Kill switch has been denied... I think. | The Coffeehouse

out180

So I caught this today, I know it's a couple of days old, but it was an interesting read none the less. Two things I noticed and I just wanted to bounce off everyone else.

Microsoft denies WGA kill switch in Windows XP

The first is that they deny that WGA is a kill switch but still use terms like "dis-abled" when refering to copies that do not pass the WGA. (Page 2 of the article). The definition of disabled wasn't provided which pretty much ruins the entire point of the interview. It's not a kill switch, we won't turn off your computer... but it will be disabled if you don't pass WGA. It's just word play.

The second is more of an overall observation than a specific piece of the article. The entire article meant nothing really. It was basically an opportunity to send out the quote "WGA is not a kill switch" but really offer almost no other information. While I dont' expect them to spill their guts it didn't refute the claim with anything more than a "trust me" tactic.

An interestin note there was about the latest WGA update that apparently turns the day-by-day phone home into a monthly measure. That's interesting and until I read this article I hadn't heard about that.

Now, it should be said that I'm not a WGA hater. Honestly I don't care a whole lot. Then again WGA has never hit me with a false negative nor do I use torrent keys or the like. The impact it has on me at the moment is minor if even existant. I do however have an interest in what MS is doing because, like most things, it may not effect me not but could easily make a difference later.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

out180 wrote:
The first is that they deny that WGA is a kill switch but still use terms like "dis-abled" when refering to copies that do not pass the WGA. (Page 2 of the article). The definition of disabled wasn't provided which pretty much ruins the entire point of the interview. It's not a kill switch, we won't turn off your computer... but it will be disabled if you don't pass WGA. It's just word play.

When we say "kill switch" we mean "render computer inoperable", which is what a "disabled" Windows XP installation is going to be, so Microsoft is being a real weasle here. News sites will carry the headline "WGA not a killswitch" even though it actually is.

In other news, I'm outraged, not because that people (not like myself) with warez installations will go bye-bye, but because Microsoft claims to have the ability to remotely disable Windows XP installations. Whilst I have the WGA plugin installed, I don't have the notification app, am I safe? (My installation is legit, btw)

out180

W3bbo wrote:

out180 wrote: The first is that they deny that WGA is a kill switch but still use terms like "dis-abled" when refering to copies that do not pass the WGA. (Page 2 of the article). The definition of disabled wasn't provided which pretty much ruins the entire point of the interview. It's not a kill switch, we won't turn off your computer... but it will be disabled if you don't pass WGA. It's just word play.

When we say "kill switch" we mean "render computer inoperable", which is what a "disabled" Windows XP installation is going to be, so Microsoft is being a real weasle here. News sites will carry the headline "WGA not a killswitch" even though it actually is.

In other news, I'm outraged, not because that people (not like myself) with warez installations will go bye-bye, but because Microsoft claims to have the ability to remotely disable Windows XP installations. Whilst I have the WGA plugin installed, I don't have the notification app, am I safe? (My installation is legit, btw)

I know what a kill switch is as well as how we've been using it. I should have been clearer when I said they didn't define it and it ruined the article. I wanted to highlight the fact that they didn't define it on purpose.

The point of course we agree on, they say its not a kill switch but that it will disable a system. Technically it's the same thing, by most definitions and not just ours. It's marketing magic. The term "kill switch" sounds horrible and has such a negative meaning whereas they can spin "disable" much easier when in reality the function is most likely the same.

Edited: formating

joem83
Heading toward the future. IE8, Vista, Office12, Zune 2.0

W3bbo wrote:

When we say "kill switch" we mean "render computer inoperable", which is what a "disabled" Windows XP installation is going to be, so Microsoft is being a real weasle here. News sites will carry the headline "WGA not a killswitch" even though it actually is.

In other news, I'm outraged, not because that people (not like myself) with warez installations will go bye-bye, but because Microsoft claims to have the ability to remotely disable Windows XP installations. Whilst I have the WGA plugin installed, I don't have the notification app, am I safe? (My installation is legit, btw)

It is not going to be a kill switch, I believe all they are going to do is deactivate the product, which you then have 14days to reactivate. Which of cource the illegal version can not, and will be NG after that time. Which is what would happen with a bad key anyway. It iss not as bad as everyone is making it out to be

AdityaG
OMG VISTA FTW LOLZ!!1one

The main problem here is all the FUD created by random MS-bashing sites. It has somehow become wrong to protect an OS license.

I use the WGA plugin and I have never had problems. If you have a genuine OS license and it still gives you a false positive, all you would probably have to do is reactivate it with the license key (since all they do is deactivate your copy). And if that doesn't work, you just place a call to the activation #. Takes all of 10 minutes maybe. This is IF WGA has a false positive.

out180

AdityaG wrote:
The main problem here is all the FUD created by random MS-bashing sites. It has somehow become wrong to protect an OS license.

I use the WGA plugin and I have never had problems. If you have a genuine OS license and it still gives you a false positive, all you would probably have to do is reactivate it with the license key (since all they do is deactivate your copy). And if that doesn't work, you just place a call to the activation #. Takes all of 10 minutes maybe. This is IF WGA has a false positive.

I agree. Most, if not all, of it is based on a conclusion which has been based on a fallacy. People believe that since it has yet to be proven false it must be true. That is of course crap. I have no desire to spread that.

We really don't know what will be involved if WGA throws a false positive, plain and simple. It could be something very much like what you speculate or it could be a huge mess to deal with over the phone. I don't know and none of us will probably figure that out for a while still. I am of course refering to WGA around Vista time frame and not the current iteration.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

joem83 wrote:

W3bbo wrote:

When we say "kill switch" we mean "render computer inoperable", which is what a "disabled" Windows XP installation is going to be, so Microsoft is being a real weasle here. News sites will carry the headline "WGA not a killswitch" even though it actually is.

In other news, I'm outraged, not because that people (not like myself) with warez installations will go bye-bye, but because Microsoft claims to have the ability to remotely disable Windows XP installations. Whilst I have the WGA plugin installed, I don't have the notification app, am I safe? (My installation is legit, btw)

It is not going to be a kill switch, I believe all they are going to do is deactivate the product, which you then have 14days to reactivate. Which of cource the illegal version can not, and will be NG after that time. Which is what would happen with a bad key anyway. It iss not as bad as everyone is making it out to be

I'm fully aware of that, and I have no issues with that. but it's the principle: that Microsoft CAN remotely disable my computer (even though I have a legit installation). I want to know how it's possible, what "Critical Update" contains the backdoor?

joem83
Heading toward the future. IE8, Vista, Office12, Zune 2.0

W3bbo wrote:

I'm fully aware of that, and I have no issues with that. but it's the principle: that Microsoft CAN remotely disable my computer (even though I have a legit installation). I want to know how it's possible, what "Critical Update" contains the backdoor?

There is no back door:
If you runn this reg file it deactives windows. It is not a security issue. If you are running a ilegal key it will just deactive you. If you bought a legit copy and you can't activate just use call phone. I have done this several times for Dell machines takes all of 5-10 minutes

-------------------------------------------------------
"Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\WPAEvents]
"OOBETimer"=hex:ff,d5,71,d6,8b,6a,8d,6f,d5,33,41,fd"
-------------------------------------------------------

out180

joem83 wrote:

W3bbo wrote:

When we say "kill switch" we mean "render computer inoperable", which is what a "disabled" Windows XP installation is going to be, so Microsoft is being a real weasle here. News sites will carry the headline "WGA not a killswitch" even though it actually is.

In other news, I'm outraged, not because that people (not like myself) with warez installations will go bye-bye, but because Microsoft claims to have the ability to remotely disable Windows XP installations. Whilst I have the WGA plugin installed, I don't have the notification app, am I safe? (My installation is legit, btw)

It is not going to be a kill switch, I believe all they are going to do is deactivate the product, which you then have 14days to reactivate. Which of cource the illegal version can not, and will be NG after that time. Which is what would happen with a bad key anyway. It iss not as bad as everyone is making it out to be

Deactivate, as in the opposite of activate, like Windows Activation, I agree that something along those lines will happen. If however it eventually rolls to a nonoperational state what's the real difference.

Kill switch imo has always just been a term used to get some negative sensationalism out of it. Also imo there no difference between the terms kill switch and deactivate, they are at their base the very same thing.

I agree it's not as bad as some of the heavily slanted news groups are making it out to be. Honestly I don't care all that much. It is however interesting to discuss especially after reading the article linked in the parent.