So what happens if I'm not connected to the internet, ever? We do have machines like this at work, for security reasons. They also do not have WSUS hooked in.
I'm pretty sure the above poster said he was fixing people's computers, not preventing them from running the programs they like just so he can fulfill his ideological fantasies.
Then refuse to repair people's computers if they have invalid keys. Or request their Windows CD when they take it to the shop. There are about a hundred ways around this. Personally I just tell them that unless they bring me a valid Windows license, or find their own cracked WGA, I won't install it for them. And if they choose the latter, I'm not recracking the computer if validation suddenly starts failing because their crack stopped working.
That's a nice massive post and all, but I'm pretty sure the guy who asked the question understands that. I was just answering the poster above who seemed to imply remote desktop somehow made Windows machines more vulnerable to session hijacking.
You'd have to be braindead to not realize that with admin powers, people can *gasp* perform administrative tasks on your computer, such as installing spying software.
Is it possible for a Windows admin to poke around your desktop, remotely, without your knowledge? I believe they normally have to make a request that you accept before you hand over control of your desktop to a Windows admin, but I don't know if Windows (or other corporate monitoring software) allows this to happen without your knowledge.
Remote desktop takes control of the session, so you're locked out, they don't access your session. Now obviously some monitoring software out there is going to have a "stealth" mode, but that has nothing to do with Windows, it could happen on any OS.
when large volumes of bits are involved, like most responses from cdn servers, then YES, "This is important!"... but for the dns request packets to also be pooled and routed in this fashion is unnecessary and as the submitter points out opens up massive privacy holes currently plugged.
What "privacy" issues? Your DNS already knows your IP - You just sent data to it on the IP layers. If it wants to send you a NXDOMAIN based on your subnet, it already can.
No, but given that only an additional 255 (or is it 254?) users besides you can be coming from that range, it's not like over time someone can't correlate this to you.
I doubt they'll do a better job at it. All Ubisoft has to do is "#define NO_DRM" while hackers have to rewrite a bunch of code, either in assembly, or a saner alternative, make their own server that you run locally. Either way Ubisoft can't possibly bug it unless they are tools, but the hackers can. I wouldn't want to lose my saves to this, and this is why I'm angry about this regardless of cracks.
Considering it takes 5 minutes to look for a crack, you're probably a fucking retard and not a contributing part of society anyway. You need brains for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess we'll just have to go at 99.999997% of the speed of light then.
Answer: They're going to take a lot of pot.
Are the biker gangs in his town dressed up as teddy bears with pink helmets or something?
Yeah, because rootkits definitely don't hook to the kernel and can't patch the function that performs file reads. Right?
Just like WGA was originally voluntary? Once it gets merged into the next service pack or the next version of Windows, how will that work?
You don't need to smugly quote your words, I have a MSDN license and do not need to warez Windows. Plus, it makes you look arrogant.
So what happens if I'm not connected to the internet, ever? We do have machines like this at work, for security reasons. They also do not have WSUS hooked in.
In Soviet Russia, the government penetrates you.
The only appropriate response.
I'm pretty sure the above poster said he was fixing people's computers, not preventing them from running the programs they like just so he can fulfill his ideological fantasies.
It seems that the above poster is losing business since he gets blamed for shit he isn't responsible for.
Then refuse to repair people's computers if they have invalid keys. Or request their Windows CD when they take it to the shop. There are about a hundred ways around this. Personally I just tell them that unless they bring me a valid Windows license, or find their own cracked WGA, I won't install it for them. And if they choose the latter, I'm not recracking the computer if validation suddenly starts failing because their crack stopped working.
No, I have no damn clue what's going on either.
"All other boards over the Net" do not have nearly the same volume of traffic as 4chan does.
It's actually 7.0. The 6.1 was a technical decision to keep compatibility with broken applications.
Who cares? People are going to do this for kicks. The cash is so you don't lose as much money as if you weren't paid at all.
Is it possible for a Windows admin to poke around your desktop, remotely, without your knowledge?
Did not see this.
That's a nice massive post and all, but I'm pretty sure the guy who asked the question understands that. I was just answering the poster above who seemed to imply remote desktop somehow made Windows machines more vulnerable to session hijacking.
You'd have to be braindead to not realize that with admin powers, people can *gasp* perform administrative tasks on your computer, such as installing spying software.
Is it possible for a Windows admin to poke around your desktop, remotely, without your knowledge? I believe they normally have to make a request that you accept before you hand over control of your desktop to a Windows admin, but I don't know if Windows (or other corporate monitoring software) allows this to happen without your knowledge.
Remote desktop takes control of the session, so you're locked out, they don't access your session. Now obviously some monitoring software out there is going to have a "stealth" mode, but that has nothing to do with Windows, it could happen on any OS.
Buying High Quality Goods from New York, selling them at Hokkaido and going back with Cardamine was pretty good too.
Yeah, same with art, right?
when large volumes of bits are involved, like most responses from cdn servers, then YES, "This is important!"... but for the dns request packets to also be pooled and routed in this fashion is unnecessary and as the submitter points out opens up massive privacy holes currently plugged.
What "privacy" issues? Your DNS already knows your IP - You just sent data to it on the IP layers. If it wants to send you a NXDOMAIN based on your subnet, it already can.
No, but given that only an additional 255 (or is it 254?) users besides you can be coming from that range, it's not like over time someone can't correlate this to you.
Could be 256.
I doubt they'll do a better job at it. All Ubisoft has to do is "#define NO_DRM" while hackers have to rewrite a bunch of code, either in assembly, or a saner alternative, make their own server that you run locally. Either way Ubisoft can't possibly bug it unless they are tools, but the hackers can. I wouldn't want to lose my saves to this, and this is why I'm angry about this regardless of cracks.
Considering it takes 5 minutes to look for a crack, you're probably a fucking retard and not a contributing part of society anyway. You need brains for that.
It doesn't, perhaps you could read what I was replying to?