Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by EvgeniyDragunov, May 1, 2010.
Hello as the title says is the Bios mod bulletproof or not regarding kb971033?
BIOS Mod and Daz Loader are bulletprooft against KB971033
Superman is bulletproof but I believe from what I've seen If the mod is good and the certs lines up it passes WAT
Im courious about how dumb that wat is if it doesnt check where is xrm located and what privilages are on it.
Let me rephrase if original lets say Dell Oem folder is in windows folder with all other original oem files located in it how come wat doesnt get (according to bios mod activation manual) the xrm is named lets say dell.xrm* is located on root of C: drive during bios mod.
I hope you understand what i was trying to say.
That is not an issue. As long as the .xrm file is good, it doesn't matter where it is located during the modd. Vista didn't have that problem and 7 is similar to Vista. Don't worry.
M$ haven't really tackled the holes in SLP activation they simply targetted some widely distributed "pre-activated" DVDs that could be used to dupe innocents into purchasing pirated M$ software - they have said this time and time again and demonstrated it time and again - they target "hacks" that facilitate the sale of pirated software on systems.
Start selling computers with pirated windows and they will target you - don't do this and they will not - they may black out your screen and annoy you with popups but they know this is a continual one step forward one step back arrangement.
So don't sweat it - they have been playing this game for years with WGA and now WAT.
Personally, I'd stick with a loader until they break that - and I don't think this will happen until they change the OEM Royalty SLP activation system.
I can say that my M2NPV-VM rev 1401 modded bios (Dell QA09 slic) passes the WAT (kb971033) test!!!
I recently passed form XP to Windows 7 x64: I did the mod (with crossed fingers), slmgr /ilc C:\Dell.xrm-ms, slmgr /ipk <Dell oem slp ultimate serial>, and i got activated.
The ultimate test for that modded bios was the WAT test
In my opinion, a bios mod is not 100 percent bulletproof. I think it will largely depend on what ms does. Wat and mgadiag can collect the essential datas like the motherboard manufacturer, date, etc... but it would be a huge undertaking for ms to target a small percentage that could possibly have negative results on legitimate oem licenses if not done correctly. I definitely agree with Rosco though.
* i also think that if systems with bios mods are disabled by ms, then we will see another round of bios re-mods, that may include editing the bios date, name, manufacturer...etc...
I have to agree with you on that dude but M$ really does not care if someone is using a pirated copy. They care more about ppl who sell pirated copies for a profit. Most ppl with pirated copies are not going to have to worry so much but the ppl selling it are more so because they are taking valueble customers from M$ lol. More Pre-activated copies are Crap(Sorry to say it but it's true) and easy to detect thereby easy to block and pre-activated copies are easy as hell to sell to ppl who are not that tech savy and become prime targets if that makes sense.
Preactivated copies are installed in India (and perhaps also sold to many) mainly because not many people could be bothered or competent enough to apply activators/emulators on their own. Preact. are a 1-click solution to say. Different matter that one's genuine status can change suddenly, and nags/blocks may appear. I have seen often in win 7 that update settings change on their own from `check...' to `install automatically'. Now at least in an original image, KB971033 does not appear ticked (as of now), and one has to consciously tick it to activate. For that matter, how many people have heard of KB... and will hear of future updates of the same nature. Even if a preac. copy is installed with `never check and download', the update settings may change on their own.
On a different note, even if daz 1.7.9 or later pass kb.., is it wise to install kb971033 anyway?. From what I have read here, the process for installing daz is:
1. install win 7
2. install all updates as of date including kb971033.
3. install daz.
Is this process correct in neutralising the kb971033 update at least for now. If now, is it reasonable to assume `genuine' status on a reasonable time scale. Would it not be better to skip kb971033 altogether. It is anyway not offered automatically, at least in India, for now on original win 7 installs.
1) Its not only that but people aren't aware of things as such like activators/loaders plus the fact that not many have net at home so they don't need it add to the fact that those who do sell PC's with bootlegged copies aren't that bright either.
The settings don't change automatically & you can completely disable windows update from the control panel !
2) There isn't a set process for installing Daz's loader you can install it before/after kb971033 & from what I've seen it still works likewise other loaders/activators out there as well.
3) kb971033 is flagged as an important update but its always upto the user whether he wants to install it or not plus it doesn't matter what's your location & whether you've got a genuine copy or not !
Just installed kb971033( from windows update not beta) and i can confirm that passes on hardmod activation. My phone will ring all day if it doesnt pass activator.
installed kb971033 was told my win 7 was not genuine (using andy p's bios mod tool and old lenovo key) was asked to change key ? , so thought what the hell remodded bios from HP to ASUS (using asus striker II formula) installed cert and key to match, still said not genuine go online to check activation, went online, it then passed !!.
You could have just changed your key to another one and validated online.
yes i could have but was going to remod anyway since the asus cert and key have been available just to match the board brand.
Also He-Man is bullet and laserproof, so my both mods are
I think the real question that arises is how long are M$ going to continue allowing their OS to continue to use this type of discredited licencing system - I mean why don't they insist OEMs use some form of TPM system that totally protects licencing data ???
That's what I would do if I seriously wanted to apply licencing systems to a computer program.