From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_10C4_01C73D79.9ADEAC50
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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=20
  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=20
  application that finds the drive serial number has now changed.

  Are you playing stupid? I know you understand how serial number =
checking=20
  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=20
  physical drive I would suggest getting a new one.  I don't see how =
this=20
  applies to RAID but if you have a RAID implementation that doesn't =
allow=20
  drives to be replaced I would reconsider that too.  If these exist I =
would=20
  consider both to be reliability issues.  Security doesn't seem =
affected at=20
  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=20
  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=20
  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)


------=_NextPart_000_10C4_01C73D79.9ADEAC50
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Still not
security.  =
Do you claim=20
that everything you would wish were otherwise is a security =
issue?
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:45b3b438$1{at}w3.nls.net...It's=20
  not the backup program that will break, it's the software you have =
backed=20
  up that is keyed to the old now dead hard drive that's going to =
break.=20
  Same for Raid, the only thing that's going to break is the =
application=20
  that finds the drive serial number has now changed.Are you =
playing=20
  stupid? I know you understand how serial number checking=20
 
works.Geo."Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message news:45b2f5c9$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
  =20
  Still not security.   If your
backup program really =
broke=20
  when restoring to a different physical drive I would suggest =
getting a new=20
  one.  I don't see how this applies to RAID but if you have a =
RAID=20
  implementation that doesn't allow drives to be replaced I would =
reconsider=20
  that too.  If these exist I would consider both to be =
reliability=20
  issues.  Security doesn't seem affected at=20
  all.Rich 
"Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:45b2e02e$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  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=20
  (especially  if it is done stealth with no notification) and =
thus=20
  blowing any tape backup  capabilities or
possibly Raid=20
  implementations is a direct threat and is  certainly =
something I=20
  would consider a corporate security
concern.  Any time a =
vendor=20
  gains more control over a corporation, that corporation  =
should=20
  consider it a security concern. 
Geo.  =
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote in message news:45b2a2c6{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;   =20
  That has nothing to do with security.  mike made a claim about=20
  security.  He failed to respond I suspect
because he has=20
  nothing.  If you have  something, please speak =
up. =20
  Rich    "Geo."
<georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:45b2990c{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;  =20
  How about keeping vendors from locking an install to a specific =
hard =20
  drive?    Geo. (I know I'd sleep=20
better)

------=_NextPart_000_10C4_01C73D79.9ADEAC50--

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