On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:50:10AM -0400, Roland Perry wrote:
In article <1061823669.17113.3.camel@aiden.noc.adelphia.net>, Paul A. Bradford <paul.bradford@adelphia.com> writes
Hmm, and how would you protect the remote controlled MS firewall software from:
1. Vulnerabilities itself since MS is building it? 2. the "remote control" being hijacked by someone besides MS? 2a. Hey I'd love to be able to shut folks that were killing my network off until they update, but is it my right?
It's not that different from (my perception of) the current technology used for XP Activation. Presumably an unactivated XP ise prevented from accessing the Internet (as well as being prevented from doing all the other normal user things), but is still capable of accessing the activation server. And is the mechanism of a hypothetical remote de- activation very far from what I was suggesting (maybe as a sort of "ask the activation server for permission" at regular intervals)?
You can access the Internet with an unactivated copy of XP for 30 days before it shuts off on you. You can do normal user things with an unactivated copy for 30 days before it shuts off on you. MS doesn't do remote deactivation, just timed deactivation. Theoretically it could be possible, but with all the filter-happy people around today who are spooked by packets from Windows machines they don't understand, they might end up filtering off something like oh say...Windows Update, causing unreachability and tons of support calls to Microsoft. Believe me, no matter how much you charge, no one likes support calls, not even Microsoft at whatever obscene rate it is per pop. Why do you think XP now comes with 'Remote Assistance' so a friend can help you instead of having to call Microsoft? Also, perhaps Microsoft put that high per-call rate into play to SLOW DOWN the amount of calls they were getting, not because "Bill Gates is greedy". Hey, NetZero did it too. Let me stop before I get completely off-topic. Another rant, another day.