 bluebaron2Stuff HappensPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-01
North of 44
Canadian Chat
| reply to blacksurfer
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasser! said by blacksurfer:
How many of these people in foreign countries will send Bill Gates a check for a legit version of Windows?
How many will? I don't know. How many should? All of them.
--
bb2
Since I've given up hope I feel much better. |
|
| reply to blacksurfer
NOPE...while unpatched systems add to the infection problems, I'd say that M$ should not allow those systems to be patched. Good question though.
I'd like to see that those systems without correct registration keys get automatically shut-down, like when they attempt to update or install patches, a program would be installed from M$ end to the unpatched computer and shut it down...probably not possible, but that's what I'd like to see done with unpatched unregistered pirated computer systems.
--
ionSKY Wireless ISP - 2.4GHz - 802.11b - 1.0MB/384kbps | Dell Dimension 4550 - WinXP Pro SP1 - 768MB Ram |ZA+ 4.5 | AVG 7.0 - Resident | Bit Defender 7.1 Free - On-Demand |TDS-3 | Ad-Aware | SpyBot S&D | MailWasher Pro |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to vic102482
said by vic102482:
So what about what "B" said when unwitting users are sold stolen peices of software on ebay for instance?
Caveat emptor, of course. Don't buy things from sources whose reputation you are unsure of -- or if you do, complain to the thief who sold you the stolen thing, not the person from whom the thief stole the goods. |
|
vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to bluebaron2
said by bluebaron2:
You're still missing it here vic. The people who stole the software knew when they stole it that they could not get updates and fixes, if they didn't then they were not only thieves but terminally stupid to boot.
The BMW thief knew at the onset that he wouldn't be able to steer the car ( BMW/Microsoft has not been shy in informing people that they do not support stolen property ) and he still took it out on the freeway. Just because it took him a little time before he crashed does not diminish his responsibility for the accident one iota.
Yes I agree(excellent argument), but in all honesty(I want your honest opinion:)), is that the wisest desicion that a corporation like microsoft should come to when trying to deal with piracy?
Shouldnt the car just not be allowed to start? IE windows being reverted back to the 30 day activation then lock period?
Isnt chaning it back to 30 day trial and then lock a better solution than denying updates?
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to vic102482
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasse said by vic102482:
Someone steals Justins CD key and distributes it across the internet, now the key is blocked and the unwitting justin finds out that he cannot update, but BAM too late he is infected. All of DSLR goes down.
Who is liable then? Microsoft has no responsibility in this case?
No, of course not. The fault lies with the people who stole from Justin, not with the manufacturer.
I'd expect Microsoft to listen to Justin's explanation, and perhaps give him a new key. The only cases I've heard of suggest that Microsoft tends to believe honest customers. Do you know likewise, or is this a straw horse?
Anyway, I don't think DSLR runs on MS systems  |
|
vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | said by dave:
said by vic102482:
Someone steals Justins CD key and distributes it across the internet, now the key is blocked and the unwitting justin finds out that he cannot update, but BAM too late he is infected. All of DSLR goes down.
Who is liable then? Microsoft has no responsibility in this case?
No, of course not. The fault lies with the people who stole from Justin, not with the manufacturer.
I'd expect Microsoft to listen to Justin's explanation, and perhaps give him a new key. The only cases I've heard of suggest that Microsoft tends to believe honest customers. Do you know likewise, or is this a straw horse?
Anyway, I don't think DSLR runs on MS systems
Okay, what about the alternative I posted? Dont you think that is a smarter way to approach the problem. Simply revert the system back to the 30 day trial and refuse to allow the same key to be entered into the system for attempted reactivation.
Is that not a better way to approach the problem?
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! |
|
 jvmorrisI Am The Man Who Was Not There.Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | reply to vic102482
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasser! said by vic102482:
. . . Shouldnt the car just not be allowed to start? IE windows being reverted back to the 30 day activation then lock period?
Isnt chan[g]ing it back to 30 day trial and then lock a better solution than denying updates?
Getting a bit confused by the word 'lock' in this instance. Are you really saying that Windows (probably XP) should be disabled (or perhaps rendered inoperable) or are you saying "No more updates"?
I mean, I like, your question about "Isn't there a better alternative?", but there are some logistical and legal issues with the first approach that are likely to raise havoc -- especially the first time someone with a legitimate copy of Windows gets wrongly locked out.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
bluebaron2Stuff HappensPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-01
North of 44 Host:
Canadian Chat
| reply to vic102482
We're probably taking this car anology way to far vic but here goes one more time.
BMW did make the car not be able to start, you needed a key to get it going, the thief jumpered it to get past that built in anti-theft device. The Software thiefs bypassed the registration to make the software work, beyound the 30 day limit. M$ installed a anti-theft device in their software and now you are arguing that since the thiefs by-passed that one it's M$ fault that they didn't install another one. Bottom line don't steal software, if someone offers you software at a fraction of the retail cost, you damn well should know it's not legit. Don't want to get infected...go buy the legal operating system. Period.
--
bb2
Since I've given up hope I feel much better. |
|
1 edit | reply to dave
The problem with "faked" MS OS keys.... I find it pathetic that we have people who are complaining that Microsoft won't update their pirated software. Most likely they or someone they know have and USE such pirated software and they are PO'ed because now they have to shell out for software the rest of us have already LEGALLY paid for.
IMO - The USER is responsible for making informed decisions on purchasing and installing their software. This means that you better KNOW who you buy your software from and you better protect your licences like you'd protect your wallet and credit cards.
Remember the cardinal rule-- "If it sounds too good to be true, most likely it is [too good to be true]" |
|
|
|
 John2gQui Tacet ConsentitPremium
join:2001-08-10
England | reply to blacksurfer
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasser! In fact you are not completely correct. There was a well known pirated key, which was used by many, many people. It was this one key that Microsoft took steps to ensure that SP1 could not be installed in XP.
However, there was a widely circulated key generator. As far as I know, the registrations produced by this key are not blocked by Microsoft.
--
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. |
|
 ssj4androidRedefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI | reply to blacksurfer
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasse Yeah, the keygen keys aren't blocked. |
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:5
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to blacksurfer
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasser! I believe it's a common fault of otherwise sensible people to throw their common sense out the window when it comes to microsoft.
If the very same question were posed but the players were changed from microsoft to let's say, Trojan Hunter or BoClean we'd be hard pressed to find a member saying they should also update (patch) illegal copies of their software.
--
Dave said "By the way, 4294967295 is just another way to write -1". |
|
 LinkTechFormer Linksys TechVIP
join:2002-07-02
Mission Viejo, CA
 ·ooma
| reply to ssj4android
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasse Lets not get this all mixed up either. The original title was people with fake keys can't protect from Sasser. This is misleading in itself. You don't have to have service pack one installed to update. You can run updates just not service pack one. |
|
vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to jvmorris
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasser! said by jvmorris:
said by vic102482:
. . . Shouldnt the car just not be allowed to start? IE windows being reverted back to the 30 day activation then lock period?
Isnt chan[g]ing it back to 30 day trial and then lock a better solution than denying updates?
Getting a bit confused by the word 'lock' in this instance. Are you really saying that Windows (probably XP) should be disabled (or perhaps rendered inoperable) or are you saying "No more updates"?
I mean, I like, your question about "Isn't there a better alternative?", but there are some logistical and legal issues with the first approach that are likely to raise havoc -- especially the first time someone with a legitimate copy of Windows gets wrongly locked out.
I mean locked as in, you just got the software.
If you try to use a pirated key then it will revert back to the 30 day trial period and on the 30th day, ask you to present a real key or you will not be allowed to login, just as the software does now.
Is that a better alternative than blocking the updates?
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! |
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | reply to blacksurfer
Two separate issues here... There is a lot of comparisons with a car. Despite of that I'll offer you another one to this discussion.
Car is protected from authorized use by offering a key. No key - no running engine
(I hope you compare this to activation of OS).
Second point - if car is on the road - don't you feel that we all share the same road space (Internet) and if a car has design defect with its wheels (or whatever) that is not fixed (patched), then it creates potential problem to you (who has "patched" wheels).
Do you feel that in spite of fighting to protect cars from thief - it should be dangerous on the road to to others?
I think there are two separated issues here. One is protecting OS from unauthorized use (which should be done at activation time), and the second one (and I think it is completely separated one) - keeping safety on the roads (Internet) by fixing known problems with it.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
IGGYNo Guru Just Here To HelpPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-30
Chatham, IL
1 edit | reply to blacksurfer
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasser! Actually only a few of the more popular keys were killed in SP1. Anyone who knows what there doing could easily get around this. And many have. But then again anyone who could figure out how to get around the block most likely aren't going to get infected in the 1st place. Do to the fact that they'll have decent security in place. Granted probably not paid for. But it will be in place.
Yes it stinks that these people will continue to infect others. Because of there actions and stupidity of not taking basic steps to secure themselves. But many users who have legit software are causing just as much trouble. They have the option to update and many aren't doing this - even now.
Honestly it amazes me. A very basic software firewall would stop almost all of the recent and past worm infections. Legit software or not. You'd think users by now would know that this is just 1 piece of the puzzle you can't do without. And free options are available.
--
Test Your Security
Team Z Member
Cable Modem Diagnostics |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to blacksurfer
ummm
Reminds me a a friend who bought a real nice sound system years ago and «I only paid 300$ but I know it's worth 1200$, but I don't care where it came from. The guy even delivers it to my place!»
A few days later, "someone" broke into her appartment, took «back» the sound system and the TV and the VCR.
If no one bought stolen (or pirated) goods, there would be no market for it.
Regards,
Phil |
|
jvmorrisI Am The Man Who Was Not There.Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | reply to vic102482
said by vic102482:
. . . I mean locked as in, you just got the software.
If you try to use a pirated key then it will revert back to the 30 day trial period and on the 30th day, ask you to present a real key or you will not be allowed to login, just as the software does now.
Okay, pardon me for being obtuse, but all My MS OS licenses have been legitimate, so I really have no idea what happens (especially with Win XP) if one fails to present a valid key within the 30-day interval.
quote:
Is that a better alternative than blocking the updates?
I'm having to be a bit presumptuous at this point, but I take your reply to mean that the system would then be inoperative (if the 30-day period expired without the insertion of a valid key).
This would be somewhat different from what I thought you might be advocating -- a 'self-help' function that Microsoft could use (remotely) to disable the OS (as proposed in the original UCITA draft legislation).
To answer your direct question, yes. I think that would be a better solution. We would not then having people (knowingly or unknowingly) running around with pirated copies of the OS and consequently being able to propagate worms, trojans, or viruses (if they'd taken the time to run the updates). If then they failed to enter a legitimate key, they would no longer be part of the vulnerable pool under any circumstances.
I gather that there are an incredible number of counterfeit MS OS licenses out there. No point in simply letting them become a source of infection for the rest of us (including the simply clueless who think of their PCs as being little different from their refrigerator).
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris |
|
vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
2 edits | said by jvmorris:
said by vic102482:
. . . I mean locked as in, you just got the software.
If you try to use a pirated key then it will revert back to the 30 day trial period and on the 30th day, ask you to present a real key or you will not be allowed to login, just as the software does now.
Okay, pardon me for being obtuse, but all My MS OS licenses have been legitimate, so I really have no idea what happens (especially with Win XP) if one fails to present a valid key within the 30-day interval.
quote:
Is that a better alternative than blocking the updates?
I'm having to be a bit presumptuous at this point, but I take your reply to mean that the system would then be inoperative (if the 30-day period expired without the insertion of a valid key).
This would be somewhat different from what I thought you might be advocating -- a 'self-help' function that Microsoft could use (remotely) to disable the OS (as proposed in the original UCITA draft legislation).
To answer your direct question, yes. I think that would be a better solution. We would not then having people (knowingly or unknowingly) running around with pirated copies of the OS and consequently being able to propagate worms, trojans, or viruses (if they'd taken the time to run the updates). If then they failed to enter a legitimate key, they would no longer be part of the vulnerable pool under any circumstances.
I gather that there are an incredible number of counterfeit MS OS licenses out there. No point in simply letting them become a source of infection for the rest of us (including the simply clueless who think of their PCs as being little different from their refrigerator).
Yeah it works just like norton. I have never seen it either on my machine, but I can tell what happens. Beofre I enter in my key code there is a 30 days remaining notification, then 20 days 15 etc. and when you get down to one the system will lock. You cant log in, when it boots it just sits there with a "Please Call Microsoft or Enter Keycode" screen. No access is given to the system what so ever.
If microsoft used windows updates to revert the system back to this mode (which is most certainly posssible) this method will not only ensure that pirated copys of XP are locked until a valid key is entered, but the virus propagtors are also removed from the internet pool so that they cannot do damage to other machines.
What sense does it make for Microsoft to allow them to use the software but not update it. Isnt what you are trying to accomplish the "removal" of bad software, IE steering wheel locking and the engine refusing to start when a car is broken into? Stop the problem at the door, lock it down restrict access and tell them to call Microsoft for assistance! Dont let them roam free with no updates allowing them to collect up malicious software and spread it onto other unsuspecting users.
Disabling updates is a foolish idea with so many commonsense alternatives available. Also in the long run, legetimate customers get burned. If someone stole your key youd have 30 days to call Microsoft vs. finding out you cant update when a new virus is on the itnernet. And in this case alot of the time with so many new viruses out people update during a breakout, not "just because", so alot of legitimate users who had their keys stolen or were sold stolen software will find out they cant update when its "too late".
Totally rediculous idea by Microsoft:(.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasse At the MVP Summit, we asked them about this. They saw the point of allowing eveybody to upgrade (patching the dirtballs actually helps protect me), but ultimately it came down to: said by Microsoft guy:
There really should be benefits of ownership
I could go either way on this, but they do have a point.
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site |
|
