XP Service Pack 2 Bomb

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Nick Fury

A: It's not illegal for them to do that. They write the EULAs and the users agree to 'em.

...

EDIT: As proof of 'A' I suggest everyone actually sit down and READ the Windows XP EULA. It is quite a piece of work if I do say so myself. It is a legally binding license and MS has far more lawyers and legal power than a pirate so I'm fairly certain these issues have been addressed.

Regarding "A", there are certain flags in one of the installation files which dictate whether the user is presented with an EULA, and required to press <F8> to continue. If the user recieved installation media from someone other than Microsoft, and that media did not include the EULA, they never actually agreed to it. (Note that the licence is for the use of the software, not the media--you are allowed, and IT departments are encouraged, to customize .iso and similar files for rapid installations. A process called slipstreaming is typically used for this purpose.)

From here:

Originally Posted by Microsoft

By adding the OemSkipEula key to the [Unattended] section of the answer file, you can automate Setup to affirm that you have read and accepted the End User License Agreement (EULA) for Windows XP Professional. Before using this entry to install Windows XP Professional on behalf of an organization other than your own, you must confirm that the end user (whether an individual or a single entity) has received, read, and accepted the terms of the Windows XP Professional EULA. OEMs cannot specify this key for computers being sold to end users. By adding the OemSkipEula key to the [Unattended] section of the answer file, you can automate Setup to affirm that you have read and accepted the End User License Agreement (EULA) for Windows XP Professional. Before using this entry to install Windows XP Professional on behalf of an organization other than your own, you must confirm that the end user (whether an individual or a single entity) has received, read, and accepted the terms of the Windows XP Professional EULA. OEMs cannot specify this key for computers being sold to end users.

The person supplying the media might be in violation of an agreement, but this is quite likely immaterial to the person who just had data erased. For this reason, there is not necessarily any proof that an EULA was agreed upon, even if the software is being used.

While by Section 13 of the Windows XP Pro EULA (and similar sections in other EULAs, I'd imagine), Microsoft disclaims all liability, it is still subject to the discretion of a court--the court can choose to accept this provision, or nullify it, if it was determined to be unreasonable. (I'd call the above a pretty good reason to declare Microsoft liable, under certain circumstances--they would have willfully deleted data which they were not authorized to modify, by EULA or otherwise.)

Originally Posted by Nick Fury

B: The corporate keys are a weird loop hole and they are probably the solution that will be used by piraters

C: Even if the corporate keys aren't used by piraters, MS still has to release security patches that can be downloaded and run without the "windows update" utility. This means that cracks and patches will be used by the pirates.

D: It means more viruses for MS to deal with and take blame for.... sucks for them.

As for "B", the corporate keys account for a large portion (perhaps a majority) of their business for XP Pro--it's not a weird loophole!

"C" is correct--the hassle involved with compromised systems spreading malicious code (and the resulting mess being blamed on "Micro$oft" and "the devil Bill Gates") isn't worth it. Patches need to work. (Service Packs are partially a collection of patches, but also include the major revisions to the OS. I'd expect them to keep fixing the holes with hotfixes, but hotfixes do not address the inherent problems with the code, nor make major changes.)

I'm not sure of the reasoning for "D", because people will still create viruses, either way. Microsoft supports RTM, SP1, SP1a, and (will support) SP2 versions of XP anyway--so any exploits addressed in SP2 will still have patches issued for SP1 and RTM variants. It really is more efficient for the virus writers to target vulnerabilities that affect the entire NT codebase, rather than focus on those that only target a particular flavour of XP.

Originally Posted by Manoel

Microsoft'd rather have people using pirated Windows versions than any Linux variant, eh?

He's right. (Though Microsoft is loath to admit it, "free" Windows is still a net gain for them, because it furthers their acceptance in the market--even with their dominant position, this is a reasonable thing for them to covet.)