Microsoft is helping Pirates be more secure...

[Thai Berry \(U.S.\)]

They need to push their dreaded IE7 so badly they are letting pirates "let
em have it"...

Perhaps they want to destroy the pirates by giving them some vista era
software
---

http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=41156

and original article>>

Mary Jo Foley

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=794

The real reason(s) behind Microsoft's move to exorcise WGA from IE7


A day after Microsoft rolled out a refresh of Internet Explorer (IE) 7 that
no longer requires Windows Genuine Validation (WGA) checks, industry
watchers are speculating as to why the company did so.
The IE team, for its part, will say nothing more than what it posted on
October 4 to the IE Team Blog:
"Because Microsoft takes its commitment to help protect the entire Windows
ecosystem seriously, we're updating the IE7 installation experience to make
it available as broadly as possible to all Windows users"

In other words: Microsoft was worried that "pirates" might not be protected
by all the security goodness the company has added to IE, so it decided to
remove piracy checks from the IE 7 download process.

Not surprisingly, there are other theories as to why Microsoft removed WGA
from the browser. Perhaps Microsoft decided that WGA was enough of a
deterrent to result in IE 7 failing to gain marketshare as fast as the
company would like. From Ars Technica:
"The move (to release an IE 7 refresh sans WGA) is remarkable because it is
the first time that Microsoft has removed WGA checks from a product in order
to increase the attractiveness of that product. It's difficult to see this
as any but an attempt to get as many users as possible to install IE7, even
those who have pirated Windows."

According to data from the market researchers at Net Applications, IE 6.X
currently has 42.75 percent of the worldwide browser market. IE 7 has 34.6
percent. Firefox 2.0 has 13.7 percent. Both IE 7 and Firefox 2 share is
growing, Net Applications says (though given Firefox's smaller user base,
Firefox is growing more quickly).

I think Microsoft's move to decouple WGA from IE7 as aimed less at
attracting the "pirated software" crowd - as large as that contingent may
be. Instead, I think Microsoft realizes that it is losing browser share to
Firefox (and, a lesser extent, other competitors) primarily among more
technical users. These kinds of users are more likely to be among those who
are anti-WGA, I'd wager, equating repeated authentication checks with DRM.

Why do you think Microsoft released an IE 7 refresh that doesn't require WGA
checks?

 

[Jeanette]

They need to push their dreaded IE7 so badly they are letting pirates "let
em have it"...

Perhaps they want to destroy the pirates by giving them some vista era
software
---

http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=41156

and original article>>

Mary Jo Foley

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=794

The real reason(s) behind Microsoft's move to exorcise WGA from IE7


A day after Microsoft rolled out a refresh of Internet Explorer (IE) 7 that
no longer requires Windows Genuine Validation (WGA) checks, industry
watchers are speculating as to why the company did so.
The IE team, for its part, will say nothing more than what it posted on
October 4 to the IE Team Blog:
"Because Microsoft takes its commitment to help protect the entire Windows
ecosystem seriously, we're updating the IE7 installation experience to make
it available as broadly as possible to all Windows users"

In other words: Microsoft was worried that "pirates" might not be protected
by all the security goodness the company has added to IE, so it decided to
remove piracy checks from the IE 7 download process.

Not surprisingly, there are other theories as to why Microsoft removed WGA
from the browser. Perhaps Microsoft decided that WGA was enough of a
deterrent to result in IE 7 failing to gain marketshare as fast as the
company would like. From Ars Technica:
"The move (to release an IE 7 refresh sans WGA) is remarkable because it is
the first time that Microsoft has removed WGA checks from a product in order
to increase the attractiveness of that product. It's difficult to see this
as any but an attempt to get as many users as possible to install IE7, even
those who have pirated Windows."

According to data from the market researchers at Net Applications, IE 6.X
currently has 42.75 percent of the worldwide browser market. IE 7 has 34.6
percent. Firefox 2.0 has 13.7 percent. Both IE 7 and Firefox 2 share is
growing, Net Applications says (though given Firefox's smaller user base,
Firefox is growing more quickly).

I think Microsoft's move to decouple WGA from IE7 as aimed less at
attracting the "pirated software" crowd - as large as that contingent may
be. Instead, I think Microsoft realizes that it is losing browser share to
Firefox (and, a lesser extent, other competitors) primarily among more
technical users. These kinds of users are more likely to be among those who
are anti-WGA, I'd wager, equating repeated authentication checks with DRM.

Why do you think Microsoft released an IE 7 refresh that doesn't require WGA
checks?

If they were that worried about the Ecosystem and safety of the net
why didn't they release it for Windows 2000?

 

[Thai Berry \(U.S.\)]

they want to push people on getting vista

win2000 is history for them.. although its a very good OS. Perhaps the best
MS has ever made

 

[keepout]

"The move (to release an IE 7 refresh sans WGA) is remarkable because itis
the first time that Microsoft has removed WGA checks from a product in order
to increase the attractiveness of that product. It's difficult to see this
as any but an attempt to get as many users as possible to install IE7, even
those who have pirated Windows."

Oh yeah 60 Billion $$ company encouraging theft that doesn't go into their
pockets.

If anything I'd guess they have something even more insidious and intrusive on
your machine now than WGA ever was. Like the most successful virus/dialers.
They don't take over your machine, they don't use the modem at will. Theydon't
stick flags all over your machine pointing at them. They just hijack your
identity and machine and use it while you're using it.

Someone in another post [though inaccurate] calls his machine a zombie. Chances
are he wouldn't know it until his ISP called to tell him of the fact.

And his ISP wouldn't know until Dshield [storm center] notified his ISP that
his machine was now a zombie spamming the web.

 

[Richard Urban]

Windows 2000 is now obsolete and insecure. IE 7 will not make it safe.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

 

[Alias]

Windows 2000 is now obsolete and insecure. IE 7 will not make it safe.

Is that why so many MAJOR businesses still use it? How is it "obsolete
and insecure"? Be specific if you can, which I doubt. Also, please
answer why MS is still offering security updates to both Windows and
Office 2000 if they are "obsolete and insecure".

 

[Thai Berry \(U.S.\)]

this is R. Urban you are talking to..

Urban Myths are his specialty! lol

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

They need to push their dreaded IE7 so badly they are letting pirates "let
em have it"...

Perhaps they want to destroy the pirates by giving them some vista era
software
---

http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=41156

and original article>>

Mary Jo Foley

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=794

The real reason(s) behind Microsoft's move to exorcise WGA from IE7


A day after Microsoft rolled out a refresh of Internet Explorer (IE) 7 that
no longer requires Windows Genuine Validation (WGA) checks, industry
watchers are speculating as to why the company did so.
The IE team, for its part, will say nothing more than what it posted on
October 4 to the IE Team Blog:
"Because Microsoft takes its commitment to help protect the entire Windows
ecosystem seriously, we're updating the IE7 installation experience to make
it available as broadly as possible to all Windows users"

In other words: Microsoft was worried that "pirates" might not be protected
by all the security goodness the company has added to IE, so it decided to
remove piracy checks from the IE 7 download process.

Not surprisingly, there are other theories as to why Microsoft removed WGA
from the browser. Perhaps Microsoft decided that WGA was enough of a
deterrent to result in IE 7 failing to gain marketshare as fast as the
company would like. From Ars Technica:
"The move (to release an IE 7 refresh sans WGA) is remarkable because it is
the first time that Microsoft has removed WGA checks from a product in order
to increase the attractiveness of that product.

Or the first time MS has ever even acknowledged that any of their
products are MUCH more attractive if they are not 'Genuine'. About
damned time!

It's difficult to see this
as any but an attempt to get as many users as possible to install IE7, even
those who have pirated Windows."

According to data from the market researchers at Net Applications, IE 6.X
currently has 42.75 percent of the worldwide browser market. IE 7 has 34.6
percent. Firefox 2.0 has 13.7 percent. Both IE 7 and Firefox 2 share is
growing, Net Applications says (though given Firefox's smaller user base,
Firefox is growing more quickly).

I think Microsoft's move to decouple WGA from IE7 as aimed less at
attracting the "pirated software" crowd - as large as that contingent may
be. Instead, I think Microsoft realizes that it is losing browser share to
Firefox (and, a lesser extent, other competitors) primarily among more
technical users. These kinds of users are more likely to be among those who
are anti-WGA, I'd wager, equating repeated authentication checks with DRM.

Why do you think Microsoft released an IE 7 refresh that doesn't require WGA
checks?

Knee jerk reaction to the fact that they don't own 99% of the browser
market anymore.

Good article tiberius!

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[NT Canuck]

Windows 2000 is now obsolete and insecure. IE 7 will not make it safe.

Windows 2000 can still install and run, likely as well if not better
than the Vista home units which do not support dual processors.
And it might take some tweaking to support 1ghz lines although
the first transcontinental ghz speed race was won by a Win2k.

In fact...it can be made even more secure due to having less
junk in the way for granular adjustment of network loopholes.
It would however require the removal of IE (which is also
shared by OE and Explorer) which can be done at install time.
It is IE that all the bugs, trojans, worms, slither past to get
into the system since IE was integrated into core processes..

For that matter much of the core code or features in the bare
windows shell has not changed dramatically in over a decade..
And I am somewhat leery these days that MS patches will
be in the clients best interest and not one of forced upgrades.

Anyways..seems even Win3.1 can install and run fine even today
so I'm wondering (other than driver installations and bandwidth speed)
just how much snake oil is enough?

Nothing will be secure as long as MS continues to force IE, OE (mail),
WMP, and Explorer, directly into core system processes and networking
access by default...it's a really bad decision not a security/programming
design to make Windows over the years a client/vulnerability nightmare.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

 

[caver1]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:

Or the first time MS has ever even acknowledged that any of their
products are MUCH more attractive if they are not 'Genuine'. About
damned time!


Knee jerk reaction to the fact that they don't own 99% of the browser
market anymore.

Good article tiberius!

This goes with what I've, and many others, said all along. Piracy had
nothing to do with WGA.
caver1

 

[Charlie Tame]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:


This goes with what I've, and many others, said all along. Piracy had
nothing to do with WGA.
caver1

Well, mu money would be on a more insidious reason