From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0FFD_01C73CD5.A52CB660
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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=20
  think that vendors locking an install to a specific hard drive =
(especially=20
  if it is done stealth with no notification) and thus blowing any tape =
backup=20
  capabilities or possibly Raid implementations is a direct threat and =
is=20
  certainly something I would consider a corporate security concern.

  Any time a vendor gains more control over a corporation, that =
corporation=20
  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.=20
  He failed to respond I suspect because he has nothing.  If you have=20
  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_0FFD_01C73CD5.A52CB660
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   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 that=20
too.  If these exist I would consider both to be reliability =
issues. =20
Security doesn't seem affected at all.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:45b2e02e$1{at}w3.nls.net...It=20
  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=20
  if it is done stealth with no notification) and thus blowing any =
tape=20
  backup capabilities or possibly Raid implementations is a direct =
threat=20
  and is certainly something I would consider a corporate security=20
  concern.Any time a vendor gains more control over a =
corporation, that=20
  corporation should consider it a security=20
  concern.Geo."Rich"
<{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 =
security.=20
  He failed to respond I suspect because he has nothing.  If =
you have=20
  something, please speak
up.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; How=20
  about keeping vendors from locking an install to a specific hard=20
  drive?  Geo. (I know I'd sleep=20
better)

------=_NextPart_000_0FFD_01C73CD5.A52CB660--

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