From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_11D8_01C73E10.0677ECB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Now having a disk serial number allows an external party to gain =
control over your computer in the same way that a spambot has.  Can you =
explain the scenario by which this happens in detail?  This would be =
surprising and a security issue.  I think you are bullshitting but would =
be very interested in hearing how this happens.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45b4a052{at}w3.nls.net...
  Someone outside gaining some control over your servers is a security =
issue,=20
  it's no different than having a spambot on your machine. Whether that=20
  control is a remote control spambot or just the ability to make it so =
you=20
  can't switch hard drives and restore from a backup, it's still control =
that=20
  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=20
  would
      consider both to be reliability issues.  Security doesn't seem =
affected=20
  at
      all.

      Rich

        "Geo."  wrote in message=20
  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=20
  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=20
  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_11D8_01C73E10.0677ECB0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Now
having a disk serial =
number allows=20
an external party to gain control over your computer in the same way = that a=20
spambot has.  Can you explain the scenario by which this happens in =

detail?  This would be surprising and a security issue. 
I = think you=20
are bullshitting but would be very interested in hearing how this=20
happens.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:45b4a052{at}w3.nls.net...So=
meone=20
  outside gaining some control over your servers is a security issue, =
it's=20
  no different than having a spambot on your machine. Whether that =
control=20
  is a remote control spambot or just the ability to make it so you =
can't=20
  switch hard drives and restore from a backup, it's still control that =
has=20
  been taken from
you.Geo."Rich"
<{at}> wrote in =
message news:45b43fcf{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
  Security, no.  It's wouldn't
be.Rich  "Geo."
=
<georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:45b42a7f$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  If for example the DOJ had argued for the ability to shut down MS=20
  internal  systems as a way to force compliance with the =
consent=20
  decree you would not  expect the folks at MS to view that as =
a=20
  security issue?  That's exactly how some of us view=20
  activation. 
Geo.  "Rich" <{at}> wrote
in =
message=20
  news:45b408e5$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
    =20
  Still not security.  Do you claim that everything you would wish=20
  were  otherwise is a security
issue? =20
  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=20
  drive that's going to    break. Same
for Raid, the =
only=20
  thing that's going to break is
the    application =
that=20
  finds the drive serial number has now =
changed.    Are=20
  you playing stupid? I know you understand how serial number=20
  checking   
works.   =20
  Geo.    "Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message news:45b2f5c9$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
      =20
  Still not
security.      
If =
your backup=20
  program really broke when restoring to a =
different   =20
  physical drive I would suggest getting a new one.  I don't see =
how=20
  this    applies to RAID but if you
have a RAID=20
  implementation that doesn't allow   
drives to be =
replaced=20
  I would reconsider that too.  If these exist I=20
  would    consider both to
be reliability =
issues. =20
  Security doesn't seem affected
at   =20
  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=20
  happen 
to      think that =
vendors=20
  locking an install to a specific hard drive =20
  (especially     
if it is done stealth =
with no=20
  notification) and thus blowing any tape   =20
  backup     
capabilities or possibly Raid =

  implementations is a direct threat and=20
  is     
certainly something I would =
consider=20
  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.     =20
 
Geo.     
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in =
message=20
  news:45b2a2c6{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;       =20
  That has nothing to do with security.  mike made a claim=20
  about    =
security.      He=20
  failed to respond I suspect because he has nothing.  If you=20
  have     
something, please speak=20
  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=20
  hard     =20
 
drive?       
Geo. (I know =
I'd=20
  sleep better)

------=_NextPart_000_11D8_01C73E10.0677ECB0--

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