Microsoft Gets Tough(er) on Windows Piracy...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by steve, Jul 27, 2005.

  1. steve

    steve Guest

    Robert Cooze wrote:

    > I have Seen this comming I am using Wine on linux. Using wine tools I
    > down loaded a lot of proggies like DCOM98 and stuff like that. Now wine
    > aint a version of windows at all so next time i try that I can't
    > download :) But i have most of the stuff on disk and a licence key too
    > for win 98SE I think I still have a old win98 registry backedup some
    > where now if i put than in my wine install would it be legit? :p


    You'd have to read the EULA for the final word on that.

    It would probably LOOK legit to a remote system that queried those things.

    :)
     
    steve, Jul 28, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. steve

    Bruce Flyger Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > If this type of checker is used to prevent updates, then there are going to
    > be a lot of genuine users missing out on updates. Of course, this is bad
    > for everyone, as home PCs risk being vectors for worms or being taken over
    > by a trojan.


    AFAIK, all Windows XP systems, pirated or otherwise, can still download
    security updates using auto update. The new WGA scheme only prevents
    people running illegitimate copies from maually running Windows update
    and downloading certain programs from Microsoft's downloads page.

    There are currently cracks out that replace the legitcheckcontrol.dll,
    this new .dll always returns a "0" value which tells the validation
    control that the copy of windows is valid regardless.

    Another way to get around this is to simply disable the WGA validation
    tool under "manage addons" in IE.


    --
    Get Thunderbird <http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/>
    Get Firefox <http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/>
     
    Bruce Flyger, Jul 29, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. steve

    Bret Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:18:15 +1200, Bruce Flyger
    <> wrote:

    >Peter wrote:
    >> If this type of checker is used to prevent updates, then there are going to
    >> be a lot of genuine users missing out on updates. Of course, this is bad
    >> for everyone, as home PCs risk being vectors for worms or being taken over
    >> by a trojan.

    >
    >AFAIK, all Windows XP systems, pirated or otherwise, can still download
    >security updates using auto update. The new WGA scheme only prevents
    >people running illegitimate copies from maually running Windows update
    >and downloading certain programs from Microsoft's downloads page.
    >
    >There are currently cracks out that replace the legitcheckcontrol.dll,
    >this new .dll always returns a "0" value which tells the validation
    >control that the copy of windows is valid regardless.
    >
    >Another way to get around this is to simply disable the WGA validation
    >tool under "manage addons" in IE.


    Seems it has been defeated easily.

    http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/28/microsoft_genuine_ad.html
     
    Bret, Jul 29, 2005
    #23
  4. steve

    PAM. Guest

    "Porky" <> wrote in message

    > Just dont connect that box to the internet and you should be perfectly
    > safe PAM :)


    Pah!. If my machine gets mashed then it's an opportunity to tidy the whole
    thing up and start again.
    :)

    All my major important docs are on CD or at Yahoo so it's not as though it's
    that serious. Just annoying.

    PAM.
     
    PAM., Jul 29, 2005
    #24
  5. steve

    Porky Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:36:47 +1200, PAM. wrote:

    > "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >> A bit too worryingly Dimdows-like, I suspect. That's the one where the
    >> user is always running as root, right? So in principle it's just as
    >> prone to 0wning attacks as Dimdows is.


    At least your honest on this one issue ..

    I wonder if leenier will rant all week about the stupidy of a OS thats
    running with admin rights ...

    But Lennier claims only IDIOTS like micro$ft would ever do that.


    > Correct. You can set up users if you like so the ability is there, however
    > when installing you have to go back to root so it causes hassle for the
    > Windows to Linux converts and that's not what you would want, IMO.
    >
    > But you are correct. It is just as prone to attacks....if there were any and
    > you had your firewall turned off (on as default). And you downloaded
    > something from an email or mp3, mpeg. As for downloading software,, in
    > theory, you'd be getting it from the CNR wareouse so there would be no
    > viruses there.
    >
    > PAM.


    Just dont connect that box to the internet and you should be perfectly
    safe PAM :)


    Can you say Owned ...... hahahaha
     
    Porky, Jul 29, 2005
    #25
  6. steve

    shannon Guest

    PAM. wrote:
    > "Porky" <> wrote in message
    >
    >
    >>Just dont connect that box to the internet and you should be perfectly
    >>safe PAM :)

    >
    >
    > Pah!. If my machine gets mashed then it's an opportunity to tidy the whole
    > thing up and start again.
    > :)
    >
    > All my major important docs are on CD or at Yahoo so it's not as though it's
    > that serious. Just annoying.
    >
    > PAM.
    >
    >



    http://www.linspire.com/answermichael.php?page=question_root


    Q: How secure is the Linspire operating system, and do I have the option
    of not running as "root"?

    A: We leave the option of running as root or not up to the computer
    owner. Linspire makes it easy to maintain and add user accounts (from
    the Settings menu after installation) which do not run as root.

    As for security, Linspire is extremely secure. Linspire ships with a
    very strict firewall in place and no open network services, so remote
    hacks to the average user is extremely unlikely. If a user is
    knowledgeable enough to open a port, chances are they are also
    knowledgeable enough to use the firewall properly to avoid introducing
    any security vulnerabilities.

    And finally, Linspire users can, with one click of their mouse, protect
    their computer from viruses with VirusSafe, our built-in virus protection.

    With password logins, a built-in firewall, virus protection, and the
    ability to create and assign multiple non-root users, Linspire has all
    the security Linux is known for.
     
    shannon, Jul 29, 2005
    #26
  7. steve

    Robert Cooze Guest

    steve wrote:
    > Robert Cooze wrote:
    >
    >> I have Seen this comming I am using Wine on linux. Using wine tools I
    >> down loaded a lot of proggies like DCOM98 and stuff like that. Now
    >> wine aint a version of windows at all so next time i try that I can't
    >> download :) But i have most of the stuff on disk and a licence key
    >> too for win 98SE I think I still have a old win98 registry backedup
    >> some where now if i put than in my wine install would it be legit? :p

    >
    >
    > You'd have to read the EULA for the final word on that.
    >
    > It would probably LOOK legit to a remote system that queried those things.
    >
    > :)

    I think the point is that win98 variants are really past there use by
    legit or not. the only value now is to run a few old leagisy type apps.
    The EULA should be read by a lawer before we actually can agree in a
    informed manor. That could make installing a commercial OS expensive and
    even more time consuming assuming each EULA was red and understood!!
    I have win311, win 95b and win98se with licenses and only one installed
    example (win98se on first partition of HD that Linux is on)

    The scary thing is some of them run better under wine than in windows
    its self. (win98se or XP or win2K) as tested by me seems odd i guess.
    I have been using TMPGeng and it defently runs faster in wine than on XP
    and the system still has some go to do other things.

    I could simlink most of the real Win98 to the fake windows (not too
    happy as the last time I did this It renamed a lot of stuff). or even
    copy the stuff to the fake windows, or just leave it there is not much I
    need from Microsoft now as I have the essentials to run what I need.



    --
    http://cooze.co.nz home of the RecyclerMan aka Robert Cooze

    / __/ / / / / /__ / / ___/ / __/ / / / |/ / /__ /
    / / / /_/ / / /_/ / _-' / __/ / / / /_/ / / /| / _-'
    ___\ ____/ ____/ /___/ /____/ /_/ ___\ ____/ /_/ /_/ |_/ /___/
     
    Robert Cooze, Jul 29, 2005
    #27
  8. steve

    Peter Guest

    Bret wrote:
    >
    > Seems it has been defeated easily.
    >
    > http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/28/microsoft_genuine_ad.html


    Like I said, it will only stop the honest and innocent users.

    Sort of like the "copy protected" music CDs, that stop some honest users but
    don't prevent copies being made.


    Crazy.

    What are these big corporations thinking?


    Peter
     
    Peter, Jul 29, 2005
    #28
  9. In article <42e76717$>,
    steve <> wrote:

    >I went to linux becasue I couldn't afford to put Windows on 9 home-built
    >PCs. It would have cost thousands to install full copies and then pay
    >for upgrades and anti-virus software subscriptions and spyware / adware
    >subscriptions......just to USE the damn thing.
    >
    >Linux allows me all the function I want / need and I avoid all that
    >Windows-targeted hassle.


    I think most reasonable people would agree that, of all the desktop
    systems you could use today, if you want the least trouble-free
    experience, you can't go past Microsoft Windows.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jul 29, 2005
    #29
  10. steve

    Rob J Guest

    On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:11:56 +1200, steve
    <> wrote:

    >Rob J wrote:
    >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:46:10 +1200, steve
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>thingy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Myself I see this as a win for linux. As they clamp down people who
    >>>>before had "free" stuff will now be forced to pay, do without, move to
    >>>>OSS or other cheaper commercial software.
    >>>
    >>>Agreed.
    >>>
    >>>I went to linux becasue I couldn't afford to put Windows on 9 home-built
    >>>PCs. It would have cost thousands to install full copies and then pay
    >>>for upgrades and anti-virus software subscriptions and spyware / adware
    >>>subscriptions......just to USE the damn thing.

    >>
    >> You are badly informed. You could buy OEM licenses for each PC for
    >> about $100 each.

    >
    >...and then add the annual anti-virus software subs.


    Nothing to do with MS.

    >...and then do I pay for adware / spyware software, too?


    Nothing to do with MS.

    >...and then add the incessant use of my system by the vendors as an
    >in-your-face advertising hoarding to sell me software and services.


    What vendors? I don't know of any that do this.
     
    Rob J, Jul 30, 2005
    #30
  11. steve

    Rob J Guest

    On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:34:21 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Rob J <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:46:10 +1200, steve
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>thingy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Myself I see this as a win for linux. As they clamp down people who
    >>>> before had "free" stuff will now be forced to pay, do without, move to
    >>>> OSS or other cheaper commercial software.
    >>>
    >>>Agreed.
    >>>
    >>>I went to linux becasue I couldn't afford to put Windows on 9 home-built
    >>>PCs. It would have cost thousands to install full copies and then pay
    >>>for upgrades and anti-virus software subscriptions and spyware / adware
    >>>subscriptions......just to USE the damn thing.

    >>
    >>You are badly informed. You could buy OEM licenses for each PC for
    >>about $100 each.

    >
    >For XP Pro?


    Home edition of course.

    Who needs Pro at home?

    Even though all the time you see the vendors saying "Vendor_X
    Recommends Windows XP Professional" - not for a home user it isn't
    necessary.
     
    Rob J, Jul 30, 2005
    #31
  12. steve

    Rob J Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:13:28 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In article <42e76717$>,
    > steve <> wrote:
    >
    >>I went to linux becasue I couldn't afford to put Windows on 9 home-built
    >>PCs. It would have cost thousands to install full copies and then pay
    >>for upgrades and anti-virus software subscriptions and spyware / adware
    >>subscriptions......just to USE the damn thing.
    >>
    >>Linux allows me all the function I want / need and I avoid all that
    >>Windows-targeted hassle.

    >
    >I think most reasonable people would agree that, of all the desktop
    >systems you could use today, if you want the least trouble-free
    >experience, you can't go past Microsoft Windows.


    Ah, crap. Define "most reasonable". The fact that the vast majority
    are willingly choosing Windows proves you a liar.
     
    Rob J, Jul 30, 2005
    #32
  13. In article <>,
    Rob J <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:34:21 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    ><_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >> Rob J <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:46:10 +1200, steve
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>thingy wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Myself I see this as a win for linux. As they clamp down people who
    >>>>> before had "free" stuff will now be forced to pay, do without, move to
    >>>>> OSS or other cheaper commercial software.
    >>>>
    >>>>Agreed.
    >>>>
    >>>>I went to linux becasue I couldn't afford to put Windows on 9 home-built
    >>>>PCs. It would have cost thousands to install full copies and then pay
    >>>>for upgrades and anti-virus software subscriptions and spyware / adware
    >>>>subscriptions......just to USE the damn thing.
    >>>
    >>>You are badly informed. You could buy OEM licenses for each PC for
    >>>about $100 each.

    >>
    >>For XP Pro?

    >
    >Home edition of course.
    >
    >Who needs Pro at home?


    Because feature-wise it's a fairer comparison with what you get in the
    box with typical Linux distros.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 30, 2005
    #33
  14. steve

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:36:48 +1200, Rob J wrote:

    >>> You are badly informed. You could buy OEM licenses for each PC for
    >>> about $100 each.

    >>
    >>...and then add the annual anti-virus software subs.

    >
    > Nothing to do with MS.
    >
    >>...and then do I pay for adware / spyware software, too?

    >
    > Nothing to do with MS.


    And of course, that would be about $900 just for installing an operating
    system on his nine computers.

    And he would have to add the licencing costs for nine licences of
    anti-virus and anti-spyware software and the related update subscriptions
    - whatever those may cost.

    Installing Linux on nine PCs only costs the time taken to download the
    desired distro and to burn it onto dvd/cd.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Fink: "The Linux market is growing 30% to 35% a year."
     
    Bling-Bling, Jul 30, 2005
    #34
  15. steve

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:36:49 +1200, Rob J wrote:

    >>>You are badly informed. You could buy OEM licenses for each PC for about
    >>>$100 each.

    >>
    >>For XP Pro?

    >
    > Home edition of course.
    >
    > Who needs Pro at home?


    Anybody who wants an uncrippled version of Windoze.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Fink: "The Linux market is growing 30% to 35% a year."
     
    Bling-Bling, Jul 30, 2005
    #35
  16. steve

    Porky Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:32:41 +1200, shannon wrote:


    >
    > As for security, Linspire is extremely secure.



    large snip


    What would it be 4 to 6 weeks back that lennier and thingy were
    bleating about micro-soft`s complete incompetence in giving a OS to the
    masses thats setup for users to run their every day tasks using a
    administrator account.


    But Linspire do the same thing , I find its just the usual fucking
    hypocrisy from the linux fan boys..

    cya ..
     
    Porky, Jul 30, 2005
    #36
  17. steve

    Mutley Guest

    Bret <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:18:15 +1200, Bruce Flyger
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Peter wrote:
    >>> If this type of checker is used to prevent updates, then there are going to
    >>> be a lot of genuine users missing out on updates. Of course, this is bad
    >>> for everyone, as home PCs risk being vectors for worms or being taken over
    >>> by a trojan.

    >>
    >>AFAIK, all Windows XP systems, pirated or otherwise, can still download
    >>security updates using auto update. The new WGA scheme only prevents
    >>people running illegitimate copies from maually running Windows update
    >>and downloading certain programs from Microsoft's downloads page.
    >>
    >>There are currently cracks out that replace the legitcheckcontrol.dll,
    >>this new .dll always returns a "0" value which tells the validation
    >>control that the copy of windows is valid regardless.
    >>
    >>Another way to get around this is to simply disable the WGA validation
    >>tool under "manage addons" in IE.

    >
    >Seems it has been defeated easily.
    >
    >http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/28/microsoft_genuine_ad.html


    Try this one as well

    http://home19.inet.tele.dk/jys05000/Image12.png
     
    Mutley, Jul 31, 2005
    #37
  18. steve

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:36:52 +1200, Rob J wrote:

    >>I think most reasonable people would agree that, of all the desktop
    >>systems you could use today, if you want the least trouble-free
    >>experience, you can't go past Microsoft Windows.

    >
    > Ah, crap. Define "most reasonable". The fact that the vast majority are
    > willingly choosing Windows proves you a liar.


    In case you still haven't switched your brain on, "reasonable" means "able
    to be reasoned with".

    Websters Dictionary (1913) defines "reasonable" as a synonym for:
    Rational; just; honest; equitable; fair; suitable; moderate; tolerable.
    See Rational.

    And in that sense I too think his opinion is a reasonable assessment of
    the sorts of problems commonly experienced by persons using Micro$oft
    software.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Fink: "The Linux market is growing 30% to 35% a year."
     
    Bling-Bling, Jul 31, 2005
    #38
  19. steve

    Rob J Guest

    On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:25:20 +1200, Bling-Bling
    <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:36:49 +1200, Rob J wrote:
    >
    >>>>You are badly informed. You could buy OEM licenses for each PC for about
    >>>>$100 each.
    >>>
    >>>For XP Pro?

    >>
    >> Home edition of course.
    >>
    >> Who needs Pro at home?

    >
    >Anybody who wants an uncrippled version of Windoze.


    Uncrippled by what?

    You could argue Pro is crippled compared to Server. So what?
     
    Rob J, Aug 1, 2005
    #39
  20. In article <>,
    Rob J <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:25:20 +1200, Bling-Bling
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:36:49 +1200, Rob J wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>You are badly informed. You could buy OEM licenses for each PC for about
    >>>>>$100 each.
    >>>>
    >>>>For XP Pro?
    >>>
    >>> Home edition of course.
    >>>
    >>> Who needs Pro at home?

    >>
    >>Anybody who wants an uncrippled version of Windoze.

    >
    >Uncrippled by what?
    >
    >You could argue Pro is crippled compared to Server. So what?


    I guess that's one way of conceding the point...
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 2, 2005
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=

    Microsoft Supports Test Piracy

    =?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=, Sep 12, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    490
    Vladimir Mazek
    Sep 16, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=

    Microsoft Supports Test Piracy

    =?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=, Sep 12, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    1,055
    =?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=
    Sep 14, 2004
  3. Fred Dagg

    Tool Deletes Microsoft Piracy Alarm

    Fred Dagg, Jun 24, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    104
    Views:
    1,440
    ~misfit~
    Jul 3, 2006
  4. J Smith
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    869
    Vista
    Nov 24, 2006
  5. Dudley Hanks

    When the going gets tough ...

    Dudley Hanks, Dec 17, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    764
    Paul Furman
    Dec 22, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page