WinXP Keygen Foils Product Activation 559
Bill Gates' Friend's Brother's Roommate writes: "The Register has a story on a working key generator that produces 25 valid Windows XP Product Activation Keys in a few hours. As author John Lettice summarizes, 'So the question as regards keymaking software is whether or not Microsoft has any way to differentiate between generated keys and the ones it has issued itself. If not, this generation of WPA is now surely toast.'"
Weird (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
I would suspect that would be the case here; the question is whether or not that false key once accepted by the program is transmitted back to Microsoft for validation.
Re:Weird (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Weird (Score:5, Informative)
In Blizzard's games, the routines used by the installer to verify authenticity of a CD key actually checks for compliance to a much more broad algorithm than the keys are actually manufactured by. This means that methods of generating keys reverse-engineered from the game itself will produce keys that work for installing the game but are very likely outside of the real algorithm, which usually constitutes a tiny subset of the one used for installation. This REAL algorithm is used to manufacture the CD keys and is what is checked for on, for instance, the multiplayer servers. Since that checking is serverside it theoretically can't be reverse-engineered to a keygen. Lots of companies are doing this now -- most game keygens are fine for installing but won't play online, and while it's possible for the keygen to randomly hit on a key that falls within the real algorithm and thus allow online play, it's astronomically unlikely.
Quite smart, really.
Re:Weird (Score:3, Funny)
Windows could pretend it was registered ok, and then start crashing, after some time.
But, oops, no one would notice between a crashing windows and regular windows
Re:Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
A real asswipe. Writes an app designed to dump raw bits from CD's but doesn't want his software copied.
Then again.. it was a few years ago.
Re:Weird (Score:3, Insightful)
I start to have problems with paying for programs when I'm paying more for the software than my computer cost me when it was new, though. I still haven't paid for anything like that...so no one is perfect. But I don't blow sunshine up my ass and pretend I have a "right" to the software. I know I'm still stealing it.
Re:Weird (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Weird (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that every Blizzard game I've ever played would be just peachy if a reg-code of all 3's was typed in. Seriously.
Re:Weird (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but it's only question of time when the first keygen starts bombing multiplayer authentication with generated keys until one is okayed and returns only that to end user. Yeah, perhaps your IP gets logged but you wouldn't run that kind of program on your own computer, would you? Local library or ISPs shell would be just fine.
Current system could work if keys were big enough so that hitting real key with keygen would be hard but, unfortunately, as long as end user has to type in the code during install you cannot input that many bits into the key anyway.
Re:Weird (Score:4, Insightful)
But how is this a problem? Make it so when a client logs in with a certain key, any existing sessions under that key are terminated.
Re:Weird (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Weird (Score:4, Informative)
Then when someone gets that key genuinely, MS will deny it as a fake.
Kinda funny, really.
-jon
Re:Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Now there's two copies of WinXP out there with the key, one of them bad. Simple solution, right? First guy to use the key is legal, second guy is the pirate. But wait - suppose Joe Script-Kiddie gets the key and installs a pirated WinXP before Joe Sixpack gets home from Best Buy. Now the situation is reversed, since the first guy is the pirate. And I doubt that any serial number database MS would set up would have something so obtuse as where each individual copy of Windows is sold - it would defy logic to think that the serial number of every copy of Windows is tracked with that copy's physical location. So you can't really sort out who bought Windows legally, and who's installing with a bogus key. Sounds like a tough nut for MS to crack - well, tough shit.
Re:Microsoft (Score:2)
No worries, the hired goons just visit each of them and ask to see the Windows XP folder with the claimed serial number sticker on the back. Joe Sixpack will meekly hand it over and Joe Script-Kiddie will silently vanish into the Microsoft Dungeons.
This actually happened to me (Score:5, Informative)
Eventually I got in touch with Sierra and they had me fax them a photocopy of the store receipt and the back of the case clearly showing the CD key (which was a bitch since I don't have a copier). Within minutes of doing so I was back in business. I can only assume Microsoft has a similar policy, where if you can prove ownership, they'll unblock your key.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Minimum wage is supposed to be a learning wage, not a living wage...
You're an arrogant little cock, aren't you? Pardon me while I feel bad that you're paying an extra dime or two for a fucking hamburger while somebody else slaves away earning billions for somebody else, while they themselves earn only enough to pay for maybe half of their living costs. There's some half-witted retard two posts down or so that thinks that without welfare, we wouldn't have a recession - this, despite the wage-slaves at the local Mickey D's probably aren't on fucking welfare...they have jobs, after all and you, who apparently doesn't think that everybody in this country deserves a livable wage. Isn't that why people came to America, to get out from under the thumbs of the ruling class and find a way to make a living, despite (horrors!) maybe being somewhat behind the curve? Equality of all humans means jack shit to you, does it?
--Begin wanton flamage--
I guess it's just not good enough for you, Oh Mighty Fast-Food Devotee. But we all see right through you, you fucking prick: all the "hard work" and "education" you do (and that your mommy and daddy probably pay for anyways) will never allow you to grow up enough to help out somebody who's on the skids, or is just trying to make their way through this fucked-up world. Your own life is so pathetic that you have nothing better to say about those "below" you than gripe about their existence on subsidence wages in this, the greatest country in the world. Well fuck you and the horse you rode in on, dickhead.
--End wanton flamage--
Besides, numb-nuts, you're not subsidizing the guy for whom a house and car is "enough" (like not being a bitch of consumerism is a bad thing...) - you're subsidizing the three-piece suit who runs the chain. Remember that, next time you feel self-righteous when purchasing fast food. Jackass.
Karma burn complete...
Eh, what the hell, it was worth it.
Re:Maybe... (Score:3)
There's where you're wrong: I do think everyone in this country deserves a livable wage. I simply don't think McDonalds was ever supposed to qualify, and forcing it to do so actually puts the workers at a disadvantage. The more money you can make flipping burgers, the less incentive you have to find yourself a real job where you can make real money. This is especially true when you start talking about couples working minimum wage jobs together - the higher it goes, the more they make, and the happier they are. It's a pity that people like this may never find their real talent (everyone is talented in some way, and everyone can be successful) because they're lured into a false sense of wealth.
The federal minimum wage is perfect. It's enough money to barely scrape by on - and I do mean barely. When you're living such a meager existence, you've got all sorts of incentive to research more options. When minimum wage is $7 an hour on up, between two people you're making $30k a year and that's not half bad. If you don't believe in yourself, why would you ever believe you could do better? (If you're making $5.25 an hour, you're almost forced to do better)
See this post [slashdot.org] for a longer explanation. And thank you for the compliment - I'm glad you enjoyed my other posts. It's too bad this one was so misunderstood. (Personally, I also enjoyed your post - the part about fucking the horse I rode in on was especially funny.
Re:Maybe... (Score:3, Informative)
That's true, but it doesn't prove your point. By itself, superficially, all that it is an argument against economic regulation of any form. It's certainly a superficial argument against taxation, of which the minimum wage is functionally equivalent. In fact, not only does something like taxation only transfer wealth, it almost always generates an economic "friction" that reduces wealth creation.
So that shows that all taxation is bad, right? Wrong.
In the most obvious example, taxation allows the funding of a law enforcement agency that protects citizens from violence. If an armed gang can roam the marketplace at will, stealing anything they like, the marketplace will fail and wealth creation will dramatically plumment. Therefore, taxation which allows for funding of a police force pays for itself, in spite of the fact that it creates an economic inefficiency, because it protects the very existence of the market. This is an example of why it's boneheaded to claim that all regulation of markets is bad -- some regulation ensures the proper functioning of the market. Financial disclosure and, in general, accounting transparency regulations play an important role in safeguarding the market for securities in public corporations. I mention this to allude to the current Enron scandal.
Beyond regulation of economic activity to protect against "violent" acts, there is also beneficial regulation that supports and protects the infrastructure of the market. Roads and highways, and public education are good examples of this.
With that in mind, it's important to consider that the legal minimum wage certainly acts as a public good, in that it very well may be the case that were those earning minimum wage to earn what they're "really" worth, that amount would be far, far lower than anything approaching a "living wage" -- and that the resulting poverty would generate any number of secondary costs to the economy as a result. There would undoubtedly be more violent crime, as for the very least skilled it would be economically more "rational" for them to wield a gun and take their chances with the law than it would to work at a job that they were "worth". To combat that, we'd have to pay for additional much more highly skilled public workers (police officers) at inflated rates to compensate for their physical jeopardy. In just this limited sense, the extra twenty cents for your burger may very well be offsetting what otherwise would have been an extra thirty cents in direct taxation to pay for police protection.
I think it should be pointed out that even in a recession, the American economy has a very low level of unemployment. Those who have argued against minimum wage laws have always predicted that the resulting economic inefficiency would destroy jobs. The problem is that the difference between the current unemployment rate and any sort of realistic "full emplyment" is very small -- it is now understood that the last one or two percent is intractable. Even the complete abolition of a minimum wage wouldn't eliminate that last bit. In fact, there's good reason to believe that trying to achieve a literal full employment either by regulation or deregulation is a losing proposition in that the harder the rest of us push for the last two percent to work, the more expensive, one way or another, they'll make it for us to do so. They'll either be unbelievably unproductive workers or criminals. Neither come cheap.
I'm all for rational economic analysis. Unfortunately for the ideological conservative, such rational analysis does not always lead to the conclusions that they favor. Some taxation and regulation is undeniably economically advanatageous.
Re:You dont need a keygen (Score:3, Informative)
But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:5, Insightful)
While this gets you out of the gate and running, it still means you have an unregistered key. If ever your key is reported back to Microsoft and they do a simple record check, they can tell if you're valid or not. And then the FBI is just a phone call away...
I don't mean to say WinXP is spyware (although I wouldn't doubt it) but I can't see keeping your activation key a secret for long, with it likely being tied into so many products and services. It's like running around town buying beer with a blatantly fake ID that claims you're a 78 year old airline instructor from Zanzabar -- sooner or later you'll get caught.
Re:But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:2, Insightful)
If anything goes to a MS address, they'll be sure to let us know. I mean, outside of major contributions to the Linux kernel, catching Microsoft red-handed trying to fsck us over is one damn quick way of becoming a folk hero among the Slashbots, if not the internet geek population in general.
Re:But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:3, Interesting)
The guys in comp.os.vms group claim to have put a packet sniffer on an XP box with nothing special running and found encrypted packets heading for microsoft. No idea what was inside them.
Re:But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:5, Interesting)
It trys to connect to time.microsoft.com, windows updates, intellimouse updates, m$ internet keyboard pro, media player, msn messenger, windows explorer (dont know why, but my firewall catchs it).
Im running tinysoft firewall, which tells me which process is trying to connect to the internet, and create an ACL for it. It also does a CRC check to let me know if the binary is updated.
Here are a couple processes from my ACL.
e:\program files\microsoft hardware\keyboard\type32.exe
e:\program files\microsoft hardware\mouse\point32.exe
e:\program files\common files\system\mapi\1033\nt\mapisp32.exe
e:\windows\pchealth\helpctr\binaries\helphost.e
e:\windows\system32\ALG.exe (Application Layer Gateway Service)
e:\windows\system32\LASS.exe (Local Security Authority System)
e:\windows\system32\svchost.exe (Generic Host Processes for Windows)
-
Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper. - Larry Flynt
Re:But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:2)
---
Re:But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:2, Funny)
MS: Mister ISP you seem to have a system on your network that is not a legal issue from microsoft. Tell us were it is at or the BSA will be on you like stink on shit.
ISP: Ohh that ip address is assigned to John Doe at 1234 W somestreet. Please don't put us through that.
MS: HAHAHAHA call the BSA anyway HAHAHAHAHA
Re:But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:2)
So I think "there's only a one in 80 zillion chance of this happening" would hold up in court for Microsoft.
Re:But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:2)
that is all anybody would here.
How do you think OJ got arond the genetic evidence?
Re:But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:3, Funny)
Wanna imagine how many small to medium size companies have figured that one out after the BSA comes knocking? Either you have the little hologram, or you pay again.
That's just the way it works in the real world... even if your dog ate the hologram.
Re:But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:3)
The BSA may threaten you unless you have the holograms handy, but the question isn't whether you have the holograms -- the question is if you can convince the judge. There's no special legal status given to holograms (or boxes) as proof-of-purchase.
But then, IANAL, so what do I know?
Re:But what about Microsoft snooping on your key? (Score:5, Informative)
The judge's definition of reasonable enters the picture quite frequently. While the word itself may only infrequently be used, there are frequently multiple legit legal interests -- cases of constitutional law in particular tend to be this way. Judges decide how a law should be interpreted -- what exact tests should be used to determine whether someone is inside or outside of its boundaries.
Further, in the many cases where the law hinges on whether a person went to reasonable efforts or whether some incident was reasonably forseeable, it's the judge who decides what's reasonable and what isn't. You don't think reasonableness plays any part? Let me pick a few cases totally at random (open book, stick finger on page, read case brief, type quick summary) and we'll see how "reasonableness" figures in.Now, the judge could have ruled that since PDQ couldn't show lost profits, by the letter of the law they were obligated to fulfill their lease. He also could (and did!) rule that even without violation of the tenants' intrests being explicitly shown, it was reasonable to presume that the store was being materially harmed by the lessors' failure to maintain the lot.
Okay, next example. This one's non-randomly chosen for its historical interest.This was a tricky issue -- nowhere did the 14th amendment explicitly say whether or how its provisions would apply to private contracts, yet here the justices needed to come to some balance in determining whether the equal protection clause could be extended to limit individuals' ability to contract freely. They decided in favor of the Shelleys -- but if in this case the law had decided so clearly what was reasonable or otherwise, the entire need for their involvement would have been moot.
Back to random examples (ooh, this is a good one!).What makes this interesting is that the traditional rule (established by precedent back when in most stores the clerks would go get items for the customer, as opposed to the modern retail stores with a more self-service attitude) was that the defendant (the store) would in such cases have had to have either known about the issue, have had good reason to know about it, or have created it to be liable; none of these were shown. The ruling in Martin's favor broke precedent because these conditions weren't met, but was upheld because the judge decided that it was reasonable to use a different standard in this case.
If what is "reasonable" by the law were so set in stone as you take it to be, there would be no (good) lawyers with stories of cases they thought they'd win... because the correctness of one party of the other would be evident. It just doesn't work that way; laws aren't really as set in stone as they're frequently taken to be. Enforcing the law requires good judgement -- and that's what judges are there to provide.
Big Surprise (Score:2)
It's a security issue (Score:2, Interesting)
Given Microsoft's rather lackluster track-record in the area of security, is it any wonder that their own protection scheme has (allegedly) been cracked so soon?
Maybe they wrote it with the new C++ compiler
Similar "Ooops" in Microsoft Office X (Score:4, Informative)
But fix the security hole they put in box, as well!
Woohoo! :-D
Re:Similar "Ooops" in Microsoft Office X (Score:2)
The firewall itself is fully functional and you can block whatever else you would wish to... If a GUI is more your speed, you can use a program called "Brickhouse" which is pretty awesome - it just adds a GUI to the built-in firewall. There are several other products, including commercial ones that you can use as well. That is, if you're only firewalling your specific machine...
They're using port 2222 and ports over 3000.
This just generates the keys... (Score:2, Interesting)
All of the folks looking for a free copy are better off finding a copy of the corporate edition, which doesn't phone home.
Re:This just generates the keys... (Score:3, Interesting)
Otherwise, it'd be pretty useless.
Re:This just generates the keys... (Score:2)
25 keys in one night with one PC (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:25 keys in one night with one PC (Score:3, Informative)
Rewriting it in C++ (perhaps with some inline assembly optimizations) will probably yield a significant performance boost if it is number crunching that is in fact slowing it down so much.
Re:25 keys in one night with one PC (Score:3)
The correct one (again, I'm assuming here) appears to be written with Visual C++ (not sure which ver, but it links against MFC42.DLL). I agree about optimizations, I which this were open source code so I could take a look at it-- the most obvious optimization is one I mentioned elsewhere; the code isn't SMP-friendly. It has two threads, but only ONE thread actually does the brute force work (so if you look in Task Manager, on a dual-CPU system, it only uses 50% of the total processor power available).. in order to properly utilitize all of the resources available you need to run one copy for every CPU in your system. (Ideally the app would spawn a thread for each CPU, and set the thread affinity to an individual processor (1 - max processors available). This is the change I'd implement if I had the code.)
Oh well.. maybe I'll get bored and disassemble it.
If Microsoft doesn't have a database of #s... (Score:3, Funny)
Considering M$, I think it's a little of the former and the latter.
from bill gates to developers: (Score:2, Funny)
Wedding gift for Taco ? (Score:3, Funny)
Geek chicks rule !
Hasn't the software industry learned? (Score:2)
The best way is to verify the key on-line if the key is assigned to you, but this is only feasible with small-scale shareware programs, because in that case very few of the possible keys are assigned (so the chance of generating an assigned key by accident is very low), and the author of the program knows of every sold copy (while Microsoft doesn't know of a particular copy of XP is actually installed somewhere, or is lying in some warehouse)
Even if they can detect the difference... (Score:2, Insightful)
Does anyone expect jack-booted MS employees to come kicking in their doors and arresting them for having a invalid product key?
Let's face it, as much as MS needs to say they will come after people who pirate their software, they aren't going to come after individuals. Unless you are killing a significant portion of their business, they are likely to leave you alone.
They would rather an individual use a pirated copy of their software than someone elses, because it still puts them in your house. They still have a good chance of branding, selling you MS Money, Office or some other product.
Can't say that out loud though. Might loose too much business.
And the award for thinking short-term goes to... (Score:3, Funny)
The Register's editors have obviously misspelled "Now that it's made Slashdot's front page, for about 10 more minutes..."
The ultimate protection (Score:5, Insightful)
However, as the article notes, cracked software can be detected. No matter how good the cracker, there's little that can be done against online verification. If MS keeps a record of all valid keys, then anyone attempting to use online MS services of any kind with a genned key can be detected and denied/disabled.
This is an old trick for online games, etc. Crackers come out with keygens for such games almost simultaneously with the release of the games (or even before
So, this story has little import as far as MS' protection being faulty. I have no doubt they expected it, and I have no doubt that they don't care too much. Using Win XP w/o the ability to update or connect to certain online services safely will probably end up being more than sufficient protection from MS' viewpoint.
Re:The ultimate protection (Score:2)
I don't know if you play Half-Life or not, but there is a group of people who's sole purpose is too be punks. What they do, is whenever they get banned, they walk into compusa, but half-life again, go home record the WonID and return the package unopened. I don't know if this is possible for XP, but it sure isn't hard to do.
Re:The ultimate protection (Score:5, Funny)
That's not a bug, that's a feature!
I wonder how that program works... (Score:3, Funny)
VENKMAN: Not that I know of.
(Bill slams the door in his face - Venkman knocks again.)
BILL: Are you the Keymaster?
VENKMAN: Yes! Actually I'm a friend of his, he asked me to meet him here.
Wash, rinse, repeat...
This is a bit late in the game to even care... (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that WPA is effectively not a barrier at all (for any but the most in-need-of-a-clue user), why even bother? Windows-based revenue will clearly not rise because of these measures, and it will in fact scare away the set of users that qualify as casual copiers. Microsoft won't gain any money out of this, but they will lose mindshare.
But really, all the above only applies to those who would venture to re-install Windows. I would guess that involves less than 5% of Windows users. In other words - almost no one. Microsoft is still VERY dependent upon the OEM teat AFAIK.
If I'm right about that, then WPA doesn't even matter. Why they're putting up such a fuss with consumers over this is a complete mystery to me. They will not profit by it.
Am I missing the boat on this somehow? This whole thing just seems stupid to me.
It's not the serial number that's important. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to wonder if Microsoft has done this? I mean, logging every single serial number for every copy of WindowsXP produced everywhere in the world...and then maintaining it. That's a tall order, even for them. I think they'd get more bang for the buck by blacklisting every copy of XP that uses that "FCK" serial that was distributed like crazy.
I can hear the DMCA lawyers warming up now ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Time to send the code underground a la decss.
I think they will let it go (Score:5, Insightful)
The article makes mention of Microsoft possibly breaking illegally copied versions of XP corporate via patch in the future. They have not done this yet, and I do not think they will. Think of the public relations nightmare that would ensue if MS broke even some legitimate copies (licensed copies with wrong serials).
It has been said before, but the determined "pirate" will not be deterred by inconvenience.
I think they know its not worth their while.
Well they won't accept their license agreement... (Score:5, Interesting)
ncftp -u xpkey -p xpkey -P 6473 24.22.15.128
Corperate codes (Score:2, Insightful)
Add to that the number of times people will reload there machines to get it "just right". Everyone and thier brothers are using any code they can get so that they don't have to bother Microsoft in order to just play.
So now a new hack that will do it for you. To late as far as most are concerned.
Already A Crack (Score:2)
want to copy xp the easy way? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:want to copy xp the easy way? (Score:2, Interesting)
I changed the mb and processor in my (legal, non-corporate) XP and it didn't say a thing either.
graspee
The Possible Dark Use of Distributed Computing (Score:2)
Not knowing the details of how they think keys are generated (which is probably a wise thing to keep tight lipped about it) one wonders if you can break the key generation into idependant parts. It may not be possible because it breaks the crypographic nature of the key but that isn't for certain either since MS doesn't want to make key generation the slow part in its production.
If this is true then WPA is done(as in stick a fork in it). How many thousands of people outside of the US(and heck inside of the US) who would contribute CPU to generate thousands and thousands of keys?
Re:The Possible Dark Use of Distributed Computing (Score:2, Funny)
Finally, a use for all those Beowulf clusters we all love to imagine.
new name (Score:3, Funny)
If not, this generation of WPA is now surely toast. If so, I guess they'll have to change the name to "Product Cracktivation" :-D Sorry, I couldn't resist.
keygen (Score:3, Interesting)
Most people not paying for XP are either going to be using the crack on the "trial" version or downloading the corporate version from their fave p2p network.
Thinking about the 2nd scenario, the corporate version requires a key, but doesn't need activation. The key is printed on the back of the cd case and every corporate version.rar I have seen has the same key- starting, (amusingly) "FCK..."
Anyway- the corporate versions of Win2000 didn't need a key- they filled it in for you (unless I am getting mixed-up with other MS software of the same period).
So, the big question is: Why does the corporate version need a key? MS knows it is damn easy to write it down, so there's no security there, but if MS wants to check the key when the system connects to the internet, checking against a database (oh look, 3 million people all using the same key!), then isn't this a similar hassle to product activation, only done sneakily with no dialogs ?
Presumably if you install the corporate version with the "FCK..." key and never connect to the internet then it will never hassle you or expire or need to be activated, but if you do connect to the net then it *could* be sort of activating itself by checking the key with microsoft. If this turns out to be the case then you could always block it with your favourite firewall, since as this would be a sneaky check they could hardly deactivate your machine if they couldn't connect...
Then again, we all know that MS loves home piracy and the product activation is just to stop small and medium businesses from using one cd on their whole lan.
graspee
Re:keygen (Score:3, Interesting)
Heres another way to foil product activation (Score:2, Funny)
Of course if you are running Linux you have already foiled product activation.
Re:Heres another way to foil product activation (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't ruin MY key (Score:4, Interesting)
For those of you who don't read German... (Score:2, Interesting)
Here is the translated link from the register:
Crack and Keymaker activate Windows XP
In the Internet circulate two different programs,
which can activate Windows XP also without
Microsofts benediction completely.
The Patch of the group of Sad team consists only
one 700 KByte of a large EXE File, which contains
a Installer.
In order to de-energise the Home and Professional
versions of Windows XP, the Patch is started in
the secured mode. After a restart Windows is
completely activated.
The second tool is a Keymaker, which generates
valid D-CKeys for Windows XP Home, Professional
and Corporate as well as for Office XP and Visio XP.
In addition the program counts quite a while: In
our test generated the Tool within one night of 25
valid codes for Windows XP Home.
If such a code is indicated for the installation
of Windows XP as Product ID, the copy can be
de-energised completely ' officially ' by
Microsoft by telephone or Internet connection.
Since Windows XP on the market is, a multiplicity
of Crack programs promises to be able to go around
the activation. Most functioned however not;
the only worked method was so far the exchange of
some files on the installation CD against versions
from the corpus width unit version with a total
volume of 13 MByte. ( kav / c't)
Oh give them a break, would you? (Score:3, Funny)
You are misinterpreting the goal of WPA (Score:2, Informative)
Why? Because the goal of WPA is to keep office workers from bringing home copies of WinXP, installing them on their home machines and giving them to their friends. That was the ONLY goal. This kind of behavior makes up 90% of revenue lost by everyday piracy and MS is pretty happy to get this 90% back by not spending much effort in the process. As about the the guys who use key generators and other ways of getting around the registration process - I'm very sorry to disappoint you but Microsoft doesn't even notice you guys.
Re:You are misinterpreting the goal of WPA (Score:4, Informative)
Nice theory. Too bad it runs afoul of one inconvenient fact: the copies of WinXP in use in most companies do not have WPA in them at all. Only the retail versions get the activation, OEM and Enterprise-license copies are essentially pre-activated or don't require activation.
Where can I get the keygen? (Score:2)
Kinda makes mac look good... (Score:2)
of course you make much less money...
So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Here's what I say: So what?
Great, it's cracked. You know what? The number of people who will wind up using the crack is probably insignificant to MS.
Newsflash! There have been anti-activaition cracks from day one with more efficiency than this. How about the cracks that allow you to never register? How about buying a version of XP Pro that doesn't require activation (Corporate(expensive) or Academic)? How about pirating one? I looked on hotline the day of XP's release and there were already several servers claiming to have the Corporate Version of XP Pro.
To top this all off, how many people will really use this? I'll give you a hint: proportionately few. The vast majority of people who will upgrade to XP either don't know or care that there is a hack, or are businesses that have to have legitimate software (activation and all). Well, I suppose they don't have to, but most businesses consider it a good idea.
So that's my thoughts. It's cracked. It's a great feat and all, but the number of illegal copies of XP isn't going to suddenly, dramatically surge.
Include a movie clip, as "part of the OS", (Score:4, Funny)
Right now, it's not illegal for someone to make a key generator, it's just copyright infringement to use it *for a pirated copy*. Presumably it's legal to use the key generator to activate a legitimately purchased copy of XP.
But by including a movie clip and citing DMCA, the mere act of writing a key generator becomes a crime.
Your point is? (Score:4, Interesting)
Good god, who here ever thought WPA was going to stop the pirating of MS software?
*prolonged awkward silence*
Yeah, that's what I thought.
The keygen is not the real final solution (Score:3, Informative)
Most people don't want to contact MS in the first place -- perhaps worried they could trace IP-addresses...
The ideal crack would be a program that took a CD-Key as input, and generated a activation key as output, just like Microsoft itself.
Does such a program exist?
Internal MSFT Memo: Redmond Campus Downtime (Score:5, Funny)
From: XP Activation Team
Sir, the XP Activation team would like to sincerely apologize for today's unfortunate occurence. In order for you to better understand exactly why this happened, we would like to outline the following sequence of events:
1) Per the mandate from Sales and Marketing, every single machine on the Redmond campus has been upgraded to XP, including the XP Activation servers. (By the way, we would like to congratulate Procurement on the expedited delivery of ten new servers - while traffic has not substantially increased, our ability to process requests seemed to require additional hardware after the upgrade. Technical Support has informed us that nothing is wrong with the XP system itself, they believe our code is not optimized so we are investigating this issue).
2) In response to the recent posting of a so-called "XP key generator" by the Rebel Alliance, we turned on the "UnauthorizedKeyLockDown.asp" page that you designed, wrote and had us install right into the production Activation servers.
3) Immediately after turning on the module, all valid Activation and Authorization requests were denied while all invalid requests were approved. We are attempting to trace the source of this problem - we currently have it narrowed down to the "UnauthorizedKeyLockDown.asp" page. As this page contains over 10000 lines of code, we have yet to identify the root cause of the problem.
4) Additionally, it appears that once an authorization request is denied, the "UnauthorizedKeyLockDown.asp" page locks up the requesting computer, forcing it to display an animated glove which proceed to make several inappropriate gestures and repeatedly shouts "Die OpenSource scum!!!"
5) Becuase the XP Activation servers actually run on XP, they attempted to authorize themselves - while normally this request is approved, please see item 3 above.
6) The XP Activation servers responded correctly to the UnauthorizedKeyLockDown commands. Nor can they be unlocked until they can access a functioning Activation server. All valid authorization attempts from any client continue to receive the UnauthorizedKeyLockDown commands.
7) Our machines are now among the several thousand computers affected across the campus.
8) While several suggestions have been made on how to remedy this problem, all of them have procedural or policy issues for which we are waiting a response from Legal. For example, can we downgrade the XP Activation Servers to Windows2k? Our license agreement specifically forbids this, so we would need a waiver. The same thing is true for trying to use an invalid key - we have strict no-piracy policies which we have not been able to obtain permission to workaround.
9) At this point, we have no estimated resolution for this issue. Because we already have an open issue with Technical Support (see 1 above), they are unable to provide any further assistance until that issue is closed, which we are unable to currently accomplish (see items 1-8).
Please provide us with some guidance on how to proceed,
Sincerely, the XP Activation Team.
For the curious (Score:5, Informative)
Decoder (Score:4, Informative)
use MIME::Base64; $x = ""; while(<>) { $x
Re:You have the right to use the software you buy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You have the right to use the software you buy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You have the right to use the software you buy (Score:2, Insightful)
If I treated my clients this way, I'd be out of business. The fact that MS has tons of money and lawyers to strongarm people into complying with their wishes does not make them right by any means.
Re:You have the right to use the software you buy (Score:2)
I handed the clerk money, she gave me the box, that's what called a sale. Now I own the box and contents, and can do whatever I want with them. I signed no contract, I'm not obliged to follow any contract.
If you buy a car, and once you get it home you see a little paper attached which says you can't get it serviced at a Ford dealer, and that opening the hood means you consented to the contract, does that mean anything? No.
Re:You have the right to use the software you buy (Score:2)
Sure, you own *box* and its *physical* contents, but you still don't own the "IP". You can feed the box to your dog if you want, but you cannot copy the information without authorization from you know who.
Problem is, you are reasoning logically and ethically, not legally...
Re:You have the right to use the software you buy (Score:3, Informative)
Anything? Really?
Hey, make a copy for me and 5000 of your other friends while you are at it!
Unfortunately, now that the DMCA is law, there's little distinction in Copyright law between making illegal copies and breaking in using activation keys.
That's why we needed to stop the DMCA before it became law.
Our hopes now lie in the DMCA being struck down as being too broad or ambiguous.
There's near zero chance that Congress would ever seriously review the DMCA as long as the Media Giants like the status quo.
This situation will become much worse if the current version of Campaign Finance Reform that just passed the US Congress becomes law. Under that law, we won't be able to get together and run issue ads against the DMCA around election time, but the Media Giants, through their news organizations, can run endless editorials and stilted "news" stories about how the DMCA is a good thing right up to and including on election day.
There's still a good chance that bans on issue ads wouldn't pass judicial review. See this page [newrules.org] for a discussion of the issues. It seems that this ban would run against the 1976 Supreme Court Ruling Buckley vs. Valeo. There can be no ban on spending, only on individual contributions, which the "soft money" ban would effectively do.
In any case, I don't see much hope of getting the DMCA repealed. Even if we could try to drum up support, it would be an extreme uphill battle trying to get people to understand the issues, what's at stake and overcoming the powerful interests on the other side of the issue. There's some hope that it could be ruled unconstitutional. IANAL, but in my opinion, a bright spot is that recent ruling reported on / [slashdot.org]. where a judge ruled that put software sales back into the domain of "First Sale" like books regardless of whatever EULAs they might have you clicking through.
That isn't the keygen that they are referring too. (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks for trying, though.
Re:You have the right to use the software you buy (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll be coming after YOU next.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Re:You have the right to use the software you buy (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You have the right to use the software you buy (Score:2, Funny)
What's that Dilbert quote? That sound you now hear is 500 lawyers buttoning their suit jackets as they prepare to decend upon you (or something like that?)
People still don't get it? (Score:2, Informative)
Activation sends a hash value, which is one-way encrypted, to the MS servers to keep track which CDs have been "turned on" and associates that with the encrypted hash value.
The ONLY way MS could ever find out who activated it would be to go by IP (if you're worried about this, go by phone), or the MAC address in the hash value. But seriously, why do they care?
Re:You have the right to use the software you buy (Score:3, Insightful)
"Please do not use it if you have not paid for Windows XP."
If you have paid for a copy of Windows XP, it would have come with the product key, defeating the need for a keygen. I imagine that your intent is so users may install XP on more than one of their own, personal machines, but what would the ratio of them to users who just need a key to pirate the software be? I'm going with many more pirates to more legit (not totally legal as you are not complying with the EULA [which is a whole other issue in itself]) users.
Please do not think that I am against Fair Use, but Slashdot is not the place to publish this type of software. Newsgroups, personal websites, etc. would be a better place for this type of code. Just to keep Slashdot out of any legal trouble that may come of it.
Amigori
Re:You have the right to use the software you buy (Score:4, Informative)
You posted the wrong keygen.
about this one they are talking.
here it is:
--snip--
UEsDBAoAAAAAANZ6TiwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA5AAAAc29mdHdhc
--snap--
base64-enc, some
greetz,
deucalion
This is not the software people are talking about (Score:3, Informative)
It only contains 4 keys.
If you click on about, it says:
"This is the first of many XP keygens to come. As new numbers are being discovered, they will be added to the final version. Email us for more info on this and other keygens! crackware_y2k@hotmail.com"
Re:Bound to happen... (Score:3, Funny)
The only exception being, of course, Bruce Willis in the movie of the same title...
But I digress...
Jason
Tell me.... (Score:2, Funny)
Aren't they're laws against this sort of thing? Moderators, can't you do something to stop this madman before he gets a following? Is nothing holy?
In any case, it sounds like a load of fun to me. Count me in My Master.
Re:Can we say Service Pack 1? (Score:4, Interesting)
The only thing even vaguely close is the ms office update that refuses to install if its running with a known bad serial number, but that doesnt disable anything.
My theory is that the damage is already done. Messing up the OS isnt going to make the person buy a real copy, it'll just make the person reinstall the same insecure pile of crap they installed in the first place, and then ms will get blamed again because stupid people dont know how to secure their illegal boxes. It's in Microsoft's best interest to let people with stolen versions update their OS, so if nothing else, they dont have software pirates spreading things like Nimda.
Re:Well, yes (Score:3, Interesting)
-jerdenn