"The apparent intent was to cloak sensitive files related to the
fingerprint verification feature included on the USB drives," said
McAfee spokesman Dave Marcus. "However, software creators apparently
did not keep the security implications in mind. The application could
be used to hide arbitrary software, including malicious software."
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:29:03 -0400, DonLogan <navajo@neonfeather.com>
wrote:
>How stupid can they be!
>
>"The apparent intent was to cloak sensitive files related to the
>fingerprint verification feature included on the USB drives," said
>McAfee spokesman Dave Marcus. "However, software creators apparently
>did not keep the security implications in mind. The application could
>be used to hide arbitrary software, including malicious software."
>
>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2177172,00.asp
hi
finger print protect devices are not effective because
1. Once the surface is slightly deity the device will not read data
properly.
2. The device surface is made of either glass or plastic
i do not like it because I have experienced it my self personally. I
have to clean and clean the before i was able to use the hardware.
In article <777cd35q3jui89onushpvbemh0lll3lslm@4ax.com>, DonLogan
wrote:
> How stupid can they be!
>
Don't say that - they'll prove you wrong by being stupider than
you'd possibly imagined they could be.
--
Aidan Karley
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:36 +0100, but posted later.
Using VA 5.51 build 315 under Windows 2000 build 2195.
isaac4all <finditall100free@yahoo.com> wrote:
> hi
> finger print protect devices are not effective because
> 1. Once the surface is slightly deity
Do you mean that some god ****ted on it or what ?
Fry the ******** with the shotty if thats what it did.
> the device will not read data properly.
> 2. The device surface is made of either glass or plastic
>
> i do not like it because I have experienced it my self personally. I
> have to clean and clean the before i was able to use the hardware.
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:37:42 -0000, isaac4all
<finditall100free@yahoo.com> wrote:
>hi
>finger print protect devices are not effective because
>1. Once the surface is slightly deity the device will not read data
>properly.
>2. The device surface is made of either glass or plastic
>
>i do not like it because I have experienced it my self personally. I
>have to clean and clean the before i was able to use the hardware.
If it's plastic and not a high quality plastic, the ammonia in most
glass cleaner will cause the plastic to cloud up and completely ruin
the whole thing. I'm sure the instruction manual warns against using
glass cleaner to clean the finger print device but who really reads
the manual anyway???
-- sales@platshop.com disgust me. sales@platshop.com spams a lot in game
so I am posting sales@platshop.com as often as possible so sales@platshop.com
would start getting spammed sales@platshop.com eye for an eye. for good
luck, sales@platshop.com and sales@platshop.com
Previously Aidan Karley <name1_name2@email.provider.invalid> wrote:
> In article <777cd35q3jui89onushpvbemh0lll3lslm@4ax.com>, DonLogan
> wrote:
>> How stupid can they be!
>>
> Don't say that - they'll prove you wrong by being stupider than
> you'd possibly imagined they could be.
There is no level of stupidity that is attainable of companies that
tolerate or even encourage bad engineering in order to improve
their business in the short term.
Sony is a special case: Their engineering sucks badly. I had
a Vaio with no less than three self-destruct mechanisms. Either
gross incompetence or intent. In both cases they are selling
high-priced trash with cool looks and feel. But Sony has got
no true engineers that care about their products, about
getting it right. They have bean-counters and designers instead.
Scum in my book.
Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> Previously Aidan Karley <name1_name2@email.provider.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <777cd35q3jui89onushpvbemh0lll3lslm@4ax.com>, DonLogan
> > wrote:
> >> How stupid can they be!
> >>
> > Don't say that - they'll prove you wrong by being stupider than
> > you'd possibly imagined they could be.
>
> There is no level of stupidity that is attainable of companies that
> tolerate or even encourage bad engineering in order to improve
> their business in the short term.
>
> Sony is a special case: Their engineering sucks badly. I had
> a Vaio with no less than three self-destruct mechanisms. Either
> gross incompetence or intent. In both cases they are selling
> high-priced trash with cool looks and feel. But Sony has got
> no true engineers that care about their products, about
> getting it right. They have bean-counters and designers instead.
> Scum in my book.
>
> Arno
Hello, Arno:
Please, allow me to put it much more succinctly: Sony stinks! <G>
Previously John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote:
>>
>> Previously Aidan Karley <name1_name2@email.provider.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <777cd35q3jui89onushpvbemh0lll3lslm@4ax.com>, DonLogan
>> > wrote:
>> >> How stupid can they be!
>> >>
>> > Don't say that - they'll prove you wrong by being stupider than
>> > you'd possibly imagined they could be.
>>
>> There is no level of stupidity that is attainable of companies that
>> tolerate or even encourage bad engineering in order to improve
>> their business in the short term.
>>
>> Sony is a special case: Their engineering sucks badly. I had
>> a Vaio with no less than three self-destruct mechanisms. Either
>> gross incompetence or intent. In both cases they are selling
>> high-priced trash with cool looks and feel. But Sony has got
>> no true engineers that care about their products, about
>> getting it right. They have bean-counters and designers instead.
>> Scum in my book.
>>
>> Arno
> Hello, Arno:
> Please, allow me to put it much more succinctly: Sony stinks! <G>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
Arno Wagner wrote:
>
> Previously John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:
> > Arno Wagner wrote:
> >>
> >> Previously Aidan Karley <name1_name2@email.provider.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <777cd35q3jui89onushpvbemh0lll3lslm@4ax.com>, DonLogan
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> How stupid can they be!
> >> >>
> >> > Don't say that - they'll prove you wrong by being stupider than
> >> > you'd possibly imagined they could be.
> >>
> >> There is no level of stupidity that is attainable of companies that
> >> tolerate or even encourage bad engineering in order to improve
> >> their business in the short term.
> >>
> >> Sony is a special case: Their engineering sucks badly. I had
> >> a Vaio with no less than three self-destruct mechanisms. Either
> >> gross incompetence or intent. In both cases they are selling
> >> high-priced trash with cool looks and feel. But Sony has got
> >> no true engineers that care about their products, about
> >> getting it right. They have bean-counters and designers instead.
> >> Scum in my book.
> >>
> >> Arno
>
> > Hello, Arno:
>
> > Please, allow me to put it much more succinctly: Sony stinks! <G>
> > Cordially,
> > John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
>
> Nice. I like it!
>
> Arno
Hello, Arno:
Yeah, I should copyright it, perhaps? It's definitely more accurate
than the company's old advertising slogan of the 1970's: "Sony. No
baloney!" :-J
Sony, Rootkit & USB stick 
Linear Mode
