From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C73E4B.4C4702E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Why don't you just admit you are grasping at straws with this silly =
nonsense?

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:45b55923$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  Simple, it is someone else using your computer for their purposes. In =
the=20
  spambot case it's a spammer using your computer to send his spam. In =
the=20
  disk serial number being used for validation it's an author using your =

  computer to enforce his copyright.

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45b5054a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     Now having a disk serial number allows an external party to gain =
control=20
  over your computer in the same way that a spambot has.  Can you =
explain the=20
  scenario by which this happens in detail?  This would be surprising =
and a=20
  security issue.  I think you are bullshitting but would be very =
interested=20
  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,
    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=20
  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=20
  internal
      systems as a way to force compliance with the consent decree you =
would=20
  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=20
  news:45b3b438$1{at}w3.nls.net...
        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 =
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=20
  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=20
  this
        applies to RAID but if you have a RAID implementation that =
doesn't=20
  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=20
  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=20
  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=20
  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=20
  hard
          drive?

            Geo. (I know I'd sleep better)


------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C73E4B.4C4702E0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Why don't
you just admit =
you are=20
grasping at straws with this silly nonsense?
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:45b55923$1{at}w3.nls.net...Simple,=20
  it is someone else using your computer for their purposes. In the =
spambot=20
  case it's a spammer using your computer to send his spam. In the =
disk=20
  serial number being used for validation it's an author using your =
computer=20
  to enforce his
copyright.Geo."Rich"
<{at}> wrote in =
message=20
  news:45b5054a$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
  =20
  Now having a disk serial number allows an external party to gain =
control=20
  over your computer in the same way that a spambot has.  Can =
you=20
  explain the scenario by which this happens in detail?  This =
would be=20
  surprising and a security issue.  I think you are =
bullshitting but=20
  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 in =
message news:45b4a052{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;=20
  Someone outside gaining some control over your servers is a security=20
  issue,  it's no different than having a
spambot on your =
machine.=20
  Whether that  control is a remote control spambot or just the =
ability=20
  to make it so you  can't switch hard drives and restore from =
a=20
  backup, it's still control that  has been
taken from=20
  you.  Geo. 
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in =
message news:45b43fcf{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;   =20
  Security, no.  It's wouldn't be. =20
  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=20
  the consent decree you would
not    expect the =
folks at=20
  MS to view that as a security
issue?    That's =
exactly=20
  how some of us view
activation.   =20
  Geo.    "Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message 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=20
  issue?    =
Rich     =20
  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
=
wrote in=20
  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=20
  now dead hard drive that's going
to      =
break.=20
  Same for Raid, the only thing that's going to break is=20
  the     
application that finds the drive =
serial=20
  number has now
changed.     
Are you =
playing=20
  stupid? I know you understand how serial number=20
  checking     =20
  works.     =20
 
Geo.     
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in =
message=20
  news:45b2f5c9$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
        =20
  Still not =
security.        
If=20
  your backup program really broke when restoring to a=20
  different     
physical drive I would =
suggest=20
  getting a new one.  I don't see how=20
 
this     
applies to RAID but if you =
have a=20
  RAID implementation that doesn't =
allow     =20
  drives to be replaced I would reconsider that too.  If these =
exist=20
  I 
would      consider
both to =
be=20
  reliability issues.  Security doesn't seem
affected  =

  at     =20
  all.     =20
 
Rich       
"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   =20
 
to       
think that vendors =
locking an=20
  install to a specific hard drive   =20
 
(especially       
if it is =
done=20
  stealth with no notification) and thus blowing any=20
  tape     =20
 
backup       
capabilities or =
possibly=20
  Raid implementations is a direct threat and =20
 
is       
certainly something I =
would=20
  consider a corporate security=20
 
concern.       
Any time a =
vendor=20
  gains more control over a corporation,
that   =20
 
corporation       
should =
consider it a=20
  security
concern.       =20
 
Geo.       
"Rich" =
<{at}> wrote=20
  in message news:45b2a2c6{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;         =20
  That has nothing to do with security.  mike made a claim=20
  about     =20
 
security.       
He failed to =
respond I=20
  suspect because he has nothing.  If you=20
 
have       
something, please =
speak=20
 
up.       =20
 
Rich         
=
"Geo."=20
  <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       =20
 
drive?         
=
Geo. (I=20
  know I'd sleep
better)

------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C73E4B.4C4702E0--

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