Windows 2000 & Windows NT 4 Source Code Leaks!

[nathan_f]

http://slashdot.org/articles/04/02/1...id=109&tid=187

"Neowin.net is reporting that Windows 2000 and Windows NT source code has been leaked to the internet. More on this as we hear it."

Too bad neowins server is down now because of the slashdotting...

Stay tuned!

[nathan_f]

"Neowin has learned of shocking and potentially devastating news. It would appear that two packages are circulating on the internet, one being the source code to Windows 2000, and the other being the source code to Windows NT. At this time, it is hard to establish whether or not full code has leaked, and this will undoubtedly remain the situation until an attempt is made to compile them. Microsoft are currently unavailable for comment surrounding this leak so we have no official response from them at the time of writing.

This leak is a shock not only to Neowin, but to the wider IT industry. The ramifications of this leak are far reaching and devastating. This reporter does not wish to be sensationalist, but the number of industries and critical systems that are based around these technologies that could be damaged by new exploits found in this source code is something that doesn't bare thinking about.

We ask that for the wider benefit of the IT community that members and readers support Microsoft by forwarding anything they know about the leak to the Microsoft's Anti-Piracy department."

[TweetyBird]

Not another god damn leak !!

won't Microsoft ever learn

[StuartD]

if they're code was open source in the first place, it wouldn't have so many leaks.

[Alky]

Originally posted by MaskedMan
if they're code was open source in the first place, it wouldn't have so many leaks.

and how would they go about charging people for it?

[gin]

http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~mortehu/files.txt is all of the files i guess.. this dude is sending me the source code i'll post it

[raceman]

That is just a wonderfull scaremongering ploy for everyone to go out and upgrade to XP, I f I was head of marketing at MS I'd do the same, more so if my sales where down.....

[dotwind]

Originally posted by MaskedMan
if they're code was open source in the first place, it wouldn't have so many leaks.

Why do you charge for memberships, just give everyone free access.

[JDog]

Originally posted by MaskedMan
if they're code was open source in the first place, it wouldn't have so many leaks.

This is true, and holes would get fixed faster! Look at linux servers, more secured & open source!

jDOG

[crockett]

Originally posted by Alky
and how would they go about charging people for it?

the same way all the diffrent Linux companys do...

[StuartD]

Originally posted by raceman
That is just a wonderfull scaremongering ploy for everyone to go out and upgrade to XP, I f I was head of marketing at MS I'd do the same, more so if my sales where down.....

actually, probably more so a push for Win2003 than XP.

Anyway, yes... it can be open source and still make money. Go ask RedHat how it's done.

[lyno]

Imagine they find proofs that M$ borrowed code that is open source?

[Rorschach]

Originally posted by lyno
Imagine they find proofs that M$ borrowed code that is open source?

They have... it's quite well known that they pillaged some FreeBSD code for NT and other OSs (which is legal under the BSD licence, but it wouldn't be if they've taken stuff from code that's released under the GPL).

[davidd]

Originally posted by JDog


This is true, and holes would get fixed faster! Look at linux servers, more secured & open source!

jDOG

That's a pretty bold statement.

I would take a Windows server over a Linux machine anyday, for security. Windows machines, when setup properly, will never have an issue.

Linux machines on the other hand are born to be raped.

Linux is 'THE' most insecure OS on the planet.

Before anyone decides to dispute any of the above, check my resume first.

-dd

[JDog]

Originally posted by davidd


That's a pretty bold statement.

I would take a Windows server over a Linux machine anyday, for security. Windows machines, when setup properly, will never have an issue.

Linux machines on the other hand are born to be raped.

Linux is 'THE' most insecure OS on the planet.

Before anyone decides to dispute any of the above, check my resume first.

-dd

I'd say FreeBSD is a great operatiing system, never seen any holes in it like Windows. Compared to when I've had windows servers my self, my FreeBSD were always more secure! But that is just my view.

jDoG

[fuzebox]

Originally posted by davidd
Windows machines, when setup properly

So a Linux/*BSD machine setup "properly" is the most insecure platform on the planet?

Talk about bold statements.

[chrisp420]

what good is the windows source anyway.

lol

[StuartD]

Originally posted by chrisp420
what good is the windows source anyway.

lol

To a hacker? It's like being given the key to a large portion of the servers on the entire planet.

[davidd]

Originally posted by fuzebox


So a Linux/*BSD machine setup "properly" is the most insecure platform on the planet?

Talk about bold statements.

Comparing Linux to BSD is a bold statement. One that I did not make, you did.

Linux is far from BSD.

[davidd]

Originally posted by JDog


I'd say FreeBSD is a great operatiing system, never seen any holes in it like Windows. Compared to when I've had windows servers my self, my FreeBSD were always more secure! But that is just my view.

jDoG

Correct, OpenBSD and FreeBSD are far superior to anything else on the market.

Install a Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows server on a busy network. The Linux one will be raped and hosed within 24 hours. Windows installed from original CD's (huge issue) and then run Window's Update, the box will remain online un-molested. The biggest mistake people make is not running Window's update or installing Windows from pirated copies.

-dd

[fuzebox]

Originally posted by davidd


Comparing Linux to BSD is a bold statement. One that I did not make, you did.

Linux is far from BSD.

Ah... I thought we were talking about an open source versus closed source development model... Who gives a fuck about Linux?

...But you're saying a Linux box with all up to date packages is insecure? (Whereas a Windows box that has been updated is extremely secure, even if Microsoft has waited up to 6 months to release a patch).

[sumphatpimp]

Originally posted by davidd


That's a pretty bold statement.

I would take a Windows server over a Linux machine anyday, for security. Windows machines, when setup properly, will never have an issue.

Linux machines on the other hand are born to be raped.

Linux is 'THE' most insecure OS on the planet.

Before anyone decides to dispute any of the above, check my resume first.

-dd

[SetTheWorldonFire]

Well, we gotta update norton, the spyware proggies, and now update windows everyday.

[lurking]

you mean you've never decompiled Windows?

[sumphatpimp]

[jimboc]

This means bad news doesn't it

[Jeremiad]

Isn't everything bad news, Jimboc? It usually is for me.

I think the source code leaks were absolutely intentional. As we have already witnessed from the release of ME, XP, and XP Pro, M$ has profited immensely by simply releasing a new package that will solve everyones' problems simply by inserting a CD which you can purchase from any local computer store. They even implemented a Windows Update feature, which allows you to be able to get recent "patches" or "fixes" for their software that can help you to stay "secure".

From a financial perspective, it's smart. Microsoft will update the newest version first, and very slowly work their way down, pushing upgrade sales all that much better. Of course, a lot of companies and even individuals spend a lot of time through research and development to make their system tight, efficient, and secure, and they are hesitant to start from scratch with something that is going to be totally different, as even M$ systems typically are.

I have a legitimate copy of every release of Windows since 3.0, and have worked more extensively with each one to ensure reliability and security. Typical users can protect themselves pretty reasonably with updates and patches from M$ (as most "hackers" aren't interested in your useless shit anyway), but there are some very impressive differences between M$ and open source.

True, M$ is huge, and available in every sophisticated country in the world, with retail packages in more than 50 languages. Anyone who knows how to eject a CD-ROM drive and click a mouse can install it and use it. Advantage: M$.

Variations of Linux and BSD packages are available for free all over the world, but you need to find them, and then you need to learn how to work them. RedHat is an easily installed package, but if you don't know how to secure it, you are just as open as a Windows box. BSD is just as susceptible, but has the slight advantage of being less known.

Myself, I prefer UNiX variations for servers, as I don't need to wait for M$ to release a patch before I can fix a problem. There is no pointy-clicky options, which can prove to make for a lot of research and development, and often I have to find problems and solutions on my own, but what do I expect for free? It still allows me to have better control over anything and everything that I host from my servers, and I can modify any source code without fear of being sued.

Bottom line, you can pay a company like M$ for their software, and hope that they can solve your problems, or you can learn to do it for yourself. Both are rewarding. I still recommend that even if you don't want to learn that shit, you can pay someone to do it for you.

Ironically, M$N servers are BSD. So are their update servers, and mail servers like h0tma1l.

Kinda ironic, huh Ren?

Jere.