Re: Computer Sabotage by Microsoft

[Jay Sulzberger <jays () panix com>]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Azerail wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Joseph Ercole wrote:
>
> > This thread is making my head hurt. ;)
> >
> > If you've "freed/hacked" your xbox - - - then using the xbox live
> > service is no longer possible.  This applies even with the (very neat)
> > dashboard/mechassault hack.  The guys working on it are trying to fix
> > this problem - - - the goal would be, naturally,
> > full-backwards-compatability.
> >
> > If they're dealing with a non-liberated xbox, then I'm missing the
> > point.  Unless, I guess, if this is the first microsoft OS piece of
> > hardware someone owns.  Maybe he's never seen windows decide to go
> > right ahead and perform some crucial upgrades. . .
>
> What's the difference between you turning on your computer and having
> to obtain an ip address to use the network and turning on your x-box
> and having to obtain a software to use the network?  Yet, you don't
> see users complaining when their ip address changes.

Both law and common sense recognize the difference between benign varying
IP assignments and occult destruction of important capabilities of your
home system.

> Or having an admin push virus/software updates to user machines.  When
> we do it, it's called good admin'ing, and I'm sure we can all agree,
> when admins do this, it means few headaches for everyone.  But when microsoft
> does it, it's "sabotage".

Yes, of course.  Because the change of bits on your hard drive done by
Microsoft is sabotage.  If you are your own competent sysadmin, then often
the changes you make in the bits are to your advantage, and only
occasionally self-sabotage.

> Besides, we are all security professionals, in one way or another.  If
> you didn't take steps to protect your machines from hostile invaders,
> it's your own fault.

Nonsense.  If Microsoft, without my permission, injures my system, they are
culpable.  Microsoft is a large well funded orgnization.  Many people run
Microsoft OSes on their home machines.  Most of these people have no means
available to them of defense against the huge and legally defended
virus/worm/trojan purveyor Microsoft.  Yes, often, Microsoft works with
independent worm farmers to produce and distribute particularly annoying
parasites.

Microsoft is legally defended by the DMCA.  No matter how good you are, it
is illegal to do even a first audit of any Microsoft OS, and a felony to
publish any result of such an audit.

> Not saying I disagree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
>
> Azerail

WHAT SAINT DO YOU ATTACK ADVOCATUS DIABOLI?

oo--JS.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html