Rig it so that if the OS used one of the top 1000 pirated keys/registry hacks off of Kazaa, (or emule, or whatever), the patch pretends it loads just fine, then automatically reboots the box and gives the system hard drive a good solid low-level formatting, wiping that entire partition (and while they're at it, any other partition on the box containing a copy of WinXP, as punishment for pirating.)

After all, the Microsoft EULA states up-front that MS can do whatever they want to the machine (including wipe it clean) and they're not legally liable for whatever loss is incurred from it. If the wipe is tied to the key, then the chances of hitting innocent people who bought it legit is reduced to a maximum of (in this case) 1000 out of millions, no? The risk-of-loss numbers for legit customers in this case are way better than that of most MS patches...

It'll have another bennie: It will force folks to decide that they should 1)purchase the thing legit, 2)go get an alternative OS that doesn't cost them anything, or 3)go without a computer.

Sure, there is "4)", where some folks may re-install the cracked OS and just leave it running as an open target, or pack it behind a firewall of some sort (they're cheap enough these days) but they'll still have to go without the performance enhancements and upgrades (or risk installing trojaned-up "cracked" updates from P2P), and thus as new stuff comes out they end up somewhat screwed (depending on what those enhancements and risk factors are, exactly.)

It's not as if the vast majority of the affected yokels were paying customers in the first place, and those few who did pay up but got their keys ripped off one way or the other, should take it as a lesson in being more careful about it next time, or perhaps go to Microsoft and prove they purchased it, then get a new key as compensation for the purchase.

Sorry if that sounds a tad harsh, but maybe it'll show the true number of Microsoft customers, as opposed to folks who "borrowed" a cracked copy for their own box.

/P



[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/243/26391#26391