June 28th, 2006, 06:43 PM
microsoft removes WGA call back feature
It appears that an update that came through yesterday contained a change to WGA
My software was legit but the phone home feature was annoying since it was a blaring target as a risk. You can read more about the change at the following link, which also contains a kb article on how to manually disable the phone home feature, all legal and what not strait from MS.
eweek WGA removed article
June 29th, 2006, 08:06 PM
You might want to read this:
Sure, they've turned it off for now, but the rumor is that's not going to be the case in the future.
Of course, since you're getting the updates anyway, you're using a legit copy. BUT, if I read the article correctly if you turn it off in the future or remove it, you're not going to like the outcome.
Misery is not my friend, but I\'ll break before I bend.
June 29th, 2006, 11:05 PM
I do not like Microsoft's current DRM initiative as I consider that it is amateur, inept, and stinks to high Heaven. Hell's teeth............. so a flat CMOS battery is a pirate version of Windows???????????
OK, so I install a genuine version of Windows.................. can anybody explain to me what might happen that will all of a sudden make it a "non-genuine" version?
The company said that the Validation component of the tool will still check periodically to determine whether the version of Windows is genuine.
If I rebuild the computer, replace the motherboard or install it on a new computer I am going to have to go through the installation, validation and activation process all over again? So why is this crap "phoning home"?.......................what can actually change "in mid flight", so to speak?
I would be very interested to learn, because their people over here cannot tell me.....................
So, Gates and Ballmer have installed software on our computers, WITHOUT OUR EXPLICIT CONSENT that might "run amok" .............. how very polite and gentlemanly of them.
Microsoft insists the callbacks are a "safety check" to ensure that WGA can be terminated quickly if things run amok
That "excuse" is so pathetic, I will not even comment on it..................................
June 29th, 2006, 11:21 PM
oh come on nihil its not like anything has ever run amok with a windows feature before, don't you think your being a little rough on gates???
***cough***rpc exploit ***cough***
June 29th, 2006, 11:27 PM
Its Ballmer I want............'cos he's the one who killed my frog
June 30th, 2006, 07:19 AM
Killed my frog, is that an English expression? Here in Texas we dont say that unless we mean it literally lol. Care to explain?
June 30th, 2006, 04:34 PM
Brian Livingston nailed it.
I can see the point of WGA for home users, but for their partners who use it in a corporation, I dont see it. Considering the hell it has put us through with recieving updates from our WSUS servers. It was also very considerate of them to report the data back from our hard drives. Considering most of our machines have the potiential of containing PHI (Patient Health Information). Thank you Microsoft.
July 1st, 2006, 04:34 AM
July 1st, 2006, 09:37 AM
July 1st, 2006, 05:03 PM
I understand their desire to varify that the copy of their software that I am using, I actually paid for. I dont understand pushing an untested application into an environment that you understand, much less into multiple environments that you have no clue about. If I pushed an untest peace of software into my environment at work and it caused the issues that we are having now. I could, at the very least, expect the CTO and CIO to talk with me at great lenght about my future with the enterprise. The more accurate response would constitute a desk cleaning-out party and a job search.
The action of puting a piece of monitoring software a system without the permission of the owner is the same. They are not a law enforcement department (Microsoft Enforcement Edition). If they suspect I am doing something illegal they need to go through legal channels.