vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to blacksurfer
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasser! Yes they should. That is a very stpuid move by microsoft. People are going to use pirated software reguardless. Microsoft should be blamed for those that cannot patch their system due to stolen keys. yes stealing software is wrong, but so is my internet connection being punished because my next door neghbor decides to steal software.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! |
|
 FutureMonKeep your Mitts off RMoneyPremium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Seaside, CA
1 edit | said by vic102482:
Microsoft should be blamed for those that cannot patch their system due to stolen keys.
Say that out loud and tell me if it just doesn't come off totally wrong.
It's like saying BMW should be held liable because I had an engine problem due to poor maintenance which caused me to crash in the BMW I stole from someone.
Yes I know that a home invasion robber can sue the homeowner for stubbing his toe while trying to get away. In this country anone can be held liable for anything if they're lucky enough in court, but that does not mean it is right.
Theoretically, if everyone with legal software is able to properly patch, then the only people really suffering are the pirates who can't. You're never going to get rid of the traffic generated by the baddies, but as long as they stop at your front door they're not much different than any other types of network traffic generated on a daily basis.
- FM
--
DCExec Member, Member of 'StarFire Seven' & Undisputed BBR Karaoke Champion! |
|
vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | said by FutureMon:
said by vic102482:
Microsoft should be blamed for those that cannot patch their system due to stolen keys.
Say that out loud and tell me if it just doesn't come off totally wrong.
It's like saying BMW should be held liable because I had an engine problem due to poor maintenance which caused me to crash in the BMW I stole from someone.
Yes I know that a home invasion robber can sue the homeowner for stubbing his toe while trying to get away. In this country anone can be held liable for anything if they're lucky enough in court, but that does not mean it is right.
Theoretically, if everyone with legal software is able to properly patch, then the only people really suffering are the pirates who can't. You're never going to get rid of the traffic generated by the baddies, but as long as they stop at your front door they're not much different than any other types of network traffic generated on a daily basis.
- FM
Microsoft should be blamed for those that cannot patch their system due to stolen keys
quote:
It's like saying BMW should be held liable because I had an engine problem due to poor maintenance which caused me to crash in the BMW I stole from someone.
No its like saying that BMW installs a system that deactivates the STEERING on a stolen vehcile once it has gone over 60MPH.:) (extreme but you get the point).
You tell me who is liable there once they ram you head on.:)
Lets look at the facts of this sitation:
You have stolen property
You have innocent home users
You have a software company that disables saftey precautions on a peice of stolen software due to licensing issues.
Microsoft has no responsibility in this situation? I think not.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! |
|
 bluebaron2Stuff HappensPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-01
North of 44
Canadian Chat
| said by vic102482:
Microsoft has no responsibility in this situation? I think not.
I think so. None. The thief is responsible for the damage they do with the stolen property.
To continue your BMW analogy, it is more like BMW deactivates the steering as soon as you steal the vehicle. If you then insist on continue driving the stolen vehicle without steering, how is that any body's fault but yours?
--
bb2
Since I've given up hope I feel much better. |
|
| Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasse Ok say someone took your cd player out of your home (stole it) and then came back a couple weeks later claiming its broke and wants you to fix it...now are you REALLY going to want to fix it?
Same situation, you stole a microsoft product why should the manufacturer help you improve it?
--
"Its better to look stupid for 5 minutes and ask a question, than to be stupid for the rest of your life."4g63.20m.com (textsource.org) |
|
vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to bluebaron2
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasser! said by bluebaron2:
said by vic102482:
Microsoft has no responsibility in this situation? I think not.
I think so. None. The thief is responsible for the damage they do with the stolen property.
To continue your BMW analogy, it is more like BMW deactivates the steering as soon as you steal the vehicle. If you then insist on continue driving the stolen vehicle without steering, how is that any body's fault but yours?
So what about what "B" said when unwitting users are sold stolen peices of software on ebay for instance?
Also since the OS is already in use and ON the internet when trying to update, the BMW should be in use and ON the FREEWAY when trying to steer. I think it is a perfect parallel comparison.
Deactivating as soon as being decteted as stolen means you shouldnt be able to login or have the OS function, but unfortunatly that is not the case.
Micorsoft made a very poor desision. What happens if a coporation cannot update their software because their key was stolen and is floating around the internet?
What is a systems administrator supposed to do? Some bastard employee could leak it to his friends, and now the whole coporation cannot patch their machiens.
Who is liable then?
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! |
|
vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to paranoidxe
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasse said by paranoidxe:
Ok say someone took your cd player out of your home (stole it) and then came back a couple weeks later claiming its broke and wants you to fix it...now are you REALLY going to want to fix it?
Same situation, you stole a microsoft product why should the manufacturer help you improve it?
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?
Or here is a better one,(as "B" suggested) you buy your computer on Ebay and the key is stolen. You use it for a month and find out you can no longer update your machine. Who is at fault there? The ebay seller is no where to be found.
They made a very poor desicion. IMO. Microsoft has too many machines to simply refuse updates to pirates. The ones that cannot update their machines are going to become a problem for all of the other legitimate users on the internet.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! |
|
bluebaron2Stuff HappensPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-01
North of 44 Host:
Canadian Chat
| reply to vic102482
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasser! 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.
--
bb2
Since I've given up hope I feel much better. |
|
|
|
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]" |
|
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!!!! |
|
jvmorrisI Am The Man Who Was Not There.Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | 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 |
|
IGGYNo Guru Just Here To HelpPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-30
Chatham, IL | I think this is one of those you get what you pay for points. If you wish to do this or need to for economic reasons etc - you'd better either be able to beat the system or suffer the results of your actions.
I'm just not sure that these users would actually use the option if they had the choice. As I mentioned above - most users who have a valid license don't and obviously the pirated key users don't have basic security on there mind.
--
Test Your Security Team Z Member Cable Modem Diagnostics |
|
