When did Daz post an alphabet like that? There is no A, not in anything anyone came up with. Daz winsetup.dll dumps are the normal key alphabet with 5 and N int it. But if you count B as letter 1 then you subtract 1 from it, as you are dealing with a string which letter 1 = index 0, hence the substraction. So B=0, C=1, etc... The index like this applies to the actual key as well so thats why I say C would be the first letter in the registry if is the second letter in the key.
@CODYQX4 DAZ has removed his post. A long time agoI pm'ed DAZ that range after I explored the winsetup.dll with Total Commander. I do not know if he found it also by himself.
So far, how my code is setup and it seems like all the other code as well, is that we add the N if the first letter would put N in the first two blocks. If this is not the case, I leave the first letter as is. This of course is where 5 may come in but I'm not going to code an assumption in that I have no evidence to support. So if we find us a W8 key with 5 in one of the last 3 blocks, we know what to do.
The original code made negative numbers into positive numbers. Code: Key(x + KeyOffset) = (Cur \ 24) And 255 The new code is this: Code: Key(x + KeyOffset) = (Cur \ 24) Thats why the new code can keep in the AND and how N and 5 are calculated correctly. FYI I got 9 from the position BCDFGHJKMPQRTVWXY2346789, but I can see what you mean.
It's confusing because its working it out backwards, I'm tired and I'm ill I'm still confused why you would think AND 07 is a problem since I've added no check to that code unyet it seems to decode serials just fine on all OS's here. I guess you're just being cautious, but keep in mind that it is in MS's own code.
@ Yen, I think you have the essence of OA3. MS has approached WGA with an "iron fist in a velvet glove". The general approach with WGA notifications that appeared first in XP was "you may be a victim", give up your source and we can work together. A refined version of WAT (Windows Activation Technologies) will probably be integrated into windows 8. In addition the requirements for windows 8 Certification: "UEFI and secure boot harden the boot process All firmware and software in the boot process must be signed by a trusted Certificate Authority (CA) Required for Windows 8 client Does not require a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) Reduces the likelihood of bootkits, rootkits and ransomware" Logically all they need to do is sell the OEM_SLP uniquely assigned product keys which are stored in the firmware. These keys could be version and platform specific and may even be just digitally signed by Microsoft. Even if secure boot is disabled the OS can check the firmware is digitally signed by the required OEM and allow initial activation. WAT then takes over if the machine connects to the internet. Multiple activations can then be tracked much like the VLK's in XP and revoked. The net effect is traceability and possible revocations of abused product keys. They may even refer you to the OEM in question to prove ownership if your product key is revoked. That way they don't look like the bad guys. The change in the way the product keys are encoded looks like plausible deniability. You allowed someone physical access to your machine but if you can prove ownership we can fix the problem. The OEM_SLP channel will not leak product keys as they have paid for each licence, firmware updates will need to be signed etc etc. Generic Product keys were they Achilles heel of OEM_SLP. Hell the OEM's will even get a replacement product key if their leaked ones are revoked. Deployment of unique product keys is not difficult. Look at Intel's OA2 utility, a DOS OA3 version that can be run as a batch job during the quality control/drive imaging process, reading the product keys from a key file. We may need a refined version of Remove-WAT.
@ hack I'd rather remove Windows 8 than use anything that messes up my system like RemoveWAT. All I can say is that theres things going on behind the scenes and no system file hacking should be required. However, we don't yet know if the idea in mind would work, but we're not going to talk about anything here since MS views this forum too.
Cool, the only probable reason i would use Win 8 in any case would be on a tablet. Ipad is just to limited. Anyway I understand it is like a game of poker at this stage. Misinformation is also required.
Misinformation, lack of information etc etc. It's all good I'm not a huge fan of Windows 8 myself at the moment. The reason is that I spend most of my time on the desktop and I might have a chat application running, a browser, a virtual machine, a server and something like Visual Studio open. I can switch between everything and view multiple windows really quickly from there, but via metro it means I'm dropping in and out of something that fills my whole screen Maybe they've added in options for the BETA, we'll see.
I did go though the VBS script and make sure it was doing the same thing as the code Daz posted from wgadiag.exe, couldn't account for the And 255 so I removed it, I think that the Mod instruction on the next line turns the number positive. here is the script as WinAPI, as it's a little easier to read.
To remove WAT is not the way to go. To mimic a license is the only thing I consider as a perfect way. It is the challenge, not windows(8) itself. W8 will be another Vista and I never will use it. The use of unique product keys will prevent an activation solution for the masses using a few OEM_SLP keys, but it also will open other ways to trouble M$.