Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

A Different Kind of WGA 'Problem'

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Aug 09, 2006 05:46 PM
from the foolproof-just-found-a-better-fool dept.
Ed Bott recently attempted to scout out the problems reported in so many horror stories floating around the net relating to Microsoft's WGA. He did experience problems, however, not the ones that you might expect. He intentionally installed a pirated copy of Windows XP to see how the process worked but was unable to get WGA to recognize his computer as pirated. From the article: "I'm reluctantly running a pirated version of Windows and can't get caught no matter how hard I try. But these same people want us to believe that the WGA software they've developed is nearly foolproof. They claim that all but "a fraction of a percent" of those 60 million people who've been denied access to Microsoft updates and downloads are guilty, guilty, guilty. Right."

Related Stories

[+] Download From Microsoft Without a WGA Check 195 comments
Anonymous Coward writes, "When you want to download a file from Microsoft, a WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) check is performed. Microsoft installs a small piece of software on your computer that contacts the Microsoft server and checks the validity of your installed Windows software. If the test fails you will not be able to download the file(s). The following method gives you the ability to download every file from Microsoft without a WGA check."
[+] Your Rights Online: WGA — Too Many False Positives 268 comments
An anonymous reader writes, "Microsoft insists that its Windows Genuine Advantage anti-piracy program is nearly flawless. But that's not the impression you get when you visit the company's WGA Validation Problems forum. Ed Bott at ZDNet went through 137 problem reports submitted there during a two-week period, each one accompanied by the output from the official Microsoft diagnostic utility, and found that 42% of the people reporting problems were actually running Genuine software. From the article: 'One large group consists of people who, for some unexplained reason, were displaying cryptographic errors related to digital signatures. The problem is so common, in fact, that Microsoft representatives have a canned response they paste into replies to forum visitors who appear to be showing false positives caused by these errors.' In a related story, the first WGA errors from Windows Vista and Office 2007 have appeared in the wild."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
A Different Kind of WGA 'Problem' | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 348 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • A solution to your problem (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheOtherChimeraTwin (697085) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @05:50PM (#15877217)

    I'm reluctantly running a pirated version of Windows and can't get caught no matter how hard I try.

    Here you go! [bsa.org]

    • Re:A solution to your problem by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:47PM
      • Re:A solution to your problem (Score:5, Informative)

        by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:54PM (#15877561)
        You want this [gpl-violations.org].

        BSA is for proprietary violations.

        [ Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:A solution to your problem (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:56PM (#15877568)
        You see, the BSA doesn't have a financial interest to go after GPL violators because there's a lack of monetary incentive. If any of the GPL software was owned by a multi-billion dollar company shelling out the big bucks to enforce the infringement of their IP, sure the BSA would be right after them.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:A solution to your problem (Score:4, Interesting)

          by CastrTroy (595695) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:01PM (#15877854)
          (http://www.kibbee.ca/)
          Maybe IBM can push some dollars their way for them to go after GPL violators.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:A solution to your problem by billcopc (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:37PM
          • Re:A solution to your problem by Arker (Score:2) Thursday August 10 2006, @12:15AM
          • Re:A solution to your problem (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2006, @07:35AM (#15879608)
            BSA are con artists: they con the software companies to pay them to protect their rights (and they don't do it). I received letters from BSA for about 6 months in 2003: one letter every two weeks, asking me to buy legal copies of the pirated software they supposed I used and they were supposed to "protect", threatening with "2 to 5 years in jail" and warning me they might come any time to inspect my software setup.

            Fortunately for me:
            * I did not use at that time and I do not use now unlicenced software, nor did the company I worked for at that time use unlicenced software.
            * The law in my country would not put me in jail for using unlicenced software (only a fine).
            * BSA do not have the right to make inspections in my country. They can log a complaint and have the police come to me.

            Still, I was responsible for IT, and had to receive the letters, read them and explain to my betters what were those letters about every two weeks. I did not enjoy being threatened to be put in jail, being acused of stealing, and being taken for a full. The letters stopped arriving when I answered one of them, asked BSA to explain me why they think they have the right to do what they threatened to do, and had the word "lawyers" in that reply.

            Why are they con artists ? I was in their database because my company already bought the software they claimed to "protect". BSA are lazy, at least around here: they don't look for infringers, they just pound honest people with threats in order to have something to report to their sponsors. BSA does not look for the interests of their sponsors, only for the money they pour into BSA for those "awareness campaings" etc.

            Unfortunately for their sponsors,
                  after my experience with BSA:
            * I don't buy or recomend to the people in charge to buy software from the companies members of BSA. There is always a good enough alternative, and running the risk of getting in the spotlight of BSA is not worth the trouble.
            * I still think it's lame to use "pirated" software, but I am kinda glad so many people do it, as far as the sponsors of BSA are concerned.
            * I run a clean shop, free as in free speech.
            [ Parent ]
      • Re:A solution to your problem by MindStalker (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:49PM
      • Re:A solution to your problem by liquidpele (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:31PM
    • Seems you know that BSA page address by heart :-) by AndreyFilippov (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:56PM
    • Re:A solution to your problem by tehcyder (Score:1) Thursday August 10 2006, @09:58AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Post the key! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2006, @05:51PM (#15877221)
    No, I just want to confirm the article. Really.
  • Corporate (Score:4, Informative)

    by crabpeople (720852) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @05:53PM (#15877232)
    (Last Journal: Friday January 30 2004, @06:40PM)
    Its simple. Hes using the corporate VLK. Microsoft would _never_ damage its corporate customers by subjecting them to WGA. I thought it was well known that corporate versions of things (windows, symantec) are vastly superior and thusly are the most heavily pirated. Always go for a pirated corp copy over a real one. Those leet software pirates know how to do the job right, the first time.

  • Well, shit, I have the opposite problem... by drinkypoo (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @05:54PM
  • Astounding logic by heinousjay (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @05:54PM
    • Re:Astounding logic by twofidyKidd (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:02PM
    • Re:Astounding logic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WilliamSChips (793741) <full.infinity@NOsPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:17PM (#15877370)
      (Last Journal: Tuesday January 30 2007, @08:29PM)
      Yes, the submitter is using dubious logic, which doesn't even need to be used because there's already evidence that innocents are being caught.Here's some logic for you:
      1. Quite a few people have already been incorrectly accused of piracy by WGA.
      2. There are pirates not being caught by WGA. If someone trying to get caught can't, what about those trying not to get caught?
      3. Every computer accused of piracy is unable to recieve security updates, making it that much more likely to be hit with malware and therefore become a transmitter of such. The more transmitters, the faster the virus spreads.
      4. The majority of pirates will not go out and buy Windows because of WGA. They either don't have the money or don't want to spend it. If anything they will download third-party tools that don't require WGA.
      5. There is no benefit to the Windows Genuine Advantage unless their goal is to get people to purchase Windows 2 or 3 times. Come to think of it, that probably is their goal.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Astounding logic (Score:5, Informative)

        by ThinkFr33ly (902481) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:51PM (#15878421)
        Every computer accused of piracy is unable to recieve security updates, making it that much more likely to be hit with malware and therefore become a transmitter of such. The more transmitters, the faster the virus spreads.


        This is false. Machines that fail WGA cannot download OPTIONAL/NON-SECURITY RELATED updates. Security updates have been, and always will be, available for download by ANY machine regardless of its legal state.

        Despite the fact that your claim has been echoed by many, many others, it remains false.
        [ Parent ]
      • I'm not trying to get caught by Time Ed (Score:1) Thursday August 10 2006, @08:15AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Astounding logic by Fordiman (Score:2) Thursday August 10 2006, @12:40AM
    • Re:Mod Parent UP by WilliamSChips (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:45PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Who are the developers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Twillerror (536681) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @05:54PM (#15877242)
    (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 28 2004, @12:34PM)
    When things like this come out; things like key checking for a game install and everything else that is designed to stop piracy I often wonder who wrote it?

    Are the best and brightest out there the ones that get stuck with this task? I would think it'd be the interns and that developers everyone hates that get the fun task.

    I've used products that had good licensing tools. Keys that you enabled online, and enabled a number of users etc. Everytime it seems like it comes out of some smaller software company with small bright teams. I'm guessing in these cases the senior level codes and maybe even the whole team got involved.

    Anyone out there have expierence writing key checkers and other piracy related pieces of functionality?
    • Re:Who are the developers by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:47PM
    • Re:Who are the developers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DigitAl56K (805623) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:56PM (#15877569)
      (http://stage6.divx.com/)
      "I've used products that had good licensing tools. Keys that you enabled online, and enabled a number of users etc."

      I _hate_ crap like that. I use DriveCrypt for encryption (from securstar.de), and it has the most horrific license system I've ever had the displeasure to use. You have to activate your software and lock it to a computer, then if you want to use it on an alternative computer you have to uninstall it on the first, then enter a "deactivation" code on the website, then finally you can reactivate on the new PC. God forbid you should format one of your computers forgetting to deactive your license first. I even had a problem where a new version of the software wouldn't accept the current activation on the system. I had to uninstall the newer version, re-install the older version, uninstall it and de-activate, then install the new one again and activate it. At that point I was like "JFK!", and no, that's not a reference to Kennedy.

      Lets face it: People hate activation, and for a good reason. It doesn't stop piracy. It doesn't really reduce piracy either. All it does it cause perpetual headaches to your legally licensed customers. I work on software products and was partly responsible for redesigning our software registration system, which used to also use online activation. We stripped out the 'activation' element and sales didn't drop at all, however the volume of support traffic that we had to handle due to activation issues (the largest type of support incident by far) dropped to almost nothing. Our customers were much happier people.

      Secrets to succesful system: 1) Make a good product, 2) Don't extort your customers, 3) Make the registration process simple.

      An example of a good registration system: I recently bought Sonar 5 from Cakewalk. It came with a serial code in the DVD sleave, which you punch into Cakewalks' website in exchange for a registration code that can be used perpetually. That's it. Simple. Cakewalk get their registration info, you get to use the software you just paid hundreds of dollars for as you want. Sure, there is an element of trust involved in that, but hey, you just paid a few hundred bucks. Maybe they ought to trust you after that. By comaprison, other similar software I have licenses for is heinous. Cakewalk earned a lot of respect from me because of this.

      Pirates will pirate. People with morals who wish to support your work will pay where they can. Respect your customers.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Who are the developers by DigitAl56K (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:58PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Who are the developers by cdrguru (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:21PM
        • Re:Who are the developers by DigitAl56K (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:26PM
          • Re:Who are the developers (Score:4, Informative)

            by zerocool^ (112121) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:28PM (#15878351)
            (http://mirror.cs.vt.edu/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 13 2004, @11:24AM)

            Right, and people don't realize - no matter how complex the security lockout on the door, the pirates go in throught the window.

            Which of these is harder to pirate?

            Scenario 1:
            10 Start game
            20 Check to see if key is legit
            30 if key = legit, goto 50
            40 echo "key is not legit"; stop
            50 Play game
            Scenario 2:
            10 Start game
            20 Really complicated check to see if game is legit, key is activated, disc is inserted
            30 - 800 (really complicated and annoying security checks)
            810 if key = legit, goto 830
            820 echo "key is not legit, and we have contacted the FBI"; stop
            830 Play game
            The Pirates simply take out all the crap between "Start game" and "Play game", using decompilers and jump tracers and a bunch of crap that I don't know how it works, but get the general idea. They don't "defeat" the security. They just sidestep it. But the rest of us still have to deal with "you're not connected to the interweb tubes, you can't play this game".

            ~Wx

            PS Yes, starforce supposedly is impossible to break. Except that it gets its grubby hands in to your computer and causes massive problems, including hardware failures, system instability, and blue screens.
            [ Parent ]
            • Re:Who are the developers (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Tom (822) on Thursday August 10 2006, @02:56AM (#15878984)
              (http://web.lemuria.org/)
              PS Yes, starforce supposedly is impossible to break.

              Except that there are torrents of every single starforce game ever around, and they all come with either cracks or mini-images, and there are at least a dozen competing "anti-starforce" tools.

              Starforce is sold as being impossible to break. In the end, it's not any better than anything else.
              [ Parent ]
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Who are the developers by aaarrrgggh (Score:3) Thursday August 10 2006, @03:07AM
            • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Who are the developers by ScuzzMonkey (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:15PM
        • Re:Who are the developers by Fordiman (Score:2) Thursday August 10 2006, @12:47AM
        • Re:Who are the developers by dwandy (Score:2) Thursday August 10 2006, @06:43AM
      • Re:Who are the developers (Score:5, Informative)

        by glowworm (880177) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:15PM (#15877894)
        (Last Journal: Thursday May 04 2006, @10:41PM)
        I _hate_ crap like that. I use DriveCrypt for encryption (from securstar.de), and it has the most horrific license system I've ever had the displeasure to use.
        That is why you should support Open Source where possible. Rather than continue with DriveCrypt change to TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org] which can do everything DriveCrypt does PLUS... use a file, say a .gif, as a key, containers compatible between Windows and Linux and also the encrypted containers don't contain DriveCrypt's giveaway signature bytes at the start of the file.

        The only way to stop the re-emergence of copy protection schemes (as were the craze in the mid 1980's with things like pro-lock) is to stop buying their products, instead relying on open source whereever the task at hand allows. DriveCrypt is one of things that you can easily get rid of. WGA is a little harder, but it's day will come.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Who are the developers by kimvette (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:26PM
      • Re:Who are the developers by Fordiman (Score:2) Thursday August 10 2006, @12:45AM
      • Re:Who are the developers by mpe (Score:2) Thursday August 10 2006, @03:17AM
      • Re:Who are the developers by coop535 (Score:1) Thursday August 10 2006, @09:21AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Who are the developers by Obyron (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:46PM
  • This is surprising (Score:3, Funny)

    by spykemail (983593) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @05:56PM (#15877253)
    (http://otlowski.com/)
    because none of Microsoft's software products have any flaws...
  • Funny that... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dcapel (913969) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @05:57PM (#15877257)
    (http://wot.narg.googlepages.com/)
    It seems I can't get Canonical's apt program to recognize I'm running a pirated version of ubuntu. It should be obvious, since I even got it as an iso file on the internet for free...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2006, @05:57PM (#15877259)
    I know a number of people who 'borrowed' a Windows Support Key from their employeers, and applied the key to their pirated version of Windows. None of them have had a problem with the Windows Validator tool.
  • I'm just worried that I'll buy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2006, @05:57PM (#15877261)
    a copy from a store (you can't return software), MS then says it's pirated, and I'm fucked out of hundreds of bucks.

    How do ypu prove that you're not a pirate if MS says you are?

  • So what we need to do by joshetc (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:00PM
  • Re-create the problem. by Keaster (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:03PM
  • It's still a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jerk City Troll (661616) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:04PM (#15877293)
    (http://anti-slash.org/)
    It's far more of a problem for casual, non-technical pirates than the handful of legitimate customers who have been misidentified.

    I personally know of at least half a dozen people who have subsequently either a) purchased a legitimate copy of Windows, b) downgraded back to their older, legitimate version or c) bought a Mac, because they lack the technical knowledge to keep up with the WGA arms race.

    WGA is certainly going to reduce the level of Windows piracy. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it's going to do so because some people will move away from Windows altogether.

    Simple fact is that WGA is utterly transparent and utterly irrelevant to most legitimate users, and even those it isn't, it isn't an issue for very long.
    • Re:It's still a problem. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kelson (129150) * on Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:48PM (#15877522)
      (http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 11, @05:30PM)
      Simple fact is that WGA is utterly transparent and utterly irrelevant to most legitimate users, and even those it isn't, it isn't an issue for very long.

      I can't speak for "most legitimate users," but I can describe my own brief run-in with a WGA malfunction.

      A few weeks ago, when the updated version of WGA was pushed out, my Dell-with-the-original-OS booted with a notice claiming that Windows was not genuine (despite the previous version of WGA reporting no problems). I grumbled about Microsoft's lying sack of *ahem* I mean, POS anti-piracy crap that couldn't tell a real copy of Windows from a fake one, then logged in, fired up a web browser, went to the Knowledge base, mucked around until I found a link that said something like, "Validate here"... and it said, "Oh, yeah, you're genuine. No problem, pal." (Actually, it's a Dell, so that would be "No problem, Dude.")

      I spouted some variation of "WTF?" Then I rebooted the machine, just to check, and sure enough it said absolutely nothing about being a pirated copy of Windows.

      I eventually concluded that Norton In(ternet)Security had probably blocked the initial validation attempt. With no desktop shell, I didn't have the chance to say "yes, let the damn packet through."

      The whole process took maybe 10 minutes, but it was an annoying 10 minutes. I've had my share of frustrations with Linux,* but it's never told me I was ripping off RedSuMandrivuntu.

      *My main PC is a Fedora Core box. My wife's main PC is a Mac. We share this Windows box, mainly for gaming.

      [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Itninja (937614) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:06PM (#15877304)
    (http://geeksplosion.blogspot.com/)
    ...except I am running Linux. No matter how hard I try, I can't get those dweebs at Linux Corp. to understand that I never paid for this copy. I keep calling them and asking for a invoice or bill or something. But I guess they don't have a record of my purchase. Go figure. Just lucky I suppose.
  • by hguorbray (967940) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:12PM (#15877339)
    I have 2 OEM copies of windows that I bought from Fry's years ago.

    Unfortunately -and predictably, in the course of 2 moves I have lost my activation key #s -I didn't glue them to my machines as recommended because I planned on moving the license to another, newer machine eventually.

    Now I can't even finish the install without having to find some cracked key from some warez site. Then it won't let me install any security patches or Service Packs.

    After the 30 days or whatever is up and I have to activate I then try the warezed key and am told that this key has been used too many times -Duh! a

    and then I have to call MS support and get a new activation key from them. Fortunately they haven't given me too much grif, but its still a hassle.

    Thanks to old flakey hard drives I have had to do this twice and now it has died a third time.

    This time I said screw it and went to fry's and bought a new HP dual core media center PC for $750. so I guess MS won this round.....

    But I will be trying this again since I have several more machines sitting around -I guess I'd better write down the key# the next time they give me one over the phone again. Does anyone know if the activation #s they give over the phone are 1-time codes or if they will work multiple times?

    Has anyone had any luck just asking them for new activation codes?

    -What's the speed of Dark?
    • Re:predictably -mostly the honest are inconvenienc by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:35PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • I know this may be slightly off-topic... by djbckr (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:49PM
    • Re:predictably -mostly the honest are inconvenienc by Sloppy (Score:3) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:55PM
    • by b0s0z0ku (752509) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:31PM (#15878140)
      But I will be trying this again since I have several more machines sitting around -I guess I'd better write down the key# the next time they give me one over the phone again. Does anyone know if the activation #s they give over the phone are 1-time codes or if they will work multiple times?

      Once you have a working machine - activated and all - go to C:\windows\system32 and copy the files wpa.dbl and wpa.bak to secure off-computer location(s) like a USB key or even a floppy. When you need to reinstall XP due to HDD death or whatever, reinstall as normal with the key you used on the previous install (if you don't know the key, download Magical Jelly Bean Keyfinder, run it, and write down the key). After you install, boot into Safe Mode (hold down F8 at boot and select from the menu). Copy the old wpa... files back into your C:\windows\system32 directory.

      -b.

      [ Parent ]
    • The speed of Dark is.... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:04PM
    • Re:predictably -mostly the honest are inconvenienc by Josuah (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @11:47PM
    • Re:MORON! by The MAZZTer (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:01PM
    • Re:MORON! (Score:5, Informative)

      by obeythefist (719316) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @08:21PM (#15877912)
      (Last Journal: Monday November 28 2005, @09:58PM)
      Why is this flamebait? The license terms and conditions for an MS OEM license specifically states you cannot transfer the license!

      When the grandparent violated the terms of his license and installed Windows on a machine that is not covered by his license agreement with Microsoft, that installation of Windows became effectively "pirated".

      I'm not saying that Microsofts OEM licensing scheme is a legitimate or morally correct form of business, but from a (IANAL) legal perspective, the guy violated his license agreement and then was completely astounded when WGA told him that he had violated his license agreement... (jokes about Microsoft software actually working well enough to do what it should aside...)
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:predictably -mostly the honest are inconvenienc by toddestan (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:59PM
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • A different WGA problem by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:13PM
  • but is it activated? by Eric Coleman (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:14PM
  • There is Anti-WGA cracks... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Borgschulze (842056) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:16PM (#15877366)
    (http://spaces.msn.com/members/borgschulze/)
    Microsoft.Windows.XP.Professional.Corporate.SP2.In tegrated.July.2006.MULTI.IMAGE.REPACK-ETH0 That has all the latest updates... and has a WGA crack in it... no wonder he can't get it to recognize it's pirated.
  • Obviously the P2P Pirate edition of XP uses the VLK and has modified the legitcontrol.dll, wgatray.exe, and wga*.dll files to not report a WGA violation.

    Want to really test the WGA? Use your original copy of Windows XP and search the Internet for a known CD-Key and install with that key that millions of other people have used. Then watch as the retail or OEM version of Windows with unpatched WGA files reports you as a pirate.

    Ninja Pirate Hackers and Crackers have modified the WGA files with something called MSIL that is like assembly language. For example if a valid key is found, you might have a comparision done and a JNE to 2000:1345 which calls the part of the code that turns on the "Your copy of Windows is not legit" function. Turn that JNE 2000:1345 into a NOP and the comparison does not match and the program does not jump into the Anti-Pirate code. Or change it to a JE 2000:1345 and if a valid key is found it jumps to the Anti-Pirate code and if an invalid key it does not. Or just take the code at 2000:1345 that turns on the Pirated bit and fill it with NOPs. I am just guessing here, I could be wrong, but I think the pirated version of Windows and those WGA-Fix patches do those sort of things.

    Meanwhile my legit copy of Windows XP has to have the WGA spyware on it to get updates from Microsoft. Yeah Windows Update and Microsoft Update require that I install WGA in order to use them. If not, no updates from the web. WGA trashed my fast user switching after it got installed. I can see the WGA files eating my system memory, CPU cycles, and using up bandwidth to report back to Microsoft, yes folks it is spyware. I would guess the pirate version of the WGA Fixed files remove the spyware as well.

    Not only that I heard that the pirate version of XP has special tweaks and bug fixes that the retail and OEM versions do not have. Yet your chances of malware infections are greater with the pirate version, because you never know who last modified it before you got a copy. So beware.
  • can I get a link (Score:5, Funny)

    by lophophore (4087) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:24PM (#15877407)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    can I get a link to that Google page with the 5 valid keys, please?

  • Intentional installed a pirated copy... by madsheep (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:27PM
  • Not to rush to Microsoft's defense, but... by mauricew9 (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:41PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Damn that Microsoft! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wbtotb (447019) * on Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:43PM (#15877484)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:09PM)
    I thought false positives were bad, but holy crap, letting a few pirates go with false negatives is so much worse! They may never get to experience the pleasures of those prompts or being prevented from downloading updates and utilities.

    Why is this a problem for anyone but Microsoft (or those who have a perverse desire to be labeled as a pirate and then blog about it)? Do you suppose maybe he got a false negative because Microsoft is less willing to pull the trigger when in doubt?
  • What happens if you WANT to get caught? by ronwolf (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:49PM
  • A fraction of a percent? by Tweekster (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @06:53PM
  • Fraction of a percent... (Score:3, Funny)

    by DragonWriter (970822) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:02PM (#15877607)
    They claim that all but "a fraction of a percent" of those 60 million people who've been denied access to Microsoft updates and downloads are guilty, guilty, guilty. Right.

    Right. Remember, 3/2—or 119,990,000/2—is, after all, a fraction.

    Just not a proper fraction.

  • by lordperditor (648289) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:07PM (#15877632)
    Corporate Volume License Keys always pass the WGA test.

    e.g. HP has all the computers in the Sydney office running with one Volume License Key, now if someone were to leave HP's employ and continue to use the key MS would have no way of knowing so has to let it pass the WGA.

    It has to just shrug and go well thats HP let it pass or risk annoying the hell out of a lot of HP people if they refuse it.

  • What MS shoudl do (Score:4, Funny)

    by cab15625 (710956) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:12PM (#15877646)
    It's probably been suggested before, but what MS should do is what games used to do back in the '80s. When you turn on your computer, it asks you "on page 10 of the manual, what is the 7th word in line 13?"
    Espeically since windows has become too complex for a purely software based solution to ever work reliably.
  • The bigger licensing issue is of course ACADEMIC by lordperditor (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:14PM
  • poor logic (Score:3, Insightful)

    by taybin (622573) <taybin AT taybin DOT com> on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:22PM (#15877691)
    (http://www.taybin.com/)
    False negatives don't imply false positives.
  • I wan't overly good in math class but.... by westcoast philly (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:25PM
  • Faulty Reasoning by slackmaster2000 (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:26PM
  • The first hit must always be free by AHuxley (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:29PM
  • It's okay... (Score:5, Funny)

    by writermike (57327) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:40PM (#15877768)
    *My main PC is a Fedora Core box. My wife's main PC is a Mac. We share this Windows box, mainly for gaming.

    It's okay, man. You don't have to prove yourself to us. :-D
  • by NullProg (70833) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:59PM (#15877847)
    (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 07, @10:21PM)
    From the PR notices: http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/whyVali date.aspx [microsoft.com]

    Confidence and Peace of Mind
    Your software is authentic, properly licensed and supported by Microsoft or a trusted partner.


    Ongoing Improvements
    You will get access to updates, enhancements, and innovations that help you protect and do more with your PC.


    Capabilities You Expect
    Your system will deliver the features, options, and performance you need to maximize your productivity and enjoyment.


    Greatest PR/Marketing campaign ever. Don't you feel the Love?

    Enjoy,
  • Who needs updates anyway? (Score:4, Informative)

    by b0s0z0ku (752509) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:11PM (#15878071)
    Stick it behind a firewall. Put good antivirus software on there (which can be free like Avast or AVG Free). Scan for other spyware periodically. Use Firefox to surf sites whenever possible, and don't surf obviously sketchy sites. And don't run executables that you don't know about.

    I still have an unpatched Windows 2k SP3 box which has been running behind a firewall for the last 2 1/2 years. Still relatively fast and shows no evidence of malware infestation.

    I can see updates being necessary on Server 2003, which is often quite buggy and needs patches for stuff to work, but an XP or 2k box doesn't desperately need the updates if it's used in a reasonably sane manner.

    -b.

  • Has anyone complaining tried the phone? by Kusand (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:33PM
  • WGA failure by Merithiel (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @09:50PM
  • Dear Pirates: by zerocool^ (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:15PM
  • False Positive != False Negative by ThinkFr33ly (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:46PM
  • A simple bug (Score:4, Funny)

    by real gumby (11516) on Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:53PM (#15878426)
    They just forgot a "!" in the checking code!

    A 10MB mandatory patch should clear that one right up.
  • So WGA errs on the side of the user? by I'm Don Giovanni (Score:2) Wednesday August 09 2006, @10:55PM
  • My WGA Issue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by robbak (775424) on Thursday August 10 2006, @12:02AM (#15878598)
    (http://www.robbak.com/)
    Here is my WGA story.

    A client's laptop started complaining. I checked its key, and it did not match the key on the sticker. So I attempted to change the key. No go with MS's vba script. No go with the activation wizard (which is another suggested way to change it) - it stated that the key was invalid. Further 'hacking' with the activation wizard (No, I don't know what I did, but there was a maximum of three buttons I could have clicked, and one of them was 'cancel!') got me a key I could use on the phone, and, after telling a bored Indian the story ("Have you installed this software on any other machine?" - I swear that quoting a snatch of Alice in Wonderland would have succeded!) he coughed up the activation code. WGA no more, but my it's a drag!

    If I charged them full price, It may well have been more than a new licence. Even so, it probably would have taken just as long to get it to accept the freshly bought key.
     
  • But is it really that much? by StuffedFrogYK (Score:1) Thursday August 10 2006, @01:01AM
  • by j741 (788258) on Thursday August 10 2006, @01:08AM (#15878740)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday October 11 2006, @10:33PM)
    I service computers for a living. I've done so for more than 10 years. Over the past few years, I've observed a vast increase in unrecoverable hard drive failure rates, and an even larger increase of malware which negatively affects the system beyond reasonable repair. In these situations it is often much faster (and cheaper for the client) for me to re-install the customer's Windows. I'd guess that more than 80% of these re-installs involve an OEM release of Windows, where the product license key is on a sticker physically and permanently attached to the computer's case. One which is quite obviously either a legitimate license or an extremely well made (and unlikely) counterfit. Now, about half of all re-installs (which require product re-activation) fail the product activaiton (even before I can install the WGA spyware). This requires a phone call to Microsoft's product activation line. Here, if someone asks me a question or the other phone line rings or I hickup, Microsoft's non-human system will often make me start all over again repeating a boring string of numbers. After this, I get informed that the product key can not be validated (Which is the reason I called in the first place) and put on hold again until I finally get a human (if not English) voice. Then I'm asked to repeat the first part of the boring string of numbers before I'm questioned like a murder suspect about why I want to activate Windows. After all this, I am usually provided the clearance code to activate Windows. Total time for this process per client computer is approximately 20 minutes. Repeat 4 or 5 times each day, 5 days a week and Microsoft has managed to waste a very large quantity of my billable time. However, after jumping through these hoops, WGA did not bother these clients (yet).
  • Variant on WGA problems (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GregWebb (26123) on Thursday August 10 2006, @03:11AM (#15879019)
    Hi all

    Had a problem last week that I'd never seen before...

    I had to reinstall XP Pro at home, so duly provided my license key during installation. Much to my displeasure, I was then required to go through the whole WGA problem to get some critical security updates.

    It flagged my license as a dud, and put my code on screen for me to see and sort out.

    Except that it didn't put in my code - the one I'd set when I installed Windows - but a completely different code...
  • Activation Problems by embracethenerdwithin (Score:1) Thursday August 10 2006, @07:39AM
  • OP is a tool. WGA does work by js3 (Score:2) Thursday August 10 2006, @09:10AM
  • WGA a critical update, my donkey by Rowe Shamboe (Score:1) Thursday August 10 2006, @09:39AM
  • does it really matter? by Erlking (Score:1) Thursday August 10 2006, @11:48AM
  • Old axiom, new threshhold by HTH NE1 (Score:2) Thursday August 10 2006, @11:58AM
  • Re:Not likely by Golden Section (Score:1) Wednesday August 09 2006, @07:19PM
  • 12 replies beneath your current threshold.