Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Microsoft Releasing Windows Source Code

This is topic Microsoft Releasing Windows Source Code in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001667

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-20-2003, 03:08 PM:

And Russia gets the first look!

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030116S0058

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/01/16/002.html

http://www.netsurfer.gr/article.php?sid=283

http://access.globalknowledge.com/article.asp?ID=4565

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-20-2003, 06:09 PM:

In the interest of disclosing trade secrets (not!) I'll let you guess what these are the formulae for:

Yellow
Chlorazol Brilliant Yellow 3G 200 2.00 gm
Chlorazol Fast Orange ER. 180 0.25 gm
Acetic Acid 28% 10 cc
Water to make 1000 cc

Cyan
Disulphine Green B. 150 0.25 gm
Solway Celestol B. 250 1.25 gm
Lissamine Green B. 200 0.40 gm
Acetic Acid 28% 30 cc
Water to make 1000 cc

Magenta
Chlorazol Fast Pink BK. 180 3.60 gm
Chlorazol Fast Red BK 170 0.45 gm
Benzo Violet R 0.50 gm
Acetic Acid 28% 10 cc
Water to make 1000 cc

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-20-2003, 08:45 PM:

I know what they are....I've seen that book too as you know......Was it finally returned to that important access point that all Film-Techers could also travel to and read in absolute amazement.....? I remember you saying that for a long time that it was missing!!

P.S. John, I like that link to the Moscow Times....Interesting! I'm also really sure that the Russians did not have the above formula.....

Mark

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-20-2003, 09:01 PM:

The computer reports it as "on shelf." I don't recall it ever being missing but I do recall that around the time I showed it to you it contained a slip of paper I had left in it a dozen years before.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-20-2003, 10:19 PM:

Steve Kraus wrote: "I'll let you guess what these are the formulae for".

I'd guess an early "generic" formula for the dyes used in dye transfer printing, or perhaps from a patent.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-20-2003, 11:48 PM:

Yes, Technicolor imbibition dyes, early English version.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-21-2003, 02:27 AM:

I'm surprised those dyes have turned out to be so stable, given the concentration of acetic acid in them. Together with the nitric acid in the bases of early IB prints and then 28% acetic in each of the dyes, I'd have expected it to attack the pigments and cause significant fading. But in fact the colours tend to keep their contrast and density at least until nitrate base decomposition makes an element unusable.

The EE Times has the key to the Microsoft initiative, IMHO - Big Bad Bill is scared witless that the Windows combination of widely-hacked security holes, a closed-source product and an increasibly viable open-source alternative (i.e. Linux) which has already established a significant market share in the server market and is now breaking into the PC/workstation market in user-friendly proprietary versions will seriously diminish the public-sector use of Windows.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-21-2003, 02:52 AM:

I never believed Microsoft had a "back door" built into their operating systems to "spy on their users."

However, the high end of operating systems (Windows ME and above) for the PC is powerful enough to see what you have for operating systems (if any) on the primary bus or the secondary bus, even though they are "not installed" in the system BIOS.

I also understand from a computer guru that the CPU serial number is detected by the XP operating systems even though it is disabled through the system bios. In addition to that, I discovered that Win 2000 does not like enviroment changes unless the CPU and the main board is in the same basic class by manufacturers. Another thing I was told was that if you try to cross over to a different main board, XP will not run because the CPU serial numbers are not the same.

Something else I read in technology....just because you format a drive, you think it is "safe" and does not contain sensitive information that can be retrieved, you guessed wrong! There is software that can tell what was on that drive.

The article addresses two layers, and suggests that you might be safe if you re-write over the entire drive with "O's" a couple of times. However, I had a computer guru tell me that some software can go as deep as 20 layers to find out what was on the drive.

So to be safe, stay off the sleezy web sites, keep your credit card numbers out of your computer, as well as personal information you don't want broadcasted to the entire world.

I edited this to shorten it up to make more sense.

[ 01-21-2003, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-21-2003, 04:21 AM:

Leo,
Its also interesting that the British dyes used in I.B. Technicolor were quite different from the U.S. dyes. I suppose they were supposed to be equivelent but thye were obviously not. Perhaps whymost of the British made I.B. look far superior to ours. Perhaps Steve might have that page to post here.....

Steve, I remember that note!! I guess you are about the ony one that checks that book out!!
Mark @ CLACO
www.clacoequipment.com

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-21-2003, 04:23 AM:

If these inbuilt Windows back doors do exist, then Microsoft don't make them widely available even to the authorities. The trial of someone accused of downloading child pornography over here a few months ago was told that the police could not forensically examine his hard disc simply because he'd used the file encryption system built into Windows 2000 and refused to divulge his key or password.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-21-2003, 04:34 AM:

Leo, I understand Windows 2000 is very hard to crack into, especially if you install the special encrypted file that comes with the OS.

However, I can't help but believe that even if Microsoft is is smart enough to make it that tough, there are some that are just as smart that can hack into it and get the info they want.

I understand that XP home addition was a disaster for security. I don't know if XP pro is any better. It might be, but the chances of me using any XP product is zero.

I don't monkey around on porno sites, and I don't use any credit card numbers in my machines, anyway. So I am not overly concerned.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-21-2003, 04:37 AM:

Although Windows 2000 is the most secure Microsoft workstation OS, if you have physical access to the media, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to read the data. Even harddrives with OS partitions can be dropped into another computer where all rights can be assumed by the Administrator. Granted it takes a while to process the whole drive, it can be done.

Now if a third part app, was used to encrypt data, that would be another story.

Back when we had copies of Windows NT 4 source at the university there was nothing but lots of boring code. No secret 'backdoors'. Heck, when the frontdoor is made of cardboard, who needs a backdoor?

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-21-2003, 04:40 AM:

Daryl, I think the front doors of 95 and 98 (maybe ME, too) was made of toilet paper. [Big Grin]

As some of us know, some high-end software use dongles on the parallel port. I have not heard of anyone cracking them yet, but I am sure it can be done.

If a human made it, another human can eventually screw it up or figure it out. As an example, How did the ancient Egyptians go about erecting their obelisks cut from one block of stone and weighing hundreds of tons? There is one good theory, but as Steve Guttag pointed out, it may not be true. If this be the case, we have not yet solved a mystery of technology that was used several thousand years ago.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-21-2003, 04:55 AM:

Dongles, ha!

If you analyze them long enough you can figure them out without knowing what they actually do.

If you tear them apart, there are some you can build yourself with the help of an EEPROM burner or PLC programmer.

If you don't like hardware (average software engineer for ya! [Smile]

) you can always decompile the software and 'modify' the appropriate code. The reason I don't like this method, is that the 'crack' ends up on the net for all the little kiddies to download, spoiling the fun for all of us who have enhaled to much lead. [Smile]

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-21-2003, 04:57 AM:

Hmmm...interesting..... [evil]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-21-2003, 05:53 AM:

I always thought that the CPU ID was a perfectly reasonable concept; pretty much all "real" computers (workstation level and above) have this feature and it makes certain tasks (license management being one of the most important) much simpler, since software licenses (etc.) can be tied to the CPU ID. I'd much prefer this over the "activation" crap that MS is using with Windows XP and other newer software, which depends upon several hardware components and will cause the software to fail if several of them are swapped out.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-21-2003, 08:59 AM:

Leo wrote: "I'm surprised those dyes have turned out to be so stable, given the concentration of acetic acid in them. Together with the nitric acid in the bases of early IB prints and then 28% acetic in each of the dyes, I'd have expected it to attack the pigments and cause significant fading. But in fact the colours tend to keep their contrast and density at least until nitrate base decomposition makes an element unusable"

Don't forget that there was a wash step after the dyes were transferred to the receiver. So most of the excess water-soluble acid would have been washed out. But poor washing could have an adverse effect on the long term stability of either dye-transfer or incorporated coupler films.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-21-2003, 09:06 AM:

Concerning Windows security. As long as you can get physical access to the machine in question, you can have anything you want. Unlike Novell/Linux/etc. I have this utility and it works like a champ.

http://www.lostpassword.com/windows-xp-2000-nt.htm

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-21-2003, 09:12 AM:

Here's my favorite (and free, too) NT password recovery bootdisk: http://home.eunet.no/~pnordahl/ntpasswd/bootdisk.html

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-21-2003, 09:16 AM:

ANY OS, even Novell is compromisable with physical access and a phillips screwdriver. [Smile]

Not all methods will render an OS bootable by itself again, but if you want the data...

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-22-2003, 08:55 AM:

quote:
ANY OS, even Novell is compromisable with physical access and a phillips screwdriver.

Well, maybe if no one will miss the server, and you really feel like hacking into the hard drive the hard way. With the NT utility above, one quick reboot and you're in business. No phillips screwdriver necessary. [thumbsup]

Comes in handy when someone sets a local administrator account on their PC that's not part of any domain then forgets what the password is, or leaves the company or whatever.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-22-2003, 09:42 AM:

I guessed what these were because there is a discussion group somewhere, Yahoo, I think, on dye transfer printing, the still photo version. When Kodak stopped supplying the materials, the few remaining printers using the process stockpiled what materials they could, but since then, there are people who have been making their own dyes, mordants, tanning developers, and even the matrix film. You've got to admire them, I make all af my own black and white chemicals, and have dabbled in some of the alternative processes, but I think I would draw the line at coating my own film, and building the machine to do it.

There have been several posts in that forum on dye formulae.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-22-2003, 04:19 PM:

Regarding the Technicolor dyes, these are given as British vs. American equivalents:

British.................................American

Disulphine Green B. 150..............Fast Acid Green B.
Solway Celestol B. 250...............Antraquinone Blue AB.
Chlorazol Fast Red K. 150............Paranol DF. Red 8 BL.
Chlorazol Fast Pink BK. 180..........Amidine Fast Rose 2 BL.
Chlorazol Fast Orange ER 180.........Dupont Pontamine Orange ER.
Chlorazol Brilliant Yellow 3G 200....Dupont Brilliant Paper Yellow Conc.
Lissamine Green B. 200...............Pontacyl Green SN.

I have no idea if these are simply different trade names for the same chemicals or not. No difference in the formulation is given.

The book (Colour Cinematography) also mentions a British patent referring to Erioglaucine for cyan, Acid Fuchsin for magenta, and Resorcine Yellow for yellow.

There is something quaint about the common or trade names of these dye chemicals.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-23-2003, 04:04 AM:

I think Steve Kraus gets this weeks award for driving a thread off topic the fastest. Only one reply! Wow! [Big Grin]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-23-2003, 04:06 AM:

Which is why I don't even look at this thread. I just peeked in here to see if it was back on topic. Leave it to Steve to turn something boring into something even MORE boring! [Smile]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-23-2003, 05:36 AM:

To bring this back on topic, just for Joe...

Security is only as good as its secret.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-23-2003, 07:16 AM:

Technicolor boring? Tsk tsk tsk. Maybe I could steer this thread towards trains! [Razz]

Anyway, one reason I am holding off as long as possible from using XP is activation. This is the beginning of an unfortunate trend which if the gullible public doesn't object is going to lead to software that is no longer purchased outright but has to be subscribed to and stops working when you stop paying Mr. Bill. That's their long term goal.