Microsoft: Don't Download Windows 7 from Torrents

[Night Hawk]

Well we keep trying even if you forgot a few!

As far as a buggy leak and then immediate response with an MS warning to follow you could say that the contraversy started could easily act as free publicity or simply a well spoken common sense plea not to trust what is seen on torrents since many appear to be flooding into the beta forum and being told ... "sorry!"

All this stuff is unsupported since it wasn't directly approved as the 7000 builds were for public consumption! The only people that should even be considering jumping on any random "leak" or whatever are experienced users who already know enough to dump any bogus or bug filled bloinder they run across while the novice would get stumped!

For those who signed up originally for testing the 7000s the MS caution then was to protect your existing main OS like seeing 7 go on a separate drive or system in case of... "ccccrashhhh..." :shock::shock::shock:!!! Grrr...!!!

Now download something thats been through the hackmill and bug infested like one 7057 apparently. The RC1 would work here over jumping for joy on the next one other then a quick look to verify it one way or ....

 

[darkassain]

D****noid is usually a reputable place but it does have its up and downs like almost every semi-private torrent site...
the thing is getting the download from the D***noid itself than from a third party website...

me thinks these people are getting smarter at concocting a Win7 build and its getting more dangerous downloading builds without checking a reputable site (or just checking the sig on the files should be enough...)
and if you have a MD5 or SHA hashes even better

not only that but it seems that i remember that i posted similiar new back when they were in anticipation of the 7000 build...
http://www.sevenforums.com/news/1438-avoid-those-windows-7-downloads.html#post13143
which says the same...

 

[jimbo45]

Hi all.

Well for one I'm saying THANKS to guys / gals who let this stuff out into the wild.

I've ZERO sympathy for people who say "It's wrecked my computer - what do I do" -- as these people shouldn't be beta testing in the first place.

Checking the SHA1 / MDSUM should also be second nature -- it's usually possible to get these as the serious "leakers" will supply this information anyway -- or it can often be obtained from legit sites like reading blogs on various Microsoft / Technet sites. Neowin is also a decent source of info.

In any case had W7 been a real dog you can 100% guarantee NOBODY would have bothered faking it since the original would have done the talking.

Obviously people trying to fake it realize it's a product that people want.

What depresses me about the whole business is the really LOW level of expertise shown by the fakers and the "victims" alike

1) The image processing techniques are absolutely AWEFUL -- to any serious hacker out ther -- please go and enrol on at least Photoshop 101 course.

2) Get some knowledge of how the licensing and system info of Windows works. There's utterly no point in hiding expiration / product ID's either.

3) At least on your fake ISO's have a legitimate build string -- it's easy enough to find out from "your friendly MS employee" -- Amazing what a few jars of ale in a nice pub can do.

Is the education system in most countries really as bad as it appears these days or is it just me being slightly older where we really had to study for exams without the use of Google etc etc.

Well I suppose since 100,000's of people are STILL being taken for a ride via the "Nigerian Banker" or "Canadian Lottery" scams then anything is possible.

However with the current abysmal low level of fakery I'm really surprised anyone has actually been caught out yet.

C'mon hackers -- give someone a decent challenge -- let me see a REALLY GOOD FAKE that even I'm if not taken in by am at leased impressed with.

The obvious stuff is too boring to even bother with.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Night Hawk]

The problem often seen is not those who had originally signed for the beta testing but the numbers afterwards wanting to know how to get it! For the most those will be the ones that will rush blindly at the first torrent found and then return asking to how to fix things from a bad install or some buggy hack!

On a system here seeing 7 side by side with both XP and Vista alike you can make some serious comparisons and explain why 7 is now set as the default OS. When I find something that works I tend to stick with it.

As for the 64bit 7057 apparently found with hidden bugs that would have impressed by how authentic it looked from the start. The information on that mentioned before was well hidden bugs found in it. Still no bugs got onto the 7000 build still going strong there! It must have come directly from.... (fill in the blank space )

 

[darkassain]

Hi all.

Well for one I'm saying THANKS to guys / gals who let this stuff out into the wild.

I've ZERO sympathy for people who say "It's wrecked my computer - what do I do" -- as these people shouldn't be beta testing in the first place.

Checking the SHA1 / MDSUM should also be second nature -- it's usually possible to get these as the serious "leakers" will supply this information anyway -- or it can often be obtained from legit sites like reading blogs on various Microsoft / Technet sites. Neowin is also a decent source of info.

In any case had W7 been a real dog you can 100% guarantee NOBODY would have bothered faking it since the original would have done the talking.

Obviously people trying to fake it realize it's a product that people want.

What depresses me about the whole business is the really LOW level of expertise shown by the fakers and the "victims" alike

1) The image processing techniques are absolutely AWEFUL -- to any serious hacker out ther -- please go and enrol on at least Photoshop 101 course.

2) Get some knowledge of how the licensing and system info of Windows works. There's utterly no point in hiding expiration / product ID's either.

3) At least on your fake ISO's have a legitimate build string -- it's easy enough to find out from "your friendly MS employee" -- Amazing what a few jars of ale in a nice pub can do.

Is the education system in most countries really as bad as it appears these days or is it just me being slightly older where we really had to study for exams without the use of Google etc etc.

Well I suppose since 100,000's of people are STILL being taken for a ride via the "Nigerian Banker" or "Canadian Lottery" scams then anything is possible.

However with the current abysmal low level of fakery I'm really surprised anyone has actually been caught out yet.

C'mon hackers -- give someone a decent challenge -- let me see a REALLY GOOD FAKE that even I'm if not taken in by am at leased impressed with.

The obvious stuff is too boring to even bother with.

Cheers
jimbo

lmao think of the little ones starting to try out win-7...

other than that you can really tell whether or not its a good build or not...

now one thing that i believe they cannot fake is the signature...

why you ask?
its because everyone would be in a uproar once this is found out (as there is no publicly known bug in the RSA algorithm which would make it the first attack on SHA-1 and RSA)
it would take a massive amount of computing power and time to find the secret key used to certify the setup.exe (especially since they are using 2048 sha-1 cert... and not the 1024 ver which with enough computing power can be cr***ed)

 

[blackroseMD1]

They are correct, it is a risk. BUT those like me who desire to test something fairly recent HAVE to get our bits using leaks BECAUSE Sinofsky hasn't given us anything since 7000!!! Ok, I feel better now.

I was about to post something similar. We know that we are putting ourselves at risk by downloading "leaked" builds. It's up to us if we want to install it. If Microsoft is that concerned, open up the alpha/beta testing to the public. That will never happen, because then they couldn't sell TechNet subscriptions.

Honestly, I think this is a reaction to the 7106 build, and the homebrewed versions of it.

Edit: late, as usual

 

[Chris34]

[...]

As for the 64bit 7057 apparently found with hidden bugs that would have impressed by how authentic it looked from the start. The information on that mentioned before was well hidden bugs found in it. Still no bugs got onto the 7000 build still going strong there! It must have come directly from.... (fill in the blank space )

let me see if I well understood... the build 7057 x64 that was posted by somebody "reputable" on this board and on a well know semi-private torrent site was in fact a fake? the setup.exe was authentic and the certificate wasn't broken as far as I can remember. The only fishy thing about this release is that it was distributed as files and not as an iso like all other builds.

 

[Ex_Brit]

I'm awaiting until Microsoft post the RC version on Technet to update from 7000.

 

[tcr]

If 7106 was a 'leaked development milestone' than how come it's missing a digital signature?

that's true.

 

[Night Hawk]

I just got done backtracking one article claiming the release of the 7105-106-107 and even 7110 milestone builds to one thread on a Russian site revealing nothing newer then the 7077 build! The only thing seen there to supposedly represent the RC1 was...



In other words they didn't much to show for anything newer at this time.

As far as the 7057 build being referred to that came with everything intact in iso form not a bunch of rar files. Everything looks normal until a scan while booting from an OS on an entirely separate drive on another system revealed some rather nasty items.

 

[Shayx]

i think you can trust TL releases.

 

[Night Hawk]

The thing to remember about any torrent site is that you have a genuine article soon followed by a fake within a few days time. A good site once informed will remove the bogus item but by then you have to ask how many have rushed to download it?!

What was just seen with the 7106 number not actual build but number was that someone spotted that as one of the builds currently dated for 4/1 and simply renamed an older build someone toyed with to simply pass that by as the next leak. That's where the old expression of "haste makes waste" applies when leaping before looking at the next number to show up without confirmation of validity!

I think we can all thank Ex_Brit for starting this thread with the cautionary article seen there and a means of warning people about the risks of rushing after things found on torrent sites that often appear "too inviting" while later found to be something else!

 

[Ex_Brit]

Thanks Night Hawk. I'm still at build 7000 despite my Technet Subscriptions. Unfortunately not being a "Partner" I still don't have access to it there so I'm patient enough to wait until we get RC on May 5. I much prefer to have the confidence of knowing it is definitely the genuine article.

 

[Night Hawk]

I've been under the impression that the 7000 wouldn't be replaced until late May. Those in the partnership would likely see it on the 7th.

Despite looking over some of the recent leaks I still keep the 7000 x86 running strong here for the time being. That simply provides a look at far things have come along while still like everyone else waiting for the RC to go on.

Believe me it helps having the extra drive space and drives as well when going to take a look since you won't have to worry about trashing your main OS! :shock: "bugs!"

 

[Fabio]

maybe they should consider making the builds available to those that absolutely can't wait to try them. i know the whole reasoning behind why they dont, but if peeps are gonna get them of torrent sites anyway, then it would obviously be better if they came from MS.

Re the official RC release on the 5th May- Will it be available to all again for a period of time? will it be available only to those already on the Beta program? Or will it be first come first served? ergo back to the insanity of Build 7000 release day!

 

[Night Hawk]

Unless you are in the partnership part in deep in other words the RC wouldn't be publicly available until late May if you are signed up for testing the 7000 beta. From that point you would replace the 7000 with the RC once signed from there to the readiness program which there hasn't been too much seen onquite yet.

There's nothing up on the Partner Program page at this time as some are now starting to be anxious about and making inquiries. Once MS makes any formal announcement then the actual date will accompany that there. Will it be the 5th or 7th as some seem to believe?

 

[Jacee]

I was invited to test Build 7000, I'm still using it despite the fact that I really wanted to see 7077.

From what I understand, but I can 'understand' a lot of things the wrong way .... the RC should go out to the signed up Beta 7000 testers, then be available to the public through TechNet or MSDM.

If it's possible to hang on and wait for the "real thing", then do so. At this point in the juncture, I'm a gonna' wait.

I see a lot of dramatics in a couple of topics, and I don't see where it will help you get to the RC any sooner than the rest of us. :roflmao:

 

[Chappy]

let me see if I well understood... the build 7057 x64 that was posted by somebody "reputable" on this board and on a well know semi-private torrent site was in fact a fake? the setup.exe was authentic and the certificate wasn't broken as far as I can remember. The only fishy thing about this release is that it was distributed as files and not as an iso like all other builds.

No, that one released by our member was Legit, it's some of the latter release(s) that were tampered with.

 

[Night Hawk]

LIke the one labeled two different ways while still being seen as some type of translated copy. har! But that's why I setup a special partition to screen "unknowns"!

Since that is on a separate drive and partition from the main triple boot of XP, Vista, and the x86 7000 while still having a spare for x64 builds there this one gets a fast wipe after every install regardless of good or bad. But that's simply for a fast look only.

The thing to remember about anything you find on torrents to start with is "download at own risk"! With tampered builds something could be hidden in there that acts like a timer and then the alarm goes off later when something crawls out. :shock: And you wonder why some call some build rather "buggy"?

 

[Chappy]

So right NightHawk

I know allot of us have releaser's we know and trust but some just jump on the first bandwagon they find no matter how many red flags are thrown up.
I still see one that's labelled "Windows 7 All Builds & Patch" thats claims to have a full version of some build (I think 7048) plus a permanent patch, but the entire d'load is only around 1G. Well, we all know that x86 is around 2.65G and x64 is 3.2 or thereabouts, but it still has 1000's of d'loads...duhhhh
Takes all kinds I guess