Linux Passes the Microsoft WGA Test 338
Wil writes "Here's a good one for the Linux fans -- running Wine on Linux and attempting to download a Windows Genuine Advantage protected file from the Microsoft website works just fine. It seems that Bill Gates has a soft spot for Tux after all, or at least isn't bothered about him downloading updates."
Unnecessary (Score:5, Funny)
Does that prepositional phrase really narrow it down on Slashdot?
Re:Unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unnecessary (Score:5, Interesting)
This is quite true. Most slashdotters don't actually use Linux [rianjs.net]. Read the "Operating Systems" portion.
Re:Unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily true. (Score:2, Funny)
Most IT joints use windows because having "Microsoft Partner" on your shirt and car means you must know something about ripping others off of their hard earned money. It also means you are a FUD Spreading Professional. Linux has no claims against such marketing might. Linux can't eve
Halve Windows numbers (Score:3)
Consider all the people that use Windows at work and something else at home. Really I am an OS X user but I am giving the Windows numbers a boost by reading far more often from work than at home. So the Windows number is not nearly as big as it would seem.
Re:Halve Windows numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unnecessary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't say that's all that surprising. All you have to do is talk about how great and free and open Linux is and suddenly your comment is marked with a nice pretty word like "Insightful". If you're talking about Microsoft and you use words like "monopolist", the same thing happens to your post.
Fortunately, things are more balanced than they used to be. But man, years ago, you always got a +5 Insightful by raising the question of whether or not a new type of computer could run Linux or not. (Hence the "But does it run Linux?" jokes that come along from time to time.)
A lot of people play Slashdot like it's a popularity game. That's why this joke is pretty funny.
Re:Unnecessary (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unnecessary (Score:2, Funny)
Karma Whore
Cheers
Stor
Re:Unnecessary (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unnecessary (Score:3, Funny)
Well, you shot yourself in the foot by bringing up that your wife is also your sister.....
Re:Unnecessary (Score:2)
Re:Unnecessary (Score:2, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM [wikipedia.org]
Re:Unnecessary (Score:3, Funny)
People used to say you had to "into" BDSM to install Linux or *BSD, but those days are long ago, what with the GUI installers...
Re:Unnecessary (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Unnecessary (Score:2)
Re:Unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)
I just had to get hold of the latest windows installer for a bank I'm working at. Windows Genuine Advantage doesn't work through their firewall. The copy is absolutely genuine.
Now that stupid part is running windows update automatically gets you the installer without WGA kicking in. BUT I need the installer redistributable not a single installer. So I had to go to a third party site, and virus check etc. instead of going to the Microsoft web site.
This like every other piece of anti-piracy technology I've seen tends to inconvenience legitimate users, while pirates etc. find a way around it.
Absolute bulk stupidity.
Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't an "advantage" for me since it makes no difference whether I can download a file with or without the WGA check, but it doesn't hurt me either.
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, like Red Hat Linux for servers at $2,499.00? Let me guess: it costs something to support products, so it's OK to charge when you're Red Hat, just not when you're Microsoft, right?
artificially inflated prices
Mac OS X v10.4 = $129.00 (at Apple [apple.com])
Windows XP Pro = $108.99 (shop around [pricegrabber.com]).
stealing it
What the hell are you talking about? People buy it because they want it. They've got plenty of other ch
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been using MS products, and working with others doing so, from the day they started. I've never once needed support from them. I've certainly talked to peers about odd-ball hardware issues, or dealt with a 3rd party on driver craziness, etc... but these days, it's just not much of an issue. Stuff just pretty much works. Certainly Grandma is more likely to need help, but it's going to be through Dell or whomever a
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:2)
I personally spend my day working with apps and data on a few dozen servers in a mid-size web farm that's part of a 300-seat operation that in turn takes care of thousands of end user desktops and the back office apps that they use. Your exactly wrong assumptions are exactly the type of BS that gives Linux fanboys such a bad name among so many business decision makers. My team spends a lot of money on desktop and server licenses, and if you actually read
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:2)
Well, you could always just go to, say, Wal-Mart [walmart.com], but that may not be mainstream enough for some people. Point is, this landscape is changing very, very rapidly. The real nerds are going to just buy parts anyway.
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:2)
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Something along these lines came up a few days ago in a conversation when someone mentioned how expensive XP is.
How expensive is an "update" on Mac OS X.x every 18 or so months? I do believe I seen something in the range of $129. That's not a bad price, but how much is Windows (not just XP), and how often do you have to buy a newer version, once every 5 or so years?
In all seriousness, I think the cost of Windows is a lot better than paying every
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the list prices are not in the $200-$300 range. Maybe the first Windows license would be in that price range, but after that you would be looking at upgrades rather than full licenses. The upgrade version of Windows XP Home is $99 MSRP, and can be found cheaper online. The OEM full version of XP Pro can be bought at newegg.com for less than $150.
Second, half of those are not paid upgrades. For instance, you could download an update bundle or request a CD from Microsoft (at no charge aside from shipping) to update your Win98 install to 98SE. That takes $200-$300 off your inflated pricing.
And who in their right mind would upgrade to both Win ME and Win 2000? Why are these both on the list... it should be one or the other, not both.
A more realistic representation would be:
I see three realistic purchases in that time frame. Now for a real comparison, how many of those OS X point releases would be realistic purchases? Was 10.0.1 good enough to merit $129 over the initial release? What about the upgrade from 10.0.1 to 10.0.2? I'm not saying that Microsoft would come out ahead in a comparison with Apple, and the purpose of this is to point that you're not representing the situation in a reasonable way. I'm not sure what would be a reasonable upgrade path for Mac users because I've never been one aside from a few stints in school where the lab machines I needed to use were all Macs. Being more accurate in portraying the situation will lead to more acceptance of your views. Anyone serious about computers would notice how obviously you misrepresent the upgrade paths on the Windows side of the comparison, and that makes your argument look bad even if you happen to be on the mark when everything is laid out and tallied up.
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:2)
"McBain! How do you sleep at night?"
"On top of a large pile of money with many beautiful women."
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:2)
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:2, Funny)
Your dad said he had been blown enough for one day
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, you could just not troll, but we all know it's impossible for some assholes. It's a reflex.
So stay in school, don't do drugs etc etc.
800 kay (Score:2)
Re:800 kay (Score:2)
Seeing as that's not really a ritualistic custom or act, no, it's not a rite.
I do believe, however, that you were looking for the word "right"...
(UID numbers really shouldn't be used to determine, well, anything...)
Re:Got to suck to be Microsoft sometimes. (Score:2)
Hey! Your new here is showing! For God's sake... put that thing away.
Wine shows up as Win98 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wine shows up as Win98 (Score:2)
Re:Wine shows up as Win98 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wine shows up as Win98 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wine shows up as Win98 (Score:2)
Re:Wine shows up as Win98 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wine shows up as Win98 (Score:2, Interesting)
WINE Piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WINE Piracy (Score:5, Informative)
Before pressing 'Custom' or 'Express' buttons paste this text to the address bar and press enter:
javascript:void(window.g_sDisableWGACheck='all')
It turns off the trigger for the key check.
Re:WINE Piracy (Score:2)
Maybe this is only for updating to XPSP2?
Re:WINE Piracy (Score:2)
Just checked it again. Get to the windows update screen with the "express" and "custom" buttons.
paste into the address bar
javascript:void(window.g_sDisableWGACheck='all')
hit enter.
Then press custom and it goes right to checking for updates. So it's possible that it's something specific to that update though I don't see why.
Re:WINE Piracy (Score:5, Informative)
javascript:document.cookie='WinGenCookie=validati
This has worked for ages.
Re:WINE Piracy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WINE Piracy (Score:2)
Or just buy the $25-35 full install CD on eBay.
Had a guy call me yesterday wanting to know if I had a Windows 95 serial number so he could install Windows 95 so he could upgrade it to Windows 98 with the stupid Windows 98 upgrade CD!
I told him forget all that shit, go on eBay and spend $30 for a Windows 98 CD.
Better yet, spend $18 (or less) and buy a Linux distro on CD - which also saves him several hundred bucks on Office, etc.
Re:WINE Piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I am a Linux Advocate, but this garbage about saving money on Office by using Linux doesn't exactly fly.
WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Mike
That's great . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Still works in warez windows xp too (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Still works in warez windows xp too (Score:2)
That only works in Windows XP SP2. Does anyone know how to disable it for older versions of XP?
Re:Still works in warez windows xp too (Score:2)
I don't understand what "go to tools" means. Can someone elaborate?
Great... the disease of ActiveX spreads to Linux.. (Score:2)
Re:Great... the disease of ActiveX spreads to Linu (Score:3, Interesting)
sure windows apps may see what they think is windows but i don't think there is anything to stop them making linux syscalls directly once they realise they are in wine.
Unprivileged (Score:2, Informative)
But if you run it under a non-privileged account under linux you will have it (sort of) in a sandbox enviroment.
Guess you could put it in user-mode linux too.. if you are really paranoid
I thought Linux was destined to rule the desktop (Score:2, Funny)
I thought they were going to block WINE (Score:3, Interesting)
Obvious and easy to hype (Score:4, Interesting)
This is clearly something that those out to criticise Microsoft's attempts at reducing software piracy will jump on and crow about. However, the fact that a windows application checking for the characteristics of a pirated copy of Windows cannot find them on WINE shouldn't be a surprise to anyone rational. At the end of the day, its important to remember that Microsoft are just trying to raise the bar. They aren't trying to stop Joe Cracker and his friends from reverse engineering the activation process and hex editing the checks out of the binaries (at least with this measure), they're trying to stop small computer shops loading systems with pirated 'free' copies of Windows by making the piracy visible and clear to the end user.
I don't agree with Microsoft's policy of restricting updates (such as the essential SP2) from unlicenced products, but cheap headlines like this help noone
Re:Obvious and easy to hype (Score:2)
Perhaps, but when change is needed, the politics of how it's pursued is as important as rational thought, arguments or anything else for that matter. For my money, cheap headlines and various levels of advocacy all play important roles. And to the degree any of them can be considered feckless, it will keep the spotlight on an issue, thereby increasi
Re:Obvious and easy to hype (Score:2)
But this activation scheme and MS giving out legit copies to those that report the small shops will stop a lot of piracy.
Yeah, these activation schemes suck. But its not really impressive that there are ways around it.
Re:Obvious and easy to hype (Score:3, Insightful)
Theoretically, wouldn't the people running the shady stores be "Joe Cracker" types themselves, or at least seek out some to get cracked copies to begin with?
as seen in upcoming WGA changelog (Score:2, Funny)
* Fixed bug in verdetect.cpp that allowed WINE under GNU/Linux to pass the WGA test
* WGA 1.0.0.2944
Advantage: Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Then I downloaded the codecs, and copied them to my Linux machine's ffmpeg folder
Re:Advantage: Linux (Score:2)
duh? (Score:2)
I'd be willing to bet they specifically tested it with Wine. (maybe not like they tested it with a real PC, but it got tested I'm sure)
Now on the other hand, if this were say, Mac OS X....
Re:duh? Double Duh! (Score:4, Informative)
according to http://www.answers.com/emulate&r=67 [answers.com]
Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
There's nothing about "doing binary machine language translation" or things like that.
Implement, not Emulate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:duh? Double Duh! (Score:2)
Well, I call that doing a darn good good at emulation.
Ask A Virus Writer (Score:2)
From a FAQ on WGA (Score:5, Insightful)
WINE is a Win32 emulator which allows Windows applications, such as Office, to run on top of X and UNIX. When WGA validation detects WINE running on the system, it will notify users that they are running non-genuine Windows, and will not allow genuine Windows downloads for that system. Users of WINE should consult the WINE community for WINE updates. It is important to note that WINE users, and other users of non-genuine Windows, can continue to download updates for most Microsoft applications from Microsoft application-specific sites, such as Office Updates.
http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/faq.as
Re:From a FAQ on WGA (Score:2)
Or something.
Ssshhh... (Score:2)
Bypass? Hardly. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't Get Too Excited (Score:5, Informative)
The good news is, there's not much reason any more to need the WGA. We've got a new DCOM and MSI framework that makes those two downloads largely irrelevant. Jacek Caban is hard at work integrating a Gecko engine into Wine as part the MSHTML.DLL (usually referred to as "Internet Explorer" on Windows.) So native Windows DLL's are falling by the wayside.
Of course, Microsoft got so much bad press over the WGA check that I wonder if they'd tempt it all again. Last time it raised the ire of eWeek and PC Magazine, so I imagine the next round will just be more bad press. Headline: "Giant software company continues to squash open source software"
obPlug: Wine is slated for a beta release in a little over a month.
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:2)
Most likely, they don't really care; if you've go
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:2)
Anyway, this check was specifically added to prevent Wine from downloading Windows applications. The key here is people who use Wine may already have a legal version of Windows and therefore Microsoft is deliberately tying
Re:Don't Get Too Excited (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't anybody here read WINE's site? (Score:5, Interesting)
A bit after WGA was initially released, however, the WGA authentication dialog started accepting WINE-generated WGA codes with no explanation.
I don't know if WGA still checks for WINE, but if it does, it's something Microsoft can disable on their end quickly and easily, any time they want.
This isn't newsworthy, and it's not even news. The above comments about how WINE is being checked for were noted in the first March issue of WINE's newsletter [winehq.org], and the fact that Microsoft began accepting WINE-generated WGA validations was noted a few issues thereafter, though Google can't seem to find it.
Another way past Windows antipiracy found (Score:2, Offtopic)
http://news.com.com/Another+way+past+Windows+antip iracy+found/2100-1002_3-5821113.html [com.com]
http://www.sinhack.net/GenuineAdvantage/ [sinhack.net]
http://www.filemirrors.com/search.src?type=begins& file=GenuineCheck.exe&action=Find [filemirrors.com]
Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
When I spoke to MS about it last week they said it was "By Design".
Using the same technique if you download GenuineCheck.exe with a pirate copy of XP and set it's compatibility to Windows 2000 or Windows 98 you will also get a valid code and can then use it to proceed to download.
I think that, more important than ways to defeat WGA, is that the user experience for Firefox people is harder and more dangerous than those using IE. For example if you use IE and elect to use the ActiveX control you just have to press one button. If you use Firefox you are forced to use GenuineCheck.exe every time you want a download. This requires a download, a run of the program, a copy paste a button click and then you are free to download. Firefox people should bombard MS to write an XPI or better yet scrap this stupid scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
WGA's purpose (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, an unscrupulous salesperson could probably implement someway to bypass the WGA test easily as well.
I'd assume Microsoft doesn't care if Wine is considered genuine or not. It can certainly be annoying for legitimate Windows users, so I would assume the test errors on the side of not-hassling the user.
That said, I wish it would go away. It is annoying extra step on the rare occasions that I do have 2 deal with it.
Only stops legit users, doesn't it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems like the more they try, the worse things get.
I'm really thinking of wiping the drive and installing good-old NT4. Never had any problems with it, and it smokes 2000/XP by a longshot. Who really wants DirectX 7+ anyhow?
Uh yeah it does (Score:2)
There is a trick to download the Geneuinecheck.exe on XP and run it in Windows 2000 mode to fool it into passing.
This is not due to WINE, or Microsoft, just the way Windows WGA was designed to work.
This is all common knowledge, why did it make it to a Slashdot story?
Nothing new here... (Score:2)
In other words, the guys who sell CDs in Hong Kong with the generic Devilsown key.
In more succinct words, "Sure, get it for free, but expect to WORK for it".
Actually, a sweat equity OS doesn't sound that bad.
Almost as funny as Punkbuster (Score:5, Informative)
I would play Half-life + Counterstrike under WINE on Linux, and eventually it got to the point where you needed to run Punkbuster to be able to play it online. Basically, the servers look for Punkbuster to scan your system for cheat tools and make sure that everything looks kosher before they let you play.
I downloaded Punkbuster and was sure that it wouldn't like the looks of WINE's environment. I connected to the server, waited for it to verify and... it worked! I was feeling two types of way when that happened.
1. WINE is god damn amazing.
2. Punkbuster is stupid. I could have any number of hacks running under Linux, I could have been running WINE under ptrace() the entire time, injecting evil as needed into the Counterstrike game world, and Punkbuster would have been completely oblivious to it. No matter how hard it tried it would never be able to inspect the host Linux system for evil. Client side anti-cheat systems are doomed.
Unreal (Score:2)
clicketyclick. copy-paste-code. clicketyclick.
What copy-n-paste code? I've done WGA tons of times, and I never had to enter any codes?! Then, if you look at his screenshot (here [imageshack.us]),
useful (Score:2)
Normally I'd just give them adware and other more available tools.
The check (Score:3, Insightful)
"Eat your vegetables now Bill or the big bad wolf will come to eat you!" :-)
On the other hand, if the solution was too strict it would only cause too much badwill for denying legitimate users from downloading software. It seems like it is scanning for known leaked corporate keywords and nothing else.
So maybe it is time for an update to the licensing model of Windows instead? The cost of maintaining a multitude of versions (XP Home, Media Center, Professional etc.) can actually be a problem too.
Re:Why should we care? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why should we care? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WGA wasn' (Score:2)
I was trying to download a document about language translations from MS' site a few days ago, using my Mac. It refused to let me download it (just a
Re:Next step: Slashdot==biased? Try Microsoft.. (Score:3, Funny)