Windows XP leak confirmed after user compiles the leaked code into a working OS

Re:Windows XP leak confirmed after user compiles the leaked ... by soneil on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @10:11PM (#24646545)

It's probably not all that useful for that, to be honest. People building this are setting their clocks to sometime 2003 because something in the process is timebombed (including the resulting build). SP3 was 2008. Support officially ended 2014. Patches for wannacry snuck out in 2017 & 2019.

So if people want to take this tree as a base to start releasing unofficial patches, they have 16 years of work to catch-up on just to reach parity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Windows XP leak confirmed after user compiles the leaked ... by beambot on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @11:12PM (#24646923)

You still have industrial test equipment (eg oscilloscopes & network analyzers) that could probably benefit?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Windows XP leak confirmed after user compiles the leaked ... by soneil on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @11:27PM (#24647020)

Possibly, yeah. But I think they'd benefit more from the official updates.

I'm not trying to argue that unofficial patches would be a bad thing. I just don't think a source tree from 2003 is a good place to start. Any binary you build off this codebase will be missing 16 years of microsoft's patches. Until such a project caught up with all the changes made 2003-2019, any binary you build off this is likely to cause more harm than good (eg, you fix one issue, and reintroduce every issue that was fixed after 2003.)

The idea's good. This sourcetree isn't. Let's just say 2003 was not XP's golden age. If this was at least SP3 onwards, but preferably 2014+, sure. But it's not, it's SP1.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Windows XP leak confirmed after user compiles the leaked ... by GoblinSlayer on Thursday October 01, 2020 @02:39AM (#24648024)

To disable eternal blue you only need to remove or disable SMBv1 server.

[ Parent | on HN ]