Draconian DRM Revealed In Windows 7 1127
TechForensics writes "A few days' testing of Windows 7 has already disclosed some draconian DRM, some of it unrelated to media files. A legitimate copy of Photoshop CS4 stopped functioning after we clobbered a nagging registration screen by replacing a DLL with a hacked version. With regard to media files, the days of capturing an audio program on your PC seem to be over (if the program originated on that PC). The inputs of your sound card are severely degraded in software if the card is also playing an audio program (tested here with Grooveshark). This may be the tip of the iceberg. Being in bed with the RIAA is bad enough, but locking your own files away from you is a tactic so outrageous it may kill the OS for many persons. Many users will not want to experiment with a second sound card or computer just to record from online sources, or boot up under a Linux that supports ntfs-3g just to control their files." Read on for more details of this user's findings.
Re — Photoshop: That Photoshop stopped functioning after we messed with one of its nag DLLs was not so much a surprise, but what was a surprise: Noting that Win7 allows programs like Photoshop to insert themselves stealthily into your firewall exception list. Further, that the OS allows large software vendors to penetrate your machine. Even further, that that permission is responsible for disabling of a program based on a modified DLL. And then finding that the OS even after reboot has locked you out of your own Local Settings folder; has denied you permission to move or delete the modified DLL; and refuses to allow the replacement of the Local Settings folder after it is unlocked with Unlocker to move it to the Desktop for examination (where it also denies you entry to your own folder). Setting permissions to 'allow everyone' was disabled!
Re — media: Under XP you could select 'Stereo Mix' or similar under audio recording inputs and nicely capture any program then playing. No longer.
A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
For the sake of civil liberties, culture and sanity and as weird as it may seems I am not joking. Laws are made by the people for the people and some disconnected tenants of some ivory towers need to be reminded of it.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
Repealing the DRM clause of the DMCA would suffice.
No it wouldn't (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing they will respond to is a mass boycott. And considering this is Windows, which is pretty much locked into most large scale networks as it is, not to mention end users' homes, good luck.
Re:No it wouldn't (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing they will respond to is a mass boycott. And considering this is Windows, which is pretty much locked into most large scale networks as it is, not to mention end users' homes, good luck.
It seems to have worked with Vista.
If Microsoft's largest customers (IT departments) reject this version of windows over it's anti-piracy measures just like they rejected last version of windows over it's performance issues, you'll get your wish.
Re:No it wouldn't (Score:5, Interesting)
The only thing they will respond to is a mass boycott. And considering this is Windows, which is pretty much locked into most large scale networks as it is, not to mention end users' homes, good luck.
It seems to have worked with Vista.
If Microsoft's largest customers (IT departments) reject this version of windows over it's anti-piracy measures just like they rejected last version of windows over it's performance issues, you'll get your wish.
Mass boycott of Vista? That may have worked for the people who wanted to upgrade and decided that it was not worth it when XP was "good enough", however for many people Vista was not an option when purchasing a new PC. As far as the corporate was concerned many businesses had contracts in place and had already payed for their Vista upgrade whether they liked it or not. Unfortunately I don't see the adoption of MS Windows 7 being any different.
The only way this will change is when Government sectors insist of having Linux on their desktops and except for a few countries this is not happening very quickly.
Re:No it wouldn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No it wouldn't (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but some big IT shops are going to have a serious issue with software that can override security features. Unless microsoft provides an 'enterprise' way to make SURE the policy IT sets is actually set, many customers will find some other way.
Re:No it wouldn't (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not the DRM that'd piss me off (none of my users are paid to care about audio, period) but the dodginess with Adobe (and presumably others). What nobody seems to have noted yet is that in order for Windows 7 to pick up that you've warezed your CS4, one of two things needs to be occuring:
- Windows 7 ships with a secret blacklist of known warez MD5s/SHA1s. Make it a rolling hash a-la rsync for maximal anti-warezing.
or, worse again
- Microsoft have a secret API (not a huge surprise here) that they've shared with a few 'trusted' software OEMs such as Adobe. CS4 and friends register the MD5s (or whatever) of their more likely warez vectors, and an expanded version of WFP (in a 'protected' process a-la PVP-OPM in vista) makes sure you don't fuck with those files.
If this is even half true, then Microsoft just quit the game. For keeps.
Re:No it wouldn't (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that people will read complete bullshit like the summary and instantly assume it's even half true makes me very, very sad. No, it's not half-true. It's not a tenth-true. Neither were any of the DRM claims about Vista, if you remember those from this site. Face it, when it comes to DRM in Windows, Slashdot posts nothing but unfiltered bullshit.
Here's the most likely possibility:
- The 13-year-old retard hacker who modified the .DLL to get rid of the nag screen is a shitty programmer, and his modified .DLL doesn't fucking work.
- The idiot who submitted this article doesn't know jack about Windows or computers in general:
For example, the "Local Settings" folder doesn't exist in Vista or Windows 7, it's actually a NTFS junction to the new Users/[Name]/Local folder. Arguably it's a bug that Windows Explorer can't correctly follow junctions, but it's not a conspiracy.
Oh, and applications have always been able to add exceptions to the firewall, just as they can in any other OS I've ever run. Firewalls are designed to prevent *external* attacks; if you go through the effort of installing an application, obviously you've given it your blessing and that application can modify firewall settings. (If you don't trust an app, *don't install it*! Duh!)
Re:No it wouldn't (Score:5, Insightful)
I mostly see lots of hysterical screaming, and people going off tangent.
As you say the DLL thing is probably another "protect the user" feature.
But I'm definitely interested on the degradation of audio part.
Say if I am recording sound at an event, but I also want to use the same computer to play out some sounds/music while doing so, does that mean the audio will be degraded if I use Windows 7? If that really is true, then Windows 7 will be totally unacceptable to many people who do audio stuff.
praetorians had armor, we have... (Score:5, Funny)
*pulls up his belt and adjusts his pocket-protector for maximum volume*
I am ready, captain!
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please! Exactly what DRM are you talking about here? There is nothing in the original "article" that has anything to do with any DRM on Microsoft's part. Adobe's copy protection is mentioned, but how is the inability to crack it somehow Microsoft's fault?
Photoshop inserts itself into the firewall exceptions list? I agree that this should require a UAC elevation, but it is no different to how the firewall works on XP. It is not a Windows 7 issue, nor is it anything to do with DRM. Neither does not being able to move or delete a DLL that is in use. We had that problem back in the day of Windows 3.0!
It doesn't surprise me that someone would submit a crazy uninformed rant (especially the Firehose version of it - you have just got to read that version if you like a laugh). It also doesn't surprise me that kdawson would post it.
What does surprise me is how many people here accept the DRM claim without even thinking about it. Doesn't anyone wonder how Microsoft "allows large software vendors to penetrate your machine" without asking what it is that these large vendors can do that ANYONE with a compiler can't do? Why are people not pointing out that "Local Settings" is now stored as AppData\Local, and is still perfectly visible.
The XP system that I am using right now doesn't allow me to select 'Stereo Mix', probably because either the motherboard chipset or the drivers do not support it. Why jump to the conclusion that it is Microsoft's fault and not lousy hardware?
And if you claim that Windows 7 is faster because the DRM is turned off, what can you do in the beta now that you can't currently do in Vista?
The Exception (Score:5, Informative)
All of the new Adobe CS4 collection of applications "phone home" now and here is why.
The license allows two installs of an application, based on concurrent use, for example Photoshop could be installed on your workstation and on your laptop with the understanding that you are only using one of them at a time. This is very common. Most applications simply force a registration of the serial number and only allow X number of activations, i.e. Microsoft Office. What Adobe does is check how many machines have that serial installed on it and if you attempt to activate a third it will tell you that you have exceeded the number allowed and that you must deactivate one of the other installs. The software makes it easy to deactivate itself so you can reinstall elsewhere. The silly part is that Adobe sets an entry in your hosts file pointing to activation.adobe.com or something close to that.
If you install the software the first time with your computer disconnected from the internet and change that host file entry to 127.0.0.1 and then reconnect to the internet it will not be able to call home and will assume it is installed on a machine that is not connected to the internet.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between "I don't know what this is doing so I cannot do it" and "I know exactly what this is doing and I cannot do it" one is lack of knowledge one is deliberate
It seems that Microsoft is going further an further down the route of "this is not your machine" ... well it is and formatting the hard-drive and installing something else will prove it ....
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice delusion, but totally false-to-fact. Maybe back in the day of the Altar or Apple II you could control the entire machine, but today you didn't write the OS, the BIOS, the device firmware, the drivers, the utilities, or the programs. You have no say in the matter.
Except you do, especially on Gentoo and LFS, where you can even make sure the code you're running is the code they say it is. You're not forced to blindly accept your OS, and that makes it credible. On LFS, you're encouraged to apply your own patches as you see fit.
DIY distros are fun, try it sometime.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
There is of course the well-known article about a bootstrap compiler with a non-source-visible built-in trapdoor that inserts that same trapdoor when it compiles its own source code. These are times when it's nice to know that there are sofware paranoids like Richard Stallman around. At least for the moment, I trust him and his ilk to deliver a bootstrap compiler to me that doesn't have a hidden trapdoor. I might not trust him to handle my social calendar or financial affairs, but my compiler, bootloader, etc, yes.
It's really hard to go through life without trusting someone. I feel much safer trusting people like the FSF, Linux, and OSS communities to develop and deliver my software than I do commercial software suppliers, Microsoft the example in this topic.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice delusion, but totally false-to-fact. Maybe back in the day of the Altar or Apple II you could control the entire machine, but today you didn't write the OS, the BIOS, the device firmware, the drivers, the utilities, or the programs.
Nice faulty logic... But I see what you did there. (Emphasis mine)
To control your entire machine, you do not have to write a single line of code. You just have to be able to choose which code gets executed on it.
You have no say in the matter.
So this does not follow from your previous statements.
In fact, it seems that you never heard of the coreboot [wikipedia.org] project, or firmware updates. And hell, I did write my OS, drivers, utilities and programs... together with other people. I chose what kernel to put on it. I chose the patches. I chose the programs.
If I want, I can change the firmware of my DVD drive to play music for me, write my own OS so I can use my keyboard to control the music it plays, and flash it into the BIOS.
I have complete control over my computer.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I think you're the one with the weird definition of control.
I can choose to do whatever the hell I like with a linux system. I have more trust in it because the code can be (and has been) seen by multiple people, I can inspect it and change it to do what I like.
If I were to hear about a linux component pulling this sort of crap (and I would) then I would be free to remove it, disable it, alter it, break it, whatever. And I wouldn't have to hack or reverse engineer anything, because I have absolute control.
I don't know what your definition is, but by the sounds of it nobody is ever in control of a car (unless they built the engine, starting by smelting the iron ore)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
Large, well funded and powerful interest groups.
Oh, you said elected and not selected. Well obviously the masses elect who they're told to. Can't have one of those crazy third party candidates who aren't all ready bought and paid for get into office.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Interesting)
We know DRM exists and what it does. What is interesting to me is how few technology people know what it is. One of my older brothers makes his living supporting Microsoft apps and runs his whole home on various Microsoft technologies and when I mentioned to him about DRM, he asked me what that was and he thought I was crazy when I told him.
All of this stuff being written into the operating system sounds like a HUGE and CRAZY conspiracy theory... and yet we know it exists and whose interests it serves. How many other crackpot ideas get written off because they sound too far fetched to be believed? It isn't in Microsoft's interests to include what is there, so whose interests are they serving and why? We'll never know the answer to that. We only know that pure Open Source will never be able to hide those things.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Interesting)
We only know that pure Open Source will never be able to hide those things.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underhanded_C_Contest [wikipedia.org]
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
Who elects those politicians?
The oligarchy appoints a set to choose from and mindless idiots pick the prettiest one.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution doesn't regulate transactions between private parties. It regulates the powers granted to the Government.
DRM in the US is not a transaction between two private parties. Instead, it is the *government* offering to step in and put legal force behind one party's interference with another's right to use their own property.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
If the DRM is disclosed up front and you still buy the product then you have no one to blame but yourself.
Most DRM would be irrelevant if the government weren't willing to throw people in the slammer for disabling it or helping others to disable it. Without this radical government intrusion into your own personal affairs, you wouldn't have to blame anyone because most DRM would be hacked into oblivion.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
If the DRM is disclosed up front
Since when is that the case? Unless you're willing to do a lot of research up front, it's not as though there's a DefectiveByDesign label on it.
and you still buy the product
Then you should still have the right to reverse engineer it. The DMCA is what made this a government issue. Repeal that and I don't care about touching the constitution.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course; having an amendment that says "DRM is bad" would be pretty silly.
The idea would be to neutralize the government's ability to back up DRM and similar tech (like Trusted Computing). DRM would be a noting but a waste of money and a fun challenge if not for the DMCA. Similarly, no one's going to waste their time and money on TC hardware unless they are forced to.
So I'd envision it more like:
"Congress shall pass no law limiting the rights of persons to manipulate, operate, or otherwise utilize as they see fit any of their possessions or effects, nor the sale or trade of tools to be used for such purposes."
There ya go, "The Hacker's Amendment". And it leaves plenty of room for interpretation, just like the rest of the Constitution...
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
As you may notice if you read my comment, it was about the DRMs and not about Windows version X (which I don't really care because I don't use at all). The DRMs are starting to be omnipresent and this is really bad, just try by yourself to copy a scene from a bluray movie to include it in a report, a parody, a backup or any other fair use, you will find that there are obstacles in your way.
Even if you would settle for a downgrade of the artwork it will be difficult to find something to convert the HDMI ouput signal to something recordable because of HDCP feature of HDMI.
Content publishers, hardware manufacturers and software publishers are working hands in hands to lock the cultural content in DRMs. To all this insanity you add the american DMCA and patent office to it and you will find that there is an oligopoly protected by the governement which is impeding seriously in your access to culture.
I'm not an american, I'm not even a constitutional expert in my country but I would think that access to culture should be a civil right and that any civil right should be part of the constitution of every countries.
Just think of what you are not advocating for a minute.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe no amendment, but law needs changing (Score:5, Insightful)
While certainly a commendable course of action, it bears recognizing that a legislative revision is most certainly in order even if not at the level of a constitutional amendment, as it is currently, and rather ridiculously, a federal offense to work around such DRM, even if no copyright violation takes place. So, ostensibly, under the terms of the DMCA, even the act of installing a second sound card to try to get around this obnoxious and unconscionable crippling imposed by Microsoft, which impedes even the copying of a user's self-produced media, would itself comprise "circumvention" and put such a user at odds with the law. This is truly a ridiculous and untenable state of affairs.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Interesting)
My "fix" is to revoke the copyright for any programs that have DRM.
No DRMed program will ever enter the public domain in any real sense (in that it could be modified/built upon/etc.)
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
EVERYTHING. Absolutely EVERYTHING in this article is incorrect.
* What kind of idiot blames the OS for "disabling a program based on a modified DLL." The OS has no such support, this is the APP either crashing or doing its own integrity check.
* Lots of apps ask you if you want to add the appropriate firewall rules during their installers. This has nothing to do with Adobe being a "large software vendor" - Stardock's apps do this too. Go read the API documentation on MSDN if you want to know more.
* The "sound degredation" thing is just unsubstantiated FUD.
* Microsoft in bed with the RIAA? Since when?
* Anyone can browse into their own Local Settings folder. Either this is further idiocy, or ::gasp:: someone hit a bug in a beta OS.
* "Stereo Mix" is a feature of some sound drivers.
And Slashdot proves again that it doesn't matter if something is true, so long as it makes Microsoft look bad.
You haven't "found" any DRM in Win7 because there isn't any (other than the same support for DRM'd WMA and WMV files that has existed in Vista and XP).
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's more likely that that "hacked" dll he used on photoshop was infected with some virus, and THAT is why he can no longer go into his own user folder.
If your computer starts acting up after you do something, blame yourself, not the computer.
The guy's an idiot.
Of course, this post is so far down the comments that very few people are going to see its wisdom...
Virtual machine (Score:4, Interesting)
Given the firewall issue and the sound card degradation it seems like windows 7 is begging to be run inside a Linux virtual machine so it can't get so cozy with the hardware.
Of course I have reason to believe they are already two steps ahed of me on that. When I run windows XP pro inside virtual box (host is Mac) then when I plug in my windows media device in the USB, windows media player only sees it as a USB disk not as a windows media device.
So i suspect that windows only sees those DRM devices if it can have direct hardware access. Presumably this is to prevent someone from making a software windows media device emulator.
Re:Virtual machine (Score:5, Informative)
...but what was a surprise: Noting that Win7 allows programs like Photoshop to insert themselves stealthily into your firewall exception list
Given the firewall issue...
What's with this "Windows 7 firewall issue" nonsense? This is how it has always worked for the Windows firewall, XP and Vista suffers from the same flaw. It isn't new or surprising for Windows 7.
Re:Virtual machine (Score:5, Informative)
It's not even a flaw - you gave Photoshop's installer permission to act administratively on your behalf, so it's exactly what it did!
Re:Virtual machine (Score:5, Informative)
What's with this "Windows 7 firewall issue" nonsense? This is how it has always worked for the Windows firewall, XP and Vista suffers from the same flaw. It isn't new or surprising for Windows 7.
Exactly! Furthermore, Windows 7's firewall is fully configurable! (Not sure if Vista's was; I use Vista, but I have an IPCop box for that.)>/p>
If you're running Windows 7, run wf.msc. Inbound rules... outbound rules... Different rules for different locations... It's actually usable and filters inbound and outbound traffic!
Re:Virtual machine (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't use PS so I can't comment on that but in XP Pro every program that wanted firewall access got a nice popup saying "This program wants a firewall exception" and you had the choices of "Unblock/Keep Blocking/Ask Me Later" so I don't see where the problem is with XP.
I think you're missing the poster's point.
He chose to run the PS installer with an admin account, and the installer made programmatic changes to the firewall config.
Thats it. The problem is that the poster thinks this is some sort of grand conspiracy, rather than just Adobe refining/changing their installer from the XP days.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
It especially doesn't make sense as MS's yearly net profits exceed the entire gross revenues of either the recording or movie industries.
What's with the tail wagging the dog here?
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Funny)
MS's yearly net profits exceed the entire gross revenues of either the recording or movie industries.
Aha! Proof that you damn kids with your pirating and your torrenting of bits and your, your, your... downloading... are costing them googles of money. Once Microsoft implements their perfect plan to keep you kids off the RIAA's lawn for good, their revenues will triple, or quadruple, or gazoople... or something.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Interesting)
It especially doesn't make sense as MS's yearly net profits exceed the entire gross revenues of either the recording or movie industries.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who's noticed that. I have long found it perplexing that the music and movie industries get to call the shots for the vastly larger software industry when it comes to legislation. I can only assume that the software industry must have some incredibly shitty lobbyists. It's not like it doesn't cost Microsoft money to pay developers to engineer their operating system to RIAA/MPAA specifications. If there aren't some large checks being written to MS to get this done, then Steve Ballmer is an even bigger meathead than I thought -- and do not underestimate how big of a meathead I think he is already.
It's more than the money, too. Our civilization would trundle along just fine if music and movie production ground to a total halt, but we have long since passed the point where we could operate without software, even Microsoft's buggy, insecure software.
Oh well, it's no skin off my nose. Ever since it became possible to run CS3 under WINE, the only reason I haven't switched completely to Linux is that I just haven't had the time to shift everything around. Time to get cracking, I guess.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Interesting)
I think he's basically right, too. MS is desperate to get in bed with the content providers so it can better compete with Apple, etc., in the mobile & media player market. Since the whole DRM paradigm is broken it probably won't work unless they figure an effective way to force Win 7 down everyone's throats. I think ultimately they'll just stop supporting xp, since after playing with win7 for a month I still don't see a compelling reason to "upgrade" from xp.
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
MS knows it's buisness model is doomed and they are DESPERATE to replace windows and office with a similar cash cow.
They need a new monopoly and they are smart enough to realize that computer based entertainment centers are going to be worth an immense amount of money. If MS can get the public to expect their media OS/media box (Xbox 3?) as a standard living room feature they've just captured as much revenue as windows & office together have provided. It doesn't matter what they sell the actual units for if they control the screen and sell ads for the indefinite future. Moreover, it provides the same kind of lock in and opportunity to leverage market share they've used so effectively in the past. I'm sure that the MS gaming system will be the only one that integrates seemlessly with the media center and MS's near field interface devices will make it way easier to get your media onto the media center.
They've been trying to muscle into this field since long before apple released the ipod and they've consistantly failed. They are deathly afraid that apple will capture the space the way they did the portable music player market. If they can't beat them on design and interface MS figures it can beat them on content by cozying up to the media companies so apple will be left out in the cold.
Of course it would be pretty short sighted of the media industry to help MS without some very long term guarantees. If MS succeeds suddenly the relationship will flip around and the media companies will live or die at MS's whim.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A DRM ban clause should be added as a constitut (Score:5, Insightful)
I mostly agree with your point. The quickest way to kill DRM is not to buy OR pirate anything that supports DRM.
Dear Microsoft, (Score:4, Interesting)
Even we can't defend you any more. If it happens in our computers, we're going to record it.
Fuck you.
Love,
All of us.
oh please (Score:4, Insightful)
so your application stopped working after you fucked with the dll's, and it's microsoft's fault?
Re:Yes, and no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, and no. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes, and no. (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that the problem was that Windows was cooperating with the app vendor to lock out such hacking attempts.
No, it doesn't. It seems that the "hacked" DLL is broken. Or, at incompatible with how Photoshop is expecting to link with it. Or doesn't exactly mimic the expected entry points. Or doesn't initialize the same global variables correctly. Or is referenced differently by the Windows 7 kernel. Or did work through some black magic but is now broken through a new security model. Etc.
DLLs are "dynamic link libraries." They're .lib files that live in memory and can be used by multiple programs simultaneously. Using them is relying on Windows to compile your program for you; change them at your peril. This is a Windows 95-era problem.
But, more evidence that this article is unresearched garbage.
And then finding that the OS even after reboot has locked you out of your own Local Settings folder ...
Here's what actually happened. Open a command prompt under Windows 7 (doesn't even have to be an administrator command prompt) and navigate to your user profile. (C:\users\username). Type in dir a:l. Those of you following along at home will notice that Local Settings is a reparse point - the "real" location where all of these files reside is at AppData\Local. (They're similar to *nix hard links.)
Vista (and evidently Windows 7) use reparse points to make sure legacy (or poorly-coded) programs don't break. Install a 32-bit program on 64-bit Windows and it will magically end up in Program Files (x86) instead of Program Files.
There are security permissions associated with these. No 32-bit process will ever make it's way to the 64-bit Program Files folder even if Administrator with a capital-A Himself launched that process with his UAC-emblazoned blessing. The same thing is true for that Local Settings reparse point.
So, why did his foray into Local Settings fail? Explorer.exe is supposed to know about AppData\Local and is barred from the legacy backdoor. Why couldn't he set privileges or take ownership or use his crappy Unlocker program? You can't take ownership/set privileges/whatever on a reparse point; that has to be done on the folder it links to. All of those actions would have succeeded (or have been unnecessary) on AppData\Local.
Interestingly enough, the command prompt can use the Local Settings reparse point. Navigate to c:\users\username . The command cd Local Settings will succeed (even on a non-administrator command prompt.) The command mkdir loltest will succeed and show up in a directory listing. But double-clicking on the Local Settings "folder" in the Explorer shell will fail. But, the loltest folder will show up in AppData\Local even though it supposedly created inside Local Settings. I wonder why the command prompt use the Local Settings reparse point, but the shell can't.
As for degraded record quality while playing back? I called it "crappy audio drivers" when Vista was first released. Lo, Creative fixed it, however slowly. Have faith, or turn down the sample rate in the control panel.
Re:Yes, and no. (Score:5, Insightful)
So a Kudos, for pointing out the Hacked Dll doesn't work because the system is smarter than the hack finally. Give it a few weeks...
Re:Yes, and no. (Score:5, Insightful)
I never have mod points when I discover a sane rational explanation in the middle of a stupid debate about a Non-issue.
So a Kudos, for pointing out the Hacked Dll doesn't work because the system is smarter than the hack finally. Give it a few weeks...
Here here, this post is a good reason why the mod system should go to eleven and not just 5.
I was reading the OP and thought exactly the same thing, most of the legacy folders in 7 (and vista for that matter) are links like this pointing to their newer counterparts, and cannot be accessed through the GUI explorer.
As for the sound, "zomg my sound card has problems in this beta OS"... submit report plz :P
Re:Yes, and no. (Score:5, Interesting)
That wasn't worth posting, and definitely isn't front page material. Screens, links, more than two paragraphs, any evidence or information at all? Clearly just an "Oh, shiny!" headline to catch the eye, but no substance.
Re:Yes, and no. (Score:5, Insightful)
i'm not seeing how MS has done you wrong. use the app as licensed. this is like criminals whining about people putting better locks on their houses.
No, this is like me buying a bicycle from you, and you putting proprietary locks on the axles to prevent me from switching them w/o your permission.
Your analogy is off by just a bit (Score:5, Insightful)
This is more like locksmiths complaining about the state putting better locks on their own houses.
Re:Yes, and no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, and no. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, and no. (Score:5, Insightful)
The story is not true, the poster is an idiot.
He let the adobe installer have admin access to his machine, and you know what? It made changes to his machine that made it hard to hack the adobe products.
Why this is a big surprise to anybody is beyond me.
This isnt MS conspiring with Adobe for special privs, this is an ignorant users who doesnt understand how the system works and is crying foul over nonsense.
Re:oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to defend microsoft, but maybe it's a form of virus protection? You know, virus modifies dlls, OS detects that the dll is not what was installed, and blocks it. No big deal. Sure, it might check if it was the user who modified it, but I don't know if windows is capable of doing this or if microsoft cares.
What I'm saying is, until I have a better proof that this is DRM I will not run around crying "evil microsoft".
That said, I will never install software from them in my pc.
Re:oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a working DLL and windows shit-canning the application because it doesn't match what the vendor wants.
No its not.
this is about a grossly ignorant user, who (poorly) tried to steal Photoshop, and got tripped up by CS4's much nastier activation and anti-hacking measures.
And when his 'crack' stopped working (which is a well known phenomenon with CS4), rather than use the opportunity for an education, he started running around crying like a chicken with his head cut off.
His comments about the 'Local Settings' just exacerbates his ignorance.
The bottom line here isnt that MS did something nefarious. Its that the poster doesnt understand how W7 works, and therefore thinks its a big conspiracy to stop him from his right to steal photoshop.
Aim at the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Let them! It will only help doom Windows. Younglings especially are not going to like when they can't rip their own version of their fav youtube music video, etc. "Web-tops" that don't run Windows are becoming increasingly popular, and those that offer less DRM are going to sell better.
Re:Aim at the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know the only real winners will be Apple, and Windows XP. Linux will likely carry along with it's .8% market share or whatever it has been at for the past 10 years or so. If these allegations are true, and hold in the final version (remember this is BETA software), it could be problematic. However, there could also be good security reasons for these changes (allowing applications to register what dlls they use and not running if they're changed is a good security practice that can prevent third party applications from breaking their software through the insertion of trojans and/or adware). The inability to fix some of the issues is also probably due to the beta nature of Windows 7.
As for the sound issue, do we really know that this is the OS doing it, and not the driver manufacturers not having this feature implemented in their driver yet? Lots of things could be at fault, and to call DRACONIAN DRM on it is a bit hasty.
Phil
Re:Aim at the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
> We all know the only real winners will be Apple, and Windows XP. Linux will likely carry along with it's .8% market share or whatever
Some estimates place Linux at more like 1.5 to 2% of desktops (but it is so impossible to really know). Even so, it is pretty low. And Linux has something like a 60% share of servers. In any case, the low adoption rate of Linux on desktops says less about the quality or capability of Linux (which is high) and more about the effects of market lock-in and marketing by Microsoft (which is much higher).
It almost doesn't matter WHAT Microsoft does. 90+% of computers are pretty much mandated to come with whatever OS Microsoft is currently forcing, and they will get paid handsomely, even if the user already owns XP and downgrades, or uninstalls Vista/7/whatever and puts Linux/BSD/whatever on it.
If we really wanted to see what market share Linux COULD be, it would require the computer sales industry to be forced to unbundle MS-Windows from all computer sales and show consumers the optional line item cost of MS-Windows. THAT would be an interesting experiment.
Just say no (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux has gotten "good enough" on PC hardware that I just don't see any reason to even play the game anymore with Microsoft. Time to get off the ride. All of the "windows only" apps that I use seem to work under wine. The rest all have some open equivalent (firefox/thunderbird/openoffice/etc).
*shrug*
windows, meh (Score:5, Funny)
Boy am I glad that I finally took the plunge. Learning about the mac, messing with ubuntu. It took a long, long time to wean myself off but I've finally kicked the habit. I'm just so grateful there are alternatives. Up to recently I felt like a battered wife, hating Windows but still using it. Such a relief. (not trying to troll, just stating how I feel. For those who want to stay on Windows, my condolences.)
Will people care? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the question. There are two kinds of DRM:
1) The kind that people do care about, like the Sony Rootkit or Spore's DRM. That's the kind they take notice and take exception to.
2) The kind that people accept and don't really notice, like iTunes DRM.
Microsoft is banking that their new DRM will be 2), as long as they don't do anything overt, like disable users' MP3 collections.
Still, with Linux getting easier to use to the point where regular people are willing to try it, this DRM could be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of Windows users.
Don't notice iTunes DRM? (Score:5, Interesting)
True Apple Story -
I bought my wife an iPhone. First Apple product I've purchased in a LONG time. Makes for a lovely phone -- but we can't access the "Apple Store" and also can't put media onto the device. We use Solaris and Linux.
I get iTunes running under Wine, and sign up for the Apple Store. This allows my wife to buy from the Apple Store. Yeah!
Now, my wife wants a case for the device. She purchases a case; all seems good for a couple of days. But... the phone begins to behave "oddly". It turns the screen off, but leaves calls connected, and other (more minor) ailments.
We book an appointment to the Apple "Genius Bar". We are told we MUST attach the iPhone to a computer at least once; that the problem is the "old software". Ok, we explain that we have no computer capable. Answer: well, then use someone elses.. "Will you do it?". Answer: no.
My wife works as a librarian -- she has a circulation desk computer with Windows XP. Downloads and installs iTunes, plugs in the iPhone, and is asked "Do you want to sync automatically or manually?". That's really it! She chose "manual", because she didn't want to put all of her personal photos on that computer. Bad mistake... "Are you sure you want to upgrade?" "Yes" --- and BOOM! All the data is GONE. Just... vaporized... She calls Apple Support "Oh, yes, that would happen; there is nothing that can be done".
Miserable, miserable, miserable... Complete data destruction without even a "are you sure" dialog. And it's all iTunes fault. Why do we use it? DRM. The Apple iPhone databases CANNOT be updated without anything else. We have a perfectly servicable application (Amarok) that we use for playback, but it no longer works to load music. Gotta use that iTunes shitware. Even a self-booting DOS or Linux disk for updating, *or* a failsafe firmware updater...
And, as a final added insult -- the Genius Bar was wrong. The problem was that the iPhone 3G requires specific cases, and the case being used was wrong (it was an iPhone case). Go figure. I'm still buying a "Mac Mini" as an accessory to the iPhone, but still -- this is what DRM does. Locks out people who could possibly do a better job of it.
Sigh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I think you misunderestimate the capacity for not caring by the Public at Large. This will only affect a certain percentage of folks, not enough to make waves, I'm sure.
The "True Name" of Windows 7 (Score:5, Funny)
I'm beginning to think ... and hope ... that the "True Name" for Windows 7 is really going to be "Windows Chapter 7." Wouldn't that be nice?
Proof? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I don't believe this guy, but can we have some screen shots and some evidence before we scream and yell to the rest of the world?
If indeed Windows 7 does this, I know a lot of people that will get a "rude awakening" from DRM and they will not stand for it.
Re:Proof? (Score:5, Funny)
some evidence before we scream and yell to the rest of the world?
You're new here, aren't you?
FUD? False alarm? (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I want to believe this, I'm not so sure that these effects are intentional.
First of all, can anyone duplicate them? Secondly, is a binary really the best way to test this? I would think that one would want to interact with whatever APIs control the recording process. In any case, I think that more investigative work needs to be done.
Re:FUD? False alarm? (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. For all we know, the problems this guy is having with his sound card are due to a driver bug or incompatibility rather than an intentional crippling of the audio, while the problems he's having with Photoshop and the problems with his Local Settings folder are due to introducing foreign code that messes up Windows in ways that Microsoft could not have anticipated.
Besides... why would the current version of Photoshop be coded against undocumented features in still unreleased Windows 7?
I am Willing to abandon Windows over draconian DRM, but I want evidence of that before I'll lambast Microsoft for it.
How in the hell did this make the front page? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, this is one of the worst-written front page stories on I've seen on ./ in quite some time. No citation, no proof, nothing. Not even a fucking link to a story? Please.
Win7 might very well be Evil Incarnate. But it's not like your gonna convince anyone with 'journalism' that reads along the line of "yeah this one guy I know says that win7 totally sucks".
Re:How in the hell did this make the front page? (Score:5, Informative)
One word:
kdawson
Re:How in the hell did this make the front page? (Score:5, Insightful)
The audio things is also highly suspect (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I've seen, there are very little changes in the audio layer from Vista to Windows 7. Now in Vista, all the audio DRM stuff relates to protected audio path and only matters if you are playing a DRM's file through a player that uses it. It has no effect, whatsoever, on media you produce. I say this as someone who has actually done plenty of audio production on a Vista system.
Now as for the audio thing it sounds like one or maybe both of two possibilities:
1) Crappy drivers. Windows 7 is still in the beta stage, and thus so are drivers for it. Some companies are rather fast with drivers for that and they are essentially release quality. Other companies suck at the drivers and thus have poor (or no) drivers out. Check a hardware board and you'll find all kinds of people saying "Where can I get Windows 7 drivers for my soundcard?"
2) Crappy hardware. Not all soundcards are created equal. You will find professional soundcards on the market that can handle 96 simultaneous inputs, 96 simultaneous outputs all at 24-bit 96kHz without dropping a sample. You'll also find cheap consumer cards that can't even do what they claim on the box. One thing that cheap cards have problems with more often than they should is operating full duplex, meaning outputting sound and inputting it at the same time. Some just plain can't do it, others can do it but have to cut the input or output sample rate, others are just flaky. Just because a soundcard has inputs, doesn't mean it deals with them well, since that is a feature many users don't make use of.
So I'd want to see this done in a properly controlled setup: It a quality, current, soundcard that is known to have good input and output quality, and known to have no issues doing both at the same time. Also ensure there are beta drives out from the company that don't state any major problems. Put it in a system and try it in Vista and make sure it works. Then Put Windows 7 on that same system, and try it again. If there's a problem, ok well then maybe there is something to this (though I'd still be interested in drivers). If not, and I suspect not, then this guy needs to STFU.
I get more than a little tired of morons who have a problem on their system and instantly run and blame the OS. No, it is often NOT the OS's fault. I get even more tried of all the FUD surrounding MS and DRM. I heard all this crap about Vista's audio DRM and how it was going to not let you control your own music. Well guess what? It is all 100% bullshit. You can record in Vista, you can mix and master in Vista, you can encode to non-DRM's format, including MS's own Windows Media format (which has no DRM by default, you have to set it up yourself). Vista doesn't at all mind or interfere.
This really strikes me as more of the same. I mean the guy is clearly a moron. He goes and downloads a crack for CS4, let's not play make believe like that's what he wasn't doing, and it doesn't work. So he blames Windows? What the hell? Then a random rant about audio. Ya, I'm thinking no.
I can't for sure say he's wrong, I've not yet test Windows 7 my self, but his story has all the markings of BS.
Why this could be good for Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
While I fully understand the reasoning behind DRM, and while I may even agree with the principle (protecting your work), draconian DRM will send people the other way. It is now 2009. Generations are getting more and more tech savvy and educated. The internet is a huge social network. To not be able to record something and manipulate as you want can send people the other way.
So this is where Linux needs to step up. Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot and Linux has the ability to take a big step forward. If you can record on Linux with no interference and you could be able to watch DVD with no interference on Linux on an out-of-box install, Linux could easily take over. Now we need the big Linux distros (Suse (shut up novell haters), Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc) to get on the software market to distribute versions for Linux. I don't mean it has to be open source, I mean it has to run on Linux. Natively. Without going through this config and that config to change things just to get it to run. Linux is on the right track, and with more and more being handed to it by Microsoft, it needs to get on the ball and make changes. Distros need to agree on where they put config files, on all distros. There would be nothing wrong with one main (but others available) package managers and packaging style. And there are other examples. And all this could be easily obtained.
Short on details... (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is seriously short on details.
So you replaced a DLL and the application stopped working? What DLL? What evidence do you have supporting your theory that it is the OS's fault?
So you can no longer record application's audio? Are you using the same drivers? On my system the sound card has to specifically support such functionality.
Windows 7 might contain tons of scary DRM but unfortunately this article contains no real proof of that. In fact it is so vague that is sounds almost like voodoo.
Re:Short on details... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod this guy up, I'm shocked at the number of comments that immediately start bashing Windows and promoting Linux, when this article is flimsy at best.
I know for a fact at there's SEVERAL CS4 cracks out there that DO NOT WORK and do exactly what this author is describing (break the app completely), unless they explain what DLL they use, I can only assume they broke the app themselves. Hell, they could have hexedited random parts of the file on a whim and blamed MS for it suddenly not working, that's how little they divulge.
kdawson is an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
1. What Photoshop CD4 dll? Does it do this with Vista? Does it do this with XP? Why is this attributed to Windows 7?
2. What sound card and driver? Does it do this with Vista? Does it do this with XP? Why is this attributed to Windows 7?
3. What build of Windows 7? Who is the testor? Why is two paragraphs of incomplete information hitting the front page and it's not an "Idle" post?
kdawson, you are truly an idiot.
You CAN take control of the Local Settings folder! (Score:5, Funny)
Open a Windows Explorer window, navigate to the directory, right click on the it, select Properties, go to the resulting Security tab, and click the Advanced button contained there.
Click Edit, select "Administrators" from the list of potential owners, click the Replace owner on subcontainer and objects checkbox, then click the OK button.
After a couple minutes you'll be presented with a Window informing you that you need to close all property dialogs for the ownership changes to be visible. Follow this advice by clicking the OK button in the File Properties window and you should now be back at the Windows Explorer window you originally opened.
Right Click on the directory again and select Properties one additional time. Go to the Security tab, and click the Advanced button again also.
Click the Add.. button in the Permissions tab, type in Administrators as the name (ensure your Local Computer domain is selected), and select Full control from the list of available permissions. Click OK out of the Permission Entry dialog, select Replace all existing inheritable permissions on all descendants... then click OK from the Advanced dialog.
After a couple minutes you should once again be back at the File Properties dialog. Feel free to click OK and close Windows Explorer.
Facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
- No valid article referenced here
- Posted by kdawson
- I've known several geeks over a very long time taking the effort to differentiate the words cracking and hacking. This joke of a slashdot posting laughs at me.
So an idiot used a pirated DLL to get rid of a nagging screen and somehow this means Windows 7 has draconian DRM. Jesus Christ...I meant to say, fucking idiots. Being in bed with RIAA? What sound card? what drivers? what the fuck?
This reeks of user error (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that the user upgraded to Win7 beta from XP - because ever since Vista there has been no "Local Settings" folder. In Vista, the old "Local Settings" folder which existed in XP was relocated to AppData\Local.
In the location of the old Local Settings folder is an NTFS junction, which merely redirects to the new AppData\Local location. Windows Explorer doesn't handle these junctions correctly and instead of redirecting you, will erroneously give you an "Access Denied" message.
Also, programs have always been able to insert themselves as exceptions into the Windows Firewall. Many applications which require internet access and which are blocked by the firewall will ask you if they can create a firewall exception for themselves. So programs have always been allowed to insert exceptions into the firewall - it's not a requirement that the program has to ask you first.
If a program is already running on your computer then it means the firewall is no longer responsible for stopping that application in any way - the firewall only protects against outside threats.
It's also far more likely that your modifications to the DLL broke something, which would explain why CS4 no longer worked. Why jump to the inane conclusion that Microsoft/Adobe are plotting against us all in some wild conspiracy?
This is likely not even DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
A
Largely this feature would be a good thing if extended to applications.
Application gets exploited: Windows cans it.
Unfortunately TFA goes straight to the assumption of DRM. They also don't really attempt to circumvent it or even to actually go see if you can turn SFC off in Windows 7 (looking for it now)
Unsourced FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
A guy gets on here and makes a bunch of unsourced statements about MS and everyone laps them up like mother's milk.
It's funny how the most recent scuttlebutt has been about how Windows 7 is really just Vista SP3 and is no different from Vista and boy isn't it amazing how MS just keeps putting out Vista with a different name.
Yet apparently, this OS that is just another version of Vista is so radically different that it changes the very nature of hardware access.
Fully aware that the Nazi's will mod this down into invisibility, but had to post it anyway, for pete's sake people, get a life.
Congrats kdawson I'm officially done with slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been real everyone, last one out hit the lights.
Lies, Lies, Lies (Score:5, Informative)
Let me see if I get this right. (Score:5, Insightful)
You took a beta operating system, installed a cracked program, and then after some stuff went completely screwy, started blame Windows for all of this? I haven't really tested Windows 7 but I seriously doubt it locks you out of Local Settings folder. Adding Exceptions to Firewall has been around since XP and Vista but I believe if you have UAC enabled, it will complain about that. Usability vs Security and Microsoft compromised with UAC if I remember correctly. Besides, hoping your firewall picks up some nasty and prevents it communicating outbound after you have executed is little much.
Then, you took some Audio recording program which probably hasn't been updated for Windows 7 (and that's possibly cracked since your so willing to crack Photoshop) with beta quality drivers and ended up with some crappy quality audio. Instead of ruling out drivers, operating system compatibility between programs you were using and lack of any form of nasty payload on this cracked software, you have determined that Microsoft is completely in bed with RIAA and Adobe to completely screw everyone over.
This article doesn't even count as news, it looks like shit you would find on digg and kdawson should have his editor privileges revoked for letting this be cleared for publication. Next article cleared for publication by kdawson: "Black Helicopters seen over Redmond, Washington. Microsoft in bed with CIA and developing brain reader. Get your tinfoil."
This Guy Doesn't Know What He's Talking About (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll make a list.
I begin to see why people block kdawson articles.
Summary: Blaming Microsoft for behavior of third-party code, can't take 5 minutes to figure out where Stereo Mix recording has moved to, and declares that a folder that has been locked since Vista for compatibility reasons newly locked once he did something completely unrelated, without checking to see if it was related. Yup, sounds like fail to me.
Re:Looking forward to Windows 8 (Score:5, Insightful)
You think Windows 8 will have less DRM?
Re:Looking forward to Windows 8 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not yours anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
No it bloody well isn't and I'm sick to death of this broken-ass analogy.
When you are dumb enough to buy DRM content, or dumb enough to use a program that creates DRM content, all you get is the same damn content which is encrypted. You dont "get" the key, you have to use someones stupid program to play it back. Sometimes this stupid program (ie playing back media player) will go check a bunch of driver signatures to see if its people they trust (aka PVP). Why did you buy this content? Why would you buy a BluRay with ICT enabled... when it comes with the condition that the entire HDCP chain is checked? There was an option - don't buy the damn DRM encumbered content - and you don't have to worry about all this DRM shite!
Its barely more than checking the signature of your binaries to make sure they haven't been hacked.
The constant FUD that suggests theres some kind of maelevolant process in the background checking your MP3s against a central database deep in the bowels of redmond, and deleting them / sending in the party van, is about on par with the editorial quality of this stupid article.
Photoshop crack fails! DRM blamed! Noobs can't understand filesystem permissions, DRM is bad! etc fkn etc
Re:Here's your sign... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but I'm guessing they were barking up the wrong tree. Here's a look at my User folder on a Windows 7 machine:
http://i42.tinypic.com/2cna2k5.png [tinypic.com]
Notice that a lot of the folders have shortcut arrows beside them? Well, they're not real shortcuts you just click on, they're just there for legacy programs. If a program tries to dump a file into "Local Settings", it will automatically be redirected to a different folder (Probably AppData/Roaming). Trying to double click any of those shortcuts bring an "access denied" error box, even the "My Documents" one, but I can access My Documents just fine by going to Documents as normal.
If the user in this case just did a bit of research, they'd probably find that the data they want is in AppData/Roaming/Adobe or something.
The only reason Windows doesn't let you change this is because it WILL break things and there's no reason for you to.