Did you read the suggestion that the KMS Client reports some information from the server like its ePID? Is that feasible?
Yep... this occurred to me today. I didn't realize this post was here, so I started a new post in the Windows 7 section entitled "Windows 7 Enterprise SP1 No Longer Activated." In the meantime, I'm using a 90 day trial key. But the WOAT 4.0 Beta 2 activator doesn't work for activation anymore. I assume there's a fix being worked at the moment, although from this posts on this thread I can't really tell if the issue is due to the KMS Host being blocked, the VL itself being blocked, or a combination of the 2. I don't see how it could just be the KMS Host being blocked, because if that were the case, wouldn't the VL still be able to be validated by Microsoft if it wasn't blocked? Maybe I'm confusing it....
Since the ePID is such valuable information now, it would allow us to check whether any public KMS server is likely to be blacklisted or not. It could also be used to copy ePIDs of legit public KMS servers. Also, because it can. I'm always for making valuable information available. Let the users decide if they find it useful. As I said, it could be a debug switch.
Must say I'm well impressed, thanks. Following the instructions changed the PID in MTK's KMS Server service properties (W7Entx86) for only one number in the bold section of 55041-00168-305-190595-03-1033-3790.0000-2692009 and the whole thing activated plus genuinely validated afterwards. If this was the solution, it'd sounds a bit too easy, wouldn't it, given the effort Microsoft takes with the blacklisting. Don't know how this xxxxxx section is actually composed , however if they turn to whitelisting instead one could at least try to take a known legit ePID ? Thing is that everyone working in a company using KMS host has simple access to an ePID by slmgr /dlv. Surely, one should be very cautious there , so far haven't understood from the postings how unique a KMS server ePID really is.
Anyone knows the ePID from kms.cc.columbia.edu? Code: 55041-00206-152-178069-03-1049-7601.0000-2202012 - Server 2008 R2 KMS_C (kms-c.no-ip.org) 55041-00206-152-174451-03-1033-7601.0000-2442012 - Server 2008 R2 KMS_C (kms.creighton.edu)
A bit off topic but very similar to the homegroup password, every user that has joined can not only view but can change it. Would you not at least think that it should only be changeable by the creator due to impact, if not both? I sometime think, especially with networking on a small scale, that there must be a group of them around a table agreeing to this. Hard to believe for me at times. There is no user specific shares in smaller homebunch networks that I can see. I guess the password fix will be coming in a critical security update . Regards
Code: ^([0-9]{5})-([0-9]{5})-([0-9]{3})-([0-9]{6})-([0-9]{2})-([0-9]{4})-([0-9]{4})\.([0-9]{4})-([0-9]{7})$ "55041" on Windows 7/2008R2, "05426" on Windows 8/2012. So to get a "proper" PID this should be set according to the OS version. The third part also depends on the type of KMS: All the servers seen so far have "199" for a Windows 8 "client" KMS, "152" for a Windows Server 2012 KMS, "234" for Office 2013.
Windows 2008 & Vista Greetings all, How to delete c:\Windows\System32\*.C7483456-A289-439d-8115-601632D005A0 in Windows Server 2008 & Vista. In newer release we need to "net stop sppsvc" then we can access the token.dat & Data.dat.
START-> type SERVICES in search -> FIND SOFTWARE PROTECTION PLATFORM and stop it you can also try net stop sppsvc as you mentioned
If you mean 00206 - it'is GroupID, which identifies algorithm and public key, used for decryption of keys from this group. 152 and next six digits belong to certain pidrange, in this^ case - from 152000000 to 191999999.
Then obviously you do not see my point of view, no way on earth MS is going to blacklist a ePID that probably is used by hundreds/thousands of people
I fear they might rethink KMS entirely and burden corporate customers with a lot of baggage in the future. Their recent KMS shenanigans show they definitely care about piracy, even though in the past, people have always attributed them with a laissez-faire policy regarding this. That said, pirates will always win.