24-Aug-2019 13:56 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 160 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 160]
[News] Elbox clarifies its positionANN.lu
Posted on 18-Nov-2002 16:08 GMT by Lewis Mistreated160 comments
View flat
View list
M. Wloczysiak has just posted an open letter on Elbox site, in which he explains that the Rigid Disk Block trashing code can effectively be found in all their drivers, but it's triggered only if someone tries to crack 'em and, according to him, the malicious code makes no damages, other than the five minutes of work needed to restore the RDSK sector [which] does not seem to be a heavy punishment for stealing and/or cracking software...
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 1 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by elektro on 18-Nov-2002 15:12 GMT
Oh yes, elbox yur personal judge and jury (and police too)...
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 2 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Nov-2002 15:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (elektro):
This reminds me...... 'My name is Judge Dredd.... I am the law'....
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 3 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by elektro on 18-Nov-2002 15:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (elektro):
I really hope someone sues the shit out of them but it probably won't happen...
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 4 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Peter Gordon on 18-Nov-2002 15:19 GMT
So their position is still that they have done nothing wrong? :(
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 5 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Nov-2002 15:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Peter Gordon):
Hey Peter, it doesn't matter what THEY THINK, what matters is what WE THINK. That counts, nothing else. And most of us think they are simply shitheads.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 6 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 18-Nov-2002 15:23 GMT
so, the rdb trashing stuff did only "disable" your harddrive and you have to
install the drive cyliders/heads and stuff like that if you used cracked software.
Everything on your harddrive is intact....
whats the big deal ?
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 7 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by jake on 18-Nov-2002 15:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Peter Gordon):
hmm something like that, as always :) Elbox is the good angel and the rest of us is just PURE EVIL / well what to say, i "was" thinking of the shark card but not anymore (a Homer laugh here)... Amiga1 lol,
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 8 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 18-Nov-2002 15:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Anonymous):
So giving crackers a little scare is what WE THINK is bad ?
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 9 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by DaveW on 18-Nov-2002 15:32 GMT
Malicious prescense of such code is against the law here.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 10 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Nov-2002 15:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (catohagen):
Well I think the customers will trust CRACKERS more than Elbox. Now you can expect that every single Bit from Elbox will get reverse engineered and such evil Code removed and then spread on Bulletin Board Systems. But who cares anymore, no one will ever give a damn shit about Elbox. No one will buy their Hardware nor their Software, who actually knows what eastereggs we may find afterwards.
Every remaining Amiga lover and user will stand up and fight against the practices of Elbox by simply NOT buying their stuff.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 11 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by elektro on 18-Nov-2002 15:33 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (catohagen):
wtf?!! what in the f. gives elbox the right to mess with your HD?!! they have absolutely no right to f. up your hd and you know it.
jfc, the amount of apologism among some of the people is unbeliveable...
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 12 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by priest on 18-Nov-2002 15:33 GMT
It is pretty hard in Amiga world to buy a product that does not come from a company with idiotic management.
We are lucky that we have Jens and hmmm... who else...
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 13 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Nov-2002 15:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (catohagen):
What 'little scare' do you want to give Crackers? Every halfbraindamaged Cracker will be able to remove your shit within 5 mins, while drinking coffee and eating some cookies. I haven't seen any good copyprotections for over 8 years now.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 14 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Kronos on 18-Nov-2002 15:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (priest):
100% on spot .... but I would also like to include E3B (Highway/Subway), nice guy nice HW,
might add it to the A4000 just for the sake of it.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 15 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by amigabill on 18-Nov-2002 15:38 GMT
>"They are underprivileged due to their clinging to other solutions and we all
>want to be the best performers. When we all unite, this small world of Amiga may
>again be flourishing and then we all will share the advantages."
People not using Elbox products are UNDERPRIVELAGED?? Yea, that attitude makes me want to be their customer so that I can be delivered to the promised land... At least the vendors I support don't put known damaging code in their stuff. 5 minutes or not, it's wasted time, and no, I do not trust that their solution is 100% fault-proof. No software is. I imagine that is would be extremely rare for a bug to trigger it, but I don't believe it to be impossible. I don't have any use for USB, hopefully the AmigaOne's built-in ports will eventually get somethng to do on my desk. I don't even use my PC's USB ports.
P96 crew should have put in crack protection against hacked drivers to prevent the illegal use and distribution of their works too. :)
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 16 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by marktime on 18-Nov-2002 15:39 GMT
by all accounts and purposes Elbox got busted and they know it.
They removed the offending code, they know they can't get away with such
things again. They will pay the price with some tarnishment of reputation.
Those who spoke ill of elbox before were hardly noticed, now they have
some credibility.
But don't expect Elbox to admit they were wrong, then someone would sue them.
Then the would-be litigant would not have to prove anything, they'd have the admission of guilt in hand. So don't expect admissions of guilt, but for all intents and purposes Elbox has lost, and they know it.
At this point, demanding more, would be like beating a dead horse.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 17 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Gabriele Favrin on 18-Nov-2002 15:41 GMT
So they clearly admitted to be LIARS and to use criminal code too.
What they do is even more illegal than the actions of
who modifies their software (something that law allows for
personal use, no matter what an EULA says).
I wonder who is going to trust these people anymore
and to give them their money.
It's useless to attack Microsoft and Windows's software
programmers if we accept to have people who behave in the
same way and even think to be on the right side.
Again, they admitted that their software contains code
which makes it ILLEGAL in many countries.
They tried to force censorship over ANN...
They sell software which is illegal in many countries...
They said the false to Amiga community...
Now, someone please post the full story (even their messages
to ANN, where they said that it was all false!) to Slashdot
and similar sites.
It's too incredible to be keep for us. They deserve
to be known in the big IT world ;-)
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 18 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Anders Kjeldsen on 18-Nov-2002 15:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (marktime):
I sort of agree. However, they've admitted that they had the RDB-thing in their drivers. So, if anyone wanted to sue them (can't imagine who), that would be more likely why, and not because of an apology.
As for now, I don't think we can expect more from Elbox. Too bad, because I think they could have earned more popularity if they were more humble and honest. This last statement was one ugly piece of propaganda in my opinion.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 19 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by koan on 18-Nov-2002 15:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Gabriele Favrin):
I don't like the idea of Elbox code deleting my RDB (if I used them)
but I would like to know what law you think Elbox would be breaking
by incorporating this code in their drivers ?
AFAIK most hackers are still tried for "using electricity on other people's
computers".
If there was a law against malicious code then how would anyone know the
difference between a bug and a feature ?
koan
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 20 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 18-Nov-2002 15:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (elektro):
>wtf?!! what in the f. gives elbox the right to mess with your HD?!! they have >absolutely no right to f. up your hd and you know it.
>jfc, the amount of apologism among some of the people is unbeliveable...
well, they havent messed on my hds and the code should only become active *if*
you used cracked drivers....and who needs cracked drivers ? The software comes
with the hardware....
How many legal users of Elbox products have gottern their rdb messed with ?
none ? whats the problem then ?
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 21 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Bert Dorhout on 18-Nov-2002 15:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (catohagen):
Hello,
I thought one of the questions was about what happens when one uses two USB-cards, or exchanged their Elbox USB-card for something else before they removed the drivers, or what happens when the driver gets corrupted, etc..
In short: Are there chances that your RDB gets trashed without any cracking / illegal stuff?
Bert
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 22 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by David Scheibler on 18-Nov-2002 15:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (catohagen):
Absolutly correct. If there is some cracker who cracks Elbox' code it shouldn't
matter if the cracker will be shot by some killer team. It does only affect
those who cracked the code, right?
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 23 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by nOw2 on 18-Nov-2002 15:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (koan):
In the UK this is covered by the Computer Misuse Act 1990, the section on Unauthorised modification of Computer material.
http://www.ja.net/CERT/JANET-CERT/law/cma.html
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 24 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Anders Kjeldsen on 18-Nov-2002 15:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (catohagen):
>well, they havent messed on my hds and the code should only become active *if*
>you used cracked drivers....and who needs cracked drivers ? The software comes
>with the hardware....
So, you don't believe the test that people have done?
>How many legal users of Elbox products have gottern their rdb messed with ?
>none ? whats the problem then ?
Problem: According to the test that can be done - A memory hit within the memory area of the driver may trigger it. And some amiga applications out there surely hit memory randomly.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 25 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 18-Nov-2002 15:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Anders Kjeldsen):
>So, if anyone wanted to sue them (can't imagine who), that would be more likely >why, and not because of an apology.
maybe the crackers can sue them ? I dont see any reason for anyone to sue
unless it killed/messed up your rdb,wich happends because you used cracked software.
Should we sue Dopus or any software that have a delete button ? because only you
can press the button, and only you can use cracked software...same trigger
im not saying Elbox did the right thing here, im just trying to raise a few points here...
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 26 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by elektro on 18-Nov-2002 16:01 GMT
ARGH!!! This is nuts!!!
WHAT GIVES ELBOX THE RIGHT TO MODIFY YOUR HD (LEGALLY!)!!! NOTHING!!! They have absolutely no right to do that and you all know it!
And if you still think that this is OK then theres something very wrong with you all.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 27 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Nov-2002 16:01 GMT
I'm less worried about bugs than I am about a potential virus written to take advantage of such a wide-open security hole.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 28 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Peter Gordon on 18-Nov-2002 16:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (catohagen):
> maybe the crackers can sue them ? I dont see any reason for anyone to sue
> unless it killed/messed up your rdb,wich happends because you used cracked
> software.
But the consensus of the people who examined the code was that it could, in theory, be triggered on a legitimate users system. The fact that it is very unlikely is not the same as "cannot happen". Also, speaking as a legitimate user of Elbox hardware and software, I don't want RDB trashing code on my computer, thank you very much.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 29 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by catohagen on 18-Nov-2002 16:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Anders Kjeldsen):
>So, you don't believe the test that people have done?
must have missed the test, if theres prof that with elbox hardware and elbox
software and you manages to delete your rdb then, hands down....im wrong and Elbox
are jerks :)
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 30 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Denis Troller on 18-Nov-2002 16:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (catohagen):
No, you just have no right to include code that can malicioulsy impair user's data.
A delete button is clearly intended to delete data ON USER'S DEMAND.
Such code as found in the driver can be compaired to a virus. You can't control it, but it can destroy your data at any time. No code is safe under AmigaOS and any bug (not only in their driver, but in any program) can trigger it.
(Nothing prevents any program to have a trashed pointer and jump into memory just at the right point in the driver's code. Surprise, no more RDB).
And reinstalling the RDBs is not a trivial task for user lambda.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 31 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Peter Gordon on 18-Nov-2002 16:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (catohagen):
http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?show=1037367041&category=news&number=35
(and subsequent replies)
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 32 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Lando on 18-Nov-2002 16:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Bert Dorhout):
>I thought one of the questions was about what happens when one uses two USB-
>cards, or exchanged their Elbox USB-card for something else before they
>removed the drivers, or what happens when the driver gets corrupted, etc..
>In short: Are there chances that your RDB gets trashed without any cracking / >illegal stuff?
No. Well, very unlikely anyway. You'd just get some "not found" or "unsupported" message or something. Only if you installed an unsupported card and then tried to hack the driver to work with the card would you get the RDB trashed.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 33 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Sam Thomas on 18-Nov-2002 16:12 GMT
So Elbox have at least replied to the claims now. I myself am not too bothered either way about wether the code is there or not or if it'll screw my system. Like most users BEFORE this became public I have been extreamly happy with my Mediator system in my A1200.
To the point of this post...
Does Elbox's post cover the requirements of Chris Hodges to allow the use of the Poseidon stack with the spider drivers?
Cheerio
Sam Thomas
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 34 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Nov-2002 16:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Denis Troller):
> And reinstalling the RDBs is not a trivial task for user lambda.
Exactly. And sometimes experts trap and fail too. Now think you are a little company having to deal with 1000 Customers. Now for some unknown reasons the RDB get killed by the Hellbox drivers and you lose important stuff.
a) recovering the data COSTS MONEY
b) if the data is permanently LOST then you lose customers and MORE MONEY
Jesus, I thought this is serious business, we are not playing with children playtoys here. Hellbox are such fucking retards.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 35 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 18-Nov-2002 16:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 19 (koan):
In Italy that SW is illegal by the Article 615-quinquies of the law 543, 23rd December 1993, of the penal code:
---
Art 615-quinquies. - (Diffusione di programmi diretti a danneggiare o interrompere un sistema informatico). - Chiunque diffonde, comunica o consegna un programma informatico da lui stesso o da altri redatto, avente per scopo o per effetto il danneggiamento di un sistema informatico o telematico, dei dati o dei programmi in esso contenuti o ad esso pertinenti, ovvero l'interruzione, totale o parziale, o l'alterazione del suo funzionamento, č punito con la reclusione sino a due anni e con la multa sino a lire venti milioni".
The translation of that is:
Art 615-quinquies (Delivering of programs aimed at disrupting computer material). - "Whoever spreads, communicates or delivers a computer program made by himself or someone else, whose purpose or effect is to arrecate damage to a computer system, to the datas or programs therein contained or regarding it, that is its disrupting, be it total or partial, or the alteration of its normal functioning, is subject to be put in jail for a period of time which can last up to two years, and with a fine that can amount up to [about] 10,000 EUR".
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 36 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by koan on 18-Nov-2002 16:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (nOw2):
I had a quick read of the link you posted,
I am not convinced that this covers software you
installed yourself especially if there is an EULA
of the type "only use this product as intended"
and "at your own risk."
koan
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 37 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Nov-2002 16:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (Fabio Alemagna):
Right... in Italy.... You need to find a suitable law text of the county where Elbox resides. Or an International law for europe countries.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 38 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Mike Veroukis on 18-Nov-2002 16:19 GMT
That's sad news. Elbox would be better off by simply apologizing. Trying to justify what they did only makes them look worse.
As far as I'm concerned you can never include secret code in any software to cause harm to a computer. The only thing you can do is include secret code that will disable the driver itself by simply making it not work when loaded. I understand that Elbox is trying to protect it's IP and there's nothing wrong with that, it's just that they can't do it this way. I think they shot themselves in the foot and it's very unfortunate.
- Mike
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 39 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Julio on 18-Nov-2002 16:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Anders Kjeldsen):
>So, you don't believe the test that people have done?
I'm sure it's a fake.
I ran this test many times and nothing happend to my HDD.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 40 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 18-Nov-2002 16:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Anonymous):
> Right... in Italy.... You need to find a suitable law text of the county where
> Elbox resides. Or an International law for europe countries.
Not at all... if Elbox committed a crime in Italy, then they are subjects to the Italian laws. In other words, cannot sell their SW in Italy, because that sw is illegal, and if they've already sold it, they are subject to be punished in the way the law specifies, that is jail and fine.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 41 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 18-Nov-2002 16:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (Anonymous):
You sure sound like you have something against Elbox, more than just this driver issue... I don't think what Elbox did was right, sure it was NOT, but it seems to me that your atitude is not caused by this issue only, you are a bit too much against Elbox... I think it's immoral from users and other PCI-developers to try to benefit from this driver mess or try to damage Elbox more, they already damaged themselves. Atleast Elbox admitted they used that code. Now if it's true they removed that code from ALL of their drivers, and if nothing like that will happen again, then it's okay for me. This issue is not going to make me stop using Mediator. I just hope Elbox did learn something about this. We will be watching you Elbox, don't do that again and someday everything will be just fine again.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 42 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 18-Nov-2002 16:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (Julio):
> I'm sure it's a fake.
> I ran this test many times and nothing happend to my HDD.
Erm... let me understand something: Elbox themselves admit that that code exists and you still think it's a fake?
Jesus...
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 43 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by themoose on 18-Nov-2002 16:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 38 (Mike Veroukis):
>Elbox would be better off by simply apologizing. Trying to justify what they
>did only makes them look worse.
Damn right!
But if they have removed it then fine, lets get on with our lives.
But what may they have replaced it with?
---------------------------------------
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 44 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Chris Hodges on 18-Nov-2002 16:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Sam Thomas):
> Does Elbox's post cover the requirements of Chris Hodges to allow the use of the Poseidon stack with the spider drivers?
The usb.device V1.9 and later will work with the next updates, lower revisions will refuse to load.
However, Elbox's post does not cover any apology, no admittance that they've done something utterly wrong.
Instead, they claim that deleting the RDB would be just a minor thing, with HDToolbox being able to recover the RDB right away (yeah, right, if you've got something to boot from). Anyone tried to /only/ recover the RDB without HDToolBox overwriting the partitioning data (PART, FSHD, LSEG blocks)?
Instead, they claim that their protection was SAFE and could never be triggered by accident (which *in my opionion* is false and has been proven by some users here).
Instead, they spill more propaganda of my involvement having to do something with E3B (which it hasn't -- in fact, Michael warned me of getting envolved in this).
Instead, they try to discredit other hardware vendors.
Instead, they say with such an arrogance, that people not buying Elbox products are "underpriviledged", trying to force their opinion on the users, thinking that they're not clever enough to decide for their own.
Therefore, Elbox still has not regained the (moral) right to deliver Poseidon on their CDs; instead the User has to obtain a copy from Aminet or my website.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 45 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by anonymous on 18-Nov-2002 16:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Anonymous):
Artykul 268 kodeksu karnego. rozdzial XXXIII
Art. 268. § 1. Kto, nie będąc do tego uprawnionym, niszczy, uszkadza, usuwa lub zmienia zapis istotnej informacji albo w inny sposób udaremnia lub znacznie utrudnia osobie uprawnionej zapoznanie się z nią, podlega grzywnie, karze ograniczenia wolności albo pozbawienia wolności do lat 2.
§ 2. Jeżeli czyn określony w § 1 dotyczy zapisu na komputerowym nośniku informacji, sprawca podlega karze pozbawienia wolności do lat 3.
Someone with better english knowledge than mine could translate that, thats how the law in Poland specifies such crime.
In short, anyone who deletes data, can be prosecuted to pay fine, or be put in jail for up to 2 years. If this crime is commited on computer data, he can be put in jail for 3 years.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 46 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 18-Nov-2002 16:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 38 (Mike Veroukis):
True they should apologize, it would be fair to us. And it sure would make them look better. I hope that they do so atleast someday when people have calmed down a bit. Before that atleast i'm going to continue my life and continue using Mediator.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 47 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 18-Nov-2002 16:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 44 (Chris Hodges):
> they claim that their protection was SAFE
Regardless of whether it's safe or not, that's NOT a protection. Protections are only defensive devices, by definition, the Elbox's one is instead an _attacking_ device. It purposedly destroyes the user's private data, and that's a _criminal_ act, something that civilized countries punish with _jail_.
They even lied in the latest press release, 'cause they say that the first "cracker" (has they call Qwe), has cracked a "illegally obtained copy" of their product, which is not true, according to Qwe.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 48 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by M&F on 18-Nov-2002 16:56 GMT
Just hope that they will not put more harmful code next release.
There's nothing absolute that says deleting the RDB is not "that important" or a "a 5 minutes game". I may say that deleting your 40GB partition is just a matter or reinstalling last backup so you just lost 2-3 days of work. It's not that much, is it? Or maybe just going to write to your gfx card to turn it of... what's the hassle? just reset the computer as you can't see anything? And lose the 1 hour work you didn't saved? Or the 2 hours download at 95%?
On a multitasking machine interruption of service I not only a matter of losing time as you just need to reset and reinstall the RDB. May be worse.
This makes me thing that Elbox thinks about Amigas as toys. Inrespective of their user work.
If I ever had any idea to buy a Mediator it has suddenly disappeared.
They cannot be trusted. Now and in the future, as they may deny to have hidden any sort of virus (because of viruses we are talking about) in their code though I have the right to do anything with what I buy (but copying and selling anything diretly derived from it).
M&F
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 49 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by Chris Hodges on 18-Nov-2002 16:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (Fabio Alemagna):
> > they claim that their protection was SAFE
>
> Regardless of whether it's safe or not, that's NOT a protection.
Yeah, I'm very sorry, but my wording got worse after reading the press statement a few times. Replace 'protection' by illegal harddisk trashing code or code that destroys data on the user's harddisk without permission or knowledge.
Elbox clarifies its position : Comment 50 of 160ANN.lu
Posted by miksuh on 18-Nov-2002 16:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (Fabio Alemagna):
Not attacking device, more like revenge device. Something like: "if you punch me I'll kick you" :) Anyway it's not way to protect your property.
Anonymous, there are 160 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 160]
Back to Top