Windows 2000 & Windows NT 4 Source Code Leaks 2764
PeterHammer writes "Neowin.net is reporting that Windows 2000 and Windows NT source code has been leaked to the internet. More on this as we hear it."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Windows 2000 & Windows NT 4 Source Code Leaks
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
With your bare hands?!?
omg (Score:0, Interesting)
There is no evidence listed (Score:2, Interesting)
I could easily name files "windowsxp.source.tar," but that means nothing.
The truth is in there (Score:2, Interesting)
For those that need more proof (Score:5, Interesting)
It is probably the aquamark/watermark (Score:2, Interesting)
The leaking company will soon be identified unless the code was first changed in a very strong way.
Re:The shit will hit the fan + Mirror (Score:2, Interesting)
The server is already slashdotted, but I think this is major if it is true. Microsoft's legal dept is probably planning an all-nighter tonight, and will be working in shifts to frantically sue people who are connected in any way with this.
If this is true, the shit will definitely hit the fan. I wonder how this was done. The IP contained in Win2k/NT is worth BILLIONS(arguably). They obviously would have some serious security on it.
On a lighter note: When will we see some tricked out Windows 2000 "Distros"?
Re:hmm seems a bit buggy (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows source code is not some deep dark secret that is locked in a vault, only let out during builds for the product releases.
*MANY* people have access to the Windows source code. A number of people in my own university have it. There are strict licensing considerations, but when has that ever worked before? Surprisingly, none of the people with source access has ever pulled off the stunt where it's broadcasted. I have always wondered why.
So is this the beginning of something... (Score:2, Interesting)
So much for security through obscurity (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:it's true (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Server problems ALREADY... (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope some bright I.T. reporter will write a story about how "Linux source code leaks" are not a security issue, but part of the development process, making Linux safer than Windows. I mean, if the Windows source is so full of bad code and bad design that releasing it represents a threat to national security (Jim Allchin's words), while Linux has always had its source code freely published -- it standsto reason that Open Source software is of higher quality.
The comparator (Score:5, Interesting)
Lookout for Backdoors (Score:4, Interesting)
Strangely enough this Leak will make Windows more secure in the long run as the code can be studied and possible exploits be "published"
Field Day (Score:3, Interesting)
An open source of Windows... of sorts? (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Someone taking the W2K source and making an Out of the Country host of a tweaked (and improved?) W2K source? Would this be illegal to use? I realize it would be illegal to distribute in the US, but would it be illegal to *use*. Especially if you owned a valid copy of W2K?
2) If you own a valid copy of W2K, could you legally look at/use the leaked W2K source?
3) If there were any derivative works off the W2K source, I'd think the W2K license would allow you to use any subsequent O/S created with that source by independent developers. I realize the EULA may forbid this, but I seriously doubt that would hold up in court. You probably couldn't do this from a commercial standpoint, but as a private citizen, I can't see there being any legal recourse MS could take against using what would effectively be an OSS version of W2K.
Anyway, something to think about.
Re:Just don't use the code (Score:5, Interesting)
You beat me to the punch. This code leak could be a very good thing for Microsoft, and a trap for the open source community. I doubt that Microsoft intentionally planted this snare but if any future open source project even vaguely resembles this leaked code I have no doubt that Microsoft will open their full arsenal of lawyers.
Re:For those that need more proof (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm curious who dennis is, and what the words of wisdom were. Too bad the file is zero size in the list. It also appears several times in the file listing, always at zero size.
Maybe... nah, that's too cruel.
Re:it's true (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems a bit of a stretch to thing 'soft would have given all of these organizations the complete source tree. If they did, then I am far more amazed the source wasn't leaked a long time ago. It's a bit hard to believe 'soft licensed the entire build tree to anyone.
Makes a pretty good headline, though.
Good thing for users in the long run? (Score:2, Interesting)
Probably some more worms will come out within the first weeks. But in the long run MS might finally learn the value of bugs getting shallow by lots of eyes looking at the source. I don't think companies will suddenly start to copy the source and using it themself - the fear of getting caught will be too high. As much as MS will dislike this, i think the users will have more advantages in the long run (and maybe this is even not soo bad as MS will think it is).
Internet Explorer (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:For those that need more proof (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:it's true (Score:5, Interesting)
There are probably paranoid governments who have teams who do this just this kind of work just to make sure those fabled NSA back doors in either are or aren't windows.
Compilation and Windows source code (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd be interested to know what the Windows source is compiled with though
Intel C compiler? I'm sure they couldn't stand the irony of using GCC. The NT codebase is supposed to be crossplatform do I doubt it's got any Assembler code in it - is it written in C or one of Microsofts own languages?
If so, what was it originally written in and when was the translation made? (Pls don't mod me informative - I may be way off the mark!)
Re:So much for security through obscurity (Score:-1, Interesting)
Re:Just don't use the code (Score:3, Interesting)
And to clarify, this means DO NOT LOOK AT THE CODE. A court can say that anyone who has seen the code has let it influence their future works, even if that influence was unintentional.
Reverse engineering boon for NTFS (Score:2, Interesting)
If whoever does this is careful and realistic, it seems very unlikely that Microsoft could ever prove they had done so with an illegal copy of Windows source code.
I predict that if this source is legitimate, that we will see full NTFS write support under Linux within a year.
And just think. What if there is 3rd party driver source in there too?
It's illegal, but I think it is bound to happen and we will benefit from it.
It's not a problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
On the plus side, some of the comments are fairly humorous, especially when you note who wrote them and look up where they are today.
Re:Do NOT read that book! (Score:2, Interesting)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I'd love to get hold of the dll code that does the equivalent of a window manager in X. How cool would it be to swap out a dll on the Windows box at work and have a completely custom windowing environment?
Re:Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine the shitstorm if someone found linux code in the w2k kernel...and people thought slashdot posted a lot of SCO stories...
uh oh (Score:2, Interesting)
Conspiracy Theory (Score:2, Interesting)
just some ideas; i'm not a zealous ms hater, but i've seen companies do conceptually-similar things before.
ReactOS (Score:2, Interesting)
For those who don't know...
"ReactOS is an Open Source effort to develop a quality operating system that is compatible with Windows NT applications and drivers."
The odds of getting the full source: experience. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is incorrect.
Its funny how people build up ideas in their heads about what its like in a large corporation, somehow like a hollywood movie with lots of people with dark shades and guns ala "The Net".
No, inside Microsoft is a lot more like "Office Space" and anybody with motivation could get the entire source with little trouble.
Re:For those that need more proof (Score:5, Interesting)
win2k/private/inet/urlmon/iapp/gnumakefile
win
win2k/priv
(and so on - many, many instances)
on the other hand, a few funny files:
win2k/private/inet/xml/xml/tokenizer/dll/
win2k/private/inet/xml/xml/dso/letter to children - 2.eml
and VERY interesting:
win2k/private/ntos/w32/ntuser/kerne
Re:What now? (Score:5, Interesting)
That leads to a fascinating question (Score:5, Interesting)
:: prediction :: (Score:5, Interesting)
Now? Improve emulators! (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, there are several obfuscating methods designed to hide the logic of the original code. They can be used to actually copy the code to the emulator (if the copied piece will work there). After that it would be hard to prove anything even in the open source.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but anyway, personally I would not feel guilty having W2K source code and using it to improve WINE. Because I think that the algorithms is a part of the math, which existed always even before humans came here. A programmer just discovers the piece of math and express it using one or another language. The gravity doesn't belong to Newton, the math formula that describes the gravity neither. Only the fact of discovery of gravity math description belongs to Newton, just for references. Only the fact that programmer wrote the code belongs to the programmer (or the employer), not the code itself. Just to refer in the report to the boss why one was so busy all the day. Getting the source code from Microsoft is not stealing - it's learning. There is nothing wrong in learning.
What if it were discovered that ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So much for security through obscurity (Score:5, Interesting)
Source helps, but it isn't everything.
Does anyone else just get a tingly feeling seeing this article sitting on top of an article on Open Source being less secure because of it's openness?
Re:hmm seems a bit buggy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Open Source (Score:2, Interesting)
Someone PLEASE... (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone mentioned, this would be fascinating to just read the comments. Would it be possible for someone to strip out all the code, leaving only the comments for each file, minus comment lines that ARE code? It would be GREAT just to read the "intention" and "questions" living in that code and be able to associate each with a filename. Purely for entertainment value. It would also be neat to compare comment-to-code ratio in areas of MS code.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Not good (Score:1, Interesting)
BTW, wasn't Windows source leaked once before? -- around when W2K went gold? I seem to remember that MS had accidentially posted it on MSDN or something.
Re:Close you eyes! (Score:2, Interesting)
anyway, i wouldn't even want to see the source code if it was strapped to a hot chick..
Re:it's true (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Do NOT read that code! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry for sounding like an idiot but could you clarify that for me. On one hand you say it is safe to read copyrighted code, on the other hand it isn't.
It sounds like you are saying that there are some instances where you can read copyrighted source code and still write your own code for a similar project and be legally safe. But in this instance simply having a copy of microsoft's code without signing their NDA first is a breach of copyright and would put a person at risk. Is this correct?
I must admit that I am curious to see the Windows source, and since I write network apps in java & delphi, not operating systems in C my software is not likely to be tainted by it.
Re:Is the code that bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that's what Microsoft claimed in court, in response to the notion of requiring them to provide the source. Microsoft claimed releasing the source could compromise (USA) national security, because the malicious individuals could find and exploit all the holes. Yes, they really did say that, more or less.
But only a couple months later, faced with China adopting Linux over concerns of hidden backdoors, Microsoft provided a copy of the source to the Chineese. So much for national security (or was that honest under oath?)
Re:Not good (Score:3, Interesting)
Foul play evidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean the code that supposedly makes competitors products break, and god knows what other bad stuff I've heard about over the years.
Anyone working on this?
Re:it's true (Score:5, Interesting)
In Microsoft's closed source world it would have been tough to know if someone had included code that was similar to something they had seen in the Linux ( or any other opensource) codetree. It will be interesting, if this windows code release (escape?) proves true, if any suspicious code is found.
Re:The shit will hit the fan + Mirror (Score:5, Interesting)
MS giving source code to countries (Score:5, Interesting)
Holes in all Windows systems? (Score:3, Interesting)
If this really is true the ramifications on the security of windows is really big. In contrast linux is getting SELinux functionality implemented as we speak.
I hope this isnt true because it would turn the world of computers totally upside down and have big impact on innocent bystanders who bought into the MS marketing lies.
Re:Close you eyes! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:it's true (Score:5, Interesting)
The links circulated very fast and the servers started slowing and slowing down and then they died. The first ones did manage to get all the stuff. I envied them because I managed to get only couple megabytes.
It seemed real. Very real. Someone had broken into their development servers, stuffed the stuff to the web servers and escaped with it all.
There was some small mention about it on the Slashdot too but I couldn't find it right now. It seems the Microsoft was able to really sweep that one under the carpet. I wonder how.
There are people around with self compiled Windows XP copies, trust me. I envy them. I would gladly remove some features and tweak couple edges I am not now allowed to. Even though it would be a HUGE task.
So the now leaked source codes to NT/2k are mostly just boring and obsolete.
Suspicious files from the purported tree (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's a TRAP!!! /Adm. Ackbar (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there GPL code there?
Ask an auditing company to
diff NT4 2000 | grep -e yourcode
and get an answer.
I don't think they're playing SCO if they released just a part of it maybe but not the whole thing
Re:Server problems ALREADY... (Score:3, Interesting)
OTOH, most of the OS X code (without Quartz etc.) is OSS-maintained on x86 anyway, so it is probably much smaller pain for them.
Seen it - nothing spectacular (Score:5, Interesting)
If this is a wind up, someone or people spent a long old time faking it. Microsoft notices and email addresses all over the place. They don't like the AIX compiler one little bit. Hardly any mention of Linux, GPL or GNU.
Actually quite a professional bunch of source files by all accounts. Appears to be using standard GNU Makefiles though. Yes, the 'f' word appears, as does the 's' word. Apparently Office 2k is broken in some respect that Win2k needed a tweak or some description.
Plenty of mentions of Internet Explorer, although I wouldn't like to say that we found 'IE' in the code, but then we aren't C experts at all. It does mention IE6 and Windows ME, so can't be all that old either. Does mention buffer overflows a fair bit, also plenty of 'hackhack' and 'bugbug' notes laying around.
In fact, nothing particularly spectacular found at all. We took a look, got bored, and went back to our normal work. Honest boss!
And no, we didn't try to compile it. We felt it was genuine enough though - not that we really cared. We did however note that if this lot is proven to be the real deal, Microsoft are going to be landed with one hell of a lot of security alerts for 2k/NT over the next six months.
Yours merely curious...
Interesting Neowin comment (Score:5, Interesting)
Just my opinion / thoughts.
1) The software that builds and compiles Windows is very complex I doubt anyone could turn the source into a working system easily. Maybee it would be possible to compile certain parts. Plus even if you could it would take hours if not days to go through the process.
2) I don't see how this will let anyone find any obvious flaws, microsoft have software that does this all the time. I'm not saying its not a security risk but its not as simple as the journalists make out - as always.
3) This exact same scare happened about 7 years ago, I remember they were selling the source to NT4 at a local market on CD, doubt it was the real source code."
Re:For those that need more proof (Score:3, Interesting)
61072 07-26-00 02:12 win2k/private/inet/mshtml/build/scripts/tools/alp
112672 07-26-00 02:12 win2k/private/inet/mshtml/build/scripts/tools/alp
65536 07-26-00 02:12 win2k/private/inet/mshtml/build/scripts/tools/alp
58640 07-26-00 02:12 win2k/private/inet/mshtml/build/scripts/tools/alp
Re:So much for security through obscurity (Score:5, Interesting)
So, all we need is an over-ambitious green-thumb attorney straight out of lawschool to discover this and bring it out in the open and force the hands of Microsoft and Sun to sue SCO out of existence over it so neither company "appears" guilty in the eyes of the SEC and class action lawsuit specialists. It could be the IT adaptation of the book/movie "The Firm."
Re:it's true (Score:2, Interesting)
Top three articles on /. (Score:2, Interesting)
Windows 2000 & Windows NT 4 Source Code Leaks
Is Open Source Fertile Ground for Foul Play?
New Worms Feed on MyDoom Infections
It struck me as funny.
DRM? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GNU make users? (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been articles on the web describing alot of their NT build process. They do use command line builds. They originally wrote a custom version control system, but now use something else (not Visual Source Safe, I think perforce, or perhaps they created anotehr system). I believe, if memory serves, that they had a custom make tool, but they may now use nmake, which is the make tool that's distributed with their commerical dev tools.
I recall the article did mention the use of perl for parts of the custom build scripts.
As a long time windows programmer, frankly, this stuff looks made up. Clever, amusing, but ultimately it seems like a hoax. If this is all the proof we have, then I'm afraid it's a bit pathetic!
Also there appear to be duplicate headers, repeated in various directories that I'm almost positive would end up screwing the compile process in a real build. Also, another thing is that, if their distributed files with VC6/7 are indicative of their internal naming, they stick to a strict 8.3 naming scheme, and make note of this in their documentation (don't remember *where* it was that I read it, but it was MS docs, and I remember being surprised by it). Another thing, again assuming that the files distributed with VC6/7 are a good model, their files tend to be all UPPERCASE! For example, here's a listing from their includes in for VC6:
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 21912 Apr 24 1998 ACCCTRL.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 27863 Apr 24 1998 ACLAPI.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3735 Apr 24 1998 ACLCLS.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 747 Apr 24 1998 ACLSID.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 269 Apr 24 1998 ACSMGTC.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 267 Apr 24 1998 ACSSVCC.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 833 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVECF.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 1111 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEDS.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 39805 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.MAK
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3794 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.RCV
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 2053 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.VER
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 68013 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVSCP.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 17845 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVSCP.IDL
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3402 Apr 24 1998 ADDRLKUP.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 18946 Apr 24 1998 ADMEX.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 10051 Apr 24 1998 ADMINEXT.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 2827 May 31 1998 ADOID.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 343678 Jun 19 1998 ADOINT.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 135222 Jun 2 1998 ADOMD.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 14127 May 31 1998 ADOMD.IDL
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 5083 Apr 24 1998 ADPTIF.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 1133 Apr 24 1998 ADS.ODL
Files with interesting names... (Score:4, Interesting)
0 11-18-01 14:23 win2k/private/genx/windows/inc/mobileq-apache.eml
0 11-18-01 14:23 win2k/private/genx/letter to children - 2.eml (*)
0 11-18-01 14:23 win2k/private/inet/mshtml/btools/bin/words of wisdom from dennis.eml
0 11-18-01 14:23 win2k/private/inet/mshtml/build/ppcmac/ship/unix.
0 11-18-01 14:23 win2k/private/inet/mshtml/build/ppcmac/documentat
506 07-26-00 02:12 win2k/private/inet/mshtml/gnumakefile
64276 07-26-00 02:13 win2k/private/inet/mshtml/tools/mips/utils/sed.ex
Plenty of gnumakefile entries throughout...
Also - directories for ppc / ppcmac / alpha / mips
Could this be OFFICE 2000 instead of Windows 2000?
* - WTF?
Could have bin a lot worse (Score:3, Interesting)
Thinking about it, an OS used often to hold and guard highly sensitive information wordwide is almost certain to get its source stolen, if not by terrorists so by intellegence organizations round the world.
But it could have bin much worse. Imagine a not too distant future world where access to documents software etc is controlled by DRM technology. In such a world, there would be little incentive for sofware companies to spend R&D money on securing their systems apart from what DRM offers.
Imagine what damages we could get if cryptography keys to such systems fell into the wrong hands.
Even if such keys would be handled by a lot fewer persons than the windows source code, there is no guarntee that they will not be persuaded to reveal their secret.
Taking a leaf from Valve... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes I understand the consequences etc, I wanna grow up and be a respected open source coder (and get paid to go to conferences). If I wanna read source, I'll read
~Duane
Re:tin foil hat (Score:5, Interesting)
As a side note, I actually feel bad for MS on this one. Seriously: This was *their* code. They paid for it, they kept it going over the last 20 years, they should be able to decide how it gets distributed.
We here at /. should all be as PO'ed by this as when we catch some asshat corp. using our code without regard to the licensing (in our case, the GPL).
I won't mirror this code any more than I'd steal my neighbor's lawn mower because someone else opened his garage door. It's not right.
How it can go wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That is a MYTH (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but then, wouldn't reading the publically available patents be a problem?
The answer to this is, of course, yes. I used to work at a major game developer which strictly forbid us to read any patents. This policy wasn't just something you might read in the fine print of the employee manual: there was a mandatory-attendance presentation on the subject. The argument was that if a single employee read a particular patent, the whole company is legally tainted by that knowledge. Even though it's not supposed to matter, knowledgeable infringement apparently makes for a stronger case in the courts than coincidental infringement. So, if I read patent X, and another employee working on the other side of the planet unknowingly infringes on X, a case can be made that they actually knew it., because the company knew it as a whole. How could they prove I read it? There could be a server log that shows my PC was at that url at uspto.gov. Crazy stuff.
-_-_-
A note from someone who has see the real source (Score:3, Interesting)
1) I cannot confirm that this is a legitimate file list.
2) I can confirm that every tree and file I am specifically aware of is missing.
3) This is definetely not the entire source tree.
4) There are many dubious file names such as "words of wisdom from dennis.eml
", zero length, and "gnumakefile" that definetely appear out of place.
My guess is that someone has taken some licenced source code and "sexed it up" to troll internet.
Time to look for GPL violations! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:File headers (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A note from someone who has see the real source (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:SCO Code in Win2000 (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, this lawsuit is based on the AT&T Unix which "Classic SCO" got from Novell, not from Xenix, but... well, there's a lot of mixed up stuff here.
Re::: prediction :: (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to say the first thing anyone competent in C/C++ who gets their
hands on the code ought to do (providing they don't need to take a hands-off
approach due to, say, the need to be able to legally write competing OS code)
would be to post English descriptions anonymously to usenet, describing the
way NTFS works, especially the parts that are not currently well-understood.
No source code snippets, just stuff like "it appears that such-and-such
information about each file is stored and updated whenever it changes in three
places: at offset blah in the file header info, and
about NTFS, so any fs jargon that leaked into that sentence may not be accurate.
But you get the idea of the kind of thing I mean.)
Then somebody else could take that information and implement a compatible
filesystem in a clean-room fashion.
IANAL, but from what I've read on slashdot, there's apparently at least a
vague possibility the resulting code might be legal. Though, one should
consult legal counsel before spending significant time on such a project.
Re:it's true (Score:3, Interesting)
Do not, under any circumstances, modify this section. There is no documentation available for this section, and the individual who wrote it is no longer working here.
*/
Re:Server problems ALREADY... (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope its real.. heh.
Re:it's true (Score:5, Interesting)
114 07-26-00 02:17 win2k/private/inet/urlmon/compress/gnumakefile
0 11-18-01 14:24 win2k/private/inet/urlmon/compress/gzip/
3627 07-26-00 02:17 win2k/private/inet/urlmon/compress/gzip/api.c
1978 07-26-00 02:17 win2k/private/inet/urlmon/compress/gzip/api_int.h
639 07-26-00 02:17 win2k/private/inet/urlmon/compress/gzip/common.h
871 07-26-00 02:17 win2k/private/inet/urlmon/compress/gzip/comninit.
3927 07-26-00 02:17 win2k/private/inet/urlmon/compress/gzip/crc32.h
Last time I checked gzip was licensed under the GPL. Although, it could be a totally re-written version of gzip or something else named gzip I guess.
A less obvious question: (Score:1, Interesting)
Heck, assuming the Recent Lindows ruling [slashdot.org] stands, could Bert get away with selling it as Windows????
You're missing the point (Score:3, Interesting)
A sudden loss of confidence in the Windows product could spell disaster for a wide range of occupations - imagine an IT-specific recession, resulting in enourmous layoffs and salary cuts.
The worst thing is that there is no way this can turn out to be good news. If it's true, we're in trouble. If it's false, then we're still going to see share prices slump (not just MSFT either), which impacts most of us.
Friday the 13th is always a pain in the neck.
I know that... (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is now they can claim that they had potentially had access to their trade secret (not that they necessarily copied it verbatim). The can call all the work into question, and while it can be pretty thoroughly shown that this is not the case, it could take awhile to sort it and out and by then Samba could be tainted in the eyes of less savvy IT persons.
Not a great plan, IMHO, but quite possible. The same argument goes for Wine, but others had already brought that up.
Re:Files with interesting names... (Score:3, Interesting)
Could this be OFFICE 2000 instead of Windows 2000?
More likely that there are a lot of abandoned source files that haven't been removed from the source tree yet. There were alpha and mips versions of NT4, and it was known that Microsoft were working on a PPC version, so it isn't really surprising that some work had been done towards it.
The gnumakefile's are interesting, given Microsoft's distaste for GPL software these days, but they probably date back to the mid '90s when Microsoft's attitude was quite different.
Re:it's true (Score:5, Interesting)
The base stuff is probably 4 GB.
Re:So much for security through obscurity (Score:5, Interesting)
Blaster was the biggest worm - ever. And it worked only on NT, not on 9x...
That Windows 2000 (or NT or XP) is "more secure" than Windows 98 has been repeated so often that most people started to believe it, even though the security track record shows the reversed situation.
Microsoft did this on purpose - missing the point (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So much for security through obscurity (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, MS would flip out, call it an exploit, and have the next patch uninstall it, since any patch for MS products that do not come from MS "can't be trusted". Another reason I like Linux more and more every day, not having to rely on a single company for patches.
Re:Server problems ALREADY... (Score:3, Interesting)
LIKE THIS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Check out a report of how Zeez Universal IM System copied sections of the popular GPLed Miranda IM. Down to the label strings in places and a "blank"-ed GPL agreement dialog!
~fractal
Since when does Microsoft using GNU Makefiles? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just curious... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Files with interesting names... (Score:1, Interesting)
".../mshtml/src/core/cdutil/unix/sparc/"
su
Re:tin foil hat (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:it's true (Score:2, Interesting)
Outdated (Score:2, Interesting)
cat files.txt | awk '{print $2}' | grep -E "01$
. This tells that the latest Code has been contributed in 2001! Well, the basics may be the same, but a lot of updates recently commited are not present in this code (again, if it is real).
No you haven't (Score:5, Interesting)
If you'd really seen the source, you would have remembered that.
Re:Files with interesting names... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Do NOT read that code! (Score:2, Interesting)
And, just as a point of clarification, the RIAA could have nailed people for downloading music or for uploading. The only thing we know from their press releases is that they were targeting people who were sharing, but since things haven't proceeded to trial in any case we don't know what was really going on.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:3, Interesting)
The weird thing about that slide is that it indicates that the project is "29M LOC". Now, by my math, that indicates about 1,700 bytes of storage used per line of code. There has to be something artificially inflating the size, or decreasing the LOC. I mean, even assuming 170 character lines, that works out to 10 lines of comments for every line of code. I wonder if the 50GB refers to the size of the multi-version repository, or to just a single check out?
Either way, if the LOC is 6M for NT and 29M for 2K (numbers taken from the slides you linked), I can easily imagine it all fitting into a net-friendly sized zip file. Hell, my 2.4.23 tarball is about 29MB and has 3.6M lines (including comments) in the
Re:So much for security through obscurity (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For those that need more proof (Score:5, Interesting)
win2k/bsc/.glimpse_filenames_index
etc.
Huh? What's with the "."? Are they using Unix?
win2k/private/inet/mshtml/src/site/download/png
win2k/private/inet/mshtml/src/site/download/zl
win2k/private/inet/mshtml/src/site/download/j
win2k/private/inet/urlmon/compress/gzip/
(AFAIK nothing illegal in using these, but interesting to know. Maybe the gnumakefiles are for these and similar?)
win2k/private/ntos/rtl/boot/i386/cv - vered mazafi.eml
win2k/private/shell/wontfix.txt
win2
win2k/private/shell
win2k/private/shell/cpls/appw
Interesting...
win2k/private/shell/ext/viruschk/
win2k/privat
Wha?
At least that list looks pretty damn convincing... If that list is a hoax its a pretty damn well made one.
Re:So much for security through obscurity (Score:3, Interesting)
Mod Parent Up !! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The real question is, of course - (Score:2, Interesting)
Re::: prediction :: (Score:1, Interesting)
"Hey, we'd really like to know what our competitor is doing, could you take a look?"
"Sure, hold on"
"Here's some specs how it works"
"Great. Hey, you coders: start implementing this"
It's legal since actual code isn't shown to the implementors, only specs.
Re:So much for security through obscurity (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps your personal experience in server rooms has misled you about the HUGE number of Win9x installations on user desktops?
Re:SHORT THE STOCK? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you are going to short the stock on news like this though, you're just asking to lose money. There is no telling, really, how Wall Street will react to vague technical news. Plus, the stock could dip and rebound so quickly that trading is frozen and you are stuck in at an arbitrary price with no idea where it will end up. Very stressful--I recommend against it.
Re:SCO Code in Win2000 (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows (at least non-NT) was designed to be a gui on top of DOS. i.e. it is derivative of dos.
Dos as purchased was a 16 bit clone of 8-bit CPM, which means that it is derivative of CPM.
CPM was desined to be a single user, single tasking implementation of UNIX.
Therefore Windows (through 98) was a derivative work of UNIX.
Additionally, it is obvious that Windows NT was a derivative of OS/2. They even use the same command interpreter, cmd.exe (different versions perhaps.) Micorsoft obviously leveraged what they had learned from working with Unix in the creation of OS/2 versions 1.0-1.3. So Windows NT, and subsequent versions are all derivative works of Unix as well. This might go a long way towards explaining why the BSD IP stack was such a clean fit into Windows.
Then again, perhaps this is just flamebait...
No GPL - Lots of BSD (Score:4, Interesting)
It makes sense... (Score:3, Interesting)
from around the IRC campfires (Score:5, Interesting)
Topic of #phrack: "wake me when they find the code that lets the FBI in"
NT4 source leaked long ago (Score:2, Interesting)
The source code for MS-DOS 6.0 can be found on the usuall filesharing networks and has a few amusing comments in it.
Re:Someone PLEASE... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So much for security through obscurity (Score:2, Interesting)
Rubbish! It's more likely that there are one helluva lot more machines running some pre-2000 version of windows than the latest version. Why there would be a disproportionate number of security issues with 2000/xp is beyond my knowledge
Re:For those that need more proof (Score:2, Interesting)
Another thing I found interesting (considering the age of the snapshot) is the presence of ia64 support.
Re:No GPL - Lots of BSD (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Finnaly de-lurked (Score:4, Interesting)
Open source is less likely to have that problem in the first place. I mean, the code is open, so the programmer would get caught. Closed source software, on the other hand, is more likely to contain illegal code, because nobody can easily prove it, being closed and all.
Re:it's true (Score:5, Interesting)
private/shell/applets/welcome/html/webapp.cpp:
private/shell/shell32/copy.c:// want to fuck with.
private/shell/shell32/util.cpp:// the fucking alpha cpp compiler seems to fuck up the goddam type "LPITEMIDLIST", so to work
private/shell/shell32/util.cpp:// around the fucking peice of shit compiler we pass the last param as an void *instead of a LPITEMIDLIST
private/shell/shell32/util.h:// the fucking alpha cpp compiler seems to fuck up the goddam type "LPITEMIDLIST", so to work
private/shell/shell32/util.h:// around the fucking peice of shit compiler we pass the last param as an LPVOID instead of a LPITEMIDLIST
private/windbg64/debugger/tl/remote
private/windows/media/avi/verinfo.16/verinfo.
private/windows/shell/co
If you believe in Open Source or Free Software... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I would desperately like MS to release the code under an open-source, but closed-project style licence; that is, the code belongs to them, and for any derivative code MS is automatically granted a licence to to sublicence and do whatever they wish. It should not be permissible for the code to be included in another product without the explicit say so from MS. Microsoft could protect theselves financially by being the only source for binaries. BillG are you listening? Win2K, with open source could be sooooo good, and you would still make a stack of money. Plus you'd have a huge team looking at improving the software, for nothing.
It's worth a shot if the code has escaped. At worst you'll get a second product line.
Re:SHORT THE STOCK? (Score:5, Interesting)
most ppl are downloading it to have something to brag about. others are just peeking at it for the fun of it, like me. just a few grep's showed some interesting things...
the file actually is the zip to the spreading files.txt
whats a little bit weird is a linux coredump at private/security/msv_sspi/core
it appears someone named eyala from mainsoft [mainsoft.com] used vim (VIM - Vi IMproved 5.6 (2000 Jan 16, compiled Mar 7 2000 12:18:07)) on a redhat x86 box under xfree86/kde on a w2k sp1 sourcefile, well until the box ran out of memory...
The EML Files (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't believe you haven't figured out what the EML files are yet.
Anyone remember NIMDA? The worm from 2002 I think? It had this exact same effect of sticking infected eml files all over your folders (by taking some names from your files, and others randomly). Opening those EML files or forwarding them would guarantee future and constant infection.
It's clearly evident that this machine was infected by nimda and got port-scanned and found. The rest of the code is probably going to come soon enough, unless MS already found out and pulled the plug.
By the way, alpha doesn't mean "Alpha Version" but the Alpha CPU made by DEC, now owned by Compaq.
Re:Someone got into Mac OS X's source and posted i (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:it's true (Score:5, Interesting)
The code varies greatly in style and how it's put together. The MSMQ code where I spent most of my time when I worked at MS support is just friggin brilliant and a real joy to debug. I can't say that about everything (IE
GNU Makefiles...! (Score:2, Interesting)
There are many more...! Everything from GNU is either GPL'd or LGPL'd, if it gets out M$ is going to be in a world of hurt!
Obviously a hoax, easily spotted (Score:1, Interesting)
Conclusion: this is obviously a part hoax. There seems to be partly authentic code from various Microsoft projects, combined with some injected "authenticity-confirmation-stuff", such as fake comments and notes.
Now get over it.
aaekhm-zzkjg--b
Could it be... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re::: prediction :: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The real question is, of course - (Score:5, Interesting)
xbox screwed??? (Score:2, Interesting)
...but it's just text (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Here is a Torrent link ... 200MB download (Score:1, Interesting)
Copyright (c) 1989-1999 Microsoft Corporation
Module Name:
ntseapi.h
Abstract:
This module contains the Security APIs and any public data
structures needed to call these APIs.
This module should be included by including "nt.h".
Author:
Gary Kimura (GaryKi) 06-Mar-1989
SNippets of Code: Yes this is REAL DAHm!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright (c) 1996-1999 Microsoft Corporation
Module Name:
icm.h
Abstract:
Public header file for Image Color Management
Revision History:
--*/
#ifndef _ICM_H_
#define _ICM_H_
#if _MSC_VER > 1000
#pragma once
#endif
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
typedef char COLOR_NAME[32];
typedef COLOR_NAME *PCOLOR_NAME, *LPCOLOR_NAME;
typedef struct tagNAMED_PROFILE_INFO{
DWORD dwFlags;
DWORD dwCount;
DWORD dwCountDevCoordinates;
COLOR_NAME szPrefix;
COLOR_NAME szSuffix;
}NAMED_PROFILE_INFO;
typedef NAMED_PROFILE_INFO *PNAMED_PROFILE_INFO, *LPNAMED_PROFILE_INFO;
#define MAX_COLOR_CHANNELS 8
Open Source bashing (Score:3, Interesting)
A smoking gun? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:GNU Makefiles...! (Score:2, Interesting)
There are some interesting ramifications if M$ did in fact use any GNU code. I would not be surprised if they did since if there is one group that has heisted, or at least imitated software that is better than what they have it is M$.
Since the source for all GNU is available, it is easy to see it end up being used by M$ especially since they had no reason to ever suspect that they would be caught for doing so, and they know the code already works.
What would happen though is very interesting. The GPL license issues with this would be like nothing ever before seen in courts. The really interesting thing is if there was enough found to prove that M$ was using stolen code, then a court could conceivably force a search for more infringed code.
Even more interesting would be how the press would play this. Most press coverage of the SCO issue leave the non-tech people ( ie. Stock traders that hear news without understanding it ) with the idea that SCO is right about owning Linux. I have heard this numerous times from day-traders. If it came out that M$ was in fact stealing licensed code, they would be fried by the media and the stock markets.
This is all supposition at this point, but I wouldn't mind watching it play out.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a TRAP!!! /Adm. Ackbar (Score:4, Interesting)
The other thing is that MS would have to PROVE that you did see/use the source code. You can just say that you reverse engineered it.
Of course it is illegal to USE the source code. So if some wine guy goes and plops down a chunk of MS's source code into wine, then yes, that would be illegal. I am not sure if it would be illegal for some wine guy to look at the code and use some of that knowlege gained that is not under a patent in wine. Think about this. I can walk into a book store and read through a book. I can later write a book with that very same theme and I have not broken any copyright laws. What I cannot do is copy the book verbatim or distribute that as my own work.
I am under the impression that copyright laws do not prevent you from creating a work based on knowledge of another work. As long as you do not use the original work verbatim. I can go and create a movie called Planet Wars with a lead character named Duke SlyStalker based on a very similiar theme as Star Wars. I can write a book with a theme just like LOTR with trolls, hobbits, elves, dwarfs, etc. I can paint my own version of very famous paintings. I can make music that sounds like other popular music.
I don't see what legal case MS would have against someone who viewed their source code and made an application that used that knowledge, again, as long as their is not a patent covering what you are re-creating. The only way I can see MS having a legal case is if you signed an NDA with MS.
*Note*: I am not a lawyer and I can be completely wrong about copyright laws.
Re:It's a TRAP!!! /Adm. Ackbar (Score:4, Interesting)
But, it happens all the time. ALL the time. You think the programmers at MS haven't poured through the Linux code? If what you say is correct, then Windows must be littered with Linux code just because they studied and learned something from it?
There's a line between reverse engineering and access to source code; but you're unlikely to prove something wasn't reverse engineered unless you copy and paste the code.
It may be unethical to use leaked MS code to improve your compatibility solutions, but with all the underhanded and generally nasty things corporations are doing, it's just more of the same..
And about your comment about the "IBM PC BIOS." Not even close. Proving that you copied a 256kbit bios is a lot easier then proving you used information learned from studying 50 lines of code out of 40GB...
Hey, I'm no saint in real life.. no need to be one online.
Re:.eml files (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone elses brain getting ready to explode? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, with linux there's a temptation but nobody runs it. With windows, everyone runs it.
Then you've got the consiracy theory: MS leaked it intentionally so they can get everyone to patch with their DRM system. Possible, but who's going to go after that when linux is here? DRM and years of MS abuse and domination, or a 1-time switch over with occasional retraining of employee's.
I mean, I like linux and all but this isn't the way to win at all. I thought we were going to slowly beat them back into submission and competition, not completly screw them and quite a few million over. Hell, I'm thinking of taking a few games and making some fakes on my boxen and getting guys to share MD5 hashes just to make them look more real.
Well, time to begin caching DNS entries to websites I use the most, and it may be high time to backup some of this data and close all the nat ports on my router just to be extra safe.
Talk about a digital pearl harbor, holey moley this isn't good.
A bit about the developer... (Score:4, Interesting)
At the very bottom is the owner of the core file.
A friend took a look at their FTP server, looks like an unpatched wuftpd, gee, i wonder how they got in....
220 circle.mainsoft.com FTP server (Version wu-2.6.1(1) Thu Oct 12 09:06:04 PDT 2000) ready.
Re:The real question is, of course - (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:it's true (Score:3, Interesting)
Case in point: Microsoft started nearly from scratch (licensed a simpler browser, IIRC) with IE, at around the same time Netscape decided it was unable to maintain its aging source code. IE overtook Netscape
You might want to read Eric Sink [ericsink.com] on how this happened:
Apple then did the same years later, starting with KHTML (generally considered inferior to Gecko), and within a pretty short time has a really polished Safari browser.Well you're making the other guy's point, since KHTML was, precisely, (open source and) being reused.
TIME WARNER IS KILLING CONNECTIONS (Score:1, Interesting)
Does anyone else on Time Warner have same result?
Spooky.
Re:The real question is, of course - (Score:3, Interesting)
I think its pretty obvious that this "code" has been stolen from Microsoft either by someone breaking in or someone releasing it illegally against their NDA or against the working contract with Microsoft. In this instance, I would be highly wary even downloading the code.
As for all your other points, you are correct, as long as no illegal method was used to get the code, aka reverse engineering or stealing it.
Re:Irony of ironies.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I work there now, and after having all my net taps cut off at the router one day because I inadvertently left an unpatched OS (I typically have several on a test box) running overnight (some sniffer demon noticed it hadn't been patched), I'd have to say, "NOT LIKELY!"
Oh, and the file list looks pretty authentic to me- I wrote (tiny) parts of Win2K, and I found my files right where I left them. I didn't read the contents, and I'm sure they would have changed between when I finished and the OS was released 3 years later
IMO, this leak happened the old fashioned way- people of weak character and dubious morality don't value what doesn't belong to them, and do with it as their own blinding egos let them see fit. Social Engineering worked for someone..
It's a hoax. (Score:1, Interesting)
All of them are partial WinNT 3.51 source code...
What a disappointment...
Neowin sucks (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:it's true (Score:3, Interesting)
Although I don't think MS would deliberately release the windows source code just to "taint" open source projects as some here have suggested, I think it's quite plausible that MS could fill up some zips with garbage data and release the IP and password of a honeypot server containing the 'windows source code'. They could catch a whole bunch of warez and script kiddies, without exposing themselves to real damage.
The moral of the story: never accespt a free ride from Microsoft, even if they offer tasty candy.
The Xbox source code leaked over a year ago (Score:1, Interesting)
The forcedeth driver authors have ignored the many emails to them containing the nForce register list and documentation from the leaked Xbox source code.
WINE has ignored emails to them about the real name and purpose of the SystemFunctionXXX calls in advapi32.dll. (The header file doing the #define's to rename them was in the Xbox source, supposedly.)
anonymous woman
Re:So much for security through obscurity (Score:2, Interesting)
So, lets help MS out and find the holes! (Score:3, Interesting)
After all, we all do want a more secure internet, with less virii, worms and bugs. So why not help out?
I can't imagine what MS reaction would be if they actually started getting serious _help_ from the open source community, instead of the regular bashing.
And - it would be a Good Thing as well... Remember - it's Valentine's day tomorrow...
Microsoft called me... (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyhoo, he said that only parts of the code had been released and not the whole tamale. Furthermore, the code is not possible to compile from the source that has been leaked.
Can anyone here confirm / deny that the whole code set for Windows 2000 / NT has been released?
Mail me at pal.unanue@NOSPAM.vg.no
Re:"The Source" :) (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The real question is, of course - (Score:2, Interesting)
Conspiracy Theory (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting tidbits from the source.. (Score:5, Interesting)
4667 *.c files. 5601 *.h files. 2255 *.cpp files. 26 *.hpp files. 1456 *.cxx files. 961 *.hxx files. 148
Lines of code:Some grepping..Bugs anyone?Curious; grepping for 'linux':'grep -r -i's with no results: GNU/Linux, GNU GPL. Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer,
Re:Here is a Torrent link ... 200MB download (Score:1, Interesting)
He's lost products, less people will buy his products and
there is physical damage to the store.
What is the damage to Microsofts 'store'? They don't have
to replace broken windows, or smased in counters. They
might have to fix some bugs, but they should have done
that in the first place! Are people not going to buy Window
XP because they can compile parts of Windows 2K ?
The damage MS has, is PR-damage, nothing more. And
off course they wil have to hire some security experts to
review all the code, so that they can bring out patches
before the worms come out to play. But this isn't really
neccecary, since MS already has 'trustworthy computing',
right?
Unless MS is really afread that people might find code
that has no other purpose then hinder competition
from Java, Open Office, RealPlayer, DR-DOS, Netscape, Opera, etc, etc?
And about you're friends at MS:
Even if there were damage, and MS would go broke!, then
thiswould be best thing ever happening to them, because
the market wouldn't go away, and the could work for a nice
company which would give them a decent salary, so they
wouldn't have to 'Bust their asses' for a company who
clearly doesn't care about them.
You remind me of people who were against the abolition
of slavery, because it would be bad for the slaves...
You disgust me. You are NO DIFFERENT than a moron
working for a PR-company selling his soul for a fistfull
of dollars.
Re:It's a TRAP!!! /Adm. Ackbar (Score:5, Interesting)
if (InbvIsBootDriverInstalled()) {
InbvAcquireDisplayOwnership();
InbvResetDisplay();
InbvSolidColorFill(0,0,639,479,4);
InbvSetTextColor(15);
InbvInstallDisplayStringFilter((INBV_DISPLAY_STRI
InbvEnableDisplayString(TRUE);
InbvSetScrollRegion(0,0,639,479);
}
Re:Mod Parent Up !! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The shit will hit the fan + Mirror (Score:2, Interesting)
Prediction: Windows marriage of Linux in China. We'll all be importing Chinese Winux in a few years.
If Linux developers in the USA use ideas from Chinese Winux they will not know about a possible relating Windows copyright?
Worse yet, the leak will probably reveal how unadvanced Windows really is. Aside from the blue screen and bloat technical people will have to actually compare the implementations of Windows versus Linux. Scheduler for instance! Windows books always say it was a round robin but maybe we find it is more timesharing like the 2.3 kernel.
Re:It's a TRAP!!! /Adm. Ackbar (Score:2, Interesting)
This is just a theory, but if the person who publishes it cannot be traced, and those who learn from the protocol specs never see the code, then I don't think there is much MS can do.
Mainsoft has a source license (Score:1, Interesting)
Mainwin began life as a reverse-engineering of the win32 API's. What they found over time is what the Wine and Mono teams are finding the hard way; Microsoft has jillions of programmers, and are very willing to keep rewriting their platform, and to add tons of new modules, at a rapid pace. You simply cannot keep up if you're reverse engineering, because Microsoft will outpace you 10 times over.
Since Mainsoft is a commercial enterprise the then President convinced them to get a source license, using the above argument. Jeff got laid off the same time I did (nov 1996).
At the time I was there, we had source trees to DOS 6.xx, Win 95, NT 3.51, and NT 4.0 beta 2. Remember this was in 1995-6 timeframe, and those were the then-current releases. We also had source for Internet Explorer v3.x and were working to port it to Unix. Mainsoft later collaborated with Microsoft to port IE v4 to Unix, and Microsoft made that port available on their web site.
I was the first one to port any source code from NT into the Mainwin product. We had a number of listbox related bugs, and I had a theory that since our Listbox.c was 2000 lines, and Microsoft's list{1,2,3,4}.c source was over 8000 lines, that we were missing a few pieces of functionality, and got permission to experiment with moving Microsoft's source to the Mainwin source tree. It was a successful experiment, and let us close out a whole slew of listbox related bugs.
With having our own copy of the source tree, we were also able to port various modules like WINSOCK and COM directly from their source code. COM was especially important because it was, at the time, 2 million lines of code, and a totally daunting prospect of reverse engineering the functionality.
In any case, I was wanting to give a little background since you guys are talking about Mainsoft. It shouldn't be a surprise that Mainsoft has a Windows source license.
- David Herron
Why does trash attract so much interest? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is only garbage that has leaked, after all. It has no real value to anyone, although it may have a perceived value to the Convicted Monopolist and those unfortunates who have been misled by his marketing machine. In fact, like garbage, its real value, based on its cost less the cost of cleaning up after each problem with it, is negative. It has a negative environmental impact, just like what goes to incinerators and landfill sites. No doubt people are picking over it as I type, laughing at certain features, as they might find amusement in the contents of some rubbish bins.... The difference between this code and garbage is that garbage is the unusable left-overs from something inherently useful, or an unwanted byproduct of a useful process, unfortunately the Monopolist has not come up with the good part of which the garbage is the remnant......... (Unless of course it is the left-over garbage from Wordpad, which is of tolerable quality, but in that case the garbage outweighs the wanted product at least 10000:1, which must be the lowest yield in history.)
Surely, even SCO is more profitable to discuss that the trash of Redmond. At least SCO's OS (or what they claim is their's...) is fairly stable and secure.
Seriously though, I might even have a look myself when I find out where it is. Then I might go out and rummage in some bins....
Re:It's a TRAP!!! /Adm. Ackbar (Score:1, Interesting)
If you have seen one, it's easy to reproduce: just take Linux laptop with IrDA, point it to a Windows laptop with IrDA, and run the irping command. You will immediately recieve a STOP fault.