From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_113F_01C73D9A.54717C90
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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=20
  systems as a way to force compliance with the consent decree you would =
not=20
  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=20
  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=20
  to
      think that vendors locking an install to a specific hard drive=20
  (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=20
  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)


------=_NextPart_000_113F_01C73D9A.54717C90
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Security,
no.  It's =
wouldn't=20
be.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:45b42a7f$1{at}w3.nls.net...If=20
  for example the DOJ had argued for the ability to shut down MS =
internal=20
  systems as a way to force compliance with the consent decree you =
would not=20
  expect the folks at MS to view that as a security =
issue?That's=20
  exactly how some of us view
activation.Geo."Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote in message news:45b408e5$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
  =20
  Still not security.  Do you claim that everything you would wish =
were=20
  otherwise is a security
issue?Rich 
"Geo." =
<georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:45b3b438$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  It's not the backup program that will break, it's the software you=20
  have  backed up that is keyed to the old now dead hard drive =
that's=20
  going to  break. Same for Raid, the only thing that's going =
to break=20
  is the  application that finds the drive serial number has =
now=20
  changed.  Are you playing stupid? I know you
understand =
how=20
  serial number checking  works.  =
Geo. =20
  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:45b2f5c9$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
    =20
  Still not
security.     If
your backup =
program=20
  really broke when restoring to a different  physical drive I =
would=20
  suggest getting a new one.  I don't see how this  =
applies to=20
  RAID but if you have a RAID implementation that doesn't =
allow  drives=20
  to be replaced I would reconsider that too.  If these exist I=20
  would  consider both to be reliability
issues.  Security =
doesn't=20
  seem affected at  all.  =
Rich   =20
  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
=
wrote in=20
  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=20
  specific hard drive
(especially    if it is =
done=20
  stealth with no notification) and thus blowing any tape =20
  backup    capabilities or possibly Raid =
implementations is=20
  a direct threat and is    certainly
something I =
would=20
  consider a corporate security
concern.    Any =
time a=20
  vendor gains more control over a corporation, that=20
  corporation    should
consider it a security=20
  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=20
  up.    =
Rich     =20
  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
=
wrote in=20
  message news:45b2990c{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;    =20
  How about keeping vendors from locking an install to a specific=20
  hard    =
drive?      Geo.=20
  (I know I'd sleep
better)

------=_NextPart_000_113F_01C73D9A.54717C90--

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