W2K source "leaked"?
From: Gadi Evron (ge_at_egotistical.reprehensible.net)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:48:52 +0200 To: firstname.lastname@example.org
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:
I never believed in 0-days. "New" or more to the point
un-known-to-the-public exploits and vulnerabilities exist and are being
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
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