Re: SafeBoot BROKEN (and instantly withdrawn)

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Anonymous, Aug 4, 2004.

  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    In article <q3nPc.40$>
    "Simon Hunt" <> wrote:
    >
    > There is no problem with Solo, but CBI simply just cant justify it's
    > continued existence. For a long time it was an enjoyable thing for us to
    > promote, recently though due to one event the funs been taken out of the
    > project and for that, unfortunately all must suffer. Solo has never been in
    > our core business plan. We made it because it was a challenge, going back or
    > our roots if you will, and it did not cost us anything to support. Now it
    > does cost us something to support and we are not having any fun doing so,
    > we've decided not to continue with it.
    >
    > As other people have commented in the past there are companies such as
    > SecurStar who are actively pursuing the consumer market. I wish Shaun, Paul
    > and Wilfried success in this venture. I expect there are numerous places you
    > can still download the cracked version of SafeBoot Solo if you really want
    > to, If there was a flaw, we would have put it right, remember there are 2
    > million or so corporate customers also using SafeBoot, and there is no
    > difference in the codebase between the two, also, we've pulled ALL the
    > consumer products, it's not the products which are at fault, we simply no
    > longer want to deal with some of the people who were buying them.
    >
    > Simon.
    >

    That is a likely story. No one stops selling a profitable product because it is no longer "fun." That is a ridiculous statement on its face. Clearly, flaws in your software have come to light and you do not have the courage or character to admit same.

    Such conduct on your part speaks to your personal and your company's lack of character and trustworthiness.

    I have read many posts lately form dissatisfied customers that you have failed to assist in recovering their data after your software has made it inaccessible.

    I have also read where there is one guy where you destroyed his drives on purpose because he made you mad. I would never trust such a company, nor should anyone else.

    I have always believed that when something like this has comes to light, it is only the tip of the iceberg; for every problem that we hear about, you probably could multiply that by 100 or by 1000 to get the actual number of complaints and problems. I would never trust you, no matter what you say.
     
    Anonymous, Aug 4, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Anonymous

    John Smith Guest

    On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:32:16 +0200 (CEST), in article
    <>, Anonymous
    <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

    >>I have read many posts lately form dissatisfied customers that you have failed to assist in recovering their data after your software has made it inaccessible.

    >


    Liar!

    You have read *your* one post that you continue spamming this group
    with.

    >I have also read where there is one guy where you destroyed his drives on purpose because he made you mad. I would never trust such a company, nor should anyone else.
    >


    Care to provide a URL or Message ID for this? Or is this another
    figment of your vivid imagination also?

    You're the idiot who f***ed up his drives and tried to blame Safeboot
    for it aren't you?

    Now we've all got you and your stupidity to thank for its withdrawal
    haven't we?

    Stupid Moron!
     
    John Smith, Aug 4, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Anonymous

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>, Use-Author-
    Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
    > In article <q3nPc.40$>
    > "Simon Hunt" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > There is no problem with Solo, but CBI simply just cant justify it's
    > > continued existence. For a long time it was an enjoyable thing for us to
    > > promote, recently though due to one event the funs been taken out of the
    > > project and for that, unfortunately all must suffer. Solo has never been in
    > > our core business plan. We made it because it was a challenge, going back or
    > > our roots if you will, and it did not cost us anything to support. Now it
    > > does cost us something to support and we are not having any fun doing so,
    > > we've decided not to continue with it.
    > >
    > > As other people have commented in the past there are companies such as
    > > SecurStar who are actively pursuing the consumer market. I wish Shaun, Paul
    > > and Wilfried success in this venture. I expect there are numerous places you
    > > can still download the cracked version of SafeBoot Solo if you really want
    > > to, If there was a flaw, we would have put it right, remember there are 2
    > > million or so corporate customers also using SafeBoot, and there is no
    > > difference in the codebase between the two, also, we've pulled ALL the
    > > consumer products, it's not the products which are at fault, we simply no
    > > longer want to deal with some of the people who were buying them.
    > >
    > > Simon.
    > >

    > That is a likely story. No one stops selling a profitable product because it is no longer "fun." That is a ridiculous statement on its face. Clearly, flaws in your software have come to light and you do not have the courage or character to admit same.


    Lets see, they already have a better product providing the same
    functionality, and they pull the lesser product due to ROI (return on
    investment), not based on consumer complaints, and you don't believe it?

    > Such conduct on your part speaks to your personal and your company's lack of character and trustworthiness.


    Yea, it says that they pulled a product with a low profit margin to help
    their bottom line. Since they are marketing toward a more
    technical/professional base it makes sense to most of us technical
    types. Doesn't sound underhanded or lame to me, only your complaints and
    failure to understand anything but your own incompetence sounds lame.

    > I have read many posts lately form dissatisfied customers that you have failed to assist in recovering their data after your software has made it inaccessible.


    I searched the net, read 4 pages of comments about SOLO and only found
    one moron that keeps complaining about it, the same writing style the
    same complaint, but I found many postings of people defending the
    product against your assault. I didn't see any postings by "Many" users
    that had any complaints about the product.

    >
    > I have also read where there is one guy where you destroyed his drives on purpose because he made you mad. I would never trust such a company, nor should anyone else.


    The same idiot that started this thread is the one that didn't follow
    the directions, bitched about it, continues to bitch about it, and can't
    seem to understand that HE screwed up - come on now, who in their right
    mind installs a drive encryption system and doesn't have a backup,
    doesn't test it on a spare drive, doesn't accept that you shouldn't be
    using any drive tools that move clusters, etc....

    > I have always believed that when something like this has comes to light, it is only the tip of the iceberg; for every problem that we hear about, you probably could multiply that by 100 or by 1000 to get the actual number of complaints and problems. I would never trust you, no matter what you say.


    I have always believed that the guilty party should admit their faults,
    make it right, and then go away - once the OP posts that he screwed-up,
    posts an apology to them, and then apologizes to the Usenet groups that
    he's spamming with his lame posts, then all will be good in the universe
    again :)

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, Aug 4, 2004
    #3
  4. Anonymous

    Simon Hunt Guest


    > > >

    > > That is a likely story. No one stops selling a profitable product

    because it is no longer "fun." That is a ridiculous statement on its face.
    Clearly, flaws in your software have come to light and you do not have the
    courage or character to admit same.
    >



    Let's get one thing clear here - we never did any marketing for Solo, and
    the money it generated per month would not have covered my monthly travel.
    Solo was not intended to be, and never was, a commercial venture for us - we
    released it because it was a *good* thing to do - it solved a problem some
    users of this group had - in fact it was users of this group who originally
    ASKED for it! The time my developers spent on it was a good learning
    experience for them, and it taught CBI that the consumer / home user market
    is a different beast to the commercial world. I can prove this is the case -
    how many fixes or improvements did we make to Solo over it's life? the
    answer - ONE. We cut a new version when we released our 4.2 commercial
    version only because the build script builds both (they are the same code
    base). That's not the attitude of a company making money or wanting to make
    money out of a product.

    My attitude always has been if you want features, chrome and a glossy
    product, buy something else. After all Solo is/was only $50. I've been
    thinking of pulling it for months - you can find threads at least in
    alt.scamdisk about this. My next generation version of SafeBoot does not
    have a Solo variant, so sooner or later it was going to get dropped. Yes,
    I'm sad to see it go because I enjoy being involved in the grass roots end
    user community, but I've realised that *NO ONE* can make a whole disk PBA
    product resilient enough for all the stupid things the uneducated masses get
    up to. I don't want to be responsible for peoples data.

    In the corporate world we NEVER loose any data, because corporate have IT
    people, and corporate users tend not to tinker. For the home user market I
    think there are safer things like Scramdisk which is not affected by
    tinkering as much as products like Solo and DCPP.

    Simon.
     
    Simon Hunt, Aug 4, 2004
    #4
  5. "how many fixes or improvements did we make to Solo over it's life? the
    answer - ONE. We cut a new version when we released our 4.2 commercial
    version only because the build script builds both (they are the same code
    base). "

    Is this versoin of Solo 4.13a or was it a newer version and if a newer
    version where can I as a "HAPPY" customer of 15 odd months get hold of this
    newer version?
     
    howamidifferent, Aug 5, 2004
    #5
  6. Anonymous

    Guest Guest

    In article <ceqn21$osr$1$>
    "Simon Hunt" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > > > >
    > > > That is a likely story. No one stops selling a profitable product

    > because it is no longer "fun." That is a ridiculous statement on its face.
    > Clearly, flaws in your software have come to light and you do not have the
    > courage or character to admit same.
    > >

    >
    >
    > Let's get one thing clear here - we never did any marketing for Solo, and
    > the money it generated per month would not have covered my monthly travel.
    > Solo was not intended to be, and never was, a commercial venture for us - we
    > released it because it was a *good* thing to do - it solved a problem some
    > users of this group had - in fact it was users of this group who originally
    > ASKED for it! The time my developers spent on it was a good learning
    > experience for them, and it taught CBI that the consumer / home user market
    > is a different beast to the commercial world. I can prove this is the case -
    > how many fixes or improvements did we make to Solo over it's life? the
    > answer - ONE. We cut a new version when we released our 4.2 commercial
    > version only because the build script builds both (they are the same code
    > base). That's not the attitude of a company making money or wanting to make
    > money out of a product.
    >
    > My attitude always has been if you want features, chrome and a glossy
    > product, buy something else. After all Solo is/was only $50. I've been
    > thinking of pulling it for months - you can find threads at least in
    > alt.scamdisk about this. My next generation version of SafeBoot does not
    > have a Solo variant, so sooner or later it was going to get dropped. Yes,
    > I'm sad to see it go because I enjoy being involved in the grass roots end
    > user community, but I've realised that *NO ONE* can make a whole disk PBA
    > product resilient enough for all the stupid things the uneducated masses get
    > up to. I don't want to be responsible for peoples data.
    >
    > In the corporate world we NEVER loose any data, because corporate have IT
    > people, and corporate users tend not to tinker. For the home user market I
    > think there are safer things like Scramdisk which is not affected by
    > tinkering as much as products like Solo and DCPP.
    >
    > Simon.


    Dear Simon:

    You would have us believe that your motivation for the product introduction and maintenance was altruism? Highly unlikely, but if so, what happened to that altruism now? Was your altruism based upon having "fun?" What, no more fun so no more altruism? You see, any way that you slice it does not have the ring of truth. Business decisions are not based upon altruism and having fun; they are based upon profits and potential liability.

    If liability increases, as with a flawed product, and profits decrease, because of the decrease in sales because of discovered flaws and or poor reputation for customer service, then and only then is a product pulled. You are running a business ostensibly for the making of profits, so it can only be reasonably assumed that your increase in liability and your concomitant decrease in sales (increase in expenses) have caused you to pull the product.

    It is also assumed, of course, that you will never admit to this.

    It is also assumed, moreover, that the heretofore discovered and as yet undiscovered flaws in these products probably exist in your other products as well, since you claim to use the same code base for all or most of them.

    Your "tinkering" claims and discussion is rather nonsensical; pgpdisk, for one, is rock solid, does not require any special precautions, and has no special sensitivities or need of special requirements, as does your software. Therefore, it appears it is the lack of robustness of your software that is the problem, and not the fault of your poor customers who become ensnared in its flaws to their detriment, don't you agree?

    You are taking a flawed and unprofitable product off the market, just admit it and be done with it, it is a very simple thing.

    Moreover, to regain your reputation, you should contact all customers known to you that your product has harmed and make restitution to them, whatever their individual cases may be. In so doing, those affected customers may then report that you have made amends to them and then your reputation will be on the road to being restored; any good and prudent businessman would proceed in this manner outlined.

    So, get to work, Simon, and do the right thing.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
    The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
    is unverified.
     
    Guest, Aug 6, 2004
    #6
  7. Anonymous

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>, Use-Author-
    Address-Header@[127.1] says...
    > If liability increases, as with a flawed product, and profits decrease, because of the decrease in sales because of discovered flaws and or poor reputation for customer service, then and only then is a product pulled. You are running a business ostensibly for the making of profits, so it can only be reasonably assumed that your increase in liability and your concomitant decrease in sales (increase in expenses) have caused you to pull the product.


    Keep in mind that I'm not defending the company with this next part,
    only pointing out a side that you seem to always miss:

    As with shareware, people often put out a product for free or small
    nominal cost to test the waters, when they reach a base set of users
    they take the product to the next level - increasing options, glitz,
    etc... and the discontinue the old product so that it doesn't detract
    from sales of the new product.

    Don't get me wrong, a bad product is always a good reason to remove it
    from the market, but taking a product the route I described is also a
    normal part of many developers and development companies plans.

    Since you two seem to already know each other, from your support
    history, why do you keep hiding behind that anonymous account?

    How about you just admit that they took the loss-leader product off the
    market once it got enough exposure to make the packaged product sell
    enough to justify it.

    You might want to look up the marketing term "Loss Leader" sometime when
    you have a rational moment, it's used by about every company on the
    planet.

    One last thing - get a newsreader that knows how to properly post to
    usenet - the standard is to end lines at 72 or 76 characters.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, Aug 6, 2004
    #7
  8. Anonymous

    Frode Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    <Anonymous-Coward> wrote:
    > Your "tinkering" claims and discussion is rather nonsensical;
    > pgpdisk, for one, is rock solid, does not require any special precautions,


    You're comparing container encryption with full harddrive encryption. Are
    you a complete idiot? Oh, wait, you've already answered that question.
    Repeatedly.

    > You are taking a flawed and unprofitable product off the market,
    > just admit it and be done with it, it is a very simple thing.


    Unprofitable, yes. Flawed? Perhaps. Though I haven't seen a single sign
    there are any flaws in it in my time of using it. Nor have I seen a single
    post here about any such flaws (user stupidity is not a product flaw).

    > So, get to work, Simon, and do the right thing.


    He was doing the right thing. You, and others like you, made it not worth
    his while to offer what essentially was a great service to this community. A
    professional product at a shareware price.

    If you want his product now you'll have to pay the full corporate price for
    it. Got only yourself to blame. A pity too. I was hoping the hibernate
    support would eventually filter down into a solo update.


    - --
    Frode

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFBE6EoaQyjry06KN0RAidxAJ9GV+BFTpvK2AqLNoAFYBemL+ECXwCfQe5O
    No+zawyWL4kHcNVinrL6iX4=
    =9NL5
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Frode, Aug 6, 2004
    #8
  9. Anonymous

    John Smith Guest

    On 6 Aug 2004 13:57:44 -0000, in article
    <>,
    <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

    >Your "tinkering" claims and discussion is rather nonsensical; pgpdisk, for one, is rock solid, does not require any special precautions, and has no special sensitivities or need of special requirements, as does your software.


    PGP Disk and Safeboot Solo are two completely different types of disk
    encryption products!
     
    John Smith, Aug 6, 2004
    #9
  10. Anonymous

    John Smith Guest

    On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 16:49:37 +0100, in article
    <>, John Smith
    <> wrote:

    <snip repost of ridiculously bad wrap>

    Oops, sorry about that!
     
    John Smith, Aug 6, 2004
    #10
  11. Anonymous

    Simon Hunt Guest


    > If you want his product now you'll have to pay the full corporate price

    for
    > it. Got only yourself to blame. A pity too. I was hoping the hibernate
    > support would eventually filter down into a solo update.
    >
    >


    send me a mail Frode, I'll see if I can post you the hibernation version of
    SafeBoot.sys - it *should* work with any version from 4.0 upwards, but no
    guarentees....

    Simon.
     
    Simon Hunt, Aug 6, 2004
    #11
  12. Anonymous

    Arild Bjørk Guest

    <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> skrev i melding
    news:...
    > In article <ceqn21$osr$1$>
    > You are taking a flawed and unprofitable product off the market, just

    admit it and be done with it, it is a very simple thing.
    >
    > Moreover, to regain your reputation, you should contact all customers

    known to you that your product has harmed and make restitution to them,
    whatever their individual cases may be. In so doing, those affected
    customers may then report that you have made amends to them and then your
    reputation will be on the road to being restored; any good and prudent
    businessman would proceed in this manner outlined.
    >
    > So, get to work, Simon, and do the right thing.
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
    > The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
    > is unverified.


    Another anonymous post with claims of a flawed product.

    Through the last one and a half years I have bought 3 licenses for my
    employer to use on notebooks. Never once have Safeboot Solo failed. It has
    been through torture tests to test if high disk traffic and cpu load would
    cause it to halt or fail in any way. I don't recognize the problem some (or
    is it one person) have had with it. It was a simple, stable product at the
    right price if you didn't need anything advanced.

    I think it's wrong to blaim the product. If there is a flaw anywhere, it has
    to be human error. No one should ever encrypt a drive without taking a
    backup first. Would anyone blame Microsoft or for that matter other OSes for
    wrong use of the format command/function? Would they blame the manufacturer
    of the hardware for losing data if the hardware failed after x years? No
    warranty can get the data back.

    It all boils down to the users lack of understanding the need of saving
    his/hers data to another medium or computer. With electronically stored data
    it's easy. External USB and firewire drives are real cheap or you can use
    CD-R or DVD-R. It's not so easy to backup your old fotos, diplomas and
    documents on paper and much more we have around the house. Though the chance
    for a fire is microscopic, one should prepare for such a disaster by saving
    important documents in a safe, preferably at a local bank. The same goes for
    the backup media.

    Since all the postings are coming from anonymous mailing services, the
    credibility of the author is low to none. When someone makes such harsh
    claims, they should post it in their name.
     
    Arild Bjørk, Aug 7, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <ceqn21$osr$1$>
    "Simon Hunt" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > > > >
    > > > That is a likely story. No one stops selling a profitable product

    > because it is no longer "fun." That is a ridiculous statement on its face.
    > Clearly, flaws in your software have come to light and you do not have the
    > courage or character to admit same.
    > >

    >
    >
    > Let's get one thing clear here - we never did any marketing for Solo, and
    > the money it generated per month would not have covered my monthly travel.
    > Solo was not intended to be, and never was, a commercial venture for us - we
    > released it because it was a *good* thing to do - it solved a problem some
    > users of this group had - in fact it was users of this group who originally
    > ASKED for it! The time my developers spent on it was a good learning
    > experience for them, and it taught CBI that the consumer / home user market
    > is a different beast to the commercial world. I can prove this is the case -
    > how many fixes or improvements did we make to Solo over it's life? the
    > answer - ONE. We cut a new version when we released our 4.2 commercial
    > version only because the build script builds both (they are the same code
    > base). That's not the attitude of a company making money or wanting to make
    > money out of a product.
    >
    > My attitude always has been if you want features, chrome and a glossy
    > product, buy something else. After all Solo is/was only $50. I've been
    > thinking of pulling it for months - you can find threads at least in
    > alt.scamdisk about this. My next generation version of SafeBoot does not
    > have a Solo variant, so sooner or later it was going to get dropped. Yes,
    > I'm sad to see it go because I enjoy being involved in the grass roots end
    > user community, but I've realised that *NO ONE* can make a whole disk PBA
    > product resilient enough for all the stupid things the uneducated masses get
    > up to. I don't want to be responsible for peoples data.
    >
    > In the corporate world we NEVER loose any data, because corporate have IT
    > people, and corporate users tend not to tinker. For the home user market I
    > think there are safer things like Scramdisk which is not affected by
    > tinkering as much as products like Solo and DCPP.
    >
    > Simon.


    Dear Simon:

    You would have us believe that your motivation for the product introduction and maintenance was altruism? Highly unlikely, but if so, what happened to that altruism now? Was your altruism based upon having "fun?" What, no more fun so no more altruism? You see, any way that you slice it does not have the ring of truth. Business decisions are not based upon altruism and having fun; they are based upon profits and potential liability.

    If liability increases, as with a flawed product, and profits decrease, because of the decrease in sales because of discovered flaws and or poor reputation for customer service, then and only then is a product pulled. You are running a business ostensibly for the making of profits, so it can only be reasonably assumed that your increase in liability and your concomitant decrease in sales (increase in expenses) have caused you to pull the product.

    It is also assumed, of course, that you will never admit to this.

    It is also assumed, moreover, that the heretofore discovered and as yet undiscovered flaws in these products probably exist in your other products as well, since you claim to use the same code base for all or most of them.

    Your "tinkering" claims and discussion is rather nonsensical; pgpdisk, for one, is rock solid, does not require any special precautions, and has no special sensitivities or need of special requirements, as does your software. Therefore, it appears it is the lack of robustness of your software that is the problem, and not the fault of your poor customers who become ensnared in its flaws to their detriment, don't you agree?

    You are taking a flawed and unprofitable product off the market, just admit it and be done with it, it is a very simple thing.

    Moreover, to regain your reputation, you should contact all customers known to you that your product has harmed and make restitution to them, whatever their individual cases may be. In so doing, those affected customers may then report that you have made amends to them and then your reputation will be on the road to being restored; any good and prudent businessman would proceed in this manner outlined.

    So, get to work, Simon, and do the right thing.
     
    Fritz Wuehler, Aug 7, 2004
    #13
  14. Anonymous

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
    [snipped rehash of same crap]

    Dear readers, this same poster has refused to understand that his/her
    own failure to properly install a product caused the problem that they
    describe. A simple search on google will result in many postings by what
    appear to be the same person complaining in many on-line forums. Almost
    every reply to the poster is one explaining how the poster didn't follow
    directions and didn't take reasonable precautions when attempting to
    install a disk tool.

    Since the poster hides behind anonymity and refuses to accept that
    others are/have not having problems with the product, and since, even
    through no fault of the vendors own, they offered to replace the hard-
    drive (which was refused by the poster), we can only assume that the
    poster is too lame to understand his own actions and must only be acting
    as a Usenet Troll.

    Please disregard anything posted about SAFEBOOT SOLO by anonymous
    posters until you check it out yourself.

    I have no connection to the vendor or the poster. I have actually called
    the vendor, searched the internet, and, like many others, have come to
    the conclusion that the poster actually installed the product
    incorrectly, in fact, they installed it in a manner they were warned to
    not use.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, Aug 7, 2004
    #14
  15. Anonymous

    noone Guest

    <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

    >Dear Simon:
    >
    > You would have us believe that your motivation for the product introduction
    >and maintenance was altruism? Highly unlikely, but if so, what happened to
    >that altruism now? Was your altruism based upon having "fun?" What, no more
    >fun so no more altruism? You see, any way that you slice it does not have the
    >ring of truth. Business decisions are not based upon altruism and having fun;
    >they are based upon profits and potential liability.
    >


    Yawn, you little fool still not get it?
    Let me clarify it a little: Safeboot was once developed by Fischer
    International.
    They sold the product to Controlbreak. I have never heard of problems with the
    old
    one from Fischer ( I think it was the only product for DOS/Win3.11) back then,
    so it
    has a long history. A huge userbase. It's a fine product.

    It has won prizes in numerous tests. I've never seen a story about it that the
    encryption
    was broken.

    And now you little prick come along a attack a side product (50$ - it's almost
    a giveaway).
    I tell you something: I once lost data because I installed Safeguard Easy from
    Utimaco in the wrong way.
    MY own fault.
    Well, I had my backup of course. You fail to understand how the product works.
    I use Solo
    for month now and it's working flawlessly! I backup daily, I do a defrag every
    WEEK. It never failed.
    I tested it on a spare machine, doing the good old "power off" trick. It failed
    then, but with the emergency
    disk the system came back to live.

    Please stop spamming the group with you unqualified posts that serve no purpose
    than remind you of your own
    failure.
     
    noone, Aug 7, 2004
    #15
  16. Anonymous

    Leythos Guest

    In article <L%nRc.905$>,
    says...
    > By withdrawing it you actually gave into him, who is an idiot.
    > Never give into mafia methods.


    If you've followed the thread, they didn't withdraw it because of a
    problem or because of the idiot posted that started the flames. It was
    retired like all products are retired - due to ROI and the fact that
    they have a better product that competes with it.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
     
    Leythos, Aug 8, 2004
    #16
  17. Anonymous

    William Guest

    SAFEBOOT SOLO WOULD BE PERFECT IF IT WAS OPEN SOURCE AND NOT
    BACKDOORED


    SafeBoot has flaws. These flaws are not unique to safeboot. All closed
    source encryption products generally have the exact same flaws that
    exist in SafeBoot.


    The only flaws in SafeBoot are the backdoors. SafeBoot would be
    perfect
    if SafeBoot was open source and not backdoored.


    Here you can read about how to close 2 of the backdoors in SafeBoot

    http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...&seekm=bvlnk3$p91$1$

    http://tinyurl.com/yphnq


    SafeBoot unfortunately contains multiple backup backdoors.

    The company was actually making more money by accessing the data on
    safeboot "encrypted" computers than from the selling of the safeboot
    and safeboot solo programs. If cops 'n' robbers seized a safeboot
    "encrypted" computer, all they had to do was bring it to the CBI
    company who would decrypt it for them when they paid the price the
    company refered to as "current rates".


    As was eventually inevitable, these other backup backdoors became
    known
    to the cracking hacker groups. Now no cops 'n' robbers would bring a
    safeboot "encrypted" computer to CBI to have it decrypted because CBI
    would make them pay their "current rates". All the cops 'n' robbers
    started going to the crackers because they were decrypting the
    safeboot
    "encrypted" computers for a fraction of the price CBI were charging.




    Sadly, it is true to say the pedlars of closed source encryption
    programs are liars.

    In this thread http://tinyurl.com/yphnq

    http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...&seekm=bvlnk3$p91$1$

    Simple Simon says, "As for why the SDB file grows - well in early
    versions of Solo it was because it was storing logon audit - the last
    version doesn't bother (and does not grow)."

    This is an incredibly arrogant lie because everyone, including those
    called "the uneducated masses" by simon in this here thread, can
    easily
    see the sdb file does indeed grow larger and larger each time the
    computer is booted unless the directions in this thread are applied

    http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...&seekm=bvlnk3$p91$1$

    http://tinyurl.com/yphnq


    In the midst of all this it must be remembered, safeboot solo is the
    best of all the closed source backdoored programs for full disk
    encryption of any pc.



    SAFEBOOT SOLO WOULD BE PERFECT IF IT WAS NOT BACKDOORED



    SafeBoot Solo is much better than DriveCrypt Plus Pack because
    SafeBoot
    Solo works on all windows computers all of the time. DriveCrypt Plus
    Pack only works on some windows computers like nt, 2000 & xp some of
    the time.

    The makers of SafeBoot Solo and the makers of DriveCrypt Plus Pack
    both
    have knowledge of encryption but the makers of SafeBoot Solo know the
    windows operating systems and the makers of DriveCrypt Plus Pack are
    lacking in knowledge of the windows operating systems.


    TrueCrypt is not much good either. Even simple simon's "uneducated
    masses" can see TrueCrypt is not much good because the latest greatest
    version of TrueCrypt does not work on all the windows operating
    systems. TrueCrypt is another one of those programs that only work on
    some windows operating systems some of the time. The makers of
    TrueCrypt know encryption but do not know the windows operating
    systems.



    Remember, the only virtual drive container file encryption that can be
    advised is PGPdisk because PGPdisk is open source and not backdoored.
    PGPdisk works all of the time on all the windows operating systems
    because the makers of PGPdisk have knowledge of both the encryption
    and
    the windows operating systems.




    Simple Simon lies to us because of his incredible arrogance but the
    poor unfortunate Shaun Aman Hollingworth is very different case.

    First it is honor where honor is due. E4M is a much better program
    than
    scramdisk. E4M has served so many so long and so well. E4M worked on
    all the windows operating systems when it was released but scramdisk
    did not. Everyone was thankful for scramdisk and even more thankful
    for
    E4M.


    Aman here says, "As for a back door, I SWEAR ON THE LIVES OF MY
    FAMILY
    there is NO BACK DOOR "or something" IN ANY VERSION OF DRIVECRYPT OR
    DCPP."

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=&output=gplain
    http://tinyurl.com/56yyr
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=&output
    http://tinyurl.com/68cyd


    When a man starts swearing on the lives of his wife and children he is
    always lying and under so much pressure to lie to you he would do
    anything to be a man again. Ask in your neighborhood barracks, ask
    anyone who knows anything about interrogation, they will all tell you
    When a man starts swearing on the lives of his wife and children he is
    always lying and under so much pressure to lie to you he would do
    anything to be a man again.



    Remember, for virtual drive container file encryption
    Scramdisk is perfect for windows 9x.
    E4M is perfect for windows 9x, me, nt and 2000.
    PGPdisk is perfect for windows 9x, me, nt, 2000 and xp.


    Remember, for full disk encryption

    SAFEBOOT SOLO WOULD BE PERFECT IF IT WAS OPEN SOURCE AND NOT
    BACKDOORED
     
    William, Aug 9, 2004
    #17
  18. Anonymous

    Irv Rabin Guest

    In article <MPG.1b7fdd843d58a951989694@news-
    server.columbus.rr.com>
    Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    > In article <L%nRc.905$>,
    > says...
    > > By withdrawing it you actually gave into him, who is an idiot.
    > > Never give into mafia methods.

    >
    > If you've followed the thread, they didn't withdraw it because of a
    > problem or because of the idiot posted that started the flames. It was
    > retired like all products are retired - due to ROI and the fact that
    > they have a better product that competes with it.
    >


    Your statement is untrue, I suggest that you re-read Mr. Hunt's
    own words in scramdisk, he blames problems with customers and
    his lack of having "fun."
     
    Irv Rabin, Aug 9, 2004
    #18
  19. Anonymous

    Vanguard Guest

    "Irv Rabin" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
    wrote in news::
    >
    > Your statement is untrue, I suggest that you re-read Mr. Hunt's
    > own words in scramdisk, he blames problems with customers and
    > his lack of having "fun."


    Could you provide a link for the article or the search results URL that
    includes this article. I don't [yet] have a need for something like
    Safeboot but I found it interesting enough that I might've considered it
    in the future for personal user. The Solo version was $50. Prices are
    not listed on safeboot.com for the Professional version (but I thought
    it was over $200 - which would put it out of range of my pockets for
    personal use on my home PC). Guess they figured too many of the
    consumers buying a "personal" security product were too ignorant on
    their hardware, operating system, and security management which resulted
    in way too much technical support versus the pricing of the product.

    --
    __________________________________________________
    *** Post replies to newsgroup. Share with others.
    (E-mail: domain = ".com", add "=NEWS=" to Subject)
    __________________________________________________
     
    Vanguard, Aug 9, 2004
    #19
  20. Anonymous

    Paul Cooper Guest

    On 8 Aug 2004 21:04:48 -0700, (William) wrote:

    >E4M worked on
    >all the windows operating systems when it was released but scramdisk
    >did not.


    When E4M was released it actually worked only on Win NT. After some
    time, the author of Scramdisk swapped code with the author of E4M.
    Since then E4M supported Win 9x, and Scramdisk NT worked on Win NT.
    Today, neither E4M nor Scramdisk works correctly on Win XP and Win
    2000 SP4.


    >TrueCrypt does not work on all the windows operating
    >systems. TrueCrypt is another one of those programs that only work on
    >some windows operating systems some of the time. The makers of
    >TrueCrypt know encryption but do not know the windows operating
    >systems.


    It's not because, as you believe, "The makers of TrueCrypt do not know
    the windows operating systems." TrueCrypt would have worked on all
    versions of Windows if Shaun Hollingworth hadn't objected to the use
    of his E4M Win 9x driver in TrueCrypt (TC is derived from E4M). And I
    believe that, today, no sane developer would want to waste his time on
    writing new drivers from scratch for operating systems that are
    obsolete (95/98), especially when TrueCrypt 1.0 (which works on Win
    98, ME, 2000, 2003, and XP) can be dowloaded at several sites.
     
    Paul Cooper, Aug 9, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill Levinson

    Recommendation withdrawn for Symantec products

    Bill Levinson, Feb 19, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    1,180
    Roger Bryant
    Feb 22, 2004
  2. Guest

    Re: SafeBoot BROKEN (and instantly withdrawn)

    Guest, Aug 7, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    607
    Frode
    Aug 8, 2004
  3. starwars

    Re: SafeBoot BROKEN

    starwars, Aug 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,602
    John Smith
    Aug 17, 2004
  4. Anonymous

    Re: SafeBoot BROKEN

    Anonymous, Aug 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    390
    Anonymous
    Aug 16, 2004
  5. Sunil Sood

    BT Communicator to be withdrawn

    Sunil Sood, Nov 11, 2006, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    515
    Anthony Thornton
    Nov 12, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page