Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

Reply
Thread Tools

cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

 
 
privacy.at Anonymous Remailer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004


https://www.regsoft.net/regsoft/view...roductid=50499


SAFEBOOT SOLO if full disk encryption software. It is
incompatible with Norton Speed Disk; this fact is not brought to
the attention of the potential customer in a conspicuous manner
prior to installation, but is difficult to find on their
website. Use of Speed Disk after installation WILL result in
complete data lose. The recovery tools (boot disk images)
provided with the software package WILL NOT restore data after
Speed Disk usage; the drives must be sent into the company for
recovery and they will threaten to charge you a fee to recover.

After heated email exchanges, I sent my perfectly working
working drives to their address in Naples, Florida. Upon
receipt of the drives, they claimed that the drives arrived
broken. Interestingly, there was only a seven (7) minute delay
from the delivery time reported by the USPS, by computer
tracking label, and their email to me stating that the drives
were broken. Obviously, that would have been insufficient time
to even transport the drives to the workbench, let alone to
unpack and test. The reader may draw his own conclusion.

The company still refuses to send the drives for data recovery,
a necessary step to retrieve the data from the now broken
drives, so that they may decrypt the data and return to me.

Some data on one drive was recovered, no data on broken drive
was recovered. The data that was recovered was recovered
without the use of my password since I intentionally never gave
them a password after they requested it. I was concerned about
the software being backdoored; you may now draw your own
conclusions regarding this issue.

I have found the company and its personnel very difficult to
deal with; I have dealt with these individuals mostly:

Mr. SIMON HUNT, CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST
Mr. MARCO VERSTEIJNE, COMPANY SECRETARY

I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS COMPANY OR ANY OF ITS PRODUCTS.

cnioawj cropiweh oi o d ofgcop co o od bod gio djfiopb itodjvbiopdg iogerfiogbv jcop oid oi gior io jdfxc
rdiofcx jod iodc viod ioc dfsiok hiodkf hboi dfo

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .at>, Use-
Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
[snipped crap]

Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be considered
as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

In most cases of posting problems about a product, where the anonymous
poster continues to spam the groups, it's the poster that is at fault
for not understanding/using the product correctly.

Anonymous complaints, without a real need to hide, are considered
invalid by most.

This particular poster continues to show their ignorance of the product
and how to resolve a problem with anyone or anything. It should also be
noted that other people are using SafeBoot without the mentioned
problems.

--
--
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
marty12@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed) .at>, Use-
>Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
>[snipped crap]
>
>Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be considered
>as truthful as the email address the poster provides.


That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the tyranny
of the corporations which hire other companies to scour Usenet for
"complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of lawsuits.

Anonymity is every one's right. (That's why they make envelopes and
locks, idiot.)

>In most cases of posting problems about a product, where the anonymous
>poster continues to spam the groups, it's the poster that is at fault
>for not understanding/using the product correctly.


That is strictly your OPINION. You have no proof this man is not
telling the truth. Judging from the preciseness and clarity of his
writing, I find him not to be a kook.

On the other hand, your offensive and childish petulancy at trying to
censor this person I find most distasteful and indicative of your own
lack or character, in that you think you are the arbiter of what I
should and should not be allowed to read on Usenet.

Ever hear of a killfitler? If you don't have software capable of
killfiltering this person, I suggest you get some. Although, I'm sure
that with your mentality, you find aggressive censorship much more
pleasing.

Do you own stock in Safeboot?

>Anonymous complaints, without a real need to hide, are considered
>invalid by most.


Oh, that is a dictum from you? Who granted your wish to be censor of
what others believe or choose not to believe?

>This particular poster continues to show their ignorance of the product
>and how to resolve a problem with anyone or anything. It should also be
>noted that other people are using SafeBoot without the mentioned
>problems.
>

I do not find any ignorance in this thread except for your own
disorganized thinking that everyone should listen to you.

Hail, Leythos! Lord of Usenet! All bow and SHUT THE **** UP - Leythos
so commands it!

Drop dead, fascist swine.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, marty12
@hotmail.com says...
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed) .at>, Use-
> >Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
> >[snipped crap]
> >
> >Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be considered
> >as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

>
> That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
> anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the tyranny
> of the corporations which hire other companies to scour Usenet for
> "complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of lawsuits.


Except that a detailed posting that contains factual information can not
be considered slander and as such the poster has nothing to hide from.
If it were the truth he/she would have nothing to fear - makes it look
very suspicious.

I have no connection with any software/hardware vendor.

There is no Tyranny here - only a whiner posting about a product he/she
didn't understand. If there were any truth to it they wouldn't have to
hide.

--
--
(E-Mail Removed)
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
Reply With Quote
 
marty12@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:38:05 GMT, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, marty12
>@hotmail.com says...
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <(E-Mail Removed) .at>, Use-
>> >Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
>> >[snipped crap]
>> >
>> >Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be considered
>> >as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

>>
>> That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
>> anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the tyranny
>> of the corporations which hire other companies to scour Usenet for
>> "complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of lawsuits.

>
>Except that a detailed posting that contains factual information can not
>be considered slander and as such the poster has nothing to hide from.


You are an uninformed jackass.

Have you ever seen someone cross examined by a top attorney. By the time
the bottom feeder is done, white is black, and black is white.

>If it were the truth he/she would have nothing to fear - makes it look
>very suspicious.


See reply above in regard to "...uninformed jackass."

>I have no connection with any software/hardware vendor.
>
>There is no Tyranny here -


Oh, of course not. Only the tyranny of the crowd led by an ignoramus
like you.

>only a whiner posting about a product he/she
>didn't understand. If there were any truth to it they wouldn't have to
>hide.


Oh, is that why reporters go to jail in order to protect their sources,
whose anonymity is most important to the ethics of journalism and
disclosure of unethical or criminal behavior?

How about Deepthroat? I guess he should have came forward and spent
time in prison for alerting us to the corruption in the Presidency, the
Justice Department, and the F.B.I.

I've had my say with you and the asininely stupid, uniformed opinion of
a Usenet nazis like yourself.

(Immature idiots such as yourself are the cause of threads such as this
taking on an extended life.)

Good-bye, Mr. Brownshirt.

Heil, Leythos! Dictator of Usenet!

Heil, Der Fuhrer, Leythos!
>--


 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
You are making a lot out of this considering you are appear to not have
any connection with the poster or the product - unless you are the
poster defending the post.

--
--
(E-Mail Removed)
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
Reply With Quote
 
*Vanguard*
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .at>,
>> Use- Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
>> [snipped crap]
>>
>> Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be
>> considered as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

>
> That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
> anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the
> tyranny of the corporations which hire other companies to scour
> Usenet for "complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of
> lawsuits.
>
> Anonymity is every one's right. (That's why they make envelopes and
> locks, idiot.)
>
>> In most cases of posting problems about a product, where the
>> anonymous poster continues to spam the groups, it's the poster that
>> is at fault for not understanding/using the product correctly.

>
> That is strictly your OPINION. You have no proof this man is not
> telling the truth. Judging from the preciseness and clarity of his
> writing, I find him not to be a kook.
>
> On the other hand, your offensive and childish petulancy at trying to
> censor this person I find most distasteful and indicative of your own
> lack or character, in that you think you are the arbiter of what I
> should and should not be allowed to read on Usenet.
>
> Ever hear of a killfitler? If you don't have software capable of
> killfiltering this person, I suggest you get some. Although, I'm sure
> that with your mentality, you find aggressive censorship much more
> pleasing.
>
> Do you own stock in Safeboot?
>
>> Anonymous complaints, without a real need to hide, are considered
>> invalid by most.

>
> Oh, that is a dictum from you? Who granted your wish to be censor of
> what others believe or choose not to believe?
>
>> This particular poster continues to show their ignorance of the
>> product and how to resolve a problem with anyone or anything. It
>> should also be noted that other people are using SafeBoot without
>> the mentioned problems.
>>

> I do not find any ignorance in this thread except for your own
> disorganized thinking that everyone should listen to you.
>
> Hail, Leythos! Lord of Usenet! All bow and SHUT THE **** UP - Leythos
> so commands it!
>
> Drop dead, fascist swine.


Oh, and Safeboot has a monopoly on all security products so it
effectively becomes a tyranny, huh? Oh, and, of course, Safeboot
expends a portion of their revenue to fund a white-hooded clan of
vigilantes to harass or exterminate detractors of their software. Sure,
uh huh. And, of course, with such eloquent composition of your reply
then we must surely equate your expertise and authority based on that
same such composition. Gee, now when was the last time I heard a
well-known and respected public leader or speaker resort to ****, drop
dead, fascist swine, and other rants and vulgarities? Must be all those
interpreters at the U.N. get paid to do some "fine tuning" of their
interpretations.

If you even bothered to search on this original post, you would see the
whiner has assailed this newsgroups and others repeatedly. It was NOT
their intention to seek help to resolve the problem. It is not their
intention to educate. It is their intention to whine repeatedly, like a
2-year old venting a tantrum and the same one again and again. As such,
it doesn't matter what is the content of their post. The repetition of
their post equates it to SPAM!

 
Reply With Quote
 
marty12@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:41:47 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
<do-not-email@reply-to-group> wrote:

>"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .at>,
>>> Use- Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
>>> [snipped crap]
>>>
>>> Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be
>>> considered as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

>>
>> That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
>> anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the
>> tyranny of the corporations which hire other companies to scour
>> Usenet for "complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of
>> lawsuits.
>>
>> Anonymity is every one's right. (That's why they make envelopes and
>> locks, idiot.)
>>
>>> In most cases of posting problems about a product, where the
>>> anonymous poster continues to spam the groups, it's the poster that
>>> is at fault for not understanding/using the product correctly.

>>
>> That is strictly your OPINION. You have no proof this man is not
>> telling the truth. Judging from the preciseness and clarity of his
>> writing, I find him not to be a kook.
>>
>> On the other hand, your offensive and childish petulancy at trying to
>> censor this person I find most distasteful and indicative of your own
>> lack or character, in that you think you are the arbiter of what I
>> should and should not be allowed to read on Usenet.
>>
>> Ever hear of a killfitler? If you don't have software capable of
>> killfiltering this person, I suggest you get some. Although, I'm sure
>> that with your mentality, you find aggressive censorship much more
>> pleasing.
>>
>> Do you own stock in Safeboot?
>>
>>> Anonymous complaints, without a real need to hide, are considered
>>> invalid by most.

>>
>> Oh, that is a dictum from you? Who granted your wish to be censor of
>> what others believe or choose not to believe?
>>
>>> This particular poster continues to show their ignorance of the
>>> product and how to resolve a problem with anyone or anything. It
>>> should also be noted that other people are using SafeBoot without
>>> the mentioned problems.
>>>

>> I do not find any ignorance in this thread except for your own
>> disorganized thinking that everyone should listen to you.
>>
>> Hail, Leythos! Lord of Usenet! All bow and SHUT THE **** UP - Leythos
>> so commands it!
>>
>> Drop dead, fascist swine.

>
>Oh, and Safeboot has a monopoly on all security products so it
>effectively becomes a tyranny, huh? Oh, and, of course, Safeboot
>expends a portion of their revenue to fund a white-hooded clan of
>vigilantes to harass or exterminate detractors of their software. Sure,
>uh huh. And, of course, with such eloquent composition of your reply
>then we must surely equate your expertise and authority based on that
>same such composition. Gee, now when was the last time I heard a
>well-known and respected public leader or speaker resort to ****, drop
>dead, fascist swine, and other rants and vulgarities? Must be all those
>interpreters at the U.N. get paid to do some "fine tuning" of their
>interpretations.
>
>If you even bothered to search on this original post, you would see the
>whiner has assailed this newsgroups and others repeatedly. It was NOT
>their intention to seek help to resolve the problem. It is not their
>intention to educate. It is their intention to whine repeatedly, like a
>2-year old venting a tantrum and the same one again and again. As such,
>it doesn't matter what is the content of their post. The repetition of
>their post equates it to SPAM!


You two are the whiners. Without you two control freaks this thread
would have died out long ago.

(It seems what we have here are bunch of newbies who cannot kill filter
and refuse to operate Usenet with the proper software, or some
egocentric, frustrated flips trying to be the "bosses" of a.c.s.)
 
Reply With Quote
 
*Vanguard*
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
"privacy.at Anonymous Remailer"
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed) vacy.at:
> https://www.regsoft.net/regsoft/view...roductid=50499
>
>
> SAFEBOOT SOLO if full disk encryption software. It is
> incompatible with Norton Speed Disk; this fact is not brought to

<snip>

Same bitchpost this whiner has repeated assailed this newsgroup using an
anonymouse remailer (mail2news) which can be considered the equivalent
of a spammer abusing an open relay. Guess this whiner chose to use a
different mail2news open proxy since several news servers decided to
block any posts originating from gradwell.net in the PATH, or it could
be gradwell.net got complaints and block this abuser using their IP
address. Now this whiner had to move and is using another remailer
(dizum.net).

It doesn't matter if the OP has a valid case or not. That's not the
issue. The issue is that the OP keeps reposting their same diatribe
over and over and over. The OP thus equates their message to SPAM
(hence the use of the hash busting string in the Subject and postfixed
to the body)! This is a poster that is not concerned about helping the
peer community of the newsgroup. They just want to bitch and do so
repeatedly about once a week.

The OP is rude in not providing a constant moniker by which others that
no longer want to be assailed with this diatribe can killfile this
poster. Perhaps their open proxy (mail2news) doesn't permit selecting a
moniker (i.e., author or sender name). Not all e-mail clients can
filter or have clauses for rules to block by IP address (in the
NNTP-Posting-Host header, if even included). I would love to know which
NNTP clients will let me define a rule to killfile based on a substring
in the PATH header. I could then block any and all messages originating
from open remailers by filtering out any that have "!mail2news" in the
PATH header. OE won't do it, Thunderbird won't do it, and I didn't see
anywhere in Forte Agent to do it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
marty12@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:41:47 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
<do-not-email@reply-to-group> wrote:

>"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .at>,
>>> Use- Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
>>> [snipped crap]
>>>
>>> Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be
>>> considered as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

>>
>> That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
>> anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the
>> tyranny of the corporations which hire other companies to scour
>> Usenet for "complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of
>> lawsuits.
>>
>> Anonymity is every one's right. (That's why they make envelopes and
>> locks, idiot.)
>>
>>> In most cases of posting problems about a product, where the
>>> anonymous poster continues to spam the groups, it's the poster that
>>> is at fault for not understanding/using the product correctly.

>>
>> That is strictly your OPINION. You have no proof this man is not
>> telling the truth. Judging from the preciseness and clarity of his
>> writing, I find him not to be a kook.
>>
>> On the other hand, your offensive and childish petulancy at trying to
>> censor this person I find most distasteful and indicative of your own
>> lack or character, in that you think you are the arbiter of what I
>> should and should not be allowed to read on Usenet.
>>
>> Ever hear of a killfitler? If you don't have software capable of
>> killfiltering this person, I suggest you get some. Although, I'm sure
>> that with your mentality, you find aggressive censorship much more
>> pleasing.
>>
>> Do you own stock in Safeboot?
>>
>>> Anonymous complaints, without a real need to hide, are considered
>>> invalid by most.

>>
>> Oh, that is a dictum from you? Who granted your wish to be censor of
>> what others believe or choose not to believe?
>>
>>> This particular poster continues to show their ignorance of the
>>> product and how to resolve a problem with anyone or anything. It
>>> should also be noted that other people are using SafeBoot without
>>> the mentioned problems.
>>>

>> I do not find any ignorance in this thread except for your own
>> disorganized thinking that everyone should listen to you.
>>
>> Hail, Leythos! Lord of Usenet! All bow and SHUT THE **** UP - Leythos
>> so commands it!
>>
>> Drop dead, fascist swine.

>
>Oh, and Safeboot has a monopoly on all security products so it
>effectively becomes a tyranny, huh? Oh, and, of course, Safeboot
>expends a portion of their revenue to fund a white-hooded clan of
>vigilantes to harass or exterminate detractors of their software. Sure,
>uh huh. And, of course, with such eloquent composition of your reply
>then we must surely equate your expertise and authority based on that
>same such composition. Gee, now when was the last time I heard a
>well-known and respected public leader or speaker resort to ****, drop
>dead, fascist swine, and other rants and vulgarities? Must be all those
>interpreters at the U.N. get paid to do some "fine tuning" of their
>interpretations.
>
>If you even bothered to search on this original post, you would see the
>whiner has assailed this newsgroups and others repeatedly. It was NOT
>their intention to seek help to resolve the problem. It is not their
>intention to educate. It is their intention to whine repeatedly, like a
>2-year old venting a tantrum and the same one again and again. As such,
>it doesn't matter what is the content of their post. The repetition of
>their post equates it to SPAM!


You two are the whiners. Without you two control freaks this thread
would have died out long ago.

(It seems what we have here are bunch of newbies who cannot kill filter
and refuse to operate Usenet with the proper software, or some
egocentric, frustrated flips trying to be the "bosses" of a.c.s.)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
vjn jion io CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them jm ioerd h9 Anonymous Sender Computer Security 1 10-06-2004 08:39 PM
Re: nc io sio iss i SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED, FLAW DISCOVERED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them cn jkh ioshio io Computer Security 3 08-04-2004 11:28 AM
Do not use SAFEBOOT SOLO from CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL mncvklsdnfoesdjhfgod Guy Domville Computer Security 48 08-03-2004 07:01 AM
Do not use SAFEBOOT SOLO from CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL vlfdjgdsjgdfjghfg A.Melon Computer Security 8 07-14-2004 08:00 PM
SAFEBOOT SOLO from CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL: DO NOT USE hwefoech9hfcvkbvi Fritz Wuehler Computer Security 6 07-02-2004 03:07 PM



Advertisments