Purpose of the AARD code

purpose of the AARD code
January 12 2007

RONALD ALEPIN, recalled as a witness, having been previously duly sworn, testified as follows:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (CONT'D)

BY MR. LAMB:

Q. When we broke yesterday we were discussing the AARD code. And yesterday morning Mr. Holley asked you if there was a malfunction in the AARD code. Do you recall that question?

A. I recall a question concerning malfunctioning and the AARD code.

Q. And your response was no, there was no malfunction; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you testified that there wasn't a real error. It was a false error; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. By false error, do you mean that it was not true?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, have you seen evidence in the record that leads you to believe that Microsoft knew that the AARD code was not a true error?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you see?

A. Well, there is a discussion of -- in the record concerning what the purpose was for the code. It was to detect a non-Microsoft operating system, and that in and of itself is -- was not an error. And the purpose for installing the code was not to detect errors, but to detect a different operating system ...

http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tp011207.txt

explanation for the AARD Code
From aaronr Mon Aug 2 11:35:34 1993 X-MSMail-Message-ID: 15DF233B X-MSMail-Conversation: 15DF233B X-MSMail-WiseRemark: Microsoft Mail - 3.0.729 From Aaron Reynolds  To: bradsi Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 11:32:50 PDT Subject: AARD drivel


 * Microsoft does not test windows on anything other than Microsoft's MS-DOS [...] In order to be fair and up front with our windows users it might be a good idea to disclose to them in a timely fashion, before they might encounter some possibly data corrupting problem, that they were running the windows product on a non-Microsoft MS-DOS on which Microsoft had not done any testing


 * Mr. Schulman goes on at length about how this code is "obfuscated and encrypted" and that this is somehow an indicating of malicious intent .. That is likely to be targeted by the "work a likes", which defeats the code's purpose to disclose to the user that windows is being run on a DOS that Microsoft has not tested on


 * All we were interested in doing was disclosing to users in a timely fashion that they were running the windows 3.10 product on something on which Microsoft had not done any testing

http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/px04372_b.pdf

http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/px00969.pdf

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/


 * You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app [application] would do that would make it run with MSDOS and not run with DR-DOS," Bill Gates circa 1989

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-225129.html

Using a vxd to 'extend' dos and how to explain the encrypted code

"can you tell me specifically what we're going to do to bind ourselves closer to ms dos..."

The approach that ralph and I have discussed is to use a vxd to 'extend' dos by patching it. In this case, we would create a subfunction findfirst/findnext family -- findabunch to allow filemanager to make a single call to get directory information. We would not patch unknown Oss

http://forum.soft32.com/linux/aard-explain-encrypted-code-ftopict474465.html