Several million lines of source code for W2K and NT4 have been
liberated from MS and are roaming the internet.

Story here (and at many other IT news sources):
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040213/D80M46CO1.html

Sample is here: :-D
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/source.php

Rob Stow wrote:

> Several million lines of source code for W2K and NT4 have been
> liberated from MS and are roaming the internet.
>
> Story here (and at many other IT news sources):
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040213/D80M46CO1.html

I liked this..

"Access to the source code could allow hackers to exploit the operating
system and attack machines running Windows, which is used on hundreds of
millions of computers worldwide."

Hmm wonder why open source machines aren't being hacked while MS machines
are/have been WAY before any code ever escaped? :-)

--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:
> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>
>>Several million lines of source code for W2K and NT4 have been
>>liberated from MS and are roaming the internet.
>>
>>Story here (and at many other IT news sources):
>>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040213/D80M46CO1.html
>
>
> I liked this..
>
> "Access to the source code could allow hackers to exploit the operating
> system and attack machines running Windows, which is used on hundreds of
> millions of computers worldwide."
>
> Hmm wonder why open source machines aren't being hacked while MS machines
> are/have been WAY before any code ever escaped? :-)
>

And you snipped the second link I posted, which was funny stuff. :-(

Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :

> Several million lines of source code for W2K and NT4 have been
> liberated from MS and are roaming the internet.

[cut]

I see no problem in this. Many Microsoft initiatives like Trustworthy
Computing showed that Windows is a very good and secure software
platform. I'v got a strong believe that a good quality of that code
will provide me strong, secure and fast solution. Linux code is
available from the very beginning, this particular code is very poorly
written by a bunch of underpaid amateurs (according to Microsoft) and
JET is secure (accorting to some government agencies participating in
this amateur project, like NSA for example). Let us not forget the fact
that Microsoft delivers high quality and confidence for a very
reasonable price !
I'v seen Linux sources and it IS a nice readable clean (mostry) code.
If someone thinks that this code stinks like a crap then they'r code
simply must be a top of the line, piece of the art, debugged to the
maximum, highly optimised, hackproof MASTERPIECE. So ther's no need to
be worried.



ROOOFL now thats funny. I downloaded this particular supposedly
original piece of Windows code. There will be a big fun factor involved
in reading it.

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:04:27 -0600, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

<snip>
>
>And you snipped the second link I posted, which was funny stuff. :-(

I didn't click on the second link, and wouldn't have considered
clicking on the second link, until I was reasonably certain, as a
result of your second post, that it was completely a joke and
contained no code seriously purporting to be M$ intellectual property.

_Think_ about the history of the SCO lawsuit: You've _seen_ our code,
some of the code you've released resembles our code, therefore you
must have stolen intellectual property from us.

If you are a serious software type, or if you are seriously
considering becoming a serious software type, and especially if you
think that Windows/Linux/Unix interoperability might be of special
interest to you (as it is to me), don't even consider looking at
Microsoft source code unless you have some really good reason for
doing so and are certain of under what legal consequences might arise
merely from looking at what M$ claims to be its intellectual property.
Idle curiosity is not a really good reason.

In case you think I am merely being paranoid, locate a copy of the
details of SMB that Microsoft has released pursuant to its DoJ
settlement (I am not going to provide a link) and look at what you are
purportedly agreeing to by reading it. It's clear that Microsoft
really thinks that GPL does what it claims to do and they're trying to
do the same: once you've contaminated your mind with our intellectual
property, we own everything that might even be vaguely related to your
having seen that intellectual property.

_Caveat_lector_.

It would not surprise me _at_all_ to find that Microsoft is behind
this entire episode. Go ahead, Bill and Steve, sue me.

RM

On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:43:31 -0500) it happened Robert Myers
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in <(E-Mail Removed)>:

>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:04:27 -0600, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>>And you snipped the second link I posted, which was funny stuff. :-(
>
>I didn't click on the second link, and wouldn't have considered
>clicking on the second link, until I was reasonably certain, as a
>result of your second post, that it was completely a joke and
>contained no code seriously purporting to be M$ intellectual property.
>
>_Think_ about the history of the SCO lawsuit: You've _seen_ our code,
>some of the code you've released resembles our code, therefore you
>must have stolen intellectual property from us.
>
>If you are a serious software type, or if you are seriously
>considering becoming a serious software type, and especially if you
>think that Windows/Linux/Unix interoperability might be of special
>interest to you (as it is to me), don't even consider looking at
>Microsoft source code unless you have some really good reason for
>doing so and are certain of under what legal consequences might arise
>merely from looking at what M$ claims to be its intellectual property.
>Idle curiosity is not a really good reason.
>
>In case you think I am merely being paranoid, locate a copy of the
>details of SMB that Microsoft has released pursuant to its DoJ
>settlement (I am not going to provide a link) and look at what you are
>purportedly agreeing to by reading it. It's clear that Microsoft
>really thinks that GPL does what it claims to do and they're trying to
>do the same: once you've contaminated your mind with our intellectual
>property, we own everything that might even be vaguely related to your
>having seen that intellectual property.
>
>_Caveat_lector_.
>
>It would not surprise me _at_all_ to find that Microsoft is behind
>this entire episode. Go ahead, Bill and Steve, sue me.
>
>RM
I was wonderin gwhy all the fuss, already 20 years ago there were nice
disassmblers that make nice graphical lists and block diagrams of
the code.
If I EVER wanted to know something about MS soft, I'd get one and
have a look.
From CNN I read that the source is supposed to have all sort of bad
language remarks in it, frustrated programmers likely :-)
A good disassembler would save yo ufrom that, still you cnnot learn from
the wrong way to do something, better look at the open source Linux for the right
way to do it.
Stacey is right about that in MHO, how come open source does not allow attacks.

One thing was missing in that site whith the fun code:

while(1)
{

printf("close all open applications\n");
get_user_action();
pop_up_window("reboot now for the changes to take effect");
rst 0

// catch interrupt
printf("Windows has started in safe mode\n");
printf("Your configuration files are missing\n");
printf('Missing or defective FAT, want to try spare one?");
wait_user_input();
printf("No files found\n");
printf("Try re-installing, hope you had backups\n");
}

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:02:42 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:43:31 -0500) it happened Robert Myers
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:04:27 -0600, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
<snip>

>I was wonderin gwhy all the fuss, already 20 years ago there were nice
>disassmblers that make nice graphical lists and block diagrams of
>the code.
>If I EVER wanted to know something about MS soft, I'd get one and
>have a look.

You are just underscoring my point. Microsoft has more to gain from
your looking at their source code than you do.

The open source community has coped fairly well with:

1. About a dozen different implementations of SMB and NETBIOS.

2. FAT-whatever.

It is still struggling with

1. NTFS.

2. Constant "improvements" to MS Word and the impact they have on MS
Word files.

The NTFS battle is slowly being won, but when M$ comes out with
Longhorn, it will, I am sure, have a completely different filesystem
"database". I have confidence that the open source community will
unscramble what surely will be a deliberately and elaborately
obfuscated database format.

The battle against Word is not to be won on the software front.
Companies are going to have to grasp the fact that Bill Gates & Co.
own a piece of all the intellectual property stored in MS proprietary
format. They don't need the features that MS is forever adding, and
those features aren't there to make the product more useful, they are
there to make escape from the clutches of Microsoft ever more
difficult.

<snip>
..
>
>One thing was missing in that site whith the fun code:
>
>while(1)
>{
>
>printf("close all open applications\n");
>get_user_action();
>pop_up_window("reboot now for the changes to take effect");
>rst 0
>
>// catch interrupt
>printf("Windows has started in safe mode\n");
>printf("Your configuration files are missing\n");
>printf('Missing or defective FAT, want to try spare one?");
>wait_user_input();
>printf("No files found\n");
>printf("Try re-installing, hope you had backups\n");

....

printf("Buy a completely new hard disk, install Linux, mount the
Windows disk as needed to transfer files to a safe environment.\n
Leave Windows disk in place, as the TrueType fonts are worth the cost
of the entire Windows OEM installation, but be sure to add the windows
fonts to your Linux font path.\nIf your Windows disk is in NTFS,
download and burn a copy of Knoppix and use it to transfer your
Windows files to your Linux disk.\nThank you for contributing to the
Bill Gates greatest philanthropist of all time fund, thank you for
using Windows-supplied discount TrueType fonts, and have a nice
day.\n");

>}

RM

Robert Myers wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:04:27 -0600, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>>And you snipped the second link I posted, which was funny stuff. :-(
>
> I didn't click on the second link, and wouldn't have considered
> clicking on the second link, until I was reasonably certain, as a
> result of your second post, that it was completely a joke and
> contained no code seriously purporting to be M$ intellectual property.
>
> _Think_ about the history of the SCO lawsuit: You've _seen_ our code,
> some of the code you've released resembles our code, therefore you
> must have stolen intellectual property from us.
>


Wow, never thought of that but of course you're right. Anytime MS wants,
they can now claim some Linux coder "saw our code" and sue. This is REALLY
getting out of hand but considering the billions MS/Balmer has to lose if
Linux continues to gain ground, I'm not surprised they are using SCO and
any other "legal" tricks to bash their only competition. Look at the BS
they did with Netscape and that was over -no cost- software!

--

Stacey

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:30:33 -0500, Stacey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

<snip>
>
>Wow, never thought of that but of course you're right. Anytime MS wants,
>they can now claim some Linux coder "saw our code" and sue. This is REALLY
>getting out of hand but considering the billions MS/Balmer has to lose if
>Linux continues to gain ground, I'm not surprised they are using SCO and
>any other "legal" tricks to bash their only competition. Look at the BS
>they did with Netscape and that was over -no cost- software!

It could be even better. I've seen speculation that the leaked code
contains details of the Windows security apparatus.

What better way to shift the blame for security flaws from M$
incompetence to open source foul play?

Next thing you know, we'll have a special Microsoft liason in the
Office of Homeland Security.

RM

Robert Myers <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:30:33 -0500, Stacey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: <snip>
::
:: Wow, never thought of that but of course you're right. Anytime MS
:: wants, they can now claim some Linux coder "saw our code" and sue.
:: This is REALLY getting out of hand but considering the billions
:: MS/Balmer has to lose if Linux continues to gain ground, I'm not
:: surprised they are using SCO and any other "legal" tricks to bash
:: their only competition. Look at the BS they did with Netscape and
:: that was over -no cost- software!
:
: It could be even better. I've seen speculation that the leaked code
: contains details of the Windows security apparatus.
:
: What better way to shift the blame for security flaws from M$
: incompetence to open source foul play?
:
: Next thing you know, we'll have a special Microsoft liason in the
: Office of Homeland Security.

Well excusemwaa. But after reading the above exchanges, me thinks this
whole thing has been a deliberate "leak" on the part of M$ to justify
future lawsuits against the GPL community for anything even
**resembling** their source code. Sorry folks, I'm a little high
tonight.... ;-)

J.
-
--------
The end to "Personal Computing" as we know it is just around the corner.
TCPA will take away ALL rights from you, the consumer. Learn more
about it here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html and
here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html