Activating Vista Enterprise Using a Spoofed Server

Ruvim writes "It has been mentioned in previous Slashdot discussions as possibility, and now it became a reality: Information Week reports that a spoofed server has been released that can be used to activate Microsoft's Vista Enterprise versions. It is being made available on several pirate Web sites and spoofs a Key Management Service server, used to activate a large number of copies of Windows Vista in enterprise environments." From the article: "Vista is the first version of Windows that Microsoft requires volume license customers to activate. Besides KMS, the Redmond, Wash. developer also offers Multiple Activation Key, which resembles the retail version's activation process. PCs activated using KMS must reactivate at least once every six months. The MelindaGates hack uses a VMware image of a KMS server to activate -- and keep activated -- a pirated edition of Windows Vista Business. 'Looks like Windows Vista Volume Activation 2.0 is a big bust,' wrote a user identified as 'clank' on the PirateBay Web site Friday. "

Soviet Microsoft

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

In Mysterious Future, Vista Activation Spoofs You!

yep

[User 956 (568564)]

Information Week reports that a spoofed server has been released that can be used to activate Microsoft's Vista Enterprise versions.

And you don't even need a separate computer. You can spoof the activation from the same machine.

So what _does_ Vista actually secure?

[msobkow (48369)]

The DRM module doesn't block unsigned drivers, allowing injection of attack code.

The license module has been spoofed, which means it's not protecting Microsoft's revenue.

Does Vista protect anything other than media restrictions imposed by producers?

Re:So what _does_ Vista actually secure?

[tkrotchko (124118)]

"Does Vista protect anything other than media restrictions imposed by producers?"

Let's just say it protects everything is was designed to protect. To a certain extent.

Re:So what _does_ Vista actually secure?

[Bert64 (520050)]

Well, Yes...
If it becomes too hard to pirate windows, then of those millions of people who run pirated copies, many will stick with older versions, and some will move to linux or pirated macosx... Either way, it reduces the marketshare of vista.
Just think, where would microsoft be without piracy? Most of asia would probably be running linux by now.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)]

Even better is that the torrent tracker referred to is The Pirate Bay -- who mocked microsoft's legal threats, resulting in Microsoft appearing to pull strings that lead to an unprecedented, although ultimately unsuccessful, raid on their servers.

It is commonly believed that the MPAA, not Microsoft, was responsible for the US State Department leaning on the right local ministers to get the Pirate Bay raided. For one thing, the MPAA prematurely ejaculated a press-release congratulating themselves for getting the Pirate Bay shut down, while Microsoft was mum on the event.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[strider44 (650833)]

Being against annoying and imposing DRM and copy protection doesn't mean you support piracy. Two people do not equate to the whole of Slashdot, the free software community, or, in fact, all of the world.

... idiot.

Re:Even better: thepiratebay!

[Sir Homer (549339)]

Wow, should Slashdot should castrate anyone who is against the notion of copyright law? Either make file sharing legal (the democratic method) or put the 50+ million people who do it in jail (the fascist method). I think we are headed toward the fascist method.

Short on details

[weave (48069)]

Sounds like someone just stole a vmware image from their work that is set up as a kms (many sites are just plugging their KMS in as a vmware guest to get going).

I'm sure that Microsoft must have thought of that as a possibility. Since a unique product key is required to activate a KMS, why can't Microsoft just deactivate that compromised KMS key?

Re:Short on details

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that Microsoft must have thought of that as a possibility.

And you came into this conclusion because... Microsoft has such a good track record in security?

Re:Short on details

[Amouth (879122)]

There where ways.. it wasn't that hard.. in fact it was really easy to have the connecting client clear it's temp key so that every computer connecting everytime would appear to terminal server as a new cient and would issue a 30 day key.. and everytime they connected it gave them a new one.. and after 90 days the terminal server would drop the non active temp key.

or the better way was to manual configure the registry and get terminal server to run under internet connector license..

while it took some work it wasn't that bad once you figure it out.

Re:Short on details

[by Anonymous Coward]

That's assuming the information somehow escapes because pirates are mass distributing keys and other information. On the other hand, legitimate purchasers of Vista may want to do their own "home-grown validation" in order to get a product that:
A) doesn't phone home to MS on a regular basis
B) dosen't need to re-validate on a regular basis and break if it doesn't
C) doesn't throw a hissy fit if they do too many hardware upgrades, and,
D) continues to work the way the product SHOULD work when they are actually legitimate customers, despite whatever bugs may exist in the validation software.

In other words, people with legitimate licenses may want to circumvent for the purposes of yielding a more reliable system without this superfluous "feature", in which case they don't have to use or expose the existence of technically illegitimate keys. They can just block anything involved with validation to/from Microsoft at the router, in which case MS can deactivate the key all they like, but the spoofed system won't see it if it is only talking to the fake key server.

Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[jfclavette (961511)]

Vista Business and friends are the most likely to be cracked due to volume licensing. However, features are removed in a way that it is advantageous to businesses but turn away most home users. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

Re:

[crabpeople (720852)]

No thats not true. Even VLK has to be activated. Aparently they will be having a machine ala SUS that makes all the authorization attempts for them. They said the activations are like 180 days or so.

Re:Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[MoxFulder (159829)]

What does Microsoft do for government customers like the CIA/NSA/DIA? Some of those networks are completely and totally isolated from the public Internet.

I imagine Microsoft must provide them with a KMS that doesn't itself require activation, which can be run on a secure, closed network. I imagine it's not widely publicized...

Re:Microsoft has taken an interesting approach ...

[TheGratefulNet (143330)]

What does Microsoft do for government customers like the CIA/NSA/DIA? Some of those networks are completely and totally isolated from the public Internet. ...greetings professor falke^C

ooops. damn.

Re:Very interesting

[astrashe (7452)]

You're right. They're not early adopters. They do painstakingly difficult code audits, and certify products for use years after they've come out.

This is a non-issue for a long time.

Piracy and competition

[robvangelder (472838)]

The prize being to 0wn the Microsoft security mechanisms, but more-so to do it before rival warez groups.

The warez groups aren't so much competing against Microsoft, but amongst themselves - for the sheer status of it.

Self Contained Networks

[nra1871 (836627)]

Interesting...our network is completely self contained and does not touch the internet at all. I wonder how this will work for networks like mine (no plans to upgrade anytime in the near future, and since we use the workstations to run Citrix-based apps, it doesn't matter what OS we use.)

Just Wait...

[Iriestx (1033648)]

Honestly, I'm going to laugh my ass off 6 months down the road when MS pushes out a mandatory WGA update, disguised as another 'critical update,' that nukes pirated installs. All these scam cracked/KMS/pirated Vista copies are going to lock-up, shut down and only be able to do one thing, display the phone number to call MS to purchase a legitimate key. Pirates have gotten by the initial flaws in the authentication system. Microsoft is going to change it, and quietly force everybody to reactivate from a legitimate source. Just wait... it's coming. If you really need a free, modern OS, rather than run something that clings to functionality through hacks, cheats, cracks and work-arounds, why not just bite the bullet and download a good desktop Linux distro? It's free. It's arguably more capable than Vista. How/where/when you play your media isn't decided by the AAs and to top it all off, you don't have to hack/crack/scam to get it to run.

Re:Just Wait...

[ZDRuX (1010435)]

...why not just bite the bullet and download a good desktop Linux distro? It's free. It's arguably more capable than Vista.

Because Linux does not run Everquest and 99% of the other games I like to play on a regular basis. So as far as a "Conveninent home OS that everybody can use" - Windows is still king regardless of what everybody says.
If I had the luxury of having 2 or 3 system in my house, then I would be running Windows for the family, and Linux on the other 2 for myself, but untill the time comes when Linux can have the type of compatibility with the every-day apps that Microsoft provides, I don't think my family would appreciate me switching over to Linux. And that I think, is the main reason why Linux is still not on the majority of people's computers.

Um...

[tsanth (619234)]

I daresay you're sidestepping GP's points:

1) Linux does not run a critical set of games which he wants to play.
2) Linux apps lack the kind of application compatibility that he and his family are looking for.

Let's accept that a console is superior to a PC for gaming, and let's accept that Linux is preferable to Windows for general computing tasks. GP's two points are still unresolved: he wants to play that particular set of games (presumably not available on either a console or on Linux) and he wants c

Why?

[Belial6 (794905)]

"You can flip over a screwdriver to pound in nails, but why not just use the hammer?"

because the screwdriver manufacturer hasn't installed a "Feature" that makes the tool cease to function, forcing you to call the hammer manufacturer to ask permission to regain use of that hammer you bought. All the while knowing that at some point, the hammer manufacturer is going to decide they want to sell their new hammers, so they will stop giving permission to the old hammer owners to keep using their purchased hammers.

The real question would be, "Why would you buy a screwdriver, when you can rent a hammer?"

Re:Why?

[djbckr (673156)]

so they will stop giving permission to the old hammer owners to keep using their purchased hammers.

Now, I'm realizing that I'll probably get flamed for this, but here goes anyway...

You did *not* purchase a hammer, you bought a license to *use* a hammer at the manufactures discretion.

Unfortunately, that's how software sales works now. I hate it.

Re:Why?

[mrchaotica (681592)]

That's what they claim, but it's still, in reality, bullshit. You bought and paid for it -- with the store presenting it as a "sale" -- without reading or signing any kind of contract or license. Therefore, it is a sale and you own it.

The idea of "licensing" it only becomes true because you believe it.

Re:Why?

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Did the store actually specifically state you'd have the right to use the software on the disc?

What are you, stupid? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to wear clothes you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to eat the food you buy? Do stores "specifically state" that you have the right to read the books you buy?

When I buy a box with a disc in it, that mans I can do anything I want to with it -- look at it, eat it, throw it like a frisbee, and read the bits off it! And any kangaroo court that thinks otherwise can kiss my ass!

Besides, I dare you to cite one single instance (that wasn't subsequently overturned) of a court enforcing an EULA that wasn't printed on the outside of the box or otherwise presented to the buyer before sale. Because I believe you're a fucking liar.

Re:Just Wait...

[Iriestx (1033648)]

If your OS choice rests solely on 'which plays WoW' then you probably have bigger issues than I'm qualified to help you with.

MOD parent FUNNY

[crossmr (957846)]

99% of the games? You're kidding right?

Re:Just Wait...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I'm going to laugh my ass off 6 months down the road when MS pushes out a mandatory WGA update, disguised as another 'critical update,' that nukes pirated installs.


Me too. But I'm going to DIE laughing when it turns out they nuked thousands of legit copies along with the pirate copies.

I don't object to paying for software, but there is no way in hell I'm going to put up with the vista activation bullshit.

Fooled me once (XP) shame on you. Fooled me twice (and tied me up and kicked me a few times (Vista)) shame on me.

Re:Just Wait...

[BeanBunny (936648)]

Well, I was with you until you started gushing over Linux. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux too, but I yearn for the day that people don't end a comment about Microsoft with, "Why don't you just run Linux? It's so great!" That may be true, but this is Slashdot - we know that already!

Link to the torrent.

[jZnat (793348)]

Brought to you by The Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.org] as usual. :)

Re:Link to the torrent.

[Firehed (942385)]

Something tells me this would have been one of those occasions where posting as an AC would have been a wise choice. Personally, I don't find a bit of Slashdot karma worth having the Long Baton of Microsoft forcefully inserted into an exit-only part of my body.

But, your call. I thought it was easy enough to find just by going to the top of the Top 100 list for Windows software at TPB ;)

Godspeed, Microsoft

[Citizen of Earth (569446)]

Let's hope that Microsoft fixes this problem very quickly. It is important that all Microsoft users pay every last penny for their habit.

Try again.

[Stumbles (602007)]

This is just another reason why anything dealing with software activation, DRM and it's ilk is a colossal waste of time and money.

it boggles the mind - Windows Genuine DISASTER

[toby (759)]

...Why anyone would run their business (or hobby) on a system that is subject to DeActivation.

Defective by Design, indeed. [cincomsmalltalk.com]

And we are surprised why?

[mrpaco18 (958815)]

It was inevitable that Vista Enterprise would be cracked in some way. Every version of Windows has been. In fact, I can't think of a single large-scale (scale as in cost) software that has not been cracked. No matter what any software vendor does, the dedicated pirates will always be one step ahead. Measures like product activation are only to stop widespread casual piracy, not piracy in its entirety.

Re:And we are surprised why?

[badboy_tw2002 (524611)]

Which is good enough. If Joe 6pack has to jump through hoops to pirate, he might just buy the product. Even better, Joe 12pack (twice as smart) might even be more wary of searching sites because of a legitimate fear of fake pirate sites that have viruses.

In games this is even more prevalent - the goal of fighting piracy isn't to prevent the inevetable - somewhere somebody has enough spare time to crack your stuff, but to _delay_ it. If Johnny 6cola can't get his game right away, then he might have to suck it up and buy it. The most sucessful ones have locked out pirates for 30 days or so. If you've been waiting for months for a game, waiting another month might not be an option. (Some of those might be from pirates distributing a game which still has parts of it not working and crashes half way through - even better for publishers). Obviously this is unique to games, as other software publishers want to keep people out for good.

Malware in pirated software? Right.

[Esteanil (710082)]

Actually, these days you're more likely to catch malware off of legitimate purchases (CDs, games containing StarForce, etc) than off a decent pirate site. (Torrent sites in particular tend to kill off torrents containing malware).

Isn't it ironic?

Re:And we are surprised why?

[smash (1351)]

Which is good enough. If Joe 6pack has to jump through hoops to pirate, he might just buy the product

On the contrary, if "joe sixpack" has to jump through hoops to run his legitimately purchased product, perhaps he won't bother.

I'm fully prepared to pay for an O/S (have purchased several variants of Linux, previous microsoft O/S, etc) however i'm not willing deal with an O/S that constantly phones home to verify that I am allowed to run it.

Paying for a product is supposed to be less painful than simply running the pirate version, not the reverse...

Windows Vista Cracked?

[ImaNihilist (889325)]

Inconceivable!

Re:Windows Vista Cracked?

[Jugalator (259273)]

And once again, before it's widely available. (I don't consider MSDN for their subscribers wide availability, really)

You'd think this sent a message...

Now, all that's left is an even more annoying activation system for legit customers.

Re:Windows Vista Cracked?

[RxScram (948658)]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Interesting twist on the Vista Edition

[Jugalator (259273)]

An interesting twist from this is that the most feature-rich Vista Ultimate Edition may not be the most warezed one after all. Because these aren't supporting KMS activation, unlike Enterprise and Business who were both intended for this use. However, for a pirate, that may not matter much, as the benefits of Vista Home Basic/Ultimate (= home/entertainment-oriented software) is probably quite easily outweighed by already available software, often free.

Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server-MG

[Odiumjunkie (926074)]

Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server-Me lindaGates.torrent

unlike windows xp and volume activation 1.0 windows vista doesnt have any corporate
keys which will permanently activate it. volume activation 2.0 requires a corporate
user to either do a one time activation through microsoft servers (mak) or companies
can host a local activation server which does not talk to microsoft (kms). the only
difference is kms requires re-activation once every 180 days. however as long as
theres a local kms server its simple to keep windows activated. this release is a
vmware image of a permanently activated kms server which allows local activation of
windows vista business/enterprise edition. volume activation 2.0 is only built into
those two editions.

install vista business/enterprise edition with the key [removed, check .nfo].

using the latest vmware workstation, boot the image. disable vmware firewall.

on the non vm vista right click the command prompt icon and run as admin. type ...

cscript c:\windows\system32\slmgr.vbs -skms vm_vista_ip

cscript c:\windows\system32\slmgr.vbs -ato

windows should now be activated.

to check activation status type ...

cscript c:\windows\system32\slmgr.vbs -dlv

tested using echos windows vista enterprise and vmware workstation 5.5.3 but seems to
have issues with the billgates windows vista business.

Re:Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Local.Activation.Server

[nachoboy (107025)]

The part they don't mention is that the activation server only hands out activations on networks with 25+ computers. The machine may be permanently activated, but after 180 days, if you don't have 25 unique machines (and no, virtual machines can be detected and don't count), the activation server will deny your request to reactivate.

That doesn't preclude from downloading another pre-activated KMS Server, but this isn't really a permanent solution.

"MelindaGates" hack?

[XoXus (12014)]

The "MelindaGates" hack? Is that because people are getting sick of being screwed by Bill?

Re:

[shawngarringer (906569)]

They will if you have a big wallet to match!

Alas, the part of the puzzle I am missing... :(

Re:History always repeats itself looks like

[CastrTroy (595695)]

The problem is that there's just too much "fame" in cracking windows authentication. We used Telelogic Tau SDL in university, and it was only available on the university computers, and even there there was a limited number of licenses. We contacted the company to see if we could get some cheap/free licenses. They said no, and that licenses cost around $2000. Which was almost as much as a semesters tuition. Anyway, we also looked to pirating it, and couldn't find it anywhere. The problem was that it wasn't a popular enough program that anybody would bother cracking it. However, with windows, everyone wants it cracked, and everybody wants to be the one to crack it. So it's going to get cracked. I mean, look at the game consoles. People solder chips into the to crack them, but I don't think you'd find a way to install Linux on the v-Tech notebook. People are going to crack what they want to crack.

Re:vista - a time bomb - How MS DRM Works

[Travoltus (110240)]

Or they will run out of keys to revoke.

An enterprising hacker might
a) seek out and duplicate the keys of other customers' installations
and/or
b) put in zillions of keys to be invalidated all at once, until all possible combos have been covered.

a) is nearly infinitely easier and more immediately devastating. Lots of high profile customers become enraged.

b) will make Vista completely unusable.

Re:For those pointing fingers and laughing...

[julesh (229690)]

Would you feel the same way if MS found a loophole in the GPL that allowed them to start lifting code wholesale?

MS has a certain motivation for developing software, and they protect it through technical and legal means.

You'll find that most people here are perfectly in favour of MS enforcing their rights via legal means (as long as they don't use strongarm tactics to do so... discovering somebody has unlicensed copies of windows because of a tip-off is one thing, requiring a contract that enables them to randomly audit a company's offices is another entirely).

We do object, on principle, to enforcement of legal rights by technological means. This is largely because the technological means are (a) inconvenient to legitimate users and (b) don't always work quite the way the should.

Windows Activation is inconvenient because it:

* Requires you to give information to MS that you might not want to give them, and which they have no legal right to.
* Requires you to effectively get permission from MS if you want to upgrade your computer's hardware multiple times (or reinstall your copy of Windows on a different machine, if your existing machine fails, etc...)
* Has made MS extend the Windows kernel so that it will not run versions of certain programs that haven't been signed by Microsoft. This means that I can no longer rip Windows apart, replace WINLOGON.EXE with a custom program that does what *I* want it to do, and not log in via an MS-approved process. Not that I've ever done that, but I kind-of liked the fact that I could if I wanted to (it's not as well documented as replacing 'init' on a Linux system, but there is information about how you would go about doing it out there -- but that's irrelevant now, only MS can do it).

If you don't agree with what they do, then fine, don't use their software, but how is pirating a copy of Vista any different from helping yourself to GPL code without giving anything back?

It isn't. But who said anything about pirating Windows? I have a legitimate copy of XP on my machine. Label stuck to the case, and all. Do I run WGA? Fuck no, I don't want to get involved with that; I don't want to get involved with something that will complain if it isn't able to validate my copy of Windows through some completely undocumented process that may or may not be correct for any given installation. Perhaps multiple people are using my activation code -- I have no way of knowing if anyone's flipped my laptop over and made a note of the number while I wasn't present. But then, despite having that activation code, I didn't use it last time I reinstalled Windows. Why? Well, the copy of Windows that was supplied with it only installs from a system restore disc that wipes all data on your hard disk. I didn't want to do that, so I installed from a regular retail edition of XP. Which I then had to hack to make activation work, because I'd already activated a machine with its key.

Another piece of software I use validates itself against an encrypted key that has a copy of my network interface's MAC associated with it. Fine, except for some reason the damned process occasionally causes the thing's driver to crash while its performing the validation. So of course I've hacked it, despite having a perfectly legal key.

It isn't only pirates who are concerned about Windows Activation, WGA and other copy-prevention mechanisms.