Download From Microsoft Without a WGA Check

Anonymous Coward writes, "When you want to download a file from Microsoft, a WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) check is performed. Microsoft installs a small piece of software on your computer that contacts the Microsoft server and checks the validity of your installed Windows software. If the test fails you will not be able to download the file(s). The following method gives you the ability to download every file from Microsoft without a WGA check."

Correct me if I'm wrong...

But I just tryed this with an invalid version of Windows, and no dice. I think the article is misleading, and this isn't even newsworthy. I don't believe this is a way to "skip" authentication, but simply a way of manually entering your key into the URL, essentially what you would've done anyway, except in a form text area. No?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

Phone home was reported on beta versions of the software. Microsoft documented the phone home practice and removed it in the final version of the software. As far as I know, no complaints have been made about phone home practices since the final version was released.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

Sorry, but betas are buggy pre-releases that users use specifically on a voluntary basis.

If a company pro-actively pushes code to my machine and effectively forces me to run it, that's releasing a "final version", by any sensible definition of the term.

Now, after the furore when people discovered the dialling-home behaviour MS might have disabled that "feature" in a later version, but that doesn't make the preceeding one a "beta", except in very bad efforts at spin-control or post-facto apologetics.

And I think the point is that with MS pulling shit like this every other month, people are getting increasingly itchy about running any MS apps or utils they don't absolutely have to.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

Actually, I clicked the "Download all updates but wait for my OK before installing them" button.

I think it's pretty much taken as read that "updates" should have been tested and approved before release. Either that, or the button should have said "Download all updates and any other shoddy half-finished beta-release crap Microsoft would like to risk fucking up your machine with and wait for my OK before installing them".

The thing is, unless you want to waste hours pissing about trying to get around it you need to have WGA installed to get Windows Updates (well, until this story was posted, anyway).

So, I gave my consent to allowing MS to install "essential updates" to my machine which, given Windows' execrable security record, is pretty much a no-brainer. I have a genuine copy of Windows XP, so although I don't like being treated like a pirate without reason, I also didn't mind running WGA too much.

YMMV, but again my time is valuable - you might have time to investigate every single Windows patch available before oking it, but frankly with the amount of crap wrong with Windows you'd have to be at it nearly full-time to keep up.

MS then used this (perfectly-reasonable) permission to turn WGA into spyware, and somehow it's my fault?

Remember: they didn't exactly shout from the rooftops before slipping this nasty little dialling-home functionality in, did they?

I mean, sure, you've got a point - I was clearly stupid not to decompile every single Windows Update patch and inspect it by hand before installing each and every one one-at-a-time, rebooting and monitoring my outbound network traffic in-between just in case I'd missed any little surprises.

Oh, what a fool I've been.

The point is, either MS were deliberately spying on me (in which case they deserve punishment) or they stupidly pushed non-production-ready software into my machine in the guise of production-ready software, and didn't own up to it until someone else very publically called them on it... in which case they should be punished. What was your point again?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

....or you can do what I did; modify your hosts file with "127.0.0.1 update.microsoft.com" so that any time it tries to automatically go to windows update, it can't.
Then, go to WinDiz at windowsupdate.62nds.com using a non-IE browser. It's faster, more secure, doesn't TRY to make you install the latest DRM upgrade, just the critical patches.
The Only system I have that I let go to windows update is my Media Center laptop; it has to be running all the latest DRM/Spyware to work properly, so I just go with the flow and Isolate it on my home network.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

Except, you can't block access to Windows Update or certain other Microsoft websites by using the HOSTS file. You just can't.

Microsoft wrote some sort of hack into Windows so that requests for Microsoft websites (including update.microsoft.com and microsoft.com) cannot be blocked or redirected by malware or viruses.

Try it and see for yourself: put two lines in the HOSTS file, '127.0.0.1 google.com' and '127.0.0.1 microsoft.com' (without the quotes). For the uninitiated, the HOSTS file is located in \Windows\system32\drivers\etc, and you'll need Administrator priveleges to edit it. Now open up your favourite web browser and try to open google.com. You'll find that Google is unreachable and returns an error. Now try microsoft.com and watch as the page merrily loads.

Maybe you'll need to rethink your tinfoil hat solution for avoiding Automatic Updates?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

Normally, the site will install an ActiveX control that verifies that your copy of Windows is genuine. Instead you can bypass this check by running the mgadiag too and modifying the download URL with the code that the tool displays. My copy of Windows is genuine so I don't know if a non-genuine copy gives a working code or if you have to use a code from a legal copy.

I did not test for a cracked version of Windows but I just did for Linux (using crossover to run the .exe). It worked flawlessly. So I believe the OP probably failed to follow the instructions properly (maybe did not remove the quotation marks).

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

Even better, when you're submitting a story to slashdot as AC, it might be best to omit linking directly to your email address.

Just a thought.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

I did the same thing, went to a test machine with an old blocked VLK and tried it, no dice. Then I realized... Hey, wait a minute. This looks like it's just a shortcut to inputting your product ID by using a hash... I wonder what would happen if I just replaced the hash with one from a valid system?

Not having a valid windows system handy I was willing to run a somewhat questionable executable on, where could I get a valid hash? Oh hey, look at that. Right there in the article it says "(example &Hash=6VJPCR9)". I appended that to the URL, and bingo. "Genuine Microsoft Software".

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

Not having a valid windows system handy I was willing to run a somewhat questionable executable on,

That sentence alone is enough to get me riled up. Granted, I'm one of the people who stepped gracefully off the Microsoft Bus as soon as 'Product Validation' became a reality. (I even run Windows 2000 and the first version of Office 2000, which are the two last versions on their respective lines to not have the 'phone home' features)

It sorta chills me to think of being afraid to run particular binaries on a machine that I own and am legitimate owner of, because a 'phone home' feature will nark on me.

My copies of Windows 2000 and Office 2000 are the full retail-box versions (about the most expensive way possible to buy Microsoft's products). I used to buy a lot of their stuff. Not any longer. And I'm not alone.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

I used to buy a lot of their stuff. Not any longer. And I'm not alone.

But you're in a very small room. Most people don't know or care about stuff like this. It measures somewhere between a traffic fine for accidentally running a red light and being late for a video rental.

And how many people do you represent? Do you buy for a corporation? Large group? Somehow, I doubt it.

I'm an OSS kinda guy (I write this on my Fedora Core system, using Mozilla) and love it, and have even made sure that our software works on Windows, Mac, and Linux - but none of our customers have *EVER* used our Linux software. A small (but meaningful) percentage of our users are on Macs.

Truth is, much as we who are interested in this stuff might like otherwise, this stuff just doesn't matter to most people - and to those whom it does, Microsoft really is cheaper.

Ever try to support desktop software? Yes, it's getting worse on Windows, but it's still not too bad, compared to supporting some XYZ linux flavor:

Q. What Operating System are you using?
A. Linux
Q. Ok, what UI are you using?
A. What?
Q. I mean, what Window Manager?
A. What's that?
Q. When you click on the start button, what do you see?
A. There is no "Start" button...
Q. Is there a button where you click on to run a program?
A. Yeah.
Q. When you click on it, what does it say?
A. Enter Command
Q. That's it, "Enter Command"?
A. Yes.
Q. So how do you do stuff?
A. What kind of stuff?
Q. You know, look at a website.
A. Oh, a website! I use Firefox!
Q. Good, how do you find FireFox?
A. It's on my desktop!
Q. So are you using Gnome or KDE?
A. I don't know what you're talking about.
Q. (deep sigh)
A. So, you're looking at a screen, right?
Q. Yes.
A. And there's a task bar on it, right?
Q. No. ......

See where this is going? Linux is not for end users. It probably could be - but it just isn't there now. Ubuntu just might be getting there. Macintosh OSX is there. But for end users, only through some very controlled interface, and in some limited capacity.

Now, I was talking with my father-in-law the other day, and he indicated that he would *never* use Linux. I laughed, and told me that he did, every day. And not only that, but he raved to me about it!

With a look of surprise, he asked me how/where - and I pointed to his Dish DVR. (which is Linux-based, all the way down to an ext2/3 filesystem)

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

Using a valid download center key you can download the file on a machine with an invalid VLK, but you still can't install it. This is the case at least with IE7, so I assume it's the same with other software as well. The installer does its own validation check. So ultimately, what do we gain except now we have the installer, which doesn't do an invalid user any good, because it checks for the key. And it doesn't do a valid user any good, because they could've gotten it anyway, without this!

So what the hell is the point of this?

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong...

I love it. Slashdot's editorial ethics prevent it from linking to ways of getting around Apple DRM, but happily offer up links to getting around Microsoft DRM??

One thing

All recent files on there check once more for "authentic" installs once you run the downloaded file.

IT'S A TRAP

And how long before this gets worked around by bunches of Microsoft drones who suddenly somehow know about it?

I got it! This was a plant by management at Microsoft to see how many of their staff come up to them saying that they read "somewhere" about a WGA hole!

Re:IT'S A TRAP

Oh come on, someone at MSFT just wanted to get a new chair.

WTF?

Is this not old news [google.com]?

Isn't this illegal???

Isn't the WGA a form of content protection? Only a pirate and this is a serious felony. Publishing this will convince the children that theft is allowed.

We must get homeland security involved.

Hmm...

Doesn't an email address defeat the purpose of being an anonymous coward?

Re:Hmm...

Doesn't an email address defeat the purpose of being an anonymous coward?

I don't think you understand the momentousness of this occassion.

HE'S THE GUY The anonymous coward. How many times have we been irritated with his postings? How often has he trolled? Now we finally know who he is! I foresee the greatest email bombing to ever hit the net in final retaliation for his long years of tormenting us all.

No WGA check on...

Well you could use DOS 6.22.... I'm sure that isn't checked.

That was fast!

8 comments and the server is already screwed. Nice.

Re:That was fast!

The server at www.ghacks.net is taking too long to respond.

Maybe they should ghack into some other servers and steal some bandwidth! Pfffft.

basically

On each download page, add &Hash=6VJPCR9 to the url and you can download without the check.
The code changes regularly, at which time you need mgadiag.exe to find the new code.

the real patch here

http://www.kernel.org/ [kernel.org]

Mirror for the lazy

mirror for the lazy:
http://mirrordot.org/stories/3627c5be2ac21048d6da6 04b34dc63bb/index.html [mirrordot.org]

Generalized way to find the hashes

You don't even need some silly executable to find the daily hashes to append to the url. Microsoft provides a ready community [google.sh] where the latest codes are reported!

The Article

Download everything from Microsoft without WGA Check
Monday, September 4th, 2006 | Translate to: German flag Spanish flag French flag Italian flag Portuguese flag Dutch flag Greek flag Japanese flag South Korean flag Russian flag Chinese flag

When you want to download a file from Microsoft a WGA (windows genuine advantage) check is performed. Microsoft installs a small piece of software on your computer that contacts the Microsoft server and checks for validity. If the test fails you will not be able to download the file(s). The following method gives you the ability to download every file from Microsoft without a WGA check.

All you need is the tool mgadiag.exe and the download url of the file that you want to download. Mgadiag.exe is the Microsoft Genuine Advantage Diagnostic Tool. Start this tool and check the value of the "Download Center Code", this should be seven chars consisting of upper case letters and numbers. Remember that code and open the website of the file that you want to download.

A download page looks similar to this one for Internet Explorer 7. All you need to do is append the following value to the url and you will be able to download the file without a WGA check.

        &Hash="download center code"

Replace the "download center code" with the code that you looked up in the mgadiag.exe tool. This code changes frequently, make sure you have the correct code before starting the downloads.

To sum it up for the lazy ones:

      1. download mgadiag.exe
      2. start mgadiag.exe and look at the download center code
      3. visit a download page at microsoft.com
      4. append &Hash="download center code" to the url (example &Hash=6VJPCR9), no quotation marks needed
      5. Hit enter

Microsoft is probably going to fix this soon, it is working nevertheless at the moment.

Update: I created two images to show you the difference that the &hash= entry makes:

My trick

My trick is to download stuff via a Windows 2000 install. I've only done it once just the other day, but it was from a W2K installed from one of those install CDs that had a setup file changed to bypass the CD key. (for which everybody knows the "default" key anyhow, so this was really just to save me time when installing)

Since I know that someday Microsoft will probably decide to take all the W2K patches offline, my plan is to download a copy of the installers for every patch that was auto-installed.

Crossover

So far I have never had a problem with the WCT (Windows Checker Thingy) and my copy of Crossover Mac. So I cannot validate this proccess. On the other hand, Codeweavers seems to have solved this problem...

this is nothing

mgadiag.exe still 'phones home' to verify your windows and to obtain the download code (being a diagnostic tool, it also displays some additional license information).

it's no different than running the manual verification using the 'alternate tool' (i.e. the method, still available, that firefox users had to use before microsoft released a netscape/firefox plugin version of the activex checker). http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=50344 [microsoft.com] (genuinecheck.exe at microsoft.com)

the only thing this will bypass is the installation of the verification activex (or plugin)... so you're still being subject to the 'body cavity search' -- the only difference is that you get to choose when you drop your drawers...

Basically for patching a pirated copy of Windows?

Many of us know firsthand that activating a Microsoft product can often be an onerous task, but this seems a little suspicious. Assuming that:

1. someone owns a valid Windows license and
2. they're pretty organized and didn't misplace their key and
3. they believe that Microsoft does not collect private information using WGA

then why would circumventing WGA be of use to them? In that situation, is patching a pirated copy of Windows the only realistic use for this trick? Could somebody chime in and suggest *another* use for it?

que?

Microsofts solution to piracy is to charge even MORE money for Vista (up to $400 depending on the type). Ironically rather than lower the price to make it more attractive for people who would normally pirate it, they charge the legitimate people MORE which essentially encourages the legit people to pirate it. Following the huge WGA fiasco even the legitimate home users are going to be running pirated versions soon; as far as I can tell Microsoft only makes money off businesses.

Microsoft and EA both seem to be engaged in some massive stupidity campaign with the way they are handling their customer base of late, and it seems to be a raidly emerging pattern that the bigger you are, the less you care about your customers. What really boggles the mind is even tho this defies all logic they still seem to stay afloat.

A couple of options

I prefer this method: go to AutoPatcher [autopatcher.com] and choose your OS (Win2K, XP, 64, or 2k3). Benefit here is that they do have some nice registry tweaks and/or installers (TweakUI for example) all rolled in for you. Wonderful to bring a new install "up to speed" in as few clicks as possible and keep the file size requirements to a minimum.

Don't trust somebody other than Microsoft themselves? (I can even write that with a straight face :)

Go to: Microsoft Downloads [microsoft.com] and Search in the Windows sub-section. Search for "iso-9660". Be amazed. Problem with this is these downloads are huge (not that I mind on a 10Mbit synchronous pipe :) -- they cover the same Windows families, but to get one you have to download it ALL. This is, of course, good for multi-flavored environments...

Me, myself, and I? I prefer to click on the Apple and choose "Software Update..." (or softwareupdate -ia from the command line). Of course on the servers a good 'ol fashioned "yum update" does the trick. But hey, that's just me. Microsoft is making this WAY TOO HARD -- and I've begrudgingly paid for each and every one of my Windows installs (personal and/or corporate).

nanny nanny boo boo

Thank GOD I don't have to do that shit anymore. I finally gave up on even my legal copy of XP and I use strictly Debian Linux. I haven't been asked for the first license key or anything. Funny how that works. And, you know, contrary to popular belief, My computer hasn't exploded, my pets haven't turned on me and I haven't missed a day of slashdot.

And This Is Supposed To Work...How?

Right. I did this:

Ran IE.
Tools >> Windows Update
    I get the page with the choice of Express or Custom buttons.
I replace: http://update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate/v6/defau lt.aspx?ln=en-us [microsoft.com]
    With: http://update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate/v6/defau lt.aspx?ln=en-us&Hash=6VJPCR9 [microsoft.com]
Then I press Enter.
    I get the page with the choice of Express or Custom buttons.
I press the Custom button or the Express button.
    I get the page with the yellow/orange Genuine Windows Validation header.
I press the continue button.
    I get page asking me to buy a key.
Result: Doesn't work.

I also did this:

Ran IE.
Copied and pasted link: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=94E5BF41-2907-4415-8F72-DA7C2C2ACE09&displa ylang=en&Hash=6VJPCR9 [microsoft.com]
Pressed Enter.
    Successfully downloaded IE7 RC1 file.
Ran file.
    IE7 installation wants to validate.
Result: Doesn't work.

So, if I can't view the page that shows which updates I need and, for the one file (IE7 RC1 install) I do know the name and location of, it ends up wanting to validate on its own anyway, what the bleeping use is any of this to begin with?

An Alternative to Windows Update

http://windowsupdate.62nds.com/ [62nds.com] This site downloads all the updates using their own firefox plugin. It also doesn't install WGA or checks.

muBlinder.. the best way to get around WGA

Works every time i use it. http://www.p2plife.com/forums/Official_muBlinder_P age-t320.html [p2plife.com]

Car Analogy

Would you buy a car if you had to get your VIN checked every time that you needed to buy parts for it? Would you buy a car if you knew that there was going to be a manufacturer recall almost every day that required replacing or adding parts? I'll add a twist: what if you thought that same brand of car was the only brand allowed in your company parking lot? What if you thought that brand of car was the only brand of car that you could get parts for?

I think that the above hypothetical scenario is a simple analogy of what I like to call "The Windows Problem". Nobody likes WGA. Nobody likes the endless parade of patches and hotfixes that require a reboot as often as not. Nobody likes having to be ever vigilant against security threats. People are starting to see that Windows is very flawed. Since we as a society have spent the majority of our IT budget for the last 20 years on making this one OS the (often) only platform for our IT solutions, how do we change course now?

There are those who believe that once people hear the Good News about Linux they will throw off their Microsoft shackles and march hand-in-hand into the FOSS promised land. OK, maybe I overstated that a little, but you get the point and you know the type. Ubuntu is ridiculously easy to install, but my mother couldn't do it. She uses XP because that's what Dell installed on her computer. Even though she sees Windows as the only reasonable alternative, she still bitches about it. "Normal" people had a hard enough time getting Windows to do what they want it to do, and they'll be damned if they are going to learn it all over again.

Unless everyone else switches first.

WGA even for "security" updates?

Is WGA applied universally to downloads, even ones meant to fix serious problems? Or, for instance, can you always download security patches without the rubber gloves?

Probably not. I can imagine hundreds of illegal copies of Windows already taken over and turned into spam bots, etc. and thanks to WGA, there is no way to fix them. Can WGA keep these machines off the Internet, keep them from harming others? No.

In time, networking protocols evolve, systems change, etc. so these wide-open networked machines will eventually lose some of their teeth. But not before another decade or so of anguish, thanks to Microsoft's unbelievable failure to accept responsibility.

WTF

What's wrong with this picture: a company (granted, not with much of a positive reputation) tries to minimize rampant piracy by encouraging validation of your purchased license. In return you get 5 years worth of free updates plus additional software, which although of dubious value is still free as in beer (i.e. Security Center, Firewall, Malicious Software Removal, etc.). Does Windows have tons of problems? Yes. Is it totally crappy? Hell. no. Is this move something to bitch about? Absolutely not. People especially from the Apple camp should hold their tongues as even though OSX is a lot less prone to exploits (it's not that simple but for the sake of conserving valuable bandwidth, let's leave it for the time being as such), since OSX release in 2001, if users wanted to keep-up with updates, we had to dish out $100/year for every incremental update since (and some of which were touting bug fixes as one of "hundreds" of new features). All in all, we are talking about another ~$500.00 since year 2001. Now, on Windows, yes one had to get anti-virus software et al, but most of that is, believe it or not, free (google for AVG anti-virus suite for instance). So, when the Vista comes out with a $400 price tag for the top enterprise package, I think that should still leave Windoze users with a nice Franklin smiling in their pockets. Now, as far as security and virii go, that's yet to be seen...

All that being said, I've written this post on my triple-booting MBP. And just for the record: after having dealt for many years with all of them, I have to admit that I hate Windows, OSX, and Linux with passion (ok, Linux less so simply due to its philosophical supremacy), despite the fact that (or should I perhaps say because?) I use all three on a more-or-less daily basis...

How responsible

"Today on Slashdot: How to bypass a companies attempt to disrupt piracy of their product"

I'm waiting for "How to download from (pay)iTunes without paying for it" and "Circumvent Payment in Valve's Steam"

Works with WINE...

Ran MGADiag on Wine / Fedora Core 5 and the hash it spat out worked like a charm.

Dear God Why?

"...The following method gives you the ability to download every file from Microsoft without a WGA check."
Why would I want to inflict such heinous damage to my computer? Every File from M$? I'm trying to minimize the number of malware, spyware, etc. on my system!

"Alternative" method

The apps I have tried downloading (just to see if it would work you understand, I wouldn't actually use them) have asked to install some WGA software, but underneath they offer an "alternative" method, which involves getting a tiny app which outputs a code which you then enter into the site. This app works perfectly well in a regular WINE installation and checks out as having a Genuine Microsoft Windows System, thus letting a GNU/Linux user download Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, etc. I don't know whether this is relevant or not, and I assume that option will disappear once WGA is firmly entrenched in every Windows installation, but I thought I should point it out.

Re:Yes...

And the facts support your allegation can be found where exactly? None? That speaks volumes.

Re:Why the fuck..

Some people just don't like to be frisked every time they want to download or install a piece of software. For me it is the equivalent of getting a cavity search every time I go to the airport. I really just don't enjoy my holes being probed at every turn. My copies of XP are valid and I could really do without WGA.

Re:Why the fuck..

Nice kneejerk reaction, but the real reason to do this is if you have a legitimate copy of Windows, but don't want Microsoft's phone-home crap on your PC.

Re:Why the fuck..

As I mentioned in a post in a different article, I've had a painfully annoying run in with Window Activate while in the middle of a computer upgrade.

The short description, XP decided it needed to Activate (could NOT log in without activating it), but I hadn't finished installing drivers; forcing me to phone up their support instead of doing it online.

Then, because I had not yet installed the rest of the hardware (which; without the drivers installed were causing the machine to reboot, or bluescreen before windows even started). the Windows Activation bitched at me again when I was done. At least this time it gave me a 3 day window before it would deactivate; this gave me an opportunity to install the rest of the drivers, etc.

This second time it forced me to call Microsoft again, even though the network connection was now working fine, because the machine had changed too much, and been activated too many times.

Then it lead me to believe I could just use the automated method (the voice recognition is actually pretty good), but after reading a billion digits to the computer it decided I wasn't allowed to do it that way and passed me off to an operator.

And you think I want to trust WGA if I need a hot-fix to add security patches, etc?

The only people not having problems with Windows XP Activation and WGA are the damn pirates.

Re:Why the fuck..

As I mentioned in a post in a different article, I've had a painfully annoying run in with Window Activate while in the middle of a computer upgrade.

I feel your pain. I provide all our company's in house tech support. If a machine goes down and needs a hard drive replaced, I don't fudge around calling up Microsoft when the WPA thing starts bitching. I have a utility that patches an operating system file, and bam, no more WPA or WGA bullshit. If they want to accuse me of being a pirate, they can come on in and look at the product key hologram stickers on every box I do this to. Its not that I'm pirating it, I just don't have time to jump through all their hoops. Alot of my users do all their work on the computer, and if its down for more than 2 hours or so I start to get flak.

Re:Why the fuck..

The only real reason to go around WGA is if you're using a pirated copy of Windows.

Incorrect. I, personally, have Windows machines, but I'm not foolish enough to let machines running Windows to have close connection to the Internet. So if I wanted to download updates I would want to do it from this NetBSD machine, which is what I customarily use for online things (and which is routed to the Internet).

My Windows machines are authentic, and I have all the 'paperwork' and media to prove it. I'm just not gonna hang them out on the net.

And it makes perfect sense that people who want to apply all the patches to secure a Windows system are going to want to get those updates first on an already secured system. Am I supposed to connect my machine with a freshly installed Day Zero copy of Windows 2000 (I pre-registered to pre-order Windows 2000 before it came out, so I have first release media with all the exploits, etc.) online to download security patches? Do I seem like I'm nuts?

Re:Why the fuck..

in addition to the other (entirely valid) reasons noted by folks for wanting to get around the horridly flawed idea of WGA authentication: i run windows inside emulation, generally without a direct real-world network connection. it's much nicer to be able to download bits in my native environment and move them over at my leisure.