It's official: Pirates crack Vista at last

Story: It's official: Pirates crack Vista at last

link in bricked. y But one all knew the was going to happen sooner of later maybe now Microsoft will retail vitiation ad other doormen measures

Lol, at the bottom of the Digg linked website there is another link to: Sampsonresume.com
I wonder who that is...

http://digg.com/microsoft/Vista_cracked_totally_by_Paradox_Microsoft_s_in_trouble_now

You know what is really interesting - the guy who submitted it is a regular at my site/forums and wrote about his intentions in my forum: http://www.sampsonresume.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=376

Nothing has been "cracked".  This is just another "activation bypass" that will work temporarily until Microsoft blacklists the keys involved.

Now if somebody would come up with a "crack" that makes me like Vista more than XP ...............

Heywood_J wrote:

Now if somebody would come up with a "crack" that makes me like Vista more than XP ...............

They've already invented that...it's illegal almost everywhere, so don't get caught with it. Not to mention the side-effects it has on those who use it

Heywood_J wrote:

Nothing has been "cracked".  This is just another "activation bypass" that will work temporarily until Microsoft blacklists the keys involved.

Now if somebody would come up with a "crack" that makes me like Vista more than XP ...............

Actually, the crack has a driver that utilizes that activation system.

This is the most impressive crack to date but I'm sure Microsoft will make the necessary changes to the system to detect the driver and stop it.

cescotto wrote:



So, when are Ninjas going to crack OS X?

Cracking OS X for PC wasn't even a challenge.

Just visit your local neighborhood torrent site for a download link. But beware the number of leechers vs seeders means the download speed is terrible.

I gave up trying after 10 minutes @ 1 KBps.

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

Actually, the crack has a driver that utilizes that activation system.

This is the most impressive crack to date but I'm sure Microsoft will make the necessary changes to the system to detect the driver and stop it.

No changes should be necessary, Windows has rootkit/driver protection, no?

W3bbo wrote:

No changes should be necessary, Windows has rootkit/driver protection, no?

Well signed drivers come to mind immediately.

The crack can't work on AMD64 Vista because it requires signed drivers and Microsoft certainly wouldn't sign these drivers.

So if i386 Vista required signed drivers as well then this crack would be useless.

I guess that gives Microsoft a clue on how to design their next OS.

Xaero_Vincent wrote:



W3bbo wrote: No changes should be necessary, Windows has rootkit/driver protection, no?

Well signed drivers come to mind immediately.

The crack can't work on AMD64 Vista because it requires signed drivers and Microsoft certainly wouldn't sign these drivers.

So if i386 Vista required signed drivers as well then this crack would be useless.

I guess that gives Microsoft a clue on how to design their next OS.

Theoretically MS could roll out a required update that only allows signed drivers, couldn't they?

ddewbofh wrote:



Xaero_Vincent wrote: W3bbo wrote: No changes should be necessary, Windows has rootkit/driver protection, no? Well signed drivers come to mind immediately. The crack can't work on AMD64 Vista because it requires signed drivers and Microsoft certainly wouldn't sign these drivers. So if i386 Vista required signed drivers as well then this crack would be useless. I guess that gives Microsoft a clue on how to design their next OS.

Theoretically MS could roll out a required update that only allows signed drivers, couldn't they?

Yep, I was expecting it to occur on a service pack.

the good guys wrote:

Theoretically MS could roll out a required update that only allows signed drivers, couldn't they?

Yep, I was expecting it to occur on a service pack.

I hope this does come to pass. There's no reason to run un-signed drivers. If you modify a car engine in warranty that warranty becomes voided, a nice model for operating systems to use, imho.

Piracy is piracy, nothing more. Unsigned drivers are simply the result of lazy business practices -- let the fittest thrive, I say.

sirhomer wrote:

Microsoft charges a fee to do so.

No they don't. It's not free, but you don't have to pay Microsoft for it.

Driver signing != WHQL certification.

WHQL requires Microsoft's approval, but all you need for the former is a Verisign certificate. And Vista x64 only requires signing, not WHQL verification. So while you do have to pay money, you don't pay it to MS.

I smell Root Kits somewhere...

foxbar wrote:

Why not put authenticode certs on http://cacert.org ? - Mozilla will soon include that root cert. Isn't it ok to get a digital certificate from a CA for free? Or is Microsoft against that too? Would that hurt Microsoft's CA partners and disturb the protection racket?

I doubt that MS would refuse them simply because they're free. Microsoft don't have to provide the certs so as long as certain guidelines are followed, like security and so on, there shouldn't be any problems with it.

If you're interested you should send MS a mail and ask, there's probably some email address on msdn that deals with question regarding driver-signing.