FBI on the Windows Source Code Theft 504
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.' "
Simple question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Simple question (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:well... (Score:5, Funny)
there is no half of globalization (Score:5, Insightful)
I said it before and I'll say it again: the globalization MUST be improved. If they want investigations across the borders - they have to remove the borders. That include the freedom to trade across the borders, the freedom to hire across the borders, the freedom to ELECT across the borders, the freedom to immigrate across the borders.
You don't wanna give that freedom to people? Enjoy your useless attempts to sue DVD hackers in Norvey and find IP addresses in Russia.
Remember: there is no such thing as "half of globalization". It either exists givig equal opportunities and freedoms to everyone, or it doesn't exist at all.
Re:well... (Score:4, Funny)
Is there a way to hide your IP yet? Surely SOMEONE has come out with a way to hide IP addresses from those who snoop?
Oh, absolutely. The trick is to change your IP address to that of someone else, or even a completely invalid IP address. Just hook your computer up to your DLS or cable modem, let it assign you a dynamic address then manually override that address, changing it to something else. The "private" IP address spaces work well, like anything in 10.x.x.x or 192.168.x.x, to name two.
Of course, having effectively disguised your source IP, you will have made it impossible for any other system on the Internet to send packets to you, so you won't actually be able to download anything...
Re:Simple question (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Yes, you can find DOS 6 source! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Simple question (Score:5, Informative)
Key: CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue01uUKoEM
Bytes: 213748207
CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue01uUKo
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].
Re:Simple question (Score:5, Funny)
so why do you post as an Anonymous Coward?
Re:Simple question (Score:3, Funny)
Yep any p2p can track. (Score:5, Interesting)
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....
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Scapegoat (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Scapegoat (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Scapegoat (Score:5, Funny)
Buy a laptop for cash at wal-mart
configure netstumbler
upload source code on random insecure wi-fi miles away from your house in a metropolotin area
Throw said laptop in fire
Drive home and watch a re-run of friends.
thats it.
Re:Scapegoat (Score:3, Informative)
Tools alone dont assume guilt (Score:3, Insightful)
Its your JOB to make sure that you arent vunerable..
But, you have to convince the jury of that....
Re:Scapegoat (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds more like a retard with a gay piece of software. 00h, ph33r my h0neyp0t. It is my
Re:Scapegoat (Score:5, Informative)
Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (Score:4, Interesting)
Check this out:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speec
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward--reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
Good to hear it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good to hear it (Score:5, Funny)
"In jeopardy is Microsoft's near-monopoly" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, It's very lucky that there is absolutely no way to obtain any MS source code! [microsoft.com]
The Secret Coca Cola Formula Can Be Found Here: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"In jeopardy is Microsoft's near-monopoly" (Score:3, Insightful)
Water, high fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose, caramel color, phosphoric acid, natural flavors, caffeine.
Uh uh the fuzz is after me.
Re:"In jeopardy is Microsoft's near-monopoly" (Score:3, Funny)
Coke Minus Cocaine But With Coca Derivatives? (Score:4, Interesting)
As I understand it (sorry I forget where I read this), although cocaine was removed from the formula, Coca-Cola continued to use other flavoring agents from the coca plant for some time (although I gather that today's Coke uses no coca derivatives whatsoever).
So
-kgj
Coke Adds ... Something (not sure what) (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting note... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting note... (Score:5, Informative)
Illegal to download? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Illegal to download? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Illegal to download? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Illegal to download? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
That particular case would hold up (Score:3, Insightful)
( 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
Re:Illegal to download? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Illegal to download? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Illegal to download? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Illegal to download? (Score:4, Informative)
Downloading from the net is not illegal. Putting stuff on the net you don't have rights to is - but the downloaders aren't doing that. They are just accessing publicly available information.
Blueprints? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:Blueprints? (Score:5, Funny)
Technically, only if you printed it. In blue.
Re:Blueprints? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blueprints? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Blueprints? (Score:3, Insightful)
These things are relative:
1) flow chart:source code
2) source code:machine code
3) machine code:execution
4) building requirements spec:blueprint
5) blueprint:house
6) house:daily life
What I find neat is that the relation is transitive, i.e
Re:Blueprints? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blueprints? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Blueprint not a bad metaphor (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Blueprints? (Score:3, Informative)
"These instructions have to be converted from the programming language in which they are written, like C or Java or C++ into a binary equivalent that the computer can understand, but that process is not analogous to building a house from blueprints - it's more like translating a book from one language into another."
Re:Blueprints? (Score:5, Funny)
What and ruin another pedantic rant with facts? Never.
MIcrosoft is ultradevious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MIcrosoft is ultradevious (Score:3, Insightful)
heh... (Score:5, Funny)
Chris
I don't know if this is true (Score:3, Interesting)
As one have already said here, the best thing to do is to stay away from that file.
Re:I don't know if this is true (Score:5, Interesting)
I spoke with a gent on the same network reporting the same experience (could be the same guy
It's not FUD. The gent in question also mentioned that his torrent download jumped from about 100K/s to 600K/s at some point through the download, which would lead me to believe that somebody with fat pipes *cough*Microsoft*cough* jumped into the swarm, likely in order to start tracing IP addresses.
I do wonder a bit about that, however, because if Microsoft jumps into the torrent to start nabbing IP's, haven't they also contributed to the dissemination of the source code by participating in its distribution? I'd imagine that it's no more of a problem for them legally than it is to undercover police selling drugs in sting operations. I do wonder if it should be, however...especially considering that they're *not* a law enforcement agency.
Dan
Re:I don't know if this is true (Score:5, Informative)
Not so much fuss about Debian or SF break ins (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd think the FBI had some sort of pro-corporate bias!
Re:Not so much fuss about Debian or SF break ins (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not so much fuss about Debian or SF break ins (Score:3, Insightful)
The more money you have, the more of an American you really are in the eyes of the government.
blueprints or (Score:3, Funny)
or punch cards (just in case you still dont get it)
Help your local law enforcement team (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Help your local law enforcement team (Score:3, Informative)
MSHTML was in the .tar and Winsock (Score:5, Interesting)
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
What is there to investigate? (Score:5, Funny)
Pure Public Relations (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Download it on Freenet...Anonymously! (Score:5, Informative)
File: windows_2000_source_code.zip
Key: CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue01uUKoEM
Bytes: 213748207
CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue01uUKo
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].
The article is complete crap (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The article is complete crap (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft doesn't know how the source was released (Score:5, Interesting)
--CTH
Re:Microsoft doesn't know how the source was relea (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1526831,00
Piracy != lost profit (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Piracy != lost profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Torrent for W2K and NT4 source (Score:3, Informative)
http://torrent.spyderlake.com/download.php?i
W2K (208 Mb)
http://torrent.spyderlake.com/download.php?i
Re:Torrent for W2K and NT4 source (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Torrent for W2K and NT4 source (Score:3, Troll)
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
shoulda been posted on microsoft.com (Score:4, Funny)
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 ?
Who'd want that old junk anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
The Immaculate Transmission (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Immaculate Transmission (Score:3, Informative)
Fun files in the Win2000 source code (Score:3, Funny)
win2k/private/windows/shell/control/bitmaps/std
win2k/private/windows/shell/control/bitmaps/nt
TEH FUNNAY!!!!1
Parent is funny, but possible TRAP (Score:3, Funny)
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
According to BetaNews, Mainsoft is to blame.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:According to BetaNews, Mainsoft is to blame.... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
DMCA in full effect (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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)
Speaks volumes about our society (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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?
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.
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.
In any case, Mi
Would somebody please tell me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:maybe now... (Score:5, Funny)
No, you're wrong (Score:3, Funny)
(c.f. Bugfest! Win2000 has 63,000 defects! [zdnet.co.uk]
Re:Not normally pro Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't had many problems with it.
Maybe you are over reacting.
Not that I condone this
Re:Not normally pro Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source code is available for everyone. Only criminals can use the Windows code.
Re:Not normally pro Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole affair is going to have one effect similar to that of major virus upgrades: it will scare the recalcitrant to upgrade.
Deliberately falling short of carrying that analysis any further...
Re:Not normally pro Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
The leak of the code scares the shit out of me. We've had some rather nasty security bits on the net lately and this is not a reassuring development.
will increase the time I have to spend securing my system. although true, my main target in such a suit would MS itself for (1) not securing the code properly (2) recent stories (and past ones) of them sitting on security patches for months on end.
If someone broke into my house and I followed my handbook and best practice about securing my house and it was STILL penetrated I want to go after the security document, not the intruder (the intruder would be handled by the criminal courts, my case is civil and monetary in nature since everytime some BS exploit is released and MS hasn't a patch my company is spending money to monitor and sort things out.
Vary rarely will you see a class-action suit against an individual (I can't recall one, just ones against companies when their neglegence is going to lead to a large cash settlement..... I wonder how the MS lobbyest have protected them from such action)
Re:Not normally pro Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
You're quite right - but there is a difference...
Let's use the home metaphor - you live in a house in a neighbourhood built by "MS Homes". They are nice, comfortable homes, but the security system involves closing your front door with a plastic latch. Because the latch doesn't LOOK like plastic, everyone feels secure. Burglars, however, suspect there is an easy way in to the homes.
Now, if none of the good guys examine the security and say, "Hey, maybe these latches should be steel", then eventually a bad guy will figure it out and your home is open for business.
In such an event, if a good guy opened *a* front door on a *single* MS home, then posted a note in the local newpaper that maybe latches should be upgraded, I'd sleep with a shotgun until my latch was replaced. In the end, I'd have a safer home and know it. Without the good guy, I don't have a safe home, AND I'm unaware until a break in.
That is the difference (Score:4, Interesting)
...between the real world and the ideal world.
First, get rid of the real bad guys. Once they are guarenteed to be gone, I'll support locking up anyone who enjoys 'testing' security on computers. Until then, they are a lesser evil made tolerable by their effect on the virulence of a greater evil.
On a side note - how often do you think the locks on your doors help you? I have yet to see a residential door that would stop a good shoulder. My old house had a lovely steel door - in a thin wood frame that would split if you looked at it. Windows break if they can't be jimmied. Only once was my house ever entered because I didn't lock the door - and that was a new neighbour who was mortified that she'd entered the wrong house!
Re:Idiot world (Score:4, Funny)
Not anymore...