• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Google Denies Disassembling Vista Software

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Although Chrome’s source code suggested Google use reverse-engineering to figure out how to employ a Windows Vista security feature, the company claims that it did not go that route. Oddly enough, Google did defend the practice of disassembly saying it is an important tool too make sure software is compatible with other programs and operating systems.

An explanatory comment in the Chrome source code mentions use of a disassembler to figure out the security feature. "Completely undocumented from Microsoft. You can find this information by disassembling Vista's SP1 kernel32.dll with your favorite disassembler," the comment says.
Click to expand...
 
who doesn't do it? and Microsoft can bitch if they want to but why was in not documented? I am still remembering "DOS isn't done until Lotus will not run" days.
 
Oddly enough, Google did defend the practice of disassembly
Click to expand...

It's not odd. It's called honesty.

The odd part is that there's still a corporation out there that can be honest...
 
If you have to reverse engineer the OS in order to use a security feature then it's Micorosft's own fault for not providing enough documentation for programmers in the first place. The OS is supposed to be the foundation upon which others build, not some kind of mystery that only Microsoft truly understands.
 
skadebo said:
Is it illegal to disassemble software?
Click to expand...

kinda, it violates the EUL. If some does it to steal (plagiarize code) then it very. doing it to find things like undocumented calls (microsoft needs the advantage apparently) they would be hard pressed to do anything about it. even if they sued they would have to explain why the calls were not documented.
 
Valset said:
who doesn't do it? and Microsoft can bitch if they want to but why was in not documented? I am still remembering "DOS isn't done until Lotus will not run" days.
Click to expand...

Every OS has internal helper APIs. If they had to disassemble the kernel to find the entry point then I don't think it's one of those "undocumented APIs" everyone loves to whine about.:rolleyes:
 
Valset said:
kinda, it violates the EUL.
Click to expand...

It violates EULA until it's illegal to have such condition in EULA in some countries. Actually not some, but most countries allows you to dissasemble the code. There is one big exception - United States.
 
I recall reading an article about Microsoft disassembling Sim city 1 or 2000 in order to make sure that it would keep working under their next Windows release despite a memory bug in Sim City itself. That bug did not cause a crash under DOS or Windows 3.11 or whatever the previous MS OS was, but under the new, properly working OS, that bug would crash the program as it should. So they disassembled Sim City to make sure the new OS would work properly despite the bug.

Either way, I'm not too familiar with this story but I am curious: Is Microsoft even complaining, or has this story been blown out of proportion?
 
It's not like disassembling software is illegal. What's the big deal?
 
Not supplying competing companies with the documentation they need to write programs for your OS seems far more sketchy than disassembling with good reason.
 
Say you have a binary. Executing it means the OS opens it and feeds it to the CPU, right? Wait...it's legal to open it with one program, and not with another?

/effingretarded

Wrapper EULAs need to be seriously smacked down to start with. It's a questionably legal document that corporations with lots of money and legal resources uses to gain unfair advantage over individuals with minimal money and legal resources. The law is not supposed to be a weapon, and should bite the tar out of people that try to use it for one.
 
ashmedai said:
Wrapper EULAs need to be seriously smacked down to start with. It's a questionably legal document that corporations with lots of money and legal resources uses to gain unfair advantage over individuals with minimal money and legal resources. The law is not supposed to be a weapon, and should bite the tar out of people that try to use it for one.
Click to expand...

Good news is the little guy can remain anonymous.

Also, I don't think the "Google vs. Microsoft Deathmatch" fits the bill you are describing.
Though I'd pay to see it.
 
I agree, thus the disclaimer about "to start with." But it would be major giggles to watch those two fight it out. Does Google use EULAs enough to care about eroding them? I don't think so...very little of their stuff is not online-only, which is more of a TOS thing.
 
This is Microsoft trying to diffuse another "undocumented" scandal, where the OS manufacturer gives preferential treatment to its Application manufacturer, both of whom are under the same roof.... in blatent AntiTrust violation. :eek::rolleyes::p

Break those fucks up once and for all. They been dodging that bullet for far too long.

3 healthy companies, also healthy for the entire marketplace, is better than one titanic anticompetitive antitrust violating monster.
 
I guess in ten years it'll be news when a mechanic offhandedly mentions that he analyzed a vehicle in order to fix it.
 
again, for those that dont read article, and just make snap comments based on the title

DEP is undocumented in windows? because thats what this is about.
 
JimmiG said:
If you have to reverse engineer the OS in order to use a security feature then it's Micorosft's own fault for not providing enough documentation for programmers in the first place. The OS is supposed to be the foundation upon which others build, not some kind of mystery that only Microsoft truly understands.
Click to expand...

The initial idea w/Windows was to have it open for others to use, but as Microsoft got into other products, such as word processing, spreadsheets, etc, competing against other company products, they weren't about to give them any advantages, and so restricted more and more about their OS, thus giving the advantages to their own products. Microsoft has been doing this kind of stuff for years.

Microsoft reverse engineers other companies products all the time. Of course it's OK for them to do it, but others can't do it to their products.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top