now, to be clear, I don't know if it's a crime or just a civil matter or whatever - and it's highly unlikely that you will be pursued for committing this heinous act - but the point I'm trying to make is that intent is the issue, not that it being easy to do makes it ok.