Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Security Updates for Pirated Windows?
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri May 07, 2004 12:33 AM
from the recalls-for-stolen-cars dept.
from the recalls-for-stolen-cars dept.
zachlipton writes "DSL Reports has an interesting question posted: should users with pirated copies of Windows be allowed to download security updates, such as for Sasser? Apparently, without a valid CD key, users cannot download these updates. Do they get what they deserve, or should they be allowed these updates through Windows Update in order to reduce the impact of these worms on the rest of the net? Should security updates only for worms be made available to pirated users, or also updates for issues that while not posing a risk to other internet users, would open the pirate up to a security hole?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hey lets support the thieves! (Score:5, Insightful)
Want software without paying for it? Use Free Software. Theres heaps of it.
Re:Hey lets support the thieves! (Score:5, Funny)
But if they don't update, then the rest with legal copies is also affected when pirates computers get infected by worms.
I have a modest proposition: MS should made for pirates a "special" version of the security update: one that will disable the whole TPC/IP stack
Muahahahahaha!!!!! Take that, Mr. Pirate!!!!
Parent
Re:Hey lets support the thieves! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hey lets support the thieves! (Score:5, Interesting)
I totally agree, however Microsoft should horon their "pirates." After all, if it weren't for the people who illegally copy and distribute Windows, the Microsoft market share would not be what it is right now. Microsoft owes a lot to "pirates."
-JemParent
Re:Hey lets support the thieves! (Score:5, Interesting)
It is the same scheme crack dealers use in schools and IMO it should be prohibited. If you do not enforce a license you must lose your rights as entitled by the license.
Parent
Just pirate the patches (Score:5, Insightful)
Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Ive been saying forever that the year MS perfects its anti-piracy technique really WILL BE the year of the linux desktop, and this (at least in my eyes) is a step closer to that.
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
One of these days Microsoft is going to get nailed by a "innocent third party" law suit and then the avalanche of law suits will start.
Parent
But they CAN download updates! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Google, anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
"I'm Feeling Lucky", even.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
This reminds me of the immortal words of Steve Ballmer:
"I'd rather have someone using a pirated copy of my software instead of a legitimate copy of someone else's."
Parent
Read carefully (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Read carefully (Score:5, Insightful)
I really think it should be illegal for them to change your license in an update anyhow. I mean, do the warranty conditions on your car suddenly change drastically when they replace parts in a recall? I'm sure some of you can come up with better analogies.
They are basically forcing their users to change the licensing deal well after the initial agreement and purchase. But aren't we paying for the license to use the software in the first place (as the EULAs themselves make clear). How can they change the terms of that license after we've already paid for it? I suppose that is in the EULA somewhere too though.
So basically we pay for a license giving us the right to use their software. And that license may change at any time at their discretion. Especially if the product is faulty and needs an update.
Considering the cost of the software, the relative functionality compared to alternatives, and these licensing terms, I have to wonder why is it so many people buy this stuff again?
Parent
Re:Read carefully (Score:5, Funny)
I go downtown and lure small children into my car with candy, money, and toys. Then I drive them to my house and ask them to click on I Agree, Yes, or Ok.
Parent
Re:Read carefully (Score:5, Interesting)
A EULA is not as binding as a contract is. They can say whatever they want, but they're limited in what can actually be enforced. They can make you stop using the software, and not too much more.
And they won't want you to stop using Windows, because then you'll have to use something else.
Parent
Already a technical error... (Score:5, Informative)
Tricky situation... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tricky situation... (Score:5, Insightful)
A great deal of windows piracy is by people who have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Other people do the pirating for them, and they just use the OS the same as if they had bought it.
Parent
Beta versions and corporate license CDs (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft disables some CD keys already which are known to be pirated, but I wonder how many valid corporate group cd key installations there are which have been pirated. In that case, it really wouldn't be feasible for MS to disable that cd key, as it would disable that entire company, etc.
Re:Beta versions and corporate license CDs (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is not a charity (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should it have to pay for the bandwidth to support pirated copies? There is no benefit to them.
Most if not all infected Sasser users around here had legit but hadn't bothered to update. Real crackers use the corporate version of Windows that apparently doesn't require a CD key for updates.
Re:Microsoft is not a charity (Score:5, Insightful)
I think, my friend, that therein lies the issue. Think about it for a minute and try putting yourself in MS place... You already developed your software. You already paid for it. You are spending no money in distributing it. You are not supporting in any way the people w/ pirated windows copies. The bandwith costs are negligible. 95% of all the new desktop computers sold pay a forty or so dollars tax to you. You are sitting on 50 billon dollars in fairly liquid assets. You are scared silly of open source advances... why in the world would you not provide free upgrades to a couple hundred thousand computers when the alternative they might chose is what scares you silly in the first place?
why are we even discussing this again?
Parent
MSFT Can Pick Its Poison (Score:5, Funny)
(note that I left out writing better software)
Who knows. (Score:5, Funny)
Frank: Hey Bob, could I burn a CD on your computer?
Bob: Yeah sure.
Frank: Uhh. It says it's going to shut down in 60 seconds.
Bob: Yep. Gotta work fast.
Re:Who knows. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Why should they be able to? (Score:5, Interesting)
If an infected machine becomes such a problem that they're affecting other people, ISP's should simply revoke a users access until they upgrade to the latest patches and remove the virus. A pirated version of Windows wouldn't be able to get the updates and therefore would probably keep on getting the virus, costing them a great deal of inconvience every time their internet is shut off. Not to mention the knowledge that thier machine is going to be swamped with viruses and that their computer will be completely insecure.
The best way to get rid of pirates is to make the cost of pirating greater than the cost of buying the software (or finding a legit alternative).
Simple answer, but not... (Score:5, Insightful)
For the common good of the internet, as well as for the sake of protecting Microsoft's already spotty image, they should be allowed to download hotfixes... after all, they wouldn't need them if Micrsoft had done it right in the first place.
The corporate answer is no.
They didn't pay for the software and are therefore ineligible for updates.
My opinion?
For the common good, Windows should go away. But until then, everyone running it, legally or not, needs to have access to emergency patches and fixes.
The obvious answer is no, but it may not right. (Score:5, Insightful)
As with all things though it's seldom that simple.
When a company such as Microsoft gain a significant share of the market (yes... monopoly), then the damage that saying no could be could actually threaten the stability of that society were their software to fail sigificantly.
i.e. If machines cannot be patched with at least the bare security updates, and those machines then assist in the even wider propagation of a virus or worm such that it affects the infrastructure of the Internet as a more general thing.
Then in those cases, would it not have been a civic duty upon the company to protect the wider Internet and society (of their original shortcomings in allowing the vunerability to exist) regardless.
So I'm more of the opinion that No should be the answer for all bells and whistles things... such as Media Player. But that all security patches should be installed on every machine possible... regardless of whether that is a machine without a legit key or not.
Interesetingly, this is probably opposite Microsofts view. As to be able to manipulate market forces they need critical mass in areas suh as Media Player. So I think from their perspective they would probably wish to allow the whistles, but to encourage/force the upgrade to a legal version would probably wish to disallow stability patches (read: security) so that legit systems are more stable.
Re:The obvious answer is no, but it may not right. (Score:5, Insightful)
The scary thing, the *people* actually believe that is how it should be.
The whole concept of corporate charters seems to have been completely forgotten and the idiotic notion "corporate personhood" accepted without question.
It didn't take all that long for America to chain itself back up with most of the chains it broke free from in 1776.
Parent
A tough call, indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand there is piracy. Even if you say it's an advantage for Microsoft because of more dependency, the truth is that it isn't what they want people doing with their product, and it is illegal. If you want the support you should fork over for the product; after all Windows is about as Not-Free-Software as you can get. Perhaps if it wasn't such as widespread, costs to cover piracy would come down, and Windows would be cheaper and thus more easily availible. A rock and a hard place, people will need to buy before they can afford, and the numbers on actual piracy are way out of the realm of possible statistical analysis.
That being said, not getting security updates can cause problems for the Internet as a whole, not to mention for valid Windows users as pirate machines which can't be patched propigate viruses. That is more than just a problem for the people with bootleg'd copies themselves, that causes network congestion and performance problems for valid users as well. I know my Apache logs are still crammed with exploit attempts...
It's a question of responsibility vs. assisting lawbreakers. My (personal, humble) opinion is that Microsoft should allow security patches to all copies of Windows as it defeats expliots and worms/virii much quicker, but as for feature upgrades and bug fixes which are not a security issue, Microsoft should withold those unless the user has a valid serial key. True seriousness about security means defeating the problem for more than just customers, it means providing a better enviroment for everyone. This, I believe, is the root of the problem in the Microsoft attitude, and it's kind of sad that the largest software company on Earth can't see far enough past their bottom line to make such a move.
No one is (or should) ask them to give away anything more than saftey.
Great opportunity to blame the pirates (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like hospitals (Score:5, Insightful)
So: Would we treat somebody in a hospital because he caught an infectious disease while doing something illegal? Yes. Then, the same should be true for patches.
Re:What about MSDN windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again I'm not an active member in the Warez community. I would assume something like this would be near holy grail status.
Parent
Re:What about MSDN windows (Score:5, Interesting)
I quite frequently use them when I have to reinstall friends computers, because even though they already have an OEM copy of XP home it's tedious going through the activation process for Windows, Office, and whatever other crap got bundled with the computer. They paid for windows with the computer, they get windows. I don't have any ethical problem with it.
Parent
Re:What about MSDN windows (Score:5, Informative)
Funny thing about that: although Microsoft claims that they will allow 2 (or 3??) automatic registrations over the 'net without calling, I have found that not to be the case. Since XP was released, reg process for win2k or office2k always reports server down or too busy and then I must call. I haven't gotten any flack from the flunkies passing out reg numbers, but the 1/2 hour wasted is a pain. Microsoft has forced me to pirate a copy of their software to use valid licenses.
Parent
Re:What about MSDN windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Restricting patches guarantees hackers a healthy number of drones to use in DDoS attacks, and runs counter to all the other efforts focused on getting users to keep their systems up to date.
Parent
Re:What about MSDN windows (Score:5, Insightful)
So even though your systems are untouched, it still affected you.
Or lets say your neighbor's Windows XP was used to send tons of spam and thus your isp blocks smtp/pop3 ports so you can't setup your own mail servers, or ftp or http or lots of others, once again, your systems are untouched, but it still can affect you.
Microsoft has no obligation whatsoever to provide any freebies to folks with illegally copied versions of Windows.
This is true, but that doesn't mean that it's not going to happen anyway. For example, your neighbor might not even know his/her computer is using illegal software, maybe johnny from down the street set it up for them and just let it go. I know, they should know better, but the fact is, most people just don't. Not giving people updates for no reason they can figure out won't go over to well to microsoft's customers, imho at least.
I don't see how anyone could have been "locked" into using an illegal copy of Windows XP.
Noone has, but linux is *not* for everyone. My aunt can use windows because that's what she knows. She could learn linux, but it's too much of a bother for her. Same for mac os. she could learn it, but why bother because what she has works. Now her copy isn't illegal, but there are people like her out there who are using illegal copys.
I propose that Slashdotters who care buy Windows licenses for the underprivileged, the stingy, or the lazy (lazy to learn Linux). Or provide them with free migration (Win->Lin) service.
Someone should setup a fund for the windows licenses, so how bout you start it? I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't mind in the least.
With the free migration service, most LUGs offer a lot of free help and some even have install fests to help install and set it all up for you. The problem is, are you willing to hold people's hands as you walk them though learning the material? Sometimes requiring it to be gone over a few times before the person understands a 'simple' idea? What happens when something goes wrong? Are you going to be willing to go trouble shoot for hours if needed? There's only so much volenteers can do for free.
(Speaking of updates - if Windows updates should be free, why aren't Red Hat Enterprise Linux security updates free? That's even more critical because it's mostly servers than run this OS. So much for balanced reporting on Slashdot).
Well, if you think about it, the updates are free, they just aren't prepackaged for your computer. Any compitant admin can install a program from source to fix a problem, so it's more you pay for conveinence.
Parent
Re:What about MSDN windows (Score:5, Insightful)
The warez version of XP Pro for about a buck any software shop will install most XP patches, but will not install SP 1. SP 1 recognizes the key as bogus and refuses to install.
In any case, it hardly matters. People are on slow and unreliable dial-up connections. DSL is almost unknown. ISDN is not available at all, as far as I could tell. Hardly anyone has the bandwidth to actually patch their machines, and even fewer people have the knowledge or interest (even fewer than here). There are some really great programmers and admins in Viet Nam, but just like there, those highly knowledgeable people are a tiny minority. Most people with computers neither know nor care about anything like keeping them secure.
So even if MS made all patches available to warez versions of Windows, it would hardly matter in many parts of the world, because the people running them couldn't and/or wouldn't apply the patches anyway.
Parent
Re:What about MSDN windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Alas, this is only becuase of Microsoft's interesting position where security or safety flaws in their products never have any consequences whatsoever for Microsoft, only for Microsoft's customers. If only Microsoft were in some fashion accountable for the messes their products made on the internet, then acting wisely would be profitable...
Parent
Re:Yes we should all pay for this too (Score:5, Insightful)
And you are VERY wrong if you think that piracy will shrink their market share. I personally would be very happy if Microsoft stamped out EVERY pirate version, because their market share would be pretty small. Microsoft grew based on the piracy, and they know it. Now they are reaching the saturation point, and really only now have they started trying to make the pirates pay, because they are no longer contributing to the increase in profits, because the market share is so relatively high. They have known in the past that they can't stomp too hard or they would lose market share, but now they no longer care, and they can pull out the "the soul-stealing demonic copyright infringing people" (or pirates) sympathy/stupid-law-making card out.
Parent
Re:Yes we should all pay for this too (Score:5, Insightful)
Differences being
a) there's not only one company that makes seatbelts, and won't sell you any if you don't install them on every seat
b) you don't have to pay for 5 seatbelts if you get a 2-seater sports car
c) that seatbelts are mandated by government, not by some corporation that makes them but does not make cars
So actually it's nothing like it at all.
Parent
Actually, most software in Asia *is* pirated. (Score:5, Informative)
Who modded this flamebait tripe as "insightful"?
Perhaps you were ignorant of the fact, but:
- according to the Business Software Alliance [bsa.org].Parent
Re:Updates (Score:5, Informative)
Even better than that is "Reset5". Updates are allowed for unactivated XP installs that are still in the first 30 days. Reset5 is a little service that runs at startup and magically keeps that 30 day grace period timer set at 30 days. This is actually more than just a handy tool for pirates. I personally use it on my legitimate copy of XP Pro because the stupid piece of crap DE-ACTIVATES ITSELF if I change more than a couple pieces of hardware (something I do with remarkable frequency).
Parent
Re:Not sure what's going on exactly... (Score:5, Informative)
FCKGW-... being they key that was commonly distributed with the first major pirate release of XP (Devil's own).
Parent
Re:Support (Score:5, Insightful)
How, excatly speaking, can an ISP know which app generated which packet in a remote machine ?
And ISP-level port blocking is the foulest evil an ISP can commit, far worse than asymmetric connections or hidden monthly usage limits. Port blocking prevents your computer from being used as anything except a simple surf station; even some FTP sites refuse to work. There is absolutely no justification for this.
Internet was designed to be a P2P network. Do not break it. Especially just because some people insist on using computers without bothering to learn to maintain them (or hiring someone else to do so).
Yes, it's so simple and straightforward to tell a good packet from a bad. All it requires... is checking the evil bit !
An ISP is just a traffick carrier. In no way, shape or form, should they be responsible for the actions of their users. If they are, it will be an additional incentive for them to block all the ports from incoming connections, reducing the value of Internet for all and making interesting and important applications like Freenet [freenetproject.org] impossible. But even if they block all the incoming ports, it still won't stop the worms from spreading (by e-mail), it will simply give them an excuse for the Courts ("Hey, we did our best !"). All pain, no gain.
As this is self-obvious, I must ask: Are you a RIAA mole, trying to destroy the P2P networks ? Or are you a government mole, trying to destroy the capacity of Internet for applications like Freenet [freenetproject.org] ? Or are you just a particularly clever troll who got modded insightfull by a not-so-clever moderator ?
Inquiring minds want to know ?-)
Parent
Re:Support (Score:5, Insightful)
Really. Given the choice between 90% of users being able to use the net, or 100% of users being unable to use the net, which do you choose?
It's perfectly reasonable to block certain types of packets during times of need. Is it desirable? No - but it's also not desirable to have worms, viruses, trojans, and other malware in the first place.
Get over it. Idealism on the 'net ended when it became a commercial entity. Now pragmatism is the rule of order.
If your ISP blocks ICMP during a ping storm (as the grandparent examples) in order to preserve some semblance of service, and you are offended by that, get another ISP.
And while you are getting over it, get real, too. Freenet is cool, but it's not going to save mankind, and not everybody in favor of pragmatic use of private resources is a fan of the Record Industry Association.
Parent
Re:Windows Xp Sp2 Latest Build (Score:5, Interesting)
(And obiviously a new corporate edition of WinXP+SP2 with working volume license key will be out - probably even faster than the SP2 installer)
But way too many warez windows user is *still* using the first Devils0wn release with a blacklisted key. No SP1 for j00. Perfect host for all kinds of viral stuff...
Even MS knows it cannot prevent it completely, but by making it hard for the joe average user they are selling new licenses. Like when a joe sixpack goes 'updates don't work *again*? And if I don't update, my comp will be hosed this time next week? I need to bother my brother's kid again and let him to mess up my computer while installing some new warez version? BAH I go buy original.'
This happens pretty damn often - I work at PC repairs and when we get warez windows PC which is unpatched, we clearly say that either you buy a windows license, or all of the non-hardware problems you have are yours. We won't touch it. Certain age group tends to take their PC back and either live with the problems or get the new warez version, but those who don't care if it costs 100$ for an OEM WinXP tend to fork out money and ask us to fix the damn thing for good. They have used a pirated copy earlier because they felt that the 100$ was 'wasted money' - pirated copy worked just as fine. As soon as it suddenly doesn't work just as fine, they see value in tossing the 100$ at MS.
Parent
Re:Hey! Are you getting Sasser with me? (Score:5, Insightful)
You sound like the people in the porn industry who try to justify having sex without condoms.
If you have no antivirus software, how can you be so sure that there are no viruses?
LK
Parent