Windows 2000 and NT source code leaked
 

http://news.geekhaven.net/#53

omg...!!!

cg

Microsoft Windows source code leak!!!
 

Check this out and tell me what y'all think:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._source_code_3


OMG billy's afraid...... BUWAHAHA!!!!!

Well we should all be glad that those nasty hackers don't have the linux source code! I mean imagine all the viruses and hacks and general Chaos they could cause!!!:eek:

(sarcastic!)

just saw about that on the news a few minutes ago, i dono whats worse, MS saying hackers could use it to exploit windows, or the news people saying that, i mean how embarising that some hackers can exploit windows jsut because they have the codes, makes me glad i have a linux laptop

I like to see a Newstory about how Windows got patched and runs flawless because of the source code leak. Bill Gates just happens to find hacked, improved Windows source in his mailbox. . .

its not that big of deal actually. All the hackers have decompiled important parts to discover most of the exploits already. I assume, that this will make it a little easier for them, and some exploits will probly come out of this.

That would be hilarious!! It would be amazing if hackers actually improve windows, instead of using it for exploits etc. That would definitely help people see that open source is most times, safer and more secure than closed source.

how come the hackers are not interested to hack linux..since linux is open source? or may be they are rather interested to hack something which is rare, hard to get it and yet costly?

I have to admit I used to think that way about open vs. closed systems. I've now come to the realization I was completely wrong. It's secrecy itself that poses the greatest security risk... and I'm not just talking about source code either. Since open systems can be scrutinized by the general public, exploits/abuses are immediately exposed and corrected. Closed systems have the potential to be exploited/abused indefinitely. You have to consider the implications of this story when combined with the recent revelation MS kept a serious flaw secret from its customers for over six months. Closed systems leave the public at the mercy of insiders privy to the information.

Linux source code is freely available to every one. But the development model easily discourages any and all backdoors and also IMHO increases the security of the product. So, there is no great risk for Open source in gneral :).

thats the big difference
 

when a Microsoft hacker finds a flaw, yeah right.... let me start again

when a Microsoft user nearly callapses over all the flaws in just trying to use Windows, he decides to get f%$#ing even by sending lessons in the blatent obvious back Bill's way. even Bill himself has been known to eat brain dead "Microsoft Certified" programmers for lunch. i mean, i've seen these guys in action, outside a game of Pacman, these people shouldn't be within 500 miles of a computer

in any event, when a Linux user comes across a tiny area that can be improved or an expert manages to detect a tiny oversight, he or she is usually the first one to figure out a patch and get it sent in.

it can be said that the imputis is the same in both cases, notoriety, that is "i did this". however, more often than not in the case of Linux users, its a form of protection for their own installation as they need their findings verified by other Linux users. it's a community thing with Linux, kinda like how the French acted in 1791 after the fall of King Louis XVI, the citizens generally and unananimosly swore an oath to the "National Assembly".

whereas in Microsoft's case it's more like someone (another user gone to Linux) has just climbed over the Berlin wall and comrad Bill gets mighty pissed off about it.

- perry

Yeah i know, i was just joking in my above post. Hmm, these forums need a more sarcastic looking font........ But anyway, if anyone knows anything about the source code leak, they should report it to microsoft, making sure to let them know you are a LINUX user. We need to dispell the myth that *nix users are all hackers (of the evil variety). And also, it's the right thing to do. I mean the source code is microsoft's property, no matter how much i dislike microsoft, and despite the fact that i will never run one of their operating systems.

I disagree. I think it's a very big deal. Security is one element : Microsoft's model of security through obscurity must take a major hit. It will also be very interesting to see what nasty surprises there are in the source code (e.g. comments, back doors) not to mention that the quality (or otherwise) of the Windows code will become apparent.

If it turns out that the Windows code quality is not as superb as Bill has been telling us (because, of course the proprietary model of software development is superior to the open source model), that could be a big dent in Bill's credibility.

In addition, the amount of code released is huge : millions of lines. Hackers could be going through this for years and finding new things. Microsoft get the bad part of open source security (all the bad guys can see the code) without the good part (all the good guys checking the code for bugs).

If I was an organisation running NT, I'd be wondering what on Earth is going to hit me next. I'd be getting calls from my friendly Microsoft salesman suggesting I might like to upgrade to XP or 2003. Hopefully, I'd also be getting calls from my friendly Linux salesman touting those offerings too; and something like this might help persuade me that maybe staying in the Microsoft fold isn't playing safe after all.

I'm no Windows expert, but isn't Windows 2000 built on NT just like XP is? Then I would think the core of the operating system would be the same and probably lot's of exploits for 2000 could work for XP.

This was posted earlier so the threads will be merged.

I suggest not looking at it. It could affect any project you continue to work on afterwards and might undo ages of work.
Worst thing you could possibly do is "help" wine or a similar project with it. It would completely wreck the project by discrediting it, and by ensuring it gets sued into the ground.

If you ever plan to work on any open source projects don't read the code, or risk taining the project.

you should be more concred with what itll do to you if you do look at it, let the windows hackers take a look at it and see how every line contains a valerablilitiy(even tho i ahvent looked at it, it would make sence sence the MS themselfs are scared of people finding valnerabilitiys :)) they can use to make the next big virus/worm/nuke/whatever, besides, all that bad code might be unreadale by linux hackers/programers, and n worse caase might make you code worser code :(

Isn't this better? We use this to put into the new kernels and solve the closed source issues of NTFS?

Two good things:

Better NTFS support in kernels
New material to incoporate in Wine(X)

Plus the released source can be improved on!

2 problems, MS might go after that stuff now saying its break pantents or inelectualy property, and copywrite or whatever, so like the guy said above a bit its best not to even look at teh code so MS wont have such a big case to sue you with

Conspiracy theory: Maybe microsoft did this to freak out all the win2k users. Then they will all upgrade to winxp?

I feel kind of constrained because if i take one line of code from the source, i could be sued by microsoft. There are definetly heavy consequences for taking and even reading the code because microsoft is definetly going to be paranoid about this.

But wouldn't be interesting to see how they made MSpaint? hehe

we alrdy know (or at least this is what i think), they bought the basic program from somwere else, added a few features the recylced from a word processing program, and viola!, just like every other piece of code they "made"

Can they track everybody down who has the code?

Hell, no.

*googles*

I wondered that; but I don't think so. For one thing, XP has a fairly large shared code base with Win2K and for another thing, with Open Source looming as the big bad enemy, the last thing I would have thought MS would want to do is to both scare people about security and get them looking at upgrades : that might be the spur for some companies to look at migrating to Mac or Linux rather than staying with Windows.

Imagine if hackers look at the code and it's discovered that windows contains stolen code from SCO!

ah that would mean relaive from sco suing linux, they would go sue MS and MS would drag it out till sco goes bankrupt

This is sort of like that movie Antitrust

If I remember correctly, code for mini apps like MSpaint and Wordpad has been shipped with their Platform SDK and MSDN package for some time.

I figured it'd be a really big deal about the missing NT code, but there really hasn't been much mention of it on the news sites. I guess no one really cares because windows is such a poorley programmed os, no project could really benefit from it.

I could guess that it was released intentionally to persaude some to make the next purchace. There are as many people out there that use a computer that would be more scared off by a bit of configuring/programing Linux then having a neighbour or local tech to instal the next 'secure' Windoze o/s.

Think about this: With AMD64 and windows being created as a new 64bit o/s their 'latest' o/s in production will have to be scrapped. What of the lost revenues there? Perhaps they weighed the loss to *nix and those Staying with it .._Again_ and feel that there is some favor there. Especially if the leak was from elsewhere.

Someone mentioned a few times (or someones..) that to see the code could be.. a way for M$ to look at Linux. I think that is true to some extent. But Linux is already Open. All M$ would have to do is look at it. Still that could reduce wine and similar projects, or atleast stall them.

I kina like the sugestions of looking at it and being dumbified. :) (nice word, eh?) heh.. ..It could happen. :)

Another suggestion was to help fix it. (Windoze).. Blah.. Why would anyone want to fix it? A rock through it's panes would only make it leak less as the rock would get stuck!..

Besides. Then you could be sued for having the propietary source.. after all you would have to see it to fix it; and to see it you must have it; and having it without the concent of M$ is illegal.

..curiosity on the other hand.. Yeah. I would like to look.

Pandora's Box.. anyone?

MS canot look at linux code (form what i hear all MS "programers"*zombies* are baned from looking at anyhitng that has a gpl leisenze , probly cuse if tehy did somone could sue MS and in the worst case MS would have to make all of its source that uses the gpl'ed code free for anyone to use and see under the gpl,

so think about that if ya want to look the the MS source, if you did they have a good standing spot to sue you and get any project you contributed to

Pretty much the case I think for looking at their code.

Didn't think about the GPL.. M$ used any of the Linux code it could be viewed freely. :) But then how would one know? With out seeing M$ code?

According to The Register the first exploit has been released which has come directly from a bug found in the leaked source code.

The first of many, I suspect.

Just give 'em time.

Not that any is realy needed.

:study: :confused: :study: :scratch: :study: :D :)

im still angry that they are blaming linux.

Aparently, acording to M$, mainsoft, a unix devleoper for windows and unix/linux interoperability had a machine on there network for a while, and that machine is the one that got hold of the source code.

They just dont want to admit how shit windows 2003 server is and how easy it is for people to get in.

Monkey and 10,000 typewriters - Does this ring a bell??
 

It shouldn't matter what the os is for the machine(s) handling a problem.. :) *snicker* ....er yeah.. ..just because it is one brand x doesn't meant that brand x machine or software is bad. or that it is insecure.. Oh God.. :) ..ahem.. but that the person implementing the machine's privacy/etc. should be accountable.

Then again.

What would be said if this 600+ Mb of code was on a 'secured' M$ os at the time it was copied or ..what would be a better word then relinqushed? ..anyways, if it was the case that it were M$ instead of *nix I bet there would be little to no emphasis on that.

Reguardless of os or machine.. it is up to the system administrator to ensure security policy privace.. blabla.. is done correctly.

Perhaps some hacker (melicous or otherwise) must have been lucky in breaching M$..

What kina crap is that? A luck breach? Inside leak more likely. Or just plain stupidity! If I read (and remeber correctly) wasn't the machine NOT secured and connected to the net? Or disposed of without the information being removed? Humm.. just plain stupid!

(edit a couple spelling mistakes.. :) )