From: "Geo." 

Someone outside gaining some control over your servers is a security issue,
it's no different than having a spambot on your machine. Whether that
control is a remote control spambot or just the ability to make it so you
can't switch hard drives and restore from a backup, it's still control that
has been taken from you.

Geo.

"Rich"  wrote in message news:45b43fcf{at}w3.nls.net...
   Security, no.  It's wouldn't be.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45b42a7f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  If for example the DOJ had argued for the ability to shut down MS internal
  systems as a way to force compliance with the consent decree you would not
  expect the folks at MS to view that as a security issue?

  That's exactly how some of us view activation.

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45b408e5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     Still not security.  Do you claim that everything you would wish were
  otherwise is a security issue?

  Rich

    "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45b3b438$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    It's not the backup program that will break, it's the software you have
    backed up that is keyed to the old now dead hard drive that's going to
    break. Same for Raid, the only thing that's going to break is the
    application that finds the drive serial number has now changed.

    Are you playing stupid? I know you understand how serial number checking
    works.

    Geo.

    "Rich"  wrote in message news:45b2f5c9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
       Still not security.

       If your backup program really broke when restoring to a different
    physical drive I would suggest getting a new one.  I don't see how this
    applies to RAID but if you have a RAID implementation that doesn't allow
    drives to be replaced I would reconsider that too.  If these exist I
would
    consider both to be reliability issues.  Security doesn't seem affected
at
    all.

    Rich

      "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45b2e02e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      It has nothing to do with security? From who's point of view? I happen
  to
      think that vendors locking an install to a specific hard drive
  (especially
      if it is done stealth with no notification) and thus blowing any tape
    backup
      capabilities or possibly Raid implementations is a direct threat and
is
      certainly something I would consider a corporate security concern.

      Any time a vendor gains more control over a corporation, that
  corporation
      should consider it a security concern.

      Geo.

      "Rich"  wrote in message news:45b2a2c6{at}w3.nls.net...
         That has nothing to do with security.  mike made a claim about
    security.
      He failed to respond I suspect because he has nothing.  If you have
      something, please speak up.

      Rich

        "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45b2990c{at}w3.nls.net...
        How about keeping vendors from locking an install to a specific hard
      drive?

        Geo. (I know I'd sleep better)

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5