~BD~ wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>> Dustin wrote:
>>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
>>> news:YcmdnXpKuOkdq4LTnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@bt.com:
>>>
>>>> Dustin - I *do* accept that you know what you are doing!
>>>
>>> Yea right.
>>
>> I was serious. I think you sometimes forget that I brought up two boys,
>> both of whom wanted to dissemble everything they touched to find out how
>> things worked (just like their dad before them!).
>>
>> Nick, in particular, spent thousands of hours dissecting anything and
>> everything to do with computers, so I can easily imagine how you were as
>> a child.
>>
>>>> I have *never* doubted your technical skill and expertise - that's
>>>> why you are here in this group!
>>>
>>> Sure you haven't. You do that often, actually. Infer things...
>>
>> You sometimes misinterpret what I'm trying to get at, Dustin. Sometimes
>> I do infer, true - to encourage you to take a different path. You will
>> surely acknowledge that you are not easily directed; sometimes somewhat
>> downright stubborn in fact? <smile>
>>
>>>> Please consider that folk here on SE are *not* competing with you.
>>>
>>> Why the comment, "I'm older than you and I went to college, so I must
>>> know more." then? Don't confuse me for stupid, David.
>>
>> I don't think Graham Morgan actually said it /quite/ that way but I've
>> not checked to see. I appreciate that how you *took it* though, maybe
>> unjustifiably. Maybe you should revisit the post and read again slowly.
>>
>> I didn't go to college (University) either, Dustin - but *I'm* not
>> stupid either. I know where you are coming from on this - I know damn
>> well that behind the bluster there's an intelligent guy. Show us - folk
>> will like you more! :-)
>>
>>>> I'm sure just about everyone could/would benefit from things you
>>>> could teach them if only you would curb your aggressive attitude. It
>>>> is totally unnecessary here.
>>>
>>> You have earned the attitude I display towards you.
>>
>> Perhaps. But I wanted you to stay - and you have! I'm glad and I think,
>> overall, others are too.
>>
>>
>>> Just be glad I've been dealing with the loss of a very close friend
>>> and aren't taking it out on you.
>>
>> I'm saddened to learn that you have lost a close friend, Dustin. Should
>> you wish to discuss anything about the situation, and how you feel, I'll
>> be happy to listen - either here or by email. I'm serious about this -
>> I'm *not* your enemy, no matter how you think.
>>
>>> 11 years ago, I'd have dropped your docs myself.
>>
>> I'm sure you would have done! ;-)
>>
>> > Now, leave me in peace.
>>
>> Sure thing. No more fighting, eh? It's worth a try, Dustin!
>
> I've been trying to follow all you, Dustin, have said about LoJack both
> here and in the 'alt.comp.spyware group.
>
> I've also read here:
> http://www.absolute.com/en/lojackfor...s/reviews.aspx today. If I
> were to purchase a new laptop, which would be taken outside my home/boat
> environment, I'd seriously consider purchasing the LoJack product.
>
> If I have understood correctly, when the LoJack software is loaded onto
> a computer (from a CD/DVD) somehow or other, an alteration is made to
> the BIOS chip. In turn, this results in a situation whereby even if the
> hard drive is wiped clean, the product survives and can still call home.
>
> Now, if LoJack can do this, as I've intimated in the past, why cannot a
> specifically crafted *malware* do exactly the same thing if it was
> planted on a CD/DVD which a user deliberately 'loaded' for a specific
> purpose? For example, a CD used to install drivers for a printer or,
> perhaps, a CD ordered by post to install Windows XP SP2?
>
> Serious question. That is why I've cross-posted to 'alt.privacy.spyware'.
>
> Discussion welcomed.
>
> BD
Reply With Quote