Microsoft Genuine Advantage Cracked 427
piyush ranjan writes "An Indian researcher has cracked the much-touted "impenetrable" Windows Genuine Advantage of Microsoft. According to Microsoft this service would soon require all Windows users to verify their license before downloading updates."
Text (Score:5, Informative)
Alok Sharma | June 21, 2005 14:53 IST
An Indian researcher has breached the much-touted "impenetrable" Windows Genuine Advantage of Microsoft.
Bangalore-based Debasis Mohanty has cracked WGA through an "easy-to-exploit" weakness in the software for generating illegal copies of the Windows XP programme.
Microsoft confirmed the claims of Mohanty, but sought to downplay it saying, "It represents very little threat." A company spokesperson said they did expect counterfeiters to try a number of different methods to circumvent safeguards provided by WGA.
WGA is an anti-piracy programme that keeps a tab on consumers whether they are running legitimately licensed copies of Windows XP.
Mohanty has posted a detailed proof-of-concept programme on the high-profile security mailing list of the software giant, showing how the WGA validation check can be tricked to generate key codes for use on illegal copies of the software.
Using a secondary Microsoft validation tool called 'genuinecheck.Exe', Mohanty claims to have made it possible for people to trick the safeguard mechanism and download and run the supposedly restricted software from Microsoft's download centre, he said.
Re:Text (Score:5, Funny)
Or did he perhaps hold down the shift key.
The world must know.
Re:Text (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Text (Score:2)
Re:Text (Score:5, Funny)
I share your amusement. Though I am by no means capable enough to perform such a task myself (those shift keys are tricky) it seems that a Microsoft program being cracked or broken or worked-around or otherwise finagled is not necessarily a breakthrough. I suppose the most news-worthy aspect of this particular crack was in response of someone sinking what Microsoft was apparently toting around as the Titanic.
Interesting, yes. Front page? Maybe not other to rub it in Microsoft's face. This isn't the Special Olympics people. Not everyone gets a medal and a hug. :)
Re:Text (Score:3, Funny)
We don't know but one thing is certain: Microsoft still employs weaker key lengths than 10 fingers. No wonder it's broken so easily except for the most severely handicapped crackers.
The day when eleven simultaneous keypresses are required, also known as "next order fingerography", will mark the line between ordinary hackers and the wittiest ubercrackers. It has been rumoured that some are already preparing for those times with prototypes of a so-called "Eine Fingermaschine". Also, the piracy rings of the
Re:Text (Score:2, Funny)
Download? (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny that you asked (Score:5, Informative)
Not a true crack (Score:5, Insightful)
>6. After downloading "GenuineCheck.exe", run it on the machine running a genuine copy of Windows XP.
> It will generate a code which is used for WGA validation. Copy the code and use the same code to
>validate a pirated copy of Windows XP and bypass the WGA.
But that's bogus, you still need "access" to a authentic copy to perform this hack. It's not really a hack at all.
But sadly this will only make it easier for people unwilling to pay for windows to continue to use it. It would be better if they had to find a cheeper (legal) solution.
Re:Not a true crack (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. Microsoft could either restrict WGA downloads to only those using IE with ActiveX, or provide an alternative way for browsers to get past WGA. They did, and the simple/most user-friendly way is to get the user to download a program which will generate a key.
There's no way that Microsoft could know that you were running the program on a different machine. It's an inherent weakness of the system, but one Microsoft needed to make to allow non-IE/ActiveX browsers to work with WGA.
Easy fix. (Score:5, Funny)
Outlaw India - problem solved.
Re:Easy fix. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not a true crack (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's bogus, you still need "access" to a authentic copy to perform this hack. It's not really a hack at all.
Agreed...I'd be much more impressed with a cracked Windows install that bypassed this GenuineAdvantage crap entirely, or a crack for the algorithm that generates this key code in the first place.
Being tied to an authentic copy of XP leaves you vulnerable to blacklisting, and when that happens, the 'genuine' Windows product is in the shit as well.
Re:Not a true crack (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm ... really? From wiki [wikipedia.org]
I'd say an exploit is well-accepted as a hack. In is in. You do get bonus points for pretty, but it isn't mandatory.
What's the point? (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, what's the point of doing this? You can still download things from Microsoft's site if you don't validate. You just have to pick the "Don't validate" option. Oooh, great, some guy made it so you don't have to click the annoying "No, thanks" button every time you want to download Microsoft Anti-Spyware!
The *real* challenge is to crack the activation algorithm. (which I belive that has some form of the RSA algorithm in it). People, WGA != activation. Activation is the one that's a bitch. If you happen to mess with your hardware in your Windows box a lot, you'll know what I mean. And since I can never use the Internet activation because I "Already used that code too many times" (Swapping IDE hard drives once in a while for backups with Windows is out of the question now?), I end up having to call Miss Microsoft Robot all the time, who always tells me it's very important to use Windows Update to protect my computer from viruses before she gives me my activation code.
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, that's why it is a good idea to have a copy of the corporate install laying around. Even if you're legally licensed to use XP, that activation scheme is problematic. Solution? Install from corp edition CD that doesn't require activation. Probably a technical violatio
Re:Download? (Score:2, Funny)
MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody has to put an end to this.
Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL (Score:5, Interesting)
It kept hanging while it was starting up so I took all the expansion cards out, including the graphics card and used the onboard. Worked fine, apart from popping up a message saying the hardware had changed dramatically and windows needed to be reactivated. Didn't have time to play with it so I left it a few days. Next time I turned it on I couldn't do anything unleses I activated windows. Ok, I will just activate it over the internet - or I would if it was configured for the network it was connected to. Cancel activation so I can set up the network, nope, can't change network settings unleses I activate windows (even in safe mode). So, do I configure a DHCP server on another machine, or use the activate by phone option? It was a free call, but if I knew how long it was going to take for the auto responder to read out really really long numbers for me to type then I would have just set up a DHCP server.
Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL (Score:5, Insightful)
Now imagine the fun that comes Friday after class to try to activate 3 classes worth of these by Monday morning when microsofts activation line is down half the weekend. *joy*
Don't you love Regina? That's what we call the Microsoft activation recording, she's screams numbers out like it's a punishment she's giving you. "5! 1! 2! 7! 5! *pleasant voice* would you like me to repeat that..."
activate once, reuse (Score:4, Insightful)
I have winXP VMs (domained, undomained), and a win98 vm (historical quirk). Once you get a stable image with msoffice, activate it, snapshot it, and duplicate the VM image. One tip: activate and snapshot before you domain it, as it is a real pain to undomain a win2k-domained image.
Virtualization defeats activation.
Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL (Score:5, Interesting)
Luckily, these days linux is pretty nice, what with Ubuntu and all. You barely need to think any more when installing, and no annoying registration screens!
Advantage: MSFT (Score:4, Interesting)
The real acronym (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL (Score:3, Insightful)
People wouldn't pirate software if it was reasonably priced. $300 for WindowsXP Pro!? $400 for Office2003 Pro!? Are you kidding me? Maybe all this authentication crap will finally drive people to alternatives like Linux and OpenOffice, but I doubt it. Open Source just doesn't have the marketing power that Microsoft does.
Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. For most users it is fire-and-forget, same as activation.
Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh you actually paid for your MS software....
We HAVE to use windows... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Download? (Score:2)
That's great microsoft... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's great microsoft... (Score:2)
Re:That's great microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Accessing a random legitimate install once for a minute or two.
2) Accessing a legitimate install every time a new patch comes out, for however long it takes to download. Must also make arrangements to transport the downloaded files.
That answer your question?
Re:That's great microsoft... (Score:2)
This may be the case now during their trial period, but if Microsoft so desire, they can force you to generate a key for each download if you don't use IE/ActiveX.
Re:That's great microsoft... (Score:2, Funny)
Two quotes come to mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two quotes come to mind (Score:2)
Asymmetrical motivation (Score:4, Insightful)
Like the IRA said to Margaret Thatcher: "You have to be lucky always, we only have to be lucky once." Microsoft is in the same situation. The battle is ultimately for the hearts and minds of computer users everywhere. If Microsoft makes a pain of itself in its attempts to defend its territory, their customers will eventually defect to the other side.
btw: Things have changed in Northern Ireland. The population is becoming VERY disenchanted with the IRA. Many Catholics now hate them more than they hate the Brits and regard them as little better than organized criminals. Similarly, with many years of hard work, Microsoft could regain its good name (but I'm not holding my breath).
Re:Two quotes come to mind (Score:5, Interesting)
It sometimes amazes me how many crackers do have a conscience about the smaller guys, and how hard it can be to find passwords or cracks to cheap applications.
I almost liken it to the p2p v. itunes thing. When you can find a song for a buck in 30 seconds, compared to attempting to locate one for free over the course of 30 minutes, for many people the $1 method is a lot easier. For lots of people looking for random utilities or programs, when they find something that works, does a job well, and is cheap, they'll plink down the money for it. At least compared to finding a crack over the course of a week that may or may not work.
The smaller guys can also simply change-up the algorithm for the cracked passwords for each release every few weeks, something the big guys can't really do ;D
Fortifications (Score:4, Interesting)
Today, it would be possible to build a damn-near invincible fortress - use granite blocks of a similar size as those for the large stones in Stonehenge as bricks, have them interlock so that shockwaves can be carried non-destructively, and build it as a gigantic geodesic dome so that impacts are tangental and not perpendicular.
This isn't "fool-proof" (fools are way too ingenious) but it would offer a formidable target that would be hard to punch through.
Can you create something analogous in software, where the design is such that the "impact" of an attack is less likely to break through?
Yes. The standard network "firewall" is just an electronic castle, permitting traffic only through controlled gates. A portcullis arrangement (two back-to-back firewalls with a NIDS system in the middle) would provide a stronger fortification, if historic warfare is any guide.
The dome arrangement, where impacts are distributed so that no one component ever takes the brunt of the sttack, would be analogous to using a highly distributed security model, where different components in the model have to validate for the communication to be accepted. That way, exploits in any one component are of no value, unless absolutely identical flaws exist in ALL the components.
Ok, so we've got a system that offers some semblance of security. Can it still do anything, without that security being compromised? After all, anyone can make a 100% secure computer by turning it off.
Depends on how secure you want something. Let's take the key validation that Microsoft wants. What you want is non-duplicatable information. Easy enough - print a 1024-bit "public key" on the packet, which matches a private key on the validating server. Use the key to generate a unique ID, which is copied onto the computer. Any subsequent communication has to match the unique ID and the public key.
Re:Fortifications (Score:2)
I do agree with the multiple NIDS though, especially if the NIDS software is not the same on both ends. Its always at least a good failsafe to let you know that your firewall
Re:Fortifications (Score:2)
Re:Fortifications (Score:4, Funny)
Siege warfare (Score:3, Insightful)
One word... Leningrad... [wikipedia.org] Patton was a great general and one of the few Allied commanders the Germans geuinely respected but he was also an arrogant bastard (and he probably would have enjoyed being called that). Although he unfairly dismissed the value of fortifications he did have a point. The Romans for example preferred to besiege an enemy that was prepared to give battle. The reasoning being that it was cheaper in lives and money to starve h
Interesting that (Score:2)
Though certainly the Patton quote seems analogous to the oft-said "Security is a process, not a product" in both intent and substance.
My reaction to the second one however was that it was perhaps the more interesting one. Microsoft is seeking to defend themselves from their users-based and the general tendency for "casual copying" from friend to friend. So not only are they trying to entrench themsel
You'd think this would be obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the installed base is huge and the illegally installed base is also huge. Microsoft, because it is their OS, has a moral responsibility to prevent internet worms and viruses by releasing patches to all users, regardless of the legality of the installation.
Can MS really be held at fault when illegal usage of the OS results in a huge failure of the Internet?
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bite. Microsoft can only repair the vulnerabilities that they have been made aware of. If somebody uses a 0-day exploit to craft a worm, then I don't believe Microsoft can really be held accountable. That is like blaming the manufacturer of a safe for being susceptible to a heretofore undisclosed method of safe cracking.
If it is a vulnerability that they've known about for months, however, not unlike many of those that affect Internet Explorer, then that should probably be considered a different story.
Despite the accusations of trolling that you've received, however, I believe that you were right to distinguish an ethical responsibility from a legal one.
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:2)
No, it would still depend on the obviousness of the exploit used.
But if you use the definition of obviousness at use in the USPTO, Microsoft will still be safe from accountability.
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a Microsoft apologist. I never deploy Windows. I despise many of their tactics. I prefer a Unix-based operating system.
That said, let's face it: A 0-day exploit can affect any operating system, no matter how secure we might consider it. That includes every clone and variant of Unix available today.
As a programmer, you can take every precaution and still encounter a blatantly obvious -- to your critics, at least -- compromise. Although it really isn't a valid comparison, I'll cite the design problem that was eventually fixed in our beloved PHP interpreter. The end-user was once allowed to manipulate server-side variables, and that was sometimes an absolute nightmare to work around.
If such an obvious vulnerability were present in an ASP interpreter, we'd chuckle together and continue bashing the developers (developers, developers!) at Microsoft. I'll admit that it's often very funny to do so, but I'm ultimately afraid that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones -- even if our glass house is reinforced.
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with you in one way, and yet in another way, I'm compelled to disagree. No, I'm not a Linux fanboy/Microsoft hater/etc, but if something is insecure from the begining, then someone needs to take responsibility. Sure, they might not know about the exploit, but if o
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:2)
An intelligent, proactive design prevents vulnerabilities in the first place, and mitigates them if they occur. Windows has so many design flaws, it looks like Swiss cheese.
As I've mentioned here [slashdot.org], I'm not an apologist. If somebody deployed Microsoft Windows in an absolutely mission critical environment, I'd suspect that they were more than a little masochisti
Shatter attack (Score:3, Informative)
Therefore, if you've happened to stumble upon it, I'll take your word for that.
It doesn't take source code to discover the shatter attack [google.com]. Any program that has a window open is allowed to remote-control any other program that has a window open on the same machine. In fact, a program running under a limited user can remote-control a program running under administrator (e.g. an antivirus) and escalate privileges that way.
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:2)
I would rather say the [legal] install base is big, and illegally installed base is huge
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd probably be quite surprised at the number of legal copies of Windows that are in use. Most people get it whether they like it or not with their new computer. People running 98/ME usually find that their computer is under-spec to run 2K/XP and simply buy a new one. It's mainly people who build their own computer (and thus should know what they are doing) who pirate Windows.
You still raise a very interesting question there though. I would say that they should allow anyone to update, mainly because many updates to Windows are security fixes and zombie machines adversely affect other users, not just the owner.
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:3, Informative)
Kind of scary when you think about it.
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:2)
> updates to only their paying customers.
Not everywhere. I mean that I don't know where you live but in my place it may be different. Like OK I fully understand that MS want to restrict its product. But under my local law it has no authority to f.e. gather my data. I've bought their software - and this is OK. It is not OK from them to require ME to supply some additional data. When I bought Windows I read license and it said I would get updates for some pe
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has the right to refuse patches of their operating system to users who have illegally obtained the software. Why should Microsoft, or any other corporation, use its money and waste its time providing patches and other OS updates to people who have illegally obtained the OS? OS patches are a privilege, not a right.
Don't get me wrong; I do not support MS's annoying activation and registration policies. However, why should people who have pirated Windows be able to expect support from Microsoft at all? And Microsoft can't do anything about Internet worms and viruses at all. Even though Windows isn't very secure (and its long overdue for a complete rewrite), Microsoft has no control over what other software people make. Windows, or any other operating system, can't prevent worms and viruses. Only users can prevent worms and viruses. In order to avoid Internet nasties, you either need to use a more secure operating system, a less popular operating system, or stick with Windows and become educated about viruses/worms/malware/etc.
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
They had better consider it a "privilege" that I pay for any product that they make. After all, the 2 computers that I bought pre-done had licenses that I COULD NOT REVOKE and get my money back. And there's something I heard about bundling being illegal... and something about being a convicted monopol
Re:You'd think this would be obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not spread some of the blame to the hackers, crackers, and script kiddies?
1992 called ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1992 called ... (Score:2)
Re:1992 called ... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure if the year 1992 has any significance. But in the early age of consumer computing, software used to be built with schemes to make it "impossible" to copy/install/use the software without validating that you had purchased the product.
Usually, this was done by being forced to physically lookup a phrase in the physical documentation and then feed it back to program before it would start/continue work.
This was annoying as hell, particularly to the paying customers. "crackers" would usually located the protection routine in the binary code, and patch it to skip the check. The practice was discontinued because the "protection" scheme would not protect non-purchased use of its product, (the savvier users would merely apply the publicised crack) and would reduce its marketshare by annoying its purchasing customers. Ultimately, software companies just factored piracy rates into its pricing structure.
The post was meant to be humorous, but you may have started using computers after the practice stopped, and thus your question.
Coralized (Score:2, Informative)
This was done about two months ago... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh no... (Score:5, Funny)
Would hackers support MS? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, I'm fairly certain they would try and hack it (it's there, after all...) but would they, in general, give the info to MS, or would they (out of altruism for future consumers, or just out of spite) keep their hacks to themselves so that they could be used effectively against the product.
It just seems that these things are always cracked relatively quickly - couldn't microsoft somehow incorporate this into their pre-release coding cycle? I guess, though, they don't want to release their programs before they, er, release them.
Re:Would hackers support MS? (Score:2)
I mean, I'm fairly certain they would try and hack it (it's there, after all...) but would they, in general, give the info to MS, or would they (out of altruism for future consumers, or just out of spite) keep their hacks to themselves so that they could be used effectively against the product.
For every malicious hacker out there that would keep the info to themselves, there's at least one of comparable skill and slightly lesser maliciousness who would give the info to Microsoft for various reasons (al
Re:Would hackers support MS? (Score:2)
They do this already. They did it for Windows 2000 at the least. I think there was even a prize if you could do it. When the OS released it was "secure". It would take all of 5 minutes to root a win 2k box now but that is b/c these exploits are difficult to find. Finding them generally takes a lot
Re:Would hackers support MS? Incentives. (Score:2)
If you disclose first, you receive praise and recognition. If you discover a hack but only disclose after someone else, you are deprived of this praise and recognition.
If someone honestly believes no-one will figure out their clever hack before the product is released, there might be some incentive to holding onto it, for later malicious expl
legit user (Score:3, Insightful)
hurts the anti OSS argument, or should (Score:2, Funny)
impenetrable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:impenetrable? (Score:2)
We're Knights of the Redmond Table.
Our procetions are impenetrable,
But many times we're given tasks
That are quite procrastinatable.
Feel free to adapt the whole song
Re:impenetrable? (Score:2)
Re:impenetrable? (Score:2)
Oh, oh (Score:2, Funny)
Just remember, anyone who pirates Microsoft software is raising your prices! Turn them in to the BSA today!
Full-disclosure link (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows Genuine Advantage (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Windows Genuine Advantage (Score:5, Interesting)
(or maybe there's something I don't understand about the whole process?)
It didn't work anyways (Score:2)
Serendipster (Score:2)
this crack will become obsolete again too... (Score:3, Informative)
copy protection is worthless, imo, windows would be better off just trying to convince people that piracy is bad, like the mpaa is trying to do with the ads at the front of dvds that can't be skipped... they'd be better off having an advertisment on the windows load screen and/or as the default screen saver than to put tons and tons of protection that will eventually be cracked for the challenge of it
Piracy is bad, but most of the people who resort to it, are desperate, a few are criminal, but most people aren't that bad. the worst are the crack addicts selling dvds/software on street corners to buy thier next hit... and frankly you don't have to be a crack addict to try that, if you need to have that 10 grand configuration of the dual g-5 2.7gh with 30" apple cinema display, and dual 400 GB hds, and 4 GB of ram... and don't have a job what better way than to sell pirated dvds/software on the street to score the cash without feeling really bad about yourself...
Note: the rest of this post is rambling, and may be inchoerant, feel free to skip it, i only included it for the people who like reading my comments..
Windows has a high price point, because they make a lot more money that way, eventually this will change, because really, you're paying for the 'value added' with commercially packaged software.. So really all microsoft is trying to do is protect the value they added to the basic functions of an os, but reguardless, all they need to do is make it hard enough, they don't need to stop everyone... they just need to be able to contain the flow of illegal copies because unlike apple, they're not a hardware company, all they do is write a complex piece of stoftware that is intended to run on virtually every POS baddly designed motherboard and chipset out there... apple, doesn't do that, they just write one for thier own hardware, which makes it a lot easier. but really, pirated copies of windows that are 'reasonably' difficult to get are no worse for windows than linux. If windows becomes too hard for some system builders to pirate, they will just install linux, and explain 'it's less prone to viruses than windows' they will be forced to switch to linux, and linux certified hardware, the better windows copy protection gets, the better it is for linux, frankly. not everyone needs a true gaming rig, and frankly a lot fo the people who have one probabbly are sleeping on a mattress someone threw away in the trash
okay i'm rambling sorry, but making the cracks too easy to get just helps windows market share... cracking the encryption to be the guy/gal who did it is fine, but if you want to help the case for linux you simply shouldn't make them easy to get
Re:this crack will become obsolete again too... (Score:2)
Let me first say that I don't play many games. I'll maybe play one-to-two a year- in the past 18 months need-for-speed:U2 and midnight-club:II. I'm a geek, but I'd say with the exception of SSH software, your typical knowledgeable user who does a some Web dev
HTML mirror (Score:2)
http://www.css-auth.com/gen_adv/ [css-auth.com]
Although this being called a "crack" is laughable.
Uh... so... I can't be the only one wondering this (Score:2)
The article says it's an "anti-piracy program". That isn't very specific.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:this isn't a crack (Score:2)
You put in your serial # when you install, then when you run windows for the first time, it connects to a Microsoft server and sends you computer configuration to MS. MS saves the config, and tells your local copy of Windows to stop asking for registration. And every time you try to get a patch, WIndows phones home to see if you're stilll running that copy of windows on the same setup. If not, you have to call tech support.
I replaced my mobo, and later, when window
Why I hate XP Key Codes (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I don't have a windows computer in my home. I am running several Macs, a Sparc and a Linux machine. The main reason all stems from Microsoft and the way they treat their paying customers like they are stealing something from them.
A friend of mine bought a Gateway computer a couple of years ago with XP Home on it. After installing and uninstalling several pieces of software the system locked and he couldn't get it to "boot." So being the tech savvy friend in the industry he brings the PC to me.
The system is asking for a Microsoft Authentication Code. Ok, whatever. Plug into the switch, get online, enter the Key Code, refuses my request for an Auth Code. *grumble* Call the number provided, get a wonderful automated system that doesn't let me speak to a human. Also refuses to give me an Auth Code. *more grumbling* Call Microsoft Support direct (the first number was given to me by XP when the code gen failed) speak to a human who verifies I have a valid Windows Key Code and then refuses to give me an Auth Code.
Meh?
She proceeds to inform me that as the code is an OEM code from Gateway that I have to call them. *sighs* Ok, I've been dealing with this a couple hours now, with hold times and all, but what the hey. Call Gateway, the representative though friendly, tells me very politely to go screw myself. Seems the system is now out of warranty period, plus since I'm not the actual owner of the system anyway they can not give me any assistance what so ever. Offers the helpful advice to give Microsoft a call.
At this point I pull out an education bulk copy of XP Pro I happened to have purchased, and isn't running on anything else and install Pro in place of Home. Good thing about the bulk site keys, there are thousands of users with the same key legally and honestly. Kill the key and lots of very unhappy people.
My Mac? Drop the CD/DVD in, hold down C, click install, and I'm done. Ahh .... simple. Linux? Same thing, boot the disc, walk through the install dialog, and we're happy. Debian based? apt-get upgrade the entire thing without even a CD. Heck, even Solaris installs and assumes it's legit and doesn't mind. (This was before the whole it's free for you and open now too thing)
Yeah, Microsoft is only going to end up really annoying the hell out of it's legit users. Crackers and 1337 W@r3z P1r@t35 will never be more than mildly inconvenienced. If they are taking the time now to write programs that will let them keygen against binaries on the CD, then they are already spending the time trying to rip the thing off. The problem with a cat burglar is, no matter how many locks on the safe, if the Hope Diamond is inside, they are going to take the time they need to open it.
Re:Why I hate XP Key Codes (nice troll...) (Score:3, Insightful)
Got hit by that "feature" today, VERY annoying. (Score:5, Insightful)
for god's sake what are they thinking? don't they get it? lot of people are buying software and use cracked version EXACTLY because of the fact that all legitimate software puts totally INSANE overhead that only irritates clients and in the end penalize them. And beleive me, they lose sales little by little because in the end it's less of a pain in the back to install cracked versions than upgrade with the re-registration, phone confirmation, yadi yada that without mentionning activations problems and all that stuff that people don't want to deal with especially after shelling out hundreds of dollars.
You want people to stop pirating, EDUCATE them, irritating them will only do the exact opposite. When I was a kid, I had a VIC20 and a C64, EVERYTHING was copied because "stores selling games" what not a commodity like today, plus, at 11, you don't have that much money, and face it, piracy is what made the C64 such a hot seller. But later, I was educated once entering a specific field of interest (3d/video editing) by people on mailing lists and also local pros, and today I'm the one pushing people to buy software and support companies, especially when these companies puts out educational pricing or non-commercial licenses at very decent pricing. Its still easy to get pirated software, but when you are educated, you know what happens in the long run, or you know the potential legal implications it might get you into if positive reinforcement is not your thing
Seriously, I just don't get it... if the goal is a clever way to reduce bandwidth costs on their server and outsource the stuff to pirate sites or torrents sites, well, hats off! but I doubt this would be the case.... man how pathetic can it get...
Re:Got hit by that "feature" today, VERY annoying. (Score:3, Funny)
I agree, the problem of MS being pirated would be solved through educating customers. But it would be a solution that might leave MS very unhappy.
Because the sad truth is that educated customers buy Macs or install Linux...
I so agree with you! (Score:3, Interesting)
Fifteen years ago, when I was a kid and didn't have any money, I pirated software to have something useful to do with my computer. With the advent of Linux and having a job, I don't steal software any more. (And oddly, I find the software I do buy to be 21st century versions of the same software I used to st
Debian Genuine Advantage still uncracked :) (Score:5, Funny)
Anyway, I would like to present my own "Debian Genuine Advantage" program that people can use to verify that their Debian-based systems are not pirated:Adapting this system for using on other flavors of Linux is left as an exercise for the student.
What if I'm running a Software Update Server? (Score:3, Informative)
Currently it contains 1.6GB of what appears to be every M$ update known to man, (including a bunch of crap that I didn't really want, but hey...hard drives are cheap) and they're all
Breaking news (Score:3, Funny)
Re:let me be the first to say (Score:2)
Re:No more updates? (Score:2)
Re: Hmmm, Aptly named (Score:2)
> Funny to see the word's "genuine" and "microsoft" in the same story.
How 'bout "genuine microsoft fuck-up"?