lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: TO HELL WITH IT THEN......(re: disk-destroyer.c)
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If you try to pass raw taskfile command to the drive and you have no clue.
> > > The hardware will BUCK 99% of the time.
> > >
> > > Using the kernel IOCTL, it BUCKS 5% of the time and the damage is done.
> > > Baically, you want me to continue helping you destroy your hardware.
> > > I will not be a part of that!
> >
> > Care to give a little better explanation? What do you mean by
> > 'BUCK'?
>
> BUCK means to kick back the command as invalid or bad.
>
> RODEO you get BUCKED off a horse or bull if you do not hang on correctly.
>
> > consider your patch? Show it's merits, don't threaten them that you'll
> > try and destroy them if you don't get your way.
>
> I do not have to some script-kiddie will do it on their own now.
> The only option is to protect against it now.

Faulty dilema.

> Since no one trusted that, I know what I am doing and required full
> disclosure before I could complete the protection, we have to suffer the
> outcome and work to prevent it now.

Peer review has shown itself to be a good thing. This is how
Linux came to be as it is today.

> The merits are that it prevents you (ROOT included) from doing thinks that
> violate the SPEC that the sub-system must follow to comply with the
> hardware. You will now argue that I have no right to impose such rules.

Now look, does it violate the SPEC or not? You've claimed elsewhere
that it doesn't violate the SPEC, but isn't specifically a part of it, and
yet here you claim it does violate the SPEC.

> With is view, screw everyone! All you paranoid unix children that think
> you as sysadmin are all knowledgeble and afraid to give up control of what
> you never knew you could do, in such a clean way, need to grow a little.

This isn't about control. It's about succuming to one man's desires
instead of considering the impact of such a change based on its technical
worth.

> I have now given you the handgrende, pulled the pin and threw it away and
> will now walk away. Your choice is to use the steel-plate-armor I left
> you as a sheild or DIE......I really do not care!
>
> I offered you the sheild and you turned it down.
> A script-kiddie would just laugh and watch, because they knew about it
> before me and you are luck their pipe bombs are duds.

Again with the threats of imminent doom and impending danger. This
is just not the way to win people over to your side.

You do realize this *isn't* anything new, right? For quite some
time now people have been able to flash the bios on their IDE and SCSI
disks, just like their motherboards. In the past this has been done from
DOS, but obviously anything done from DOS can be replicated under Linux.
You could destroy the disk under DOS by doing the same as the update
program except giving it garbage instead of the real bios. So it is the
same under Linux, except you have to gain root access first.

Stephen


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.194 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site