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.