Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Who leaked Microsoft's code?

09:08 / 13.02.04

Anone got links to good boards with conspiracy theories and the like?

tom-karika nukes it from orbit

12:38 / 13.02.04

Well it was DELIBERATE of course. They're pulling a SCO, the idea being that the code will be read by Free software developers, who will be unable to resist the temptation to copy Microsoft's super-high-quality code into their own projects. These projects get found out, and the MS can demand a license fee for all Free software, take control of the internet, and before you know it Chairman Bill is telling everyone where they ARE going to go today.

It could be an agressive way of pushing customers over to XP (The code leaked was to NT4/Win 2000)

That, or one of the companies entitled to look at the code under MS's Shared Source Initiative either:
i) Got cracked and the code was nicked
or
ii) Pissed off one of their employees, who posted it on the net as revenge.

The code is only very partial (This Slashdot Thread is a good place to look for conspiracies

12:54 / 13.02.04

cheers - my brain is a-whirl with Slashdot geekery, have been in there all morning.

20:30 / 13.02.04

Indeed, it was in all likelihood done deliberately. As has been pointed out the versions of windows they want people to buy, XP and 2003 Server have not been 'compromised'.
However I think it has more to do with MS's current strategy of spreading the misconception that open source software is somehow less secure than closed source.
When future security breaches occur they'll scream: "It happened because they could see the source code!"

12:01 / 14.02.04

A well reasoned rebuttal to the above link can be found here.

15:02 / 15.02.04

I'm pretty sure that it wasn't deliberate. Anyway, this can open up a whole new can of legal problems for Microsoft as I have heard someone who's seen the source code say that it contains GNU-licensed sources.

00:27 / 16.02.04

Let's not get paranoid here. Saying that the leak was deliberate because win2003 and XP source code hasn't been leaked is ridiculous. Code also hasn't been leaked from Windows 3.11, 3.11, Win95, Win Nt 3.5, 4.0, WinME, Win98, Win2000 Sp2, and, let's not forget, that the leak is only a small part of the source code from Windows 2000 sp1. The fact that only a small ammount of the code has been leaked shows that the leak probably did not originate within Microsoft but from one of the companies who have access to parts of the code for development reasons.

Now to laugh about the SCO idea. Haahahahahaha!

They're pulling a SCO, the idea being that the code will be read by Free software developers, who will be unable to resist the temptation to copy Microsoft's super-high-quality code into their own projects.

First of all it's not high quality code at all. If it was then you wouldn't need to patch it up and there wouldn't unfixable security holes in the program.

Second of all how could a small part of a source code lead to an open-source version of Windows NT?

And third of all, I don't get this statement: " the code will be read by Free software developers, who will be unable to resist the temptation to copy Microsoft's super-high-quality code into their own projects."

10:54 / 16.02.04

You make a number of very valid points, Lionheart. But please understand that Microsoft is no longer selling Windows 3.1, 3.11, Win95, Win Nt 3.5, 4.0, WinME, Win98, Win2000 Sp2. If XP code had been leaked, it could very well have given people yet another reason not to buy products that MS is currently trying to sell. On the other hand, for people who are running earlier Windows versions the security breach could act as an incentive to upgrade, hopefully (from Microsoft's point of view) to it's newer products, products which more strongly contribute to it's bottom line.