Originally posted by clippy I am sure the people who have seen the source wont explicitly come and post 'yes'. But watching the results on a poll, where noone knows who said what ,would be interesting :)

Oh look at me! I have it! Downloaded with e-Mule! :tongue:

But honestly, I don't even remember any more in what folder I've put it. I took one glimpse at it and threw it in one of my dump folders. There's really nothing useful in it. At least not for me. It's just like the Half-Life 2 leak, you have to know everything about the code before it is useful, but that means you could just as well have written it yourself... It's not like they document it with "// L33T HAX0R CODE HERE" and "// SUPERTRICK NO L1NUX BIOTCH UNDERSTANDS". And if it exposes new sequrity leaks, it will just be debugged quicker. The benefits of open-source. Hey they might even have leaked it on purpose.
Posted on 2004-02-16 18:50:28 by C0D1F1ED
Perhap they leaked it so when Windoze has BSOD , the customer complain and they reply :" It's not our fault , we have leaked source to developers and so , it's their fault " ;)
At least I know that why Windows is created . It's created to run normally ( not fastly) in PIV 3.6 G and slowly on 1G-2G or less .
To run Longhorn , you need PIV HP and to run PIV HP , you need .. Longhorn ;) . Hardware serve software and vice versa .
It's ironic when Linux can run faster 4x than Windows on 3.6G CPU ( IMHO , cause I don't have any Itanium or 3.6G HP to try ).
Posted on 2004-02-16 20:07:55 by dreamweaver

And if it exposes new sequrity leaks, it will just be debugged quicker. The benefits of open-source. Hey they might even have leaked it on purpose.
I thought of this, too. Some hacker types even think of it like a competition to break into windows and they are working for MS for free - what a great business strategy. MS wants a secure product and doesn't have the man power to give a really good test. :)
Posted on 2004-02-16 20:33:17 by bitRAKE


But honestly, I don't even remember any more in what folder I've put it. I took one glimpse at it and threw it in one of my dump folders. There's really nothing useful in it. At least not for me. It's just like the Half-Life 2 leak, you have to know everything about the code before it is useful, but that means you could just as well have written it yourself... It's not like they document it with "// L33T HAX0R CODE HERE" and "// SUPERTRICK NO L1NUX BIOTCH UNDERSTANDS". And if it exposes new sequrity leaks, it will just be debugged quicker. The benefits of open-source. Hey they might even have leaked it on purpose.
I guess the fact that the source is supposed to be 'super-secret' tempts people to peek. There are sources of even OS X and linux available freely but noone bothers to take a look at them. :)
Posted on 2004-02-16 22:33:51 by clippy
Hehe bit RAKE, "A guy at the coffee shop" ^_^. But sure, compared to the supposedly ~40GB source tree, a ~627MB portion isn't really very much. It should be windows 2000 though, around from the release of SP1 - unless the guy at the coffee shop got the NT4 zip.

I'm sorta tempted to browse through the code myself, even though I would have very limited use for it. It's said that it contains all of the ntoskrnl core, kernel32.dll library and winsock2 + a bunch of other stuff. What's interesting is whether this would reveal anything not already covered in "Inside windows 2000" + various more underground sources - apart from full microsoft names of internal structures, plus a bunch of comments.

I doubt that many people would have benefit from the source, though, even if it does contain some new information. To find some non-trivial exploits (that could have been found with tools working on binaries, like trivial buffer overflows or format string problems), you'd need a pretty good understanding of the code - and this stuff is HUGE, even if it's only a portion of the whole. Then again, there might be some BUGBUG comments with information :)

dreamweaver, are you on crack? Even Windows XP runs smoothly on an Athlon 700, while P4 optimized gentoo sucked on a P4 1.7 ghz - and that's even with all those fancy patches to the kernel... XFree86 architecture simple sucks. And wtf do you base "It's ironic when Linux can run faster 4x than Windows" on?
Posted on 2004-02-17 00:44:38 by f0dder

Hehe bit RAKE, "A guy at the coffee shop" ^_^. But sure, compared to the supposedly ~40GB source tree, a ~627MB portion isn't really very much. It should be windows 2000 though, around from the release of SP1 - unless the guy at the coffee shop got the NT4 zip.

I'm sorta tempted to browse through the code myself, even though I would have very limited use for it. It's said that it contains all of the ntoskrnl core, kernel32.dll library and winsock2 + a bunch of other stuff. What's interesting is whether this would reveal anything not already covered in "Inside windows 2000" + various more underground sources - apart from full microsoft names of internal structures, plus a bunch of comments.


It contains the memory managment, threads and process, internet explorer render engine, winsock api, even the paint application.
Posted on 2004-02-19 03:08:56 by Eternal Idol Birmingham
I haven't seen the source, nor will I. But ...

Here's one synopsis of the leaked Win2k SP1 code, including some of the silly comments in the code from the Microsoft programmers: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795
Posted on 2004-02-19 03:28:51 by Masmer
I do not think that looking at the soure is something illegal but getting money for sharing it, I am sure it is. Im am not good C programmer so the source is useless for me but curiosity is biger than common sense.

i think that huge size of the code is dangerous for capacity of Internet links. If many ppl will be transfer it then the effect will be worse than worm infection.

remember! if you have the source never shere it by Internet! (and for your sake destroy all of the data and do not post such unresonable information on the internet forums)

:alright: If MS does not share it- it means prohibited
Posted on 2004-02-19 04:51:14 by HarryTuttle

Here's one synopsis of the leaked Win2k SP1 code

:alright: Hey Masmer, this is the best article about the matter I've read so far. Thanks.

:mad: Alert: someone has changed the answers of the poll. My vote was "No and I don?t want to" so please leave my vote from the actual poll and please don't modify existing answers. Add new ones better.
Posted on 2004-02-19 07:13:40 by pelaillo
After read the article refer by Masmer :alright: , I expert more UNDOCUMENT APIs published by who read that source. Hope the Win2K Undocument API's will be more completed :grin: .
With those comment like that , Richmond seems a place for motivately and creately guys.
But why their Windows still throw BSOD when I always use progs which compatible with it ??
But , I really haven't seen more BSODs when use W2k , except some for hardware incompatible .
Posted on 2004-02-19 08:43:58 by dreamweaver

After read the article refer by Masmer :alright: , I expert more UNDOCUMENT APIs published by who read that source. Hope the Win2K Undocument API's will be more completed :grin: .
With those comment like that , Richmond seems a place for motivately and creately guys.
But why their Windows still throw BSOD when I always use progs which compatible with it ??
But , I really haven't seen more BSODs when use W2k , except some for hardware incompatible .


I read some of the comments they made in their source code and it's obvious the coders are really stressing.

There appears also to be a lot of miscommunication and not enuf time to do it right.

Many of them are sincerely trying to do a good job.

Trying to maintain "runnabililty" with poorly written outside apps appears to be not the best of strategies.

I would write in code that something like this,

We have detected some anomalies in your code, but we're going trying to run it anyway.

If it crashes don't blame us. :-)

Good luck.

Runnability
Posted on 2004-02-19 09:32:28 by skywalker
Funny to look at that "We Are Morons" page... notice how few hack comments are inside the kernel itself? (ntos\*\client isn't the kernel, it's libraries like kernel32 and user32). And besides, all of use already knew Internet Explorer and the shell and common controls (all more or less the same thing) is a can of worms :P - Also interesting to see to what extent microsoft have been fixing problems with other people's lame code, instead of sending the companies polite emails stating they are morons. Really bad in the case of Eudora.

Also, since no code is pasted, it's hard to tell just how hacky those hacks are... I guess that some of the stuff in the shell are pretty bad, though ;)

Oh, and keep in mind that if you want to compare this to linux, you'd need parts of the kernel, libc, X window manager etc. If you browse through just the linux kernel itself, you'll already find a *lot* of bork.

Btw, the reference to the "alpha compiler" probably means the C compiler for the alpha architecture, not an alpha version of the MS compiler?
Posted on 2004-02-19 10:05:49 by f0dder
I can't believe they went to such lengths to make other buggy software work! Would have been better to publically state the problems with the software so everyone knows they cannot use the software because the developers of said software are stupid. :P Work arounds just grow and gain a life of their own over time.
Posted on 2004-02-19 10:42:08 by bitRAKE
yup, bitRAKE. Even though MS has to be backwards compatible to make people happy, it's just plain silly remaning BUG compatible >_<
Posted on 2004-02-19 11:06:14 by f0dder


:alright: Hey Masmer, this is the best article about the matter I've read so far. Thanks.

:mad: Alert: someone has changed the answers of the poll. My vote was "No and I don?t want to" so please leave my vote from the actual poll and please don't modify existing answers. Add new ones better.

Yeah, somebody did change one the poll answers. (And somebody needs to change it back.)

I voted for "no, but I wish if I could legally" myself. ;)

Since Microsoft is dropping all support for Windows NT 4 Server this year and have already dropped support for NT 4 Workstation, I don't see why MS will want to fix any revealed bugs in the near-complete NT 4 source leak. In fact, what better way to urge people to upgrade to Longhorn when it is finally released if the source of older operating systems have been leaked?
Posted on 2004-02-19 12:20:33 by Masmer