In an update to the article, the author concedes that this attack was only made possible because they didn't go through the real licensing process, which crypto

In an update to the article, the author concedes that this attack was only made possible because they didn't go through the real licensing process, which cryptographically signs the resources and protects against things like XAML tampering. Wow, that's slimy. If the premise of the article is debunked, then the article should be taken down. Keeping it up for pageviews raises profits for Ars but incurs big externalities on MS, as it spreads misinformation and FUD.