Microsoft has confirmed the leak. See the link below: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/Feb04/02-12windowssource.asp Zhenkai On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Gadi Evron wrote: > A couple of days ago a friend of mine drew my attention to the source > making rounds on the encrypted p2p networks, I was hoping it would take > a bit longer for it to be "out", but that was just day-dreaming. > > Thor Larholm just gave me this URL, as you can notice, the server is busy: > http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=17509 > > I never believed in 0-days. "New" or more to the point > un-known-to-the-public exploits and vulnerabilities exist and are being > used. > In my opinion "0-days" virtually don't exist. It's usually either some > vulnerability that is long known and a COP or a worm is created. Or > exploits that will nearly never see the "public" but exist and are used > by few individuals.. but now... I don't know. > > How often does a brand new exploit come out without prior warning and > "attack" the net? > > *If* this really is the.. _real_ source code for W2K (and according to > the article NT4 as well).... we'll see what happens next. > > People didn't need help finding vulnerabilities in Windows before, but > it just became a whole lot easier and a lot less demanding on the "m4d > #4x0r 5k111z". > > I can't really say that the article is right and the source was "leaked" > or "stolen". The source is being sold/given (?) for years now to EDU's > and commercial companies for research purposes (not to mention China..). > I suppose foul play is always possible. > > Can anyone confirm this is the real source code? How about a press > release? :) > > Gadi Evron > >
