RE: Microsoft and MACs

["P.A. Petricone" <pap@tiac.net>]

On Monday, March 08, 1999 7:58 PM, Eric M. Bennett wrote:

> >Re: the Microsoft secret user database:
> >
> >Has anyone explored why Microsoft would want to tie user data
> >to network MAC addresses?  Why would anyone want a MAC address
> >except to sniff or spoof network packets?
>
>
> I have run across some programmers who suggest using the MAC address as a
> unique identifier for copy-protection purposes.  But as for legitimate
> reasons for embedding them in documents?  I have no idea.
>
>
>
Legitimate uses...how about verified document origin, or does the MAC ID 
field change as the document moves around on a network from machine to 
machine? Probably moot now that *this one* is out.

Another that comes to mind is NIC manufacturer demographics. The origin of 
manufacture is the only piece of information in the MAC number that 
actually identifies something with any assurance other than it's address. 
It would be an interesting data base for say, 3Com. I would endorse this 
use as it may signal the end of dreaded survey forms from trade 
subscriptions.

Using the MAC address alone to serialize software installations could prove 
to be a headache if NICs get upgraded, replaced, swapped etc. Seems to me 
that there are a host of retrievable characteristics in hardware that make 
up Machine DNA. The MAC is just one, increasing the odds of a hit. PIII 
adds a big one to the chain. BTW, run winipcfg.exe on a machine that has a 
modem with dialup adapter set up and look at the PPP characteristics. It 
shows a (dummy, modem mfg,?) MAC address. I get DEST in hex to ASCII.

Unless one can determine what each bit is doing, we are going to be looking 
at these things forever. Is it me or is it getting harder to get air time 
for issues on how invasive closed source is? The fringe noise *does* get 
more attention. Personal privacy may be a myth, but also consider the 
possibilities open to industrial espionage and other harmful skullduggery. 
If this discussion got some attention, open source would become even more 
attractive. Is everyone really that cavalier about their data?

Sorry to all those who's maximized profitability depends on closed source. 
 Strikes me that there are other methods to validate legitimate copies 
besides closed source, which is not effective anyway. Closed source, and 
for that matter, poor documentation or incomplete specs, could be 
eliminated industry wide with no damage to IP, leaving the only reason for 
their existence; to hide functions, not protect their rightful use.

-pap