Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft

FBI on the Windows Source Code Theft 504

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the don't-they-use-macs dept.
Chris Gondek writes "There are various articles about the Stolen Windows Source Code, but today it is confirmed that an FBI task force hunted for a cyber-criminal who posted on the internet source code for Windows which says 'I can confirm that the Northwest Cybercrime Task Force was investigating, FBI spokeswoman Robbie Burroughs said. The posted program is part of the source codes, or blueprints, for Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0, according to the company.' "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI on the Windows Source Code Theft

Comments Filter:
  • Simple question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:04AM (#8285176)
    Can they track torrents? Not that I'm afraid of the Fumbling Bumbling Idiots or anything...
    • Re:Simple question (Score:5, Informative)

      by NeoThermic (732100) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:06AM (#8285181) Homepage Journal
      >> Can they track torrents?

      Only the source torrent, people who download from it are only anonymous if there are no logs kept, and even then, due to the way that it works, I doubt that it could be possible.

      Correct me if I'm wrong there...

      NeoThermic
      • well... (Score:5, Informative)

        by G27 Radio (78394) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:08AM (#8285199)
        Anyone that's a peer in the torrent has your IP address. All they have to do is connect to the torrent and start collecting IP addresses of any peer that sends a piece of the file.
    • Re:Simple question (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:07AM (#8285193)
      They're more interested in finding the people who originally copied/published/distributed it. They're not stupid - they probably realize that it's out in the wild now, and chasing each individual downloader isn't going to stop these files being passed around.

      Although, they seemed to clamp down pretty hard on the DOS 6 distributors a few years ago - a few people still have the source to that, but you can't seem to find it out there any more!
    • Re:Simple question (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:17AM (#8285238)
      File: windows_2000_source_code.zip
      Key: CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue01uUKoEMG Kv54~o6A
      Bytes: 213748207

      CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue01uUKoE MG Kv54~o6A/windows_2000_source_code.zip

      Of course if you don't have Freenet yet (wtf are you waiting for?) you'd do good to visit http://www.freenetproject.org [freenetproject.org].
    • by westlake (615356) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:58AM (#8285470)
      Not that I'm afraid of the Fumbling Bumbling Idiots or anything...

      so why do you post as an Anonymous Coward?

    • by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @11:05AM (#8285507) Homepage Journal
      Unless you use something like Freenet to download.

      But even there they can see your IP. There just is no way to prove it was you that did the request, or was just 'forwarding' the request thru your node....
  • Scapegoat (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DigiShaman (671371) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:05AM (#8285180) Homepage
    There will be a scapegoat regardless if they find the real criminal or not. After all, Microsoft wants to ease the minds of consumers and investors.
    • Re:Scapegoat (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AlaskanUnderachiever (561294) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:10AM (#8285208) Homepage
      That's true, I've noticed an increasing trend in heavy media coverage of computer related crime as far as the chase, catching the "criminal" and the beginning of the trial. . . HOWEVER I've seen precious little followup on sentencing, etc. I've really begun to wonder if a goodly percentage of those publicized as caught end up innocent (at least of the charges brought against them) and walk away. Eeh, it's probably just my paranoid mind at work. . .

      • Re:Scapegoat (Score:5, Interesting)

        by espo812 (261758) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:32AM (#8285333)
        HOWEVER I've seen precious little followup on sentencing, etc.
        I don't think this applies only to computer crimes. I constantly read about all kinds of crazy crimes involving real world and number world (say fraud or idenity theft, etc). Strange thing is, I never hear if the murderer was sentenced (unless he's given the death penalty) or if the fraudster was convicted (even though the media claims he stole $8 Million worth of widgets), etc.

        In summary, the media reports the catch and the outlandish - without bothering to follow through with what actually happens. The problem is solved from their end (to paraphrase office space).
        • Re:Scapegoat (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mattyp (720004)
          you guys have it all wrong: IMHO, microsoft posted the code themselves. they are planning ahead, so they can be like SCO, and accuse linux of incorporating their IP in the future... the problem is, they had to leak it first... notice they released only old versions.

          Why did they take the risk? Because it's not a risk. It turns out they've learned the lessons from opensource, and now they embrace it, though in a familiar embrace, extend and smother way.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:06AM (#8285182)
    The FBI really needs to crack down on this whole Internet thing before the terrorists get their hands on that source code. Good to see they're doing something about it.
  • by zegebbers (751020) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:08AM (#8285195) Homepage
    In any case, Microsoft's code allows the company to keep its near-monopoly on computer operating systems, for the same reason Coca-Cola guards its secret formula.
    Yes, It's very lucky that there is absolutely no way to obtain any MS source code! [microsoft.com]
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Coca Cola Formula [port5.com]
    • In any case, Microsoft's code allows the company to keep its near-monopoly on computer operating systems, for the same reason Coca-Cola guards its secret formula.

      Water, high fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose, caramel color, phosphoric acid, natural flavors, caffeine.

      Uh uh the fuzz is after me.
  • Interesting note... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lukewarmfusion (726141) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:09AM (#8285205) Homepage Journal
    The security officer at Microsoft, Scott Charney, used to be the head of the FBI Cybercrime unit. I'm not sure of his exact title at either position, but I remember him speaking to my college class shortly after he left the FBI and before he started at MS.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:10AM (#8285207)
    The article says FBI spokesperson said 'It's illegal to download it.'. How can that be? Is it really so? What if your girlfriend downloads a file called 'cookingrecipes.zip' and it happens to contain stuff she did not know - such as Windows source code? Does that mean innocent downloaders can be put in jail?
    • by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:30AM (#8285319) Journal
      Ignorance rarely is a valid defence in the eyes of the law. If you're speeding at 70mph in an area where the speed limit is 50 mph then you not knowing that you were above the speed limit is not a valid defence.

      Similarly, if you hold a barbeque and your kids sneak off with some beers, get drunk and do something stupid then you're still liable for any laws that you may have unknowingly broken (providing alcohol to a minor, etc).

      Just because you didn't know you were breaking the law that doesn't excuse you from any possible punishment. Look at what happened to the grandfather who got hit with a hammer by RIAA because his grandkids used his PC to download copyrighted material over P2P networks without his knowledge. He had no clue what the kids were up to but he was still held liable for their actions.

      If your theoretical "cookingrecipes.zip" defence was held up in court I'd be surprised. It would be carte blanche for copyright infringers, paedophiles and anyone else intent on evading the law to disguise their activity by giving the files they were swapping innocent file names and then claiming that they "didn't know" what the files really contained.
      • by martinX (672498) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:45AM (#8285387)

        Look at what happened to the grandfather who got hit with a hammer by RIAA because his grandkids used his PC to download copyrighted material over P2P networks without his knowledge. He had no clue what the kids were up to but he was still held liable for their actions.

        And so you think it's right? Given the many many ways of disguising the true nature of files, images, URLs etc before they are downloaded, how can anyone in their right mind think that any computer user who had no intention to break the law could be held liable for grabbing something they didn't know was illegal to have.

        Your analogies are bad analogies. Find some new ones.

        • by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:58AM (#8285472) Journal
          It doesn't matter what I personally believe is right or wrong, the original poster wasn't talking about personal ethics, it matters what the law and the courts decide is right or wrong.

          If ever someone busts your ass for anything, whether it's an overdue library book or murder, feel free to knock on my door asking what I feel is right or wrong but don't expect the law to agree with everything I say.

          Rightly or wrongly, as I said before, ignorance is often no defence at all in the eyes of the law. If that offends you, well, I don't know what to suggest because that's pretty much standard practice everywhere on the planet.
      • All you need is a jury, and explain you were doing something LEGAL, that turned out to be illegal due to the actions out of your control.

        ( this is assuming her recipes were not restricted from re-distribution of course ).

        It would be the same case if you went to a legit store ( like a pawn shop or antique store )..
        and bought an item in good faith that anyone would assume was legally theirs to sell...that later turned out to be stolen ..

        Sure, they take away the object, but you dont get arrested...

        This isn
    • I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for downloading copyrighted material. Certainly for uploading it. But downloading is another ballgame.
    • by Rostin (691447) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:51AM (#8285424)
      For some reason every limiting, nonsensical case is modded insightful. There is such a thing as culpability under the law. I think it's pretty obvious that if she really did intend to download something else (legally) and instead got the source code, she isn't guilty of anything, and could show that she really was tricked - say if she is none too computer saavy, has a demonstrable interest in cooking, etc. Notice that this is different than knowingly downloading the Windows source code and claiming that "I didn't know it was against the law." That is the genuine "ignorance of the law" for which there is no excuse. In the first case, something is happening to you that is really beyond your control. In the second, you are willingly and knowingly doing something that happens to be illegal.
  • Blueprints? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nickos (91443) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:12AM (#8285213)
    What's with calling code "blueprints"?

    The BBCs Bill Thompson says in a recent article [bbc.co.uk]:

    "In the coverage of the release of the Windows source code we've seen journalists try to describe what it is that has been posted to websites around the net, but those who didn't descend into cliche seemed only able to use the most misleading metaphors.

    Perhaps the most common is to describe the source code as a "blueprint", presumably because we've all seen movies in which architects pore over blueprints of buildings under attack, or because middle-class readers all have the blueprints of their extensions carefully filed away.

    But source code isn't the blueprint: it is the thing itself. The source is the set of instructions given to the computer that, when executed, cause the behaviour we see on screen.
    "
    • Re:Blueprints? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Technically, you could call source code blueprints. The compiler follows the instructions you've requested, then translates it into assembly and then object code. Some compilers will do a good job (Intel's) and others will needlessly bloat the specifications (GCC). Just like building a house.
    • Re:Blueprints? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lseltzer (311306) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:19AM (#8285249)
      It's a perfect metaphor. Computers don't run C code, just as we don't live in drawings of houses. Both are human-readable representations that we can use to build the implementation.
      • by __past__ (542467)
        So interpreters are equivalent to living in a cardbox?
    • Re:Blueprints? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tornado2258 (627232)
      It's all very well complaining about the failings of the blueprint metaphor but when trying to explain to someone what source code is it is very hard to come up with something accurate. Where else can you have something like source code. If you tell someone that the source code is the program then they don't understande the signifigance of it compared to binaries and as soon as you start explaining about compiling they really get confused. I know people doing tech support who don't know how programs are mad
      • Re:Blueprints? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ocie (6659) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @11:14AM (#8285572) Homepage
        I like to call source and excutable instructions. Instructions can be given at a number of levels:

        top) go to the kitchen and get me a beer

        lower) stand up
        walk 12 paces due north
        open the refrigerator
        remove 1 beer
        close the refrigerator
        walk 12 paces due south

        lower still) contract the following muscle groups until you are standing upright ...

        The point is that we usually give instructions to other people in the first way, sometimes going into the detail of the second way, but never in the third because it would take too long and wouldn't work anyway (How do you describe the complex process of just standing upright? And in a way that applies to all people?)

        In the same way, computers are programmed in one of the two first ways and although you can program them in the third way it takes longer and doesn't work for all computers in the same way.
    • A blueprint is a set of instructions one gives to builders to make a building or a ship. In that sense, source code is a blueprint and the builders happen to be the compiler and the linker or interpreter.
  • by John Jorsett (171560) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:12AM (#8285214)
    Aha. Microsoft gets one of its sock puppets to expose some obsolete source files of an old version of Windows, and has them do it on a Linux box in order to make it look like Linux is as shaky in the security department as Windows. My God those people are Machavellian. I'll bet some of the same people behind the fake Mars landers are behind this.
    • If they were trying to make Linux look bad, then it probably would have been a good idea to remove all those bogus .eml files that indicate the server was infected by Nimda. Wherever these files came from, clearly security wasn't a very high priority.
  • heh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrscorpio (265337) <twoheadedboy AT stonepool DOT com> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:12AM (#8285218)
    Why would the FBI care unless the source code had all the secret gov't backdoors plainly visible? :)

    Chris
  • by gustgr (695173) <rondina.gmail@com> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:13AM (#8285221) Homepage
    but at freenode [freenode.net] a guy said he downloaded the source in one of his company computers and on the other day the admin/root got an e-mail from Microsoft with a warning and the IP which did the illegal download.

    As one have already said here, the best thing to do is to stay away from that file.
  • by DrSkwid (118965) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:13AM (#8285223) Homepage Journal

    You'd think the FBI had some sort of pro-corporate bias!

  • by j_dot_bomb (560211) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:14AM (#8285227)
    >..is part of the source codes, or blueprints,..
    or punch cards (just in case you still dont get it)
  • by Linker3000 (626634) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:15AM (#8285230) Journal
    REWARD

    Have you seen this code:

    MOV AH,09h

    Believed to be part of a larger gang of code, this fragment is guilty of initialising a register for potentially illegal or disruptive purposes, notably the dissemination of disturbing messages or misinformation. Older intelligence indicates that the code was often seen accompanied by its partner:

    INT 21h

    But now believed to be part of a larger organisation.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:23AM (#8285270)

    MSHTML.dll for those that don't know is the heart of Internet Explorer , (iexplore.exe is just a wrapper for mshtml) prepare for some exciting browser exploits , Winsock should ensure there is plenty of fun to be had with windows networking sockets

    and don't forget MSPaint was in the source tree so Adobe had better watch out :))

  • by valentyn (248783) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:26AM (#8285286) Homepage
    What went wrong with the US law system? Microsoft is finally in compliance with their anti-trust regulations, opening up API's and stuff, and now the FBI is investigating that? ;-)
  • by rueger (210566) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:27AM (#8285289) Homepage
    After reading the article, I can only say it's pure PR speak, factually error prone, and more than a bit slanted. Perhaps this paragraph explains the timing:

    "The announcement of the leak came on the same day Microsoft pushed in Washington for tougher anti-counterfeit legislation in the United States and worldwide, saying pervasive pirating of computer software was hurting the industry."

    Given that any number of companies and computer professionals have access to Windows source for various reasons, it's not unreasonable to think that occasionally chunks of it appear in the wild.

    And certainly a lack of source code hasn't slowed down the virus and worm industry.

    Consequently I have to assume that this story is just a way for Microsoft to build support for even more draconian anti-piracy and DRM laws.

    As a post-script - the original post and magazine link should be modded +5 funny at best. It's really quite pathetic.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:29AM (#8285308)
    Among other things, the zip contains the source code to Notepad (you always wanted that!) along with an intriguing bugcodes.txt file that explains a lot of bluescreen/stop errors in more detail than you'll find anywhere else.

    File: windows_2000_source_code.zip
    Key: CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue01uUKoEMG Kv54~o6A
    Bytes: 213748207

    CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue01uUKoE MG Kv54~o6A/windows_2000_source_code.zip

    Of course if you don't have Freenet yet (what are you waiting for?) you'd do good to visit http://www.freenetproject.org [freenetproject.org].
  • by 1u3hr (530656) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:34AM (#8285343)
    Counterfeiters have been trying to get their hands on Windows source code for years. So have computer activists who say that programs could be made to work better with Windows if the source code were public.

    Counterfeiters don't want the source code, they just copy the binaries and maybe a hack to circumvent registration.
    "Computer activists" even less so -- copying Windows code would poison any GPL project.

    In any case, Microsoft's code allows the company to keep its near-monopoly on computer operating systems, for the same reason Coca-Cola guards its secret formula.

    True; but the reason Coke and MS have near monopolies is because of marketing, not innate superiority of their products (Pepsi wins most blind taste tests; Macs win all usability tests).

    In parts of Asia and the former Soviet Union piracy rates approach 90 per cent, they said. As a result, the US software industry loses $US13 billion ($A16.52 billion) a year for counterfeiting and other forms of software piracy.

    Debatable; but irrelevant anyway.

    The US Congress is considering legislation designed to close a number of legal loopholes often allowing counterfeiters to get away with their activities, specifically prohibiting trafficking in genuine authentication components.

    Again, the idea that this will make piracy more prevalent -- it will have no affect at all on MS warez.

  • by hillct (230132) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:34AM (#8285344) Homepage Journal
    I love this:
    Microsoft said that its own security had not been breached by whomever did the posting, nor was it released by a series of companies and governments with whom it shares the source code for the purpose of building software to work with Windows.
    Aparently Microsoft has no idea how the source code was relased. This doesn't speak well for their security. If they can't protect their own code repositories - their single most valuable asset - how can we expect them to provide a secure or even non-trojaned product?

    --CTH
  • by inf0mike (676125) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:37AM (#8285354) Journal
    As a result, the US software industry loses $US13 billion ($A16.52 billion) a year for counterfeiting and other forms of software piracy.

    It amazes me just how much emphasis is placed on financial losses due to piracy. Just because people are using pirated versions of software does not mean they would have bought it anyway! The figure qouted is a "best case scenario" projection of what could have been new sales, but the companies are not actually losing that amount from money they have already earned.

    • by thales (32660) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:31PM (#8286127) Homepage Journal
      The Piracy of Windows hurts Linux more than Microsoft because most of the piracy occurs in areas where the majority of the people can't afford the high cost of a Windows OS. If it were impossible to pirate a copy of MS Windows, then most of these people would be using more affordable Linux distros, rather than buying Windows and Windows software.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:48AM (#8285403)
    NT4 (230 Mb)
    http://torrent.spyderlake.com/download.php?in fo_ha sh=66a26447f563c3dc2336de74ae37dc14d11dd8b9

    W2K (208 Mb)
    http://torrent.spyderlake.com/download.php?in fo_ha sh=f03fc1e04869294d5644d3c8c5d0fb8f2d26aa59
    • As has been pointed out, you are not anonymous when you use bitTorrent. If you're stupid enough to download from the links in the parent, there's a very good chance that someone at microsoft or even the FBI will be logging your IP address. Don't be stupid - ignore the parent.
      • I really dont give two shits about them knowing that I'm downloading their source code. Under what other circumstances is downloading information Illegal? With the exeption of child pornography, which is designed to avoid the exploitation of minors - I cant think of anything.

        I'll happily download that source code, and happily tell everyone about it. Until I take that source code and do something illegal with it, I think I'm in the clear. If people show up at my house and say I've stolen source code - t
  • by savuporo (658486) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:50AM (#8285411)
    If MS corporate net was really compromised, like BBC reported, the leaker should have posted it on download.microsoft.com.
    If it were posted there ( like in DirectX9.1.zip or somesuch ), would they still have legal grounds to hassle the users who downloaded it ?
  • by no longer myself (741142) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:51AM (#8285419)
    I'm pretty sure from the posting pattern here on Slashdot that Microsoft has moles posting and trolling (and you guys know who you are), but for the life of me, I can't recall any law (IANAL) that prohibits the downloading of a "leaked file". Oh sure, we all know that possession of certain kinds of pornography and other files can get you into nasty trouble, but really... If that were the case, then why didn't the FBI start investigating IBM when SCO started belly-aching?

    On the flip side, I've already given up on Microsoft, and want nothing further to do with them or their products, so somebody leaking their code is almost a bad joke to me at this point. The most likely conspiracy to come out of this is that the next version of the Linux kernal will have a cloud of accusations that it derived some of its functionality from Windows 2000 source. (Oh please...)

    I guess the ugly part is dealing with the feds out there who are intent on taking names and kicking ass... After all, it's a national emergency! Microsoft's code has been leaked!

    Feh.

    Many of us have woke up to the fact that you don't need Windows to accomplish your goals on a computer. While the rest of of us are trying to actually get something done with our computers (instead of updating them every 15 minutes), Microsoft is suddenly crying out "Thieves!". Just how does MS come up with these horribly written plot devices?

  • by grouse (89280) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:53AM (#8285436)
    Here's what Microsoft's press release [microsoft.com] on the inadvertent release says:
    [I]nvestigation has shown this was not the result of any breach of Microsoft's corporate network or internal security, nor is it related to Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative or its Government Security Program...

    Interesting. From this, one must conclude that either (a) Microsoft legitimately releases the code to others outside these two programs, but we don't know about it; (b) Microsoft has absolutely no idea how the source was released but is lying through its teeth claiming there was no security breach nor an unauthorized release from its shared source programs; (c) Microsoft leaked the code itself for nefarious purposes (e.g. destroying ReactOS).

    We report, you decide.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @10:55AM (#8285453)
    For anyone who has access to the Windows 2000 source code, check out the following files:

    win2k/private/windows/shell/control/bitmaps/std. bm p
    win2k/private/windows/shell/control/bitmaps/nt. bmp

    TEH FUNNAY!!!!1
    • by Anonymous Coward
      DO NOT moderate the parent. Not up, not down, not sideways, nor in any way shape or form. If you mod the parent funny, it can be presumed that you have seen the files in question and have thus "illegally" accessed the leaked source code!

      It is not outside the logic of reason to think that Microsoft, the FBI, or someone else may force Slashdot to give up the records of anyone who modded the parent post. We all know that Microsoft has some astroturfies around here. Please DO NOT fall victim to a virtual sting
  • by telstar (236404) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @11:26AM (#8285641)
    According to BetaNews, a company called Mainsoft is to blame [betanews.com]. They allege that Mainsoft had access to the code in order to develop their Visual MainWin tool giving developers the ability to write Linux and Unix apps from within Visual Studio.
    • by telstar (236404) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @11:29AM (#8285661)
      Mainsoft had the following to say:

      • "Mainsoft has been a Microsoft partner since 1994, when we first entered a source code licensing agreement with Microsoft. Mainsoft takes Microsoft's and all our customers' security matters seriously, and we recognize the gravity of the situation.


      • We will cooperate fully with Microsoft and all authorities in their investigation.

        We are unable to issue any further statement or answer questions until we have more information.

        From Mike Gullard, Chairman of the Board, Mainsoft Corporation"
  • My pet hate... (Score:4, Informative)

    by sbaker (47485) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:33PM (#8286147) Homepage
    the source codes, or blueprints, Yuck! Please: Spokespersons from the FBI and people from the media - learn to say "code" not "codes". It's like the plural of sheep and hair is still sheep and hair. "codes" are encryption algorithms or something. And the source code for Windows is nothing like a blueprint. Source code is the actual thing we build - a blueprint is a guide for building the thing it describes. For software, the analogous thing to a blueprint would be something like a flowchart.
  • DMCA in full effect (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @03:31PM (#8287739)
    you may receive a letter like the one below if you pull the file off of edonkey (Windows.source.code.w2k...). this is kind of ironic, because the file downloadeed was a fake.

    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > J.K. Weston
    > Microsoft Corporation
    > One Microsoft Way
    > Redmond, WA 98052
    > jkweston@microsoft.com
    > Tel: (425) 703-5529
    >
    >
    >
    > URGENT/IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED
    > VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
    >
    > Re: NOTICE OF POTENTIAL UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF MICROSOFT SOURCE CODE AT:
    > xx.xx.xx.xx
    > Date of Infringement: Detail below.
    >
    > Dear xxxxxxxxxx:
    >
    > We have received information that one of your users as identified above by
    > the SITE/URL xxxxxxxxx may have engaged in the unlawful distribution
    > of Microsoft's source code for Windows 2000, and/or Windows NT4, by
    > distributing and offering for download these source code files via a
    > peer-to-peer network.
    >
    > Since you own this IP address, we request that you take appropriate action
    > against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service
    > Agreement.
    >
    > We also kindly request that you forward this notice promptly to the user
    > of the IP address listed above at the time and date stated.
    >
    >
    >
    > To the user at xx.xx.xx.xx:
    >
    > The unauthorized copying and distribution of Microsoft's protected source
    > code is a violation of both civil and criminal copyright and trade secret
    > laws. If you have downloaded and are making the source code available for
    > downloading by others, you are violating Microsoft's rights, and could be
    > subject to severe civil and criminal penalties.
    >
    > Microsoft demands that you immediately (1) cease making Microsoft's source
    > code available or otherwise distributing it, (2) destroy any and all
    > copies you may have in your possession, and (3) provide us any and all
    > information about how you came into possession of this code.
    >
    > Microsoft takes these issues very seriously, and will pursue legal action
    > against individuals who take part in the proliferation of it source code.
    > We look forward to your prompt cooperation. Should you need to contact
    > me, I can be reached at the address above or at jkweston@microsoft.com.
    >
    > Very truly yours,
    > By
    > J.K. Weston
  • Blueprints? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @03:34PM (#8287759)
    Is anyone else fed up with articles constantly referring to source code as blueprints? I think the analogy has been overused to the point where it isn't necessary anymore.
  • by Aslan72 (647654) <psjuvin.ilstu@edu> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @05:52PM (#8288737)
    I hope this doesn't sound too conspiracy-theory oriented, but I find it interesting the amount of pull MS has in our society now. We're talking about a product that, for all purposes, is still a product and yet the verbage that I've seen on it makes it sound like someone just gave out a key national secret.

    Granted, we have so much riding on Windows that it being compromised is akin to loosing a national secret, but who is to blame here? If we lean so much on MS's code being secure, why are people storing data on there that could be a probem if the system was hacked?

    --pete

  • Stupid article (Score:4, Interesting)

    by danila (69889) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @06:17PM (#8288923) Homepage
    I hate stupid people. This journalist is stupid. I hate this journalist.

    An FBI task force hunted today for a cyber-criminal who posted on the internet source code for Windows, the jewels of Microsoft's software empire.
    It hunted today, huh? Did they ride on horses when hunting? Will they stop hunting tomorrow? BTW, what the hell is "cyber-criminal"? And since when copyright violation is a crime? And didn't that idiot know that Windows is the brand for an OS, thus it's not really plural, so it would be jewel, not jewels.

    In jeopardy is Microsoft's near-monopoly on operating systems found on 90 per cent of the world's personal computers.
    How exactly is the near-monopoly in jeopardy? And while we are trying to understand the sentence, is the near-monopoly found on 90% of computers or is it the monopoly on Windows (i.e. the OS on 90% of computers)?

    "I can confirm that" the Northwest Cybercrime Task Force was investigating, FBI spokeswoman Robbie Burroughs said.
    What? Confirm WHAT??? Or, the quotation marks moved by themselves, never mind...

    "Microsoft source code is both copyrighted and protected as a trade secret," the company said in a statement posted on its website today.
    At least he managed to copy-paste the quote... I can't understand what "Microsoft source code" is, though...

    "As such, it is illegal to post it, make it available to others, download it or use it.
    The quote continues, but the ending quotation marks are missing... As for the MS press release [microsoft.com], I really like them saying that it is illegal to make the Windows source code available to others. What did they just do? :) OK, they forgot to add "without permission from the copyright owner".

    The posted program is part of the source codes, or blueprints, for Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0, according to the company.
    Pluralisation again... Are the source codes similar to cheat codes in any way? The last time I checked it was code. And saying "or blueprints" sounds really stupid. Really. Nobody uses blueprints for software. :)

    Counterfeiters have been trying to get their hands on Windows source code for years. So have computer activists who say that programs could be made to work better with Windows if the source code were public.
    Oh, brilliant! I bet counterfeiters didn't knew what they were trying to do all that time. I though they were trying to duplicate CDs MS was openly selling in retail stores, sometimes cracking the copy-protection. Well, now that they got the source code they must be happy and probably will stop counterfeiting. :) And I would really like to know who the hell are these activists? What, "Americans for cleaner code" or "C coders for forward compatibility"? And he messed up the plurals again. It's source code now, but it "were public"...

    Microsoft said that its own security had not been breached by whomever did the posting, nor was it released by a series of companies and governments with whom it shares the source code for the purpose of building software to work with Windows.
    What the fuck? Let me ponder the absurdity of this sentence for a second. The code neither came directly from MS machines, nor did it come from the series (what series?) of companies and governments who had the code? If I wasn't sure that the journalist is a total moron, I would presume he suspects universities or research institutes, the only remaining category, which was not vindicated. :) But since he is, let me just say that nothing like that was written in the MS press release. What MS claimed was that its internal security was not broken (the external security obviously was) and the code didn't leak via two specific programs - Microsoft?s Shared Source Initiative and Government Security Program.

    In any case, Mi
  • by AnalogDiehard (199128) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @09:55PM (#8290163)
    why it takes less than six days for M$ to be hot-n-heavy on the trail of the source of the leak while it takes M$ six months [slashdot.org] to patch a serious security vulnerability in their source code?

Time sharing: The use of many people by the computer.

Working...