View Poll Results: Should Microsoft "Lock out" the eyes of law enforcement?
- 22. You may not vote on this poll
March 4th, 2006, 12:38 AM #1
Microsoft: Vista won't get a backdoor
Should law enforcement be locked out by Microsoft?
This feature could make it harder for law enforcement agencies to get access to data on seized computers.
Click 'edit' and look at the URL tags now.
Last edited by Chuckiechan; March 4th, 2006 at 12:44 AM."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
March 4th, 2006, 12:52 AM #2
btw..I voted 100% absolutely yes, they should be locked out.
If for no other reason...if there is a method to bypass security, there will be a hack to exploit it. The only way to truly stop something from being exploited by crackers is to not have something to be exploited in the first place. That aside, i still say they should not have access.
Last edited by originel; March 4th, 2006 at 12:56 AM.
March 4th, 2006, 02:11 AM #3
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
as a sysadmin of a large network, I'd be glad to see a backdoor for people to get in to take care of what htey need
however because its impossible to make it unexploitable.. I vote LOCK IT DOWN
March 4th, 2006, 02:12 AM #4
I wonder why mine wouldnt work?
Anyway, I think there are legitimate reasons for law enforcement to take precidence over child porn, terrorism, etc. when a computer is seized."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
March 4th, 2006, 02:15 AM #5
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
if they have physical access its not difficult to find an app to crack the admin password
There a few apps that use Bart PE or a linux shell to allow you to change admin pass to get access
March 4th, 2006, 02:23 AM #6
your syntax was wrong for the url (forgot the / in the second [url] tag)
I agree that there are valid reasons why law enforcement would need access, however i don't think that it's worth the risk to the public for it. Such a system is just begging for a hugely powerful virus to be written that could do as much damage, if not more than, blaster did when it first came out. IMO the gains are not at all worth the risk.
March 4th, 2006, 11:44 AM #7
First of all, thanks for fixing the link. I tried to cut and paste as usual from ZD Net - maybe they have some form of protection? Or maybe it's time for a my annual restart!
Actually, I'd say the opposite is true. Suppose a virus got in an re did the algorithm and locked you out permanently and irreversably?
EDIT: Let's say you are arrested and your computer is seized. A judge will order you to produce the password, or let you sit in jail until you produce it or it is cracked.
Last edited by Chuckiechan; March 4th, 2006 at 11:55 AM."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
March 4th, 2006, 12:10 PM #8Actually, I'd say the opposite is true. Suppose a virus got in an re did the algorithm and locked you out permanently and irreversably?
Let's say you are arrested and your computer is seized. A judge will order you to produce the password, or let you sit in jail until you produce it or it is cracked.
ultimately, if a backdoor is enabled, it can be exploited to affect ANY area of the computer, not just the encrypted data. Therefore the scope of any problem related to entroducing a back door is significantly larger than the scope of any problem related to the encryption itself. When you take this into account along with my previous post on difficulty, from a programmer's perspective it's a no brainer.
Last edited by originel; March 4th, 2006 at 12:15 PM.
March 4th, 2006, 12:53 PM #9
Here's some more background on it.
It's not all that bad, since there is a back up password to regain control and will be exploitable. A comment was made about "tampering" maybe as in XP requiring a new copy if you make a change to the motherboard. It sounds like a coincidence that a motherboard change will make your HDD unavailable since the Trusted Platform Module, or TPM will not likely be moveable to the new motherboard."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
March 4th, 2006, 01:05 PM #10
good read if you weren't aware of it (fyi, I've read up a lot on vista and already new everything in that article). Also TPM will be limited to enterprise versions of windows, so it's not anything we will be dealing with in Vista
What bearing did that article have on this discussion exactly? Any response to my previous comments?
Last edited by originel; March 4th, 2006 at 01:09 PM.
March 4th, 2006, 04:10 PM #11
Not every one is a programmer or as deep into this stuff as you are. I'm certainly not."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
March 5th, 2006, 12:37 AM #12
There is no need for a backdoor to be installed. Law enforcement has divisions specifically for cracking computers that have been seized for evidence.
March 5th, 2006, 12:45 AM #13
Originally Posted by SeanC
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
THe only thing that would need to be "cracked" would be an encrypted FS
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Fagin in forum Applications and Operating SystemsReplies: 3Last Post: January 15th, 2006, 07:01 AM
By lost-and-found in forum Security and Privacy IssuesReplies: 1Last Post: March 12th, 2005, 07:14 PM
By Master Chief in forum General Tech DiscussionReplies: 2Last Post: July 21st, 2004, 11:28 AM
By TX.Jeff in forum Technical SupportReplies: 2Last Post: September 13th, 2003, 07:01 PM
By The Punisher in forum General Tech DiscussionReplies: 18Last Post: March 1st, 2003, 02:17 PM