Safteboot 5b010019 error then 92h

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by mjknudse, Dec 18, 2007.

  1. mjknudse

    mjknudse Guest

    We have several Dell Laptops that have come up with the 5b010019 error
    when we try to an emergency recovery then we get 92h corrupt error.
    We are able to get the drives decrypted and reinstall safeboot on most
    but this is a 4 hour work around.

    Has anyone else seen this - we are trying to find a common thread but
    we have not be able to find one. This started yesterday Monday
    12-17-07 we have ruled out MS Patches.

    Any help or thought appreciated.
    mjknudse, Dec 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. mjknudse

    Sebastian G. Guest

    mjknudse wrote:

    > We have several Dell Laptops that have come up with the 5b010019 error
    > when we try to an emergency recovery then we get 92h corrupt error.
    > We are able to get the drives decrypted and reinstall safeboot on most
    > but this is a 4 hour work around.
    >
    > Has anyone else seen this - we are trying to find a common thread but
    > we have not be able to find one. This started yesterday Monday
    > 12-17-07 we have ruled out MS Patches.
    >
    > Any help or thought appreciated.



    Why don't you ask the vendor of the mentioned software product for support?

    (Aside from that, anyone using a closed-source crypto product obviously has
    no clue what he's doing.)
    Sebastian G., Dec 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. mjknudse

    mjknudse Guest

    ok let me rephrase that - is anyone else seeing this issue
    mjknudse, Dec 18, 2007
    #3
  4. mjknudse

    Sebastian G. Guest

    mjknudse wrote:

    > ok let me rephrase that - is anyone else seeing this issue



    I have tested this SafeBoot stuff once for an evaluation of multiple full
    disc encryption software for a company. I found it horribly broken, it
    didn't even either install, the boot loader locked up, the correct pasword
    didn't get accepted etc.

    And still the question: Why do you think that closed-source crypto could
    provide any security?
    Sebastian G., Dec 18, 2007
    #4
  5. mjknudse

    Todd H. Guest

    "Sebastian G." <> writes:

    > mjknudse wrote:
    >
    > > ok let me rephrase that - is anyone else seeing this issue

    >
    >
    > I have tested this SafeBoot stuff once for an evaluation of multiple
    > full disc encryption software for a company. I found it horribly
    > broken, it didn't even either install, the boot loader locked up, the
    > correct pasword didn't get accepted etc.
    >
    > And still the question: Why do you think that closed-source crypto
    > could provide any security?


    Sebby,

    We find you horribly broken, but that doesn't answer his question
    either.

    It's rather likely the guy merely has to support the junk and didn't
    have a hand in selecting it. Why (other than your being quite an
    asshole), do you feel compelled to berate this guy for having a
    problem he needs to solve? One that he very likely didn't create?

    Merry Christmas, in case we don't chat again this week.

    Best Regards,
    --
    Todd H.
    http://www.toddh.net/
    Todd H., Dec 18, 2007
    #5
  6. mjknudse

    Sebastian G. Guest

    Todd H. wrote:


    > We find you horribly broken, but that doesn't answer his question
    > either.



    Obviously you failed to notice that I already answered his question: Since
    SafeBoot is a software of horrible quality, and since closed-source crypto
    is insecure by design, he should simply decrypt the disk and uninstall SafeBoot.
    Sebastian G., Dec 18, 2007
    #6
  7. mjknudse

    jace Guest

    I am fighting the same battle at my company and our IBM ThinkPads. Th
    issue seemed to have manifested over the weekend. I have been workin
    with SafeBoot and our other software vendors (antivirus, firewall
    etc.). I have also opened a severity A case with MS (which basicall
    means we have a small army working on this).

    So far, we have been unable to reproduce the issue. I'll be sure t
    share any info I come across, and would appreciate any thoughts you ma
    have on this issue..

    --
    jac
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    jace's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=3772
    View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=87420

    http://forums.techarena.i
    jace, Dec 19, 2007
    #7
  8. mjknudse

    jace Guest

    jace, Dec 19, 2007
    #8
  9. mjknudse

    mjknudse Guest

    Jace - thanks for contacting me we too have been working with a small
    army from MS - safeboot and Symantec I have forwarded you my contact
    info - please contact me when you have a chance would love to talk
    further with you. - Joe
    mjknudse, Dec 19, 2007
    #9
  10. mjknudse

    jace Guest

    jace, Dec 19, 2007
    #10
  11. mjknudse

    mjknudse Guest

    give me call 402-206-5169
    mjknudse, Dec 19, 2007
    #11
  12. mjknudse

    jace Guest

    jace, Dec 19, 2007
    #12
  13. mjknudse

    jace Guest

    jace, Dec 19, 2007
    #13
  14. mjknudse

    mjknudse Guest

    Jace - Can you hit me up at email:
    mjknudse, Dec 19, 2007
    #14
  15. On Dec 19, 4:32 pm, jace <> wrote:
    > Joe - tried to call, no answer.  send me your email - we can chat.
    > This should help:
    > 'Link' (http://home.comcast.net/~jasonsmiller/MBRChecker.zip)
    >
    > --
    > jace
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > jace's Profile:http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=37728
    > View this thread:http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=874207
    >
    > http://forums.techarena.in


    this issue has been identified as a rogue Computrace server corrupting
    boot sectors. You can contact SafeBoot or Computrace (Absolute
    Software) for more info.
    SafeBoot Simon, Dec 21, 2007
    #15
  16. On Dec 18, 2:27 pm, "Sebastian G." <> wrote:
    > Todd H. wrote:
    > > We find you horribly broken, but that doesn't answer his question
    > > either.

    >
    > Obviously you failed to notice that I already answered his question: Since
    > SafeBoot is a software of horrible quality, and since closed-source crypto
    > is insecure by design, he should simply decrypt the disk and uninstall SafeBoot.


    closed source software has (by design) an unknown level of security,
    thats why it goes through independant source code review. The source
    is only closed to the public, not to reviewers etc. With very view
    exceptions you can trust the labs who specialise in source code review
    to pick things up that peer review would never find.
    SafeBoot Simon, Dec 21, 2007
    #16
  17. mjknudse

    Sebastian G. Guest

    SafeBoot Simon wrote:


    > closed source software has (by design) an unknown level of security,
    > thats why it goes through independant source code review. The source
    > is only closed to the public, not to reviewers etc. With very view
    > exceptions you can trust the labs who specialise in source code review
    > to pick things up that peer review would never find.



    The special problem with cryptography is that there're thousands of trivial
    pitfalls that can make the implementation horribly insecure despite a secure
    cipher. Even if you trust the vendor to not include anything malicious (like
    f.e. a backdoor), you cannot reasonably trust him to get every little detail
    right. The only way to mitigate this issue is to open the source code to the
    public to allow independent review.
    Sebastian G., Dec 21, 2007
    #17
  18. On Dec 21, 6:32 am, "Sebastian G." <> wrote:
    > SafeBoot Simon wrote:
    > > closed source software has (by design) an unknown level of security,
    > > thats why it goes through independant source code review. The source
    > > is only closed to the public, not to reviewers etc. With very view
    > > exceptions you can trust the labs who specialise in source code review
    > > to pick things up that peer review would never find.

    >
    > The special problem with cryptography is that there're thousands of trivial
    > pitfalls that can make the implementation horribly insecure despite a secure
    > cipher. Even if you trust the vendor to not include anything malicious (like
    > f.e. a backdoor), you cannot reasonably trust him to get every little detail
    > right. The only way to mitigate this issue is to open the source code to the
    > public to allow independent review.


    so what is your point? are you saying that FIPS, BITS, CC, NIST etc
    source code reviews are not acceptable? in my experience the public
    are no where near as good at security code review as the professionals
    who do it day in day out and charge a premium for their experience. if
    public review as so good, then govenments would insist on open source.
    They don't though, they insist on professionaly reviewed source.

    PGP was open source for years before a "public" reviewer found a
    glaring implementation error...
    SafeBoot Simon, Dec 21, 2007
    #18
  19. mjknudse

    Sebastian G. Guest

    SafeBoot Simon wrote:


    > so what is your point? are you saying that FIPS, BITS, CC, NIST etc
    > source code reviews are not acceptable?



    BITS, CC and NIST don't require any source code review, only documentation
    review and testing that the implementation actually belongs to the
    documentation. FIPS auditing doesn't disclose any evaluation results.

    > if public review as so good, then govenments would insist on open source.



    Nonsense.

    > They don't though, they insist on professionaly reviewed source.



    So the AES competition was just an illusion?

    > PGP was open source for years before a "public" reviewer found a
    > glaring implementation error...



    Your point being? Would it be closed source, the public might have never got
    known about this. He could have just kept it secret, as a backdoor for some
    intelligence service.


    BTW, why exactly should I presume that you, who is obviously abusing a .NET
    infected MSIE as a webbrowser, had any clue about security?
    Sebastian G., Dec 21, 2007
    #19

  20. >
    > BITS, CC and NIST don't require any source code review, only documentation
    > review and testing that the implementation actually belongs to the
    > documentation. FIPS auditing doesn't disclose any evaluation results.


    you are wrong about cc and nist not requiring source code review.


    > BTW, why exactly should I presume that you, who is obviously abusing a .NET
    > infected MSIE as a webbrowser, had any clue about security?


    very true, I guess that being a windows user I indeed have no right
    whatsoever to claim any competence. I guess I've been lucky not to get
    caught out as such an obvious fraud for so long, oh well I guess you
    win Sebastian. Someone better tell my shareholders before I speak at
    any more conferences or design any more products...
    SafeBoot Simon, Dec 22, 2007
    #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. qwerty
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    7,131
    Sam Lowry
    Jan 7, 2004
  2. Ryan Bygland
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    961
    Mark²
    Jan 14, 2007
  3. Ed
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    516
    Toolman Tim
    Mar 2, 2006
  4. dg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,194
  5. Moke Gibboni

    PC powers up, then down, then up again!

    Moke Gibboni, Feb 28, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    716
    Moke Gibboni
    Mar 2, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page