Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Operating Systems Software Windows

Microsoft Source Follow-Up 1090

Posted by michael
from the no!-it-burns-my-eyes! dept.
shystershep writes "It's official. Microsoft admits that 'portions of the Microsoft Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0 source code were illegally made available on the Internet.' No more details, although it seems clear that it is only a portion of the code. Microsoft is, naturally, downplaying its impact, while everyone else is busy speculating about how serious this could get." A lot of you apparently haven't read yesterday's story. An investigation of the code is already underway.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Source Follow-Up

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:04PM (#8270591)
    The Winsock API is included in the leaked source that's something fantastic hahaha.
  • Source of the leak (Score:5, Informative)

    by cyt0plas (629631) * on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:05PM (#8270598) Journal
    There are a number of empty .eml files in the archive. While their FTP server looks like (didn't check) it is running a vulnerable version of wu-ftpd , it seems more likely Nimda got to them first.

    I wonder what the final MS press release will name as the cause. "Evil Linux Hackers", perhaps?
    • by ackthpt (218170) * on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:16PM (#8270795) Homepage Journal
      I wonder what the final MS press release will name as the cause. "Evil Linux Hackers", perhaps?

      Haha! How about 'Evil Worm Which Exploits Security Holes We Deny Exist Distributes Code'

      Nah, I can't see them fessing up to something like that.

    • by blorg (726186) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:21PM (#8270853)
      "Evil Linux Hackers", perhaps?" Ironically, there is a Linux connection. Betanews is reporting [betanews.com] that an analysis of the leaked Microsoft code indicates that it came from Mainsoft [mainsoft.com], specifically a Linux machine belonging to Mainsoft's Director of Technology.

      Mainsoft specialise in cross-platform development, enabling devlopers to develop using MS tools for deployment on *nix. Interestingly, for the conspiracy theorists, their previous mentions [slashdot.org] on /. date from 2000 and center around rumours that they were porting Office and IE to Linux. More news on the leak from Internetnews.com [internetnews.com] and The Register [theregister.co.uk].

      The code is said to be W2k-SP1.

      • by NZheretic (23872) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:50PM (#8271240) Homepage Journal
        If the code was leaked from a Linux/Unix computer, why was the code found being distributed in a zip archived file instead of a compressed tar archived file?

        Zip files are rarely used for distributing source code amongst the Linux/Unix community because compressed tar files are far more efficient.

        zip -r source.zip /usr/src/linux-2.4.22-1.2149.nptl
        ls -l source.zip
        -rw-rw-r-- 1 build build 49091705 Feb 14 06:20 source.zip
        tar cjf source.tar.bz2 /usr/src/linux-2.4.22-1.2149.nptl
        ls -l source.tar.bz2
        -rw-rw-r-- 1 build build 31964979 Feb 14 06:23 source.tar.bz2
        tar czf source.tar.gz /usr/src/linux-2.4.22-1.2149.nptl
        ls -l source.tar.gz rw-rw-r-- 1 build build 40689187 Feb 14 06:31 source.tar.gz

        The resulting tarred archive compressed by bz2 is is around 35% smaller than the zipped source. With the exception of the the jar format for java classes, the zip format is rarely use by Linux/Unix developers for distributing source code.

        IMO this points to the source code being lost by from a Microsoft based platform.

      • by blorg (726186) on Friday February 13, 2004 @02:16PM (#8271604)
        ...are provided by noisehole in this post [slashdot.org] from yeterday's discussion. He reckons [slashdot.org] Betanews lifted the analysis from his post.
  • Of course! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NeoThermic (732100) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:05PM (#8270602) Homepage Journal
    >>Microsoft is, naturally, downplaying its impact

    Of couse they are. They don't want to admit that its 203MB of files, they will just say its a small fragment.

    Makes me wonder about all the weird e-mail files in the zip though...

    NeoThermic
  • So the question is (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:05PM (#8270605) Homepage Journal
    Has anyone actually built this code? Will it actually be useful to anyone? I could see how having enough of the code available might allow someone to create a version of windows 2000 that would work with plex86, which would be exceptionally exciting. Just how much of the code is there anyway? It's reputedly a ~200MB archive which also contains assorted tools needed to compile from the source, so only so much of that can be code. 200MB of pure source code would seem like it was probably enough to assemble most or all of Windows from.
    • by MoonFog (586818) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:09PM (#8270665)
      Actually, it's supposedly only 15% of the source code. See here [bbc.co.uk].
    • by GoofyBoy (44399) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:11PM (#8270710) Journal
      I can't wait for the Windows 2000 Phantom Edit version
    • by Xpilot (117961) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:15PM (#8270778) Homepage
      Has anyone actually built this code?

      Gandalf: No! Don't ever use it!

      Frodo: How do we know it's source to the One OS of the Dark Lord?

      Gandalf tosses a CD-R into the burner, and burns Windows.Source.Code.w2k.nt4.wxp.tar onto it. When the CD is done, there are glowing fiery letters on it.

      Frodo : I can't read the fiery letters.

      Gandalf : There are few who can. The language is that of Redmond, which I will not utter here. In the common tongue, it says "One OS To Rule Them All, One OS To Find Them, One OS To Bring Them All And With The NDA Bind Them"

      Frodo: Take the source code Gandalf!

      Gandalf : Noo! Do not tempt me with it! I dare not take it! Not even to keep it safe! You must understand Frodo, that I would be tempted to use this source code, for good. To disclose hidden API's, help the WINE project. But through me, all of open source would be tainted, and the LawyerWraiths of The Dark Lord will sure destroy us.

      Frodo : But it cannot stay here!

      Gandalf : No, no it can't.

      Frodo : What must I do?

      Gandalf : It must be sent to the fires of /dev/null, where it will be undone, and we will be kept safe from the Lawyers of Evil.

      So remember folks, don't download it, or look at it, or attempt to build it! It is evil, and answers only to the hand of The Dark One.

      • by mikesmind (689651) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:54PM (#8271291) Homepage
        So remember folks, don't download it, or look at it, or attempt to build it! It is evil, and answers only to the hand of The Dark One.
        Genesis 3
        1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
        2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
        3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
        4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
        5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
        6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

        The account continues in verse seven if you don't know how it turned out. I agree with Groklaw's advice. Leave it be!
    • by VelocityBoy09 (575017) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:17PM (#8270799)
      Has anyone actually built this code?

      I did. 200 megs of compressed source, 22 hours of compiling, and all I got was "Notepad.exe"

  • by burgburgburg (574866) <splisken06 @ e m ail.com> on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:06PM (#8270617)
    long-time Redmond partner Mainsoft.

    formerly long-time Redmond partner Mainsoft.

  • by tcopeland (32225) * <tom&thomasleecopeland,com> on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:06PM (#8270624) Homepage
    ...right here [drbacchus.com]:

    Second, we're going to see lawsuits in the next 2 years where Microsoft identifies code in Linux, added after February 10, 2004, which are either copied from, or influenced by, the Windows source code. And, as absurd as this is, it will be used to have, as Microsoft would say, a chilling effect on innovation.

    Hm. I bet Andrew Morton has better things to do then trawl through WinNT code. Staying away from it does seem safest, though...
    • by guacamolefoo (577448) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:12PM (#8270722) Homepage Journal
      ...right here:

      Second, we're going to see lawsuits in the next 2 years where Microsoft identifies code in Linux, added after February 10, 2004, which are either copied from, or influenced by, the Windows source code. And, as absurd as this is, it will be used to have, as Microsoft would say, a chilling effect on innovation.

      Hm. I bet Andrew Morton has better things to do then trawl through WinNT code. Staying away from it does seem safest, though...


      Part of future kernen maintenance should probably include comparisons against this code, just to be safe. The worst possible thing would be for some witless idiot to include any of it into any OSS project and have this miss final review.

      IMHO, rather than chortling over this disclosure, I'd rather have the code be kept completely secret by MSFT. Unfortunately, information is hard to keep secret when so may people have it.

      GF.
  • by Pave Low (566880) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:06PM (#8270625) Journal
    What occured here looks like corporate espionage and theft, plain and simple. Whoever leaked this should be caught, and sent to Federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison. I know everyone here loves to hate on M$ (hahah funny), but nobody deserves to have their hard earned work lifted without their permission.
    • by Wireless Joe (604314) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:23PM (#8270879) Homepage

      "...nobody deserves to have their hard earned work lifted without their permission..."

      I agree...just ask Burst.com [pbs.org]
  • by squarefish (561836) * on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:06PM (#8270627)
    References to MainWin can also be found throughout the leaked source files, which do not compile into a usable form of Windows.

    I don't think any code can claim this, no matter M$ says
  • BBC Q&A (Score:5, Informative)

    by MoonFog (586818) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:06PM (#8270629)
    BBC also has a Q&A [bbc.co.uk] on the recent event, including thoughts on how this may impact Microsoft themselves.

    Microsoft has said that this represents about 15% of the total source code for the operating system. It is not enough to recreate the operating system.
  • by JamesP (688957) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:07PM (#8270643)
    THe most astonishing phrase is this:
    Analysis indicates files within the leaked archive are only a subset of the Windows source code, which was licensed to Mainsoft for use in the company's MainWin product. MainWin utilizes the source to create native Unix versions of Windows applications.

    Mainsoft says it has incorporated millions of lines of untouched Windows code into MainWin.


    WHAT?!?!!?!??

  • by Schemat1c (464768) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:07PM (#8270646) Homepage
    The company I worked for 12 years ago was licensed to get part of the Windows 3.1 code in order to interface our product with theirs. There must be 1000's of companies that do this and have been doing this. I'm amazed it took this long for someone to finally steal it and post it.
  • by Sparky77 (633674) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:08PM (#8270656) Homepage
    Now that the source code to Paint is out there, we can expect many derivative works to surface in the coming months. The impact on the graphics software market will be devestating.
    • by orthogonal (588627) on Friday February 13, 2004 @02:05PM (#8271464) Journal
      Now that the source code to Paint is out there, we can expect many derivative works to surface in the coming months. The impact on the graphics software market will be devastating.

      But, but, Microsoft spent thousands of man-hours of laborious and innovative research to come up with the Bitmap format!

      Oh dear god! Will the secret of the Bitmap format be made available to just anyone?

      The world will be turned upside down!
  • it escaped! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Extrymas (588771) <`gnu' `at' `takas.lt'> on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:08PM (#8270658) Homepage Journal
    "It is not clear at this point how the three and a half year-old source code escaped Mainsoft."

    You know.. It's simple: code wants to be free
  • by GoofyBoy (44399) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:08PM (#8270663) Journal
    >The leaked code includes 30,915 files and was apparently removed from a Linux computer used by Mainsoft for development purposes.

    I wonder what Linux security hole allowed that to happen.

    LAUGH, ITS A JOKE.
    • by enosys (705759) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:31PM (#8270995) Homepage
      What about the .eml files? You wouldn't have those in Linux.
  • Which is it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by onyxruby (118189) <onyxrubyNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:09PM (#8270668)
    Is this damaging because 15% of the source to the NT / W2K tree was leaked and we're all suddenly vulnerable or is this no big deal since the code is three years old and it's only 15%? I haven't heard anyone talking about DRM, activation or serial code being in the leak, so I just don't see how this could affect MS other than to help interoperability of other software.
  • by StuWho (748218) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:10PM (#8270691) Journal
    Gentlemen, Ladies, I welcome you to the Microsoft Sweepstake. Crackers and Virus Writers are already in their places, competing for the trophy of being first to write a new exploit using this source code as their inspiration.

    Current favourite, the author of MyDoom, but many youngsters are looking to make their mark in this prestigious contest

    Grab a beer, sit back, and enjoy this great sporting occassion - sponsored by Microsoft, Security Through Obscurity.

  • Swearing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thung226 (648591) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:11PM (#8270709)
    I'm shocked to find out that there is profanity in the comments/code. Anybody know specifically what they say? Seems a bit unprofessional.

    M$ Programmer: Well, nobody's going to read this anyway, so "\\f*ck this bullsh*t"

    For personal projects, this is fine (I've vented a bit in my personal coding projects), but I would never do anything like that at work...
  • by mr_burns (13129) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:12PM (#8270721)
    I'm reminded that last time there was a windows source leak we were all encouraged NOT to look at it, so that we wouldn't have to deal with the source ending up in Linux.

    Seems like a good idea, but...

    Was it ESR that made that nifty app to compare SCO and Linux sources? Could it be fiddled with to see if Linux or other free/open source code made it's way into windows?

    It would be quite a coup if we could somehow legally show that they stole from the community without having to deal with the gnarly mess of windows code finding it's way into Linux.

    I'm not implying that such a thing HAS happened, but we're presented with an opportunity here.
  • by RT Alec (608475) * <alec.slashdot@chuckle@com> on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:13PM (#8270737) Homepage Journal

    This may illustrate one of the halmarks of open source software-- that software open to prying eyes is inherently more secure than closed source. I won't be surprised if digging through the source reveals a number of exploitable security flaws, perhaps many more than have been revealed with the source closed!

    To paraphrase Bruce Schneier, if I give you the plans to my safe, and 100 identical safes with the combinations so you can study the locking mechanism in detail, and you still can't crack my safe-- that's security!

  • A Prediction ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by starfire-1 (159960) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:13PM (#8270739)
    Maybe I'm a little jaded, but my guess is that in about a year, when we're closer to the Longhorn release, Microsoft will claim that the heritage Win2000/NT4 core is "too compromised" because of this leak and officially discontinue support prior to its seven year life-cycle. Along then along with Win98, everyone will be compelled to migrate to their new products.

    Just a thought... :)
  • by k98sven (324383) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:14PM (#8270760) Journal
    Anyone around here remember when the Apple QuickDraw code was leaked 1989?

    It started quite a big ruckus, with the media making it out to be the entire OS, and the FBI starting what has been described as more or less a witch-hunt on 'hackers'..

    I would not be surprized to see a repeat of that, substituting 'hackers' for 'file-sharers'..
  • by G4from128k (686170) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:16PM (#8270787)
    I'm sure that Microsoft now wishes that it source code files had been locked into self-expiring, heavily encrypted, copy-resistant file formats. Events like this can only increase demands for "Trusted Computing" initiatives that prevent accidental or intentional leakage of security-sensitive intellectual property.

    Given that so many companies outsource or collaborate with a far-flung global network of suppliers -- I'm sure MSFT need only whisper about the threat of leaked trade secrets to get corporate IT to adopt DRM/Trusted computing for everyday use.
  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:16PM (#8270792)
    Everyone is panicking about how revelation of the source will open Windows up to hacks. In an ideal world, knowing how good code is written shouldn't give away the 'hacks'. In this case, MS is rightfully fearing review of places where they fail to check string lengths or buffer sizes, the way that they handle exceptions (if they do), the way that their logic copes, or fails to cope, with unexpected input.
    However, good code wouldn't have this problem, string lengths would be checked, there wouldn't be hardcoded passwords, components that are not supposed to trust one another really don't, etc.
    This exposure of the source may reveal just how crappy their code is. If its not crappy, I don't see necessarily how its more 'hackable'. Apache is open, and nobody hacks it to pieces on a daily basis. Can you imagine what would happen if the source of IIS was leaked?
  • by Zocalo (252965) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:19PM (#8270821) Homepage
    According to this article [theregister.co.uk] at the Register, it looks like tracking the source of the leak wasn't that hard owing to very specific comments in the code. The theory is that it's the old tale of boss gets new PC, user inherits old PC and so on at Mainsoft, one of Microsoft's partners. The twist in the tale this time is that the in this case the PC may have ended up on the desk of someone who recognised the code for what it was and decided to post it.

    If this is true, then I suspect that the list of possible culprits is very short and some poor sap who didn't think things through is going to be in *very* hot water indeed early next week.

  • Honeypot? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by guacamolefoo (577448) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:21PM (#8270862) Homepage Journal
    This may be a little paranoid, but is it possible that this whole thing is a honeypot, and now MS can go around pulling SCO type stunts on OSS projects?
  • by Cytlid (95255) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:22PM (#8270866)
    Is it just me or does this smell like a stealth PR stunt to you? Gee... source code gets leaked... this hits a few communities right in the nose. Now MS can say "See, open source is bad because all these new viruses are made because our source was leaked" and "File-sharing is bad because this is how this is moving around the internet". It's just too conveniently making MS look like a victim.

  • by DangerSteel (749051) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:25PM (#8270916)
    We can finally get Clippy integrated into OpenOffice?

    Heck just go for it and make it part of KDE and Gnome !

  • Bad for security... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by haeger (85819) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:28PM (#8270962)
    I think this could be very bad for Windows security (yeah, oxymoron, I know). This is bad news for all that in some way have to support windows at work.
    Since we all agree that all code has bug in them and since this code is out we can safely assume that some bugs will be found.
    Now all the white-hat hackers are prevented by law to take a look at the code and since all black-hat hackers don't give a damn about that law, those who run windows are in a pretty bad place right now. Even worse than usual actually.

    Oh well, the windows admins who like working overtime will love the coming year I suspect.

    .haeger

  • here's my bet (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CAIMLAS (41445) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:29PM (#8270971) Homepage
    I've given this topic considerable thought, and here are the possible conclusions I've reached.

    1) MS will use this source leak in the future to claim that various open source projects (Samba, Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice(?), linux) that get new features which MS finds competitive are 'derivative' works, regardless of whether or not the developers actually looked at the source.
    2) There will be enough people looking at this source for large portions of the code's functionality essentially entering into 'public domain', with people writing up how the components work. It will be essentially impossible for anyone to do 'virgin' development on 'windows-like' features for anything, as the information on precisely what the Windows version does will only be 2 steps of association from the programmer.
    3) MS will pull a 'patent' or 'trade secret' violation claim on Samba/Linux/GNOME/KDE, in addition to pulling the .NET framework out from underneath the Linux community (by claiming patent infringement again). Two shovels of dirt on the grave of linux.

    From my interpretation, this all seems quite feasable given current legal atmosphere. Any lawyers here have a comment on this?
  • by paco verde (561678) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:40PM (#8271098) Homepage

    The funniest part of this whole thing has been the industry pundits explaining the ramifications of the source release in various media outlets.

    The best I've seen today is on crn.com [crn.com] by some joker named Winell from Econium [econium.com]. He manages to say with a straight face:

    "Unlike Linux desktops, which is like the wild wild west and not controlled and enhanced all the time, Windows users have come to take a quality controlled operating system for granted and not have to worry about a bad release," Winell said. "We hope that Microsoft can swiftly identify how the code got released, prosecute the perpetrator and build a barrier/security patch to protect against intrusions."

    Mr. Winell has obviously never used Windows ME if he thinks Microsoft quality control prevents "bad releases". You know Econium must be a real player when the title of their home page is "Welcome to Econium who is a solutions provider."

    The classic yesterday was Laura Didio from Yankee Group [yankeegroup.com] comparing OSS hackers to suicide car bombers. [internetnews.com]

    Nothing like an embarassing Microsoft moment to get the "experts" out from under their rocks.

    • by eddy (18759) on Friday February 13, 2004 @03:39PM (#8272613) Homepage Journal

      It should be noted that the Didio quote as since been removed from that article, but here it is for those who missed it. Don't ever forget this one, this is straight from Yankee Group [yankeegroup.com] and they should not be allowed to get away with it without a public apology IMHO:

      "With the open source community, there are a large percentage of tinkers and 'ankle biters' who are trying their hand at hacking. Some are even communicating with each other. So it only takes one or two of these groups sharing information to be able to pull something off. When you have this type of passion, it's hard to fight because these people are like virtual suicide car bombers."

      Is this people you'd want to buy services of? I don't consider myself "PC" in the least, but this is so fucking wrong and off the track it's not funny.

  • by wstearns (5784) on Friday February 13, 2004 @01:41PM (#8271104) Homepage
    In a related story, Linus Torvalds was forced to announce today that the source code for the Linux operating system was made public on the Internet.
    "We're not sure how it was leaked. What's up there certainly looks legitimate, and we've had some reports that some of it even compiles. It appears it may have been leaked back in August, 1991, originally to an FTP server in Finland."
    There are at least 3 servers that appear to have Linux source code available, although online discussions indicate that there may be many more. There is speculation that the code can e acquired through FTP, Gopher, HTTP, Bittorrent, Rsync, SMB, NFS, AFS, Freenet, and that people may even be _selling_ CS's and DVD's with the code.
    SCO was quick to comment that "After they copied those 5 lines from one of our header files, the {deleted} deserved it. As soon as we find a person in our company that knows how to download a file, we'll be comparing every line of Linux to this stuff we bought from AT&T. Oh hey! We've already found something - they copied the word '#include' from us!" The phone interview was cut short as Mr. McBride was called away to launch a new lawsuit.
    Law enforcement agencies have been contacted and are investigating, but the process is slow as the officers are heard to exclaim "Wow, it has a GUI?", "Damn, this is stable - I can't crash it at all!", "Whadda you mean, Office is included?", and "How do I turn off the grappling hook and use the rocket launcher?"
  • by moojin (124799) on Friday February 13, 2004 @02:15PM (#8271580)
    has anybody attempted to use the code analyzer that was developed for the SCO / IBM case. it would interesting to see if there were any similarities between MS code and the multitude of OSS code.
  • by danila (69889) on Friday February 13, 2004 @03:09PM (#8272246) Homepage
    Guys, let me warn you, this is nothing to laugh about! DON'T TOUCH THAT STUFF! Two of my friends work in Motorola research laboratory. Yesterday one of the downloaded the code at home and then they both looked at it. One of them was lucky - his retina burned the second he saw the code. The second did not escape that easily. His eyes glued to the screen, his hands typing madly... the paramedics found him 20 minutes later clutching the mouse and writhing in agony. After 2 hours in intensive care he (or, rather what left of him) was sent home. Today, after they were not let into the office building, both of them got pink slips by courier mail.

    A cousin of a girlfriend of my former classmate yesterday went to the university computer lab to print his essay. He catched a glimpse of some code on the screen and didn't even thought about it for a second. When he returned home, he logged on to sourceforge.net and before anyone could stop him, he tainted a dozen software projects there. Shit, two perfectly good Xeon servers had to be scrapped and replaced with clean machines in a hurry.

    That's just crazy, this code is the strongest shit I ever saw... oh, fuck, forget what I just said - "the strongest shit I ever heard about and never saw". It's worse than the GPL, it taints your code so quickly you can't even notice that. PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYTHING GOOD IN THIS WORLD, DON'T DOWNLOAD THE CODE.

    Copy this message and send it to all your friends! You need to warn them not to look at the code! POST IT ON FORUMS AND MESSAGE BOARDS! THIS IS AN EVIL PLOT TO TAINT ALL CODE IN THIS WORLD! DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN!
  • MainSoft statement (Score:5, Informative)

    by theCat (36907) on Friday February 13, 2004 @03:53PM (#8272785) Journal
    This is from their web site:

    Statement to the Media Regarding Microsoft Source Code Leak

    Mainsoft has been a Microsoft partner since 1994, when we first entered a source code licensing agreement with Microsoft. Mainsoft takes Microsoft's and all our customers' security matters seriously, and we recognize the gravity of the situation.

    We will cooperate fully with Microsoft and all authorities in their investigation

    We are unable to issue any further statement or answer questions until we have more information.

    From Mike Gullard, Chairman of the Board, Mainsoft Corporation
  • Sigs (Score:5, Funny)

    by tiny69 (34486) on Friday February 13, 2004 @04:19PM (#8273109) Homepage Journal
    I wonder how many people on /. will start using comments or code snippets from the windows source in their sigs?

Are we running light with overbyte?

Working...