<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Genuine Windows Blog : Engadget</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/tags/Engadget/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: Engadget</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>Report of a new hack - and one of my favorite websites stumbles</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/2007/01/02/report-of-a-new-hack-and-one-of-my-favorite-websites-stumbles.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2007 01:25:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:1401079</guid><dc:creator>alexkoc</dc:creator><slash:comments>31</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/comments/1401079.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/commentrss.aspx?PostID=1401079</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;P mce_keep="true"&gt;For me the report of this latest hack was a double whammy. First it's no fun to read a report of a new attempt to hack Microsoft's products,&amp;nbsp;but secondly the tone of coverage of this hack on one of my favorite sites left me very disappointed. &lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;First the&amp;nbsp;hack. Known as the&amp;nbsp;'timer crack' or '2099 crack' this hack basically resets the pre-activation grace period to be in effect through 2099. Implementing this hack requires the user to implement a 23-step process&amp;nbsp;that involves modifying/replacing kernel level files,&amp;nbsp;making manual registry edits and other serious changes that could have destabilizing consequences. Our team is actively reviewing the reports of this workaround now, and I expect we'll take corrective action soon. &lt;B&gt;&lt;/B&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I ran across the first report of the hack on one of my favorite websites, &lt;A title=Engadget href="http://www.engadget.com/" target=_blank&gt;Engadget&lt;/A&gt;,&amp;nbsp;which I read daily as a feed on my live.com page. What disappointed me so much&amp;nbsp;about the post that announced this hack wasn't that they discussed the hack, because I do think it's newsworthy. What really disappointed me was the tone of the Engadget poster.&amp;nbsp; The poster seems to endorse the practice of trying to hack Windows Vista to enable unlicensed use. The beginning of the post says "&lt;EM&gt;we've already found a way to circumvent Redmond's most valiant efforts to make us activate the darned software&lt;/EM&gt;" and the end concludes with "&lt;EM&gt;So if you're looking to hit up a new OS in the coming weeks, or you've already got 'er up and running, be sure to peep the read link if you're interested in pulling this off&lt;/EM&gt;".&amp;nbsp; I don't know how to interpret that except as a blatant endorsement of theft, by whoever "we" is. I can't imagine reading another post on Engadget using language like that to encourage people to try to get their hands on any of the recently-stolen truck load of &lt;A title=RAM href="http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/30/300-000-worth-of-hynix-ddr-ram-modules-hijacked/"&gt;RAM&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;or any other of the thousands of products they have featured on their site. The Engadget editorial policy says "If we get something wrong, &lt;STRONG&gt;we correct the error immediately&lt;/STRONG&gt;.&lt;I&gt;" &lt;/I&gt;&amp;nbsp;I'd ask, is it wrong to advocate theft? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=1401079" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/tags/Windows+Vista/default.aspx">Windows Vista</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/tags/Engadget/default.aspx">Engadget</category><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/tags/2099+hack/default.aspx">2099 hack</category></item></channel></rss>