| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
WPA wars resume over WinXP SP1 beta | |
|
||
| Time: 10:55 EST/15:55 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
Here we go again? Shortly after the beta of WinXP Service Pack 1 was released, locking out installations using leaked activation keys, a workaround with what appears to be a replacement key began circulating on IRC. We can therefore look forward to a repeat of the Windows Product Activation wars that were waged during the original XP beta, as crack and block alternate until the product actually ships. At which point, barring the invention of an entirely new and uncrackable system, the final crack will be unveiled. At the moment, the SP1 beta won't install on systems using at least one widely-leaked activation key. The workaround circulating appears to include a replacement key, but given that this could be easily blocked by Microsoft in future builds, its main importance is that it explains a procedure for deactivating the system and entering a new corporate key. Which could even be a genuine one. You never know. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 384 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:09:37 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3465 (206.20.132.147) at 6/11/2002 11:14:56 AM |
| It's no war really. We easily defeated them in the first round. Now begins the second.... |
| #2 By 6859 (204.71.100.215) at 6/11/2002 11:34:57 AM |
|
There's a simple answer that MS faield to understand when I wrote them about it a long time ago... All they needed to do was keep a listing of all valid keys in a database somewhere, none of which would have been generated by any program, and each is unique, if a key appears to be "in use" more than once, you cancel that key until the user calls in. They wouldn't even need their obtuse hashing system, rather just a simple passing over the internet (or via phone) what the key actually is (encoded or not) and if it's unique, valid, and unused it's approved, if not, then it is instantly rejected and killed.
There wouldn't have been these cracker-jack system key generators or any of that mess as the key MUST reside on MS' server. Then the only way around it would be if someone managed to actually hack the code DLLs so that registration wasn't needed, which is harder to do than just generate a butt-load of valid keys (which is what happens now), or to hack into MS and place a valid code each time (as they would be one-use only, except for Corporate Codes), which would be nigh-impossible; and it's more-or-less secure against the corporate key problem as those are "special" and if the IP address of the requester system doesn't match the owner then the corp key is rejected and nullified until verification can occur. (The only way I see around that is IP Spoofing, and there's nothing that can be done about that.) Include this authentication methodology in every SP or hotfix and eventually you'd get a lot of the fake keys out of circulation and kill a lot of illegal XP systems (and nobody would shed even a single tear for them.) Instead of the above (which is simple, regardless of my heavy-handed attempt to explain it ina short space) they went with the insecure model they designed. Until MS extracts it's corporate head from it's corporate bottom the cracker/hacker will eventually get the upper hand. |
| #3 By 2960 (156.80.64.164) at 6/11/2002 12:01:51 PM |
|
Man, this stuff is SO far out of hand. The man-power and money being consumed by this is probably more than what is being lost in the first place...
TL |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 6/11/2002 12:09:32 PM |
|
Or like in the case of DirectTV... the man-power and money being consumed by this is probably more than what it cost to just buy the product in the first place.
|
| #5 By 6859 (204.71.100.215) at 6/11/2002 12:52:22 PM |
|
JaggedFlame asked: "Wouldn't it take a lot of work to maintain a list like that?"
Nah, SQL server could do that, heck, I bet even Excel would do! And to create the keys would not be a problem either, and you wouldn't even need a generating program, you could do it by hand. "And wouldn't it have the potential to create problems where valid users get locked out?" Only if the key codes were in some way regenerateable, if each code was absolutely unique, and wasn't something that could be generated on the fly (by a hack program), and relied not on the equipment in a PC (except see below) but was somehow hardcoded into the installation method (like unique CD serial number) or some such stuff. MS has the resources to do that with ease. "Besides, the key generator can generate valid keys as well. This means that it could generate a key that Microsoft already used on a box, which is sitting in a store somewhere... and when someone buys that box, they're the ones locked out, not the pirate." Not if a keygen couldn't do what was necessary. And not if the caller would be able to proove ownership (not hard to do, really). You might need a special CD burner program that allows for a random or blank key to be inserted. That would require special knowledge and a knowledge of the install process, and that violates many laws (DCMA comes to mind), so protection is already there. "Oh, and as for the checking IP addresses for the corporate edition, I don't think all corporations hook up all machines to the Internet. Some machines wouldn't even have IP addresses. They might have internal IP addresses as well." MS already figured that, that's why a user can call them on the phone. Or they could do with the corp edition that it requires the MAC address instead. Chances are that the PC in a business environment that would use XP would have a NIC already. Then the only way around that is if you would spoof the MAC address. There are cards that let you do that, and my router at home lets me do it too...but that's something that really can't be controlled--like IP Spoofing (until IPv6 is mandatory.) Of course the absolute best method is to make the software not a piracy target (perhaps cheaper would do?) But I can get XP Pro for ~$80 USD. So that's not too bad, but still...(although I can find Linux distros that cost more than that.) |
| #6 By 2062 (199.182.213.192) at 6/11/2002 1:03:55 PM |
|
This article just rambles on and on...After reading it im not sure what the point was, i didn't learn anything new about wpa. Hell anyone can write a sumary about wpa, this article was worthless. And besides xp sp1 is beta so some stuff like wpa will probably be changed before the final version of sp1.
-gosh |
| #7 By 37 (216.43.88.209) at 6/11/2002 1:28:33 PM |
| #13...$200 is chump change compared to Adobe PhotoShop 7! |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/11/2002 1:34:06 PM |
|
Kval, I can MAKE $200 profit in 4 hours owning Photoshop. Owning windows just makes me another sucker. It's amazing how cheap people are--and I'm not suggesting #13 is cheap, I'm saying Kval is. If you don't understand where the value in Photoshop is, you really don't have anyplace buying it or whining about it's price. Go out and buy PrintShop pro or whatever cheapass Windows software will do your bidding. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 13:34. |
| #9 By 2960 (156.80.64.164) at 6/11/2002 1:53:00 PM |
|
#14,
PhotoShop 7 isn't a required software package to enable you to run any and all programs you have on your computer. An OS is. TL |
| #10 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 6/11/2002 2:03:59 PM |
|
There are some people that can also make $200 in 4 hours with a copy of Windows.
An OS is a required software package for a computer, but Windows, especially the latest version, is not. You don't have to upgrade whenever MS does. |
| #11 By 37 (216.43.88.209) at 6/11/2002 2:04:24 PM |
|
What's amazing is that you need an Operating System in order to run Adobe PhotoShop. Hence, you could make $200 profit in four hours which would cover the cost of the OS that you used to create the project in PS.
As for being a cheap ass, is there any reason to call someone names? I don't recall insulting you or taking any stabs at you. Are you always on the defensive? I am a commercial printer by trade, and I happen to own Adobe Photoshop (versions 4 through 7). Not to mention Quark, Serif, Microsoft and Corel products. One print job last week was enough profit to pay for my OS, all of my graphic software and the computers they run on. I spent $129.00 x 2 for two upgrades to my Mac systems for OSX this year, and spent 1 x $99 and 3 x $89 on Windows XP Home for my work system this year. I also purchased two Adobe Publishing Collection Boxes, one for the Mac and one for Windows, which, after taxes cost me $2100 just for those two. The $100 for the OS was pennies when the OS pays for itself in the first day. Not to mention, for personal use, spending $100 on an OS, use WordPad to create a Resume, and get a job will pay for the OS the first week of work. And yes, it is amazing how cheap people can be. Considering Linux RedHat 7.3 Personal is $60.00, Windows XP Home is $99 and Mac OS X is $129.00, I am not too sure who the cheap people are. But what I can tell you is that I would be the last person to try and insult you, or call you a name. I think everyone here can be mature about posting on these boards, don't you? This post was edited by KvalCom on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 14:17. |
| #12 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/11/2002 2:42:25 PM |
|
Of course, you are all missing the point of wpa. It's not to stop pirates from pirating Microsoft's software, it's simply to stop the casual copying that goes on so much... for instance if I had a friend who asked if he could borrow my XP CD.... that's what it tries to stop.
Microsoft both knows and has said that they didn't expect it to stop actual warez junkies, and that they expected WPA to be circumvented very shortly after release. The fact is, though, WPA still has NOT been cracked. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/11/2002 3:26:25 PM |
|
Oh, don't be so weak willed, Kval, you can take it! I didn't call you a cheap ass by the way, I said that if you think it's overpriced software buy some cheap ass software--but then what was your point in the first place? If you realize (both figuratively and literally) the value of Photoshop, then you are just FUDing, trying to draw attention from the cost of Windows.
By reclaiming the OS cost by having a software title of such value that it pays for itself and the OS, doesn't rationalize the cost of Windows in anyway whatsoever. You do see that, right? You are saying Windows in worth X to me because Y app app makes me X+Y+Z revenue. Well, shouldn't X at least result in X revenue if Y is accounting for X+Y+Z? |
| #14 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 6/11/2002 3:49:34 PM |
|
Jerk,
I think in your case this formula does work. ((S+T+U+P+I+D) + (L+O+G+I+C)) = sodajerk |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/11/2002 3:57:41 PM |
| Boy, that's brilliant, Ghost. Are you saying I'm stupid which doesn't rebut my argument, and my argument is logical which supports it... The sum being: you can insult me but not rebut me. You're right. |
| #16 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at 6/11/2002 4:13:25 PM |
|
I see now that you can't take!!!
Your MS hatred makes you think you are actually making an argument. I see nothing worth rebutting. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/11/2002 4:43:27 PM |
|
can't take what, ghost? huh? uh, huh.
I replied to the argument Windows is cheaper than Photoshop by saying PS quickly recoups its cost. The person who originally made that argument agreed (negating his argument) but then tried to further his argument saying that he also recouped the cost of Windows. My further reply was that isn't a defense of the cost of Windows that is a defense of the cost of Photoshop (maybe even an argument that it should be more expensive) and that it negated his argument. So where's is the lack of an argument? Where is your's? And what can't I take? All I did was point out you weren't saying anything. |
| #18 By 37 (216.43.88.209) at 6/11/2002 5:20:19 PM |
|
Sodajerk,
"It's amazing how cheap people are--and I'm not suggesting #13 is cheap, I'm saying Kval is." You called me CHEAP. That would be, in my books, a stab. You could use the term frugal. My question to you is, how do you find $99 for Windows XP Home to be costly when Mac OS X runs $129.00 and Red Hat Personal Edition runs $60? Spending $60 -$199 for an OS seems to be the norm here. Look at Solaris 9..remember when it was free up to 8 licences only 1 version ago? Version 8. Now, you only get one free license, and you have to pay $199 per license after that. Suse Personal is $40 and Pro is $80. This used to be free. Mandrake Retail Boxes start at $70 and go as high as $300. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/11/2002 5:33:13 PM |
|
Kval, aren't you cheap? I don't see how that's necessary an insult or a name--and you specifically pointed out the "cheap ass" part. But, yes, I don't think it's insulting, only objective, to say you are cheap if you try to whine and complain about the price of Photoshop and then two posts later you assert that you make substantially more money off of Photoshop than what it costs. Either that, or you are just smokescreening, which I already pointed out and I find more offensive. Are you gonna complain now that I said your argument was a smokescreen for some FUD--in my mind that's worse than cheap.
I find Windows expensive when Home is completely useless to me, but that version was crafted because the useful version could be sold to businesses for twice as much but home users wouldn't so they took the 2 or 3 useful and necessary features out and slashed the price in half. Yes, $200 is expensive in comparison to $129, yes. And, I don't think I ever made the point that Windows is too expensive in the first place, nor did I try to compare it with anything; my initial point was that your comments had nothing to do with the cost of Windows and were just FUD. |
| #20 By 37 (24.196.75.92) at 6/11/2002 6:52:55 PM |
|
Jagged,
"You don't need a Porsche to be able to get around. You need an OS to be able to use your computer. " True. And you don't NEED Microsoft Windows for an OS. |
| #21 By 37 (24.196.75.92) at 6/11/2002 7:51:31 PM |
|
Jagged,
My point, there are alternatives to a Windows OS, cheaper and more expensive. Available to the general public, and available at all the local Best Buys, CompUSAs, Circuit Citys etc and they are marketed on the same shelf height. There is no shortage of reviews and help sites on the web for any OS. It's the consumers responsibility to research and decide for themselves which OS, or Company for that matter, would best suit them. |
| #22 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/11/2002 9:11:36 PM |
| Anon, I'm not sure what Jagged and Kval are arguing about. I thought the discussion had flowed to the point where it was clear that WPA is an annoyance to those who purchase the OS legally, and it's not an effective protection against piracy, and MS seems to be dedicating a lot of resources to it. That's about where I see the argument standing. |
| #23 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 6/11/2002 9:58:29 PM |
|
#46, that's got the be the DUMBEST thing I've seen on this whole board.
1) No, Windows would not cost less, it would still be the same price because 2) Pirates STILL wouldn't buy it, pirates want to get anything and everything for free, doesn't matter how much it costs 3) People hate Microsoft simply because it's the cool thing to do, there is no basis for it, and it's really quite sutpid. What are the useless features you are referring to? In fact, I don't see anything in XP that is particularly useless... I may not use it, but other people do.... but I guess for you, unless YOU use it, it's useless for EVERYBODY. Why don't you grow up and leave your ego at the door? |
| #24 By 37 (24.196.75.92) at 6/12/2002 12:18:31 AM |
| #49, did you just fall off the turnip truck? lol. |
| #25 By 37 (24.196.75.92) at 6/12/2002 12:20:18 AM |
|
#49, you said:
"Then you whine about paying for XP. I'd say there's some discrepancy to argue there. " Not sure where I whined about paying for XP. I am happy as hell to pay the price I did. I thought it was a bargain personally...and it has paid for it self. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 384 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:09:37 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
