Ubuntu Linux Validates As Genuine Windows 401
bobbocanfly writes "Another crack in the Windows Genuine Advantage wall. A user at UbuntuForums.org managed to validate an Ubuntu installation as a genuine copy of Microsoft Windows and get to the download page of Windows Defender, using IE4Linux and Wine. (Here is an OGG video of the process.) Along with the advancement of LiveCD technology, this could spell the end of Microsoft's control over who gets their updates."
Dual boot machine? (Score:4, Interesting)
WGA has become pretty sophisticated this year, as recently has OGA. I strongly suspect that the observed behavior is by design, though Microsoft may now choose to change it.
Or you know, (Score:0, Interesting)
BUY A LEGITIMATE COPY OF WINDOWS.
I know I did, and more than once.
I've had zero problems with genuine advantage checks, it shows up once or twice a month when I go download something off Microsoft site, its completely transparent to legitimate user.
And what exactly IS the point of validating Ubuntu or whatever as genuine windows anyway???
Uh, you can just use Windows 2000. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I hope so-Fruit juice. (Score:3, Interesting)
But, for someone that isn't entrenched in hardware, I can see the option.
And this would be good because? (Score:4, Interesting)
We complain that there is a MS tax. We complain that they hardsell licences. I would be very happy is Microsoft really had a way to limit the updates. Hell, even with Linux one *pays* for the updates in some distros, and there is nothing wrong with that. Plus, if piracy beneficts Microsoft - and it does - putting an end to it is all the better. Windows is "cheap" because many people are used to cracking all the software they have installed and then complaining about "there isn't a program in Linux/BSD that does *everything* I need and exactly the way I need".
Re:And this would be good because? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ubuntu Meme (Score:4, Interesting)
feel free to berate me on not including the distro of your choice, (but add your own findings if you have any...
That's just wrong. (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't they sound proud of themselves. Call me a troll if you want, I really dont care, but isn't it Microsoft's perogative to only supply these updates to their paying customers? Although it's quite clever, this is just the sort of ammunition MS need against Linux. "See your honour, they are illegally circumventing our registration software, they must all be pirates".
Re:"This could spell the end of Microsoft's contro (Score:2, Interesting)
Windows Developer: We tested Ubuntu with IE4Linux and we can catch it. It claims to be Win98 and it doesn't have the undocumented secret handshake to check for validity. And it hides the Bios too. If you look at the CS values Wine uses the same selector but you can't use that. But if you look at CS:Hardcoded_offset then all versions of Windows have some code that is not present in Wine. So we check for that.
Lawyer: Hmm. Could they change Wine so it passes
Windows Developer: Yeah, they could just set up a copy of the code code in Windows so the check is fooled. But that code is protected by copyright and patents.
Lawyer. So we release code that depends on undocumented details, they reverse engineer and fix and we sue them? Excuse me, I need to make a phone call.
Lawyer. Take the code out.
Windows Developer. What? I spent all night writing that! Then we'd authenticate Linux as genuine Windows. Why do we have to provide updates to people that didn't buy the software?
It's actually the same case as the AARD code which the lawyers got the developers to disable in the release build. Probably they could detect Wine and Ubuntu using undocumented details but the problem is that it would be artificial tieing updates to IE and Office to Windows which is illegal. In the AARD case, they disabled it really close to production by changing one byte in the data segment to minimise the risk. So technically it was possible - the code worked in Beta, but someone decided that the legal risk was too great for the release version.
There is some evidence that Microsoft developers are aware of these sorts of legal issues
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/02
Re:I hope so-Fruit juice. (Score:3, Interesting)
My vote is on Google!
Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
I've often wondered what would have happened if Windows had never been, if some other OS (say a Unix variant of some kind, or perhaps one of the other OSes that Microsoft eclipsed) had become dominant, one that was fundamentally more secure than Windows. We might never have seen the billions of dollars being lost to spam and armies of rooted Windows boxes. Anyway you look at it, Microsoft has much for which to atone, and doing what it can to keep Windows users from being pwned the minute they jack in their systems or try to read an email isn't asking for much.
Would they really? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most people I know who pirate Windows aren't anti-Microsoft or even violently cheap. Instead, such "crimes" are usually crimes of opportunity: someone at school or the office offers to let them borrow their Windows disk, or hands out cracked CDs because it amuses them. It's obviously cheaper, so of course they'll use the illegal disk. But if such a thing weren't available, most people will bite the bullet and pay for Windows because it's what they're comfortable with.
Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I believe that if Microsoft wants to continue to enjoy their current status as the leading provider of security-challenged applications and operating systems, they should be required to provide free updates. Either that, or Microsoft should have to reimburse everyone else for the bandwidth costs incurred by the hundreds of millions of infected Windows installations worldwide. For that matter, how about all the millions of man-hours lost because of instabilities in Microsoft's products. Heck, I'd say providing Windows updates is the least that company can do, given the grief they've caused so many others.
Why should Microsoft be paying for problems that are, by and large, caused by either their customers or third parties ?
I've often wondered what would have happened if Windows had never been, if some other OS (say a Unix variant of some kind, or perhaps one of the other OSes that Microsoft eclipsed) had become dominant, one that was fundamentally more secure than Windows.
Like what ? UNIX (until relatively recently - SELinux, et al) was fundamentally *less* secure than Windows NT. BeOS, OS/2, Classic MacOS, AmigaOS and the like were single-user (heck, AmigaOS didn't even have protected memory) and didn't even _have_ security. What "other OSes" were you thinking of ?
We might never have seen the billions of dollars being lost to spam and armies of rooted Windows boxes.
Indeed. Instead it would have been billions of dollars lost to spam and armies of root $OTHER_OS boxes.
The vast majority of "security problems" are the fault of the end user. Harsh, but true.
Re:Rights matter. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it now necessary for my computer to stay up to date?
Why do you think that's ok?
Why?
--Jimmy
Re:I hope so-Fruit juice. (Score:3, Interesting)
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I really like Gnome, and Apple's UI irritates me, because it gets in the way of the way I like to work. But I guess that's all part and parcel of the way Apple insists that you "think outside the box the way WE tell you to, dammit!".
Having said that, I like the way Apple integrates nicely into a *nix network without having to fuck around with Samba or other esoteric interfaces.
Re:Rights matter. (Score:5, Interesting)
"I guess they are saying your computer is as up to date as they are going to make it without WGA.
In essence, they terminated your support for updates and you renewed it by doing the WGA thing. And no, I am not saying it is right. But even if you purchase the full version, you only get so much free support. the rest is basically MS acting as if they are doing you a favor. I don't remember anything in the license or on the box about updates being provided.
They really don't have a choice - either FIX the defective OS via patches or face a class-action suit for selling a grolssly defective product. Don't kid yourself - the only person who benefits from Microsoft's actions is Microsoft. Limited warranties don't add to your rights, they take away from them. Most jurisdictions have laws that state that a purchase has to be useful for its intended purpose for a reasonable amount of time. 20 seconds between connecting to the net and getting p0wned is not "reasonable" - especially when there are free OS available that don't have these defects.
Re:Guess again... (Score:1, Interesting)
Fine. Let's discuss price.
How many point releases have there been to OS X for sale since Microsoft stopped doing this? 4? A bit less than 1 per year? So, OS X costs $649.95 to stay current since its release in March 2001.
During the time from the first to last OS X point update, having Microsoft's latest consumer operating system would have cost you, at absolute most, $199.99 for Windows ME and another $249.99 for windows XP professional. That's $449.98 *TOPS*. Honestly, anyone here would tell you paying that much is absolute insanity because Windows ME OEM would have cost about $49.99 with the purchase of a computer, and XP Professional upgrade sells at a street price of $199.99. But I'm trying to help you out here.
And you'd have to be insane to think much of Windows ME survived in Windows XP. You weren't just buying "improvements" and security patches. You really were buying a new OS.
(As of the last official release of Apple's OSes, Windows XP was the most current consumer OS sold by Microsoft, and would be recommended by anyone in the PC business for most work and home use.)
So, again, the mantra that Apple costs more remains the truth. You can't deny it. The numbers are right there. Unless you think I'm misquoting on the Windows pricing. The OS X pricing is well known.
But that's ok. Stay with your black hole of wallet deflating goodness. I don't care. I have enough money left over from using windows to afford to do what I like to do, without having to do it on my computer.
And before you tell me that there's no difference between windows ME and windows XP, I'm suggesting you smash *that* delusion right now, because there's a hoard of slashdotters that agree with me: There's as different as apples and oranges.
Re:Guess again... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Let's compare all costs.
On your basis, that's $450. What about Hidden costs? Anti-Virus, anti-spyware? How much did these cost? And no, when you compare costs the fact that Apple is or is not more secure doesn't matter, fact *IS* that an apple can live without anti-virus and anti-spyware software. Now, let's add the $50/year you need for security. That's 5 years, so $250 more.
Right now: that's $700, you already beat the apple costs.
2) Opportunity Costs.
What are the costs of having a computer that is not up-to-date for 4 years? What are the costs of having to heavily maintain your OS for 5 years with all the scans, reinstalls, difficulties that have come with using windows XP?
How much do you rate the experience of using windows XP compared to using at all times the latest of Mac OS X?
Your analysis is bullshit, cost wise, keeping up with the latest of Mac OS X is cheaper then Windows, with the added bonus of not having to maintain your computer all year long and being able to enjoy an up-to-date OS for the whole period.