uDocBoot.sld legality.

  • Thread starter Thread starter steves
  • Start date Start date
S

steves

And Slobodan Replied:

Hi Dietmar, Slobodan,

It is not a matter so much of whether Slobodan would be angry, it is a
matter of whether it is legal or not. As I understand it, Slobodan has
signed an agreement with M-systems to not divulge the technical
know-how that he sold to M-systems, and is demonstrating solid ethical
behavior by continuing to refrain from participating in this discussion
of generic USB booting.

There have been many discussions of 'what is legal' in this group, and
from what I gather, the group as a whole has demonstrated that they are
willing to 'play by the rules'.

Now, there are many interesting ethical and practical questions that
arise from this.

1. It is certainly legal for others to pursue, as Slobodan has, this
technical knowledge on their own. It seems quite unlikely that using
the M-systems component without permission is completely ethical,
whether or not it is legal.

2. Why has MS not provided this behavior, when so many have asked for
it.
I suspect it is partially because of the security risk involved. If
everyone and their brother has a USB key that will boot any computer
anywhere, then this makes it easier for hackers to gain access.
(M-systems has an enterprise security product that claims to address
this, i see).

Microsoft: How about a solution that is tied to a particular XPE field
(OEM name or something)?

3. As a legitimate XP embedded customer, I have promised to comply with
all of the rules, and as an ethical person, I plan to uphold these
promises. I do have a legitimate need for an alternate boot source
that will allow me to update and/or repair XP embedded installations in
the field, and USB is the obviously available source.

I suspect that some of the techniques that Dietmar has employed would
violate some of these promises, and therefore not be usable for me.
I appreciate clear indications that I have seen in the past by posters
that state things such as 'While this is not legal, it works if you do
....'. This allows me to steer clear of the wrong side of the tracks.

While perhaps I could state some of these things better, i need to get
some real work done. I hope that this instigates some further
discussion.

SteveS
SteveSATeyeDASHimagingDOTcom
 
Hi Steve
technical knowledge on their own. It seems quite unlikely that using
the M-systems component without permission is completely ethical,
whether or not it is legal.<<


M-Systems has put this component on their homepage to be downloaded for
everyone.

it.
I suspect it is partially because of the security risk involved. If
everyone and their brother has a USB key that will boot any computer
anywhere, then this makes it easier for hackers to gain access.<<

Microsoft didnt tell the truth, when they say USB boot is impossible. I
think, it is not a question
of security for them but for money.
From the psychological side: Why does Microsoft make a extra homepage to
say, that USB boot is impossible?
Because they know, that it is possible.
all of the rules, and as an ethical person, I plan to uphold these
promises. I do have a legitimate need for an alternate boot source
that will allow me to update and/or repair XP embedded installations in
the field, and USB is the obviously available source.

I suspect that some of the techniques that Dietmar has employed would
violate some of these promises, and therefore not be usable for me.
I appreciate clear indications that I have seen in the past by posters
that state things such as 'While this is not legal, it works if you do
....'. This allows me to steer clear of the wrong side of the tracks.<<

Please tell a sentence from me, which is illegal.

Nice to hear from you
Dietmar
 
Regarding #2:
It's not impossible and it's not due to security, it's just very costly. Costly as in resources and servicing/maintaining one-off changes for the 10 year lifecycle of the OS due to forking Windows features for this. BTW, you're preaching to choir here. It's high on my list as well and a lot of people in Windows that own the features that must take a change for this are well aware of the ask.

I can tell you that there is still hope for it, I haven't given up.

--
Andy
--
Embedded team blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/embedded/

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.



And Slobodan Replied:

Hi Dietmar, Slobodan,

It is not a matter so much of whether Slobodan would be angry, it is a
matter of whether it is legal or not. As I understand it, Slobodan has
signed an agreement with M-systems to not divulge the technical
know-how that he sold to M-systems, and is demonstrating solid ethical
behavior by continuing to refrain from participating in this discussion
of generic USB booting.

There have been many discussions of 'what is legal' in this group, and
from what I gather, the group as a whole has demonstrated that they are
willing to 'play by the rules'.

Now, there are many interesting ethical and practical questions that
arise from this.

1. It is certainly legal for others to pursue, as Slobodan has, this
technical knowledge on their own. It seems quite unlikely that using
the M-systems component without permission is completely ethical,
whether or not it is legal.

2. Why has MS not provided this behavior, when so many have asked for
it.
I suspect it is partially because of the security risk involved. If
everyone and their brother has a USB key that will boot any computer
anywhere, then this makes it easier for hackers to gain access.
(M-systems has an enterprise security product that claims to address
this, i see).

Microsoft: How about a solution that is tied to a particular XPE field
(OEM name or something)?

3. As a legitimate XP embedded customer, I have promised to comply with
all of the rules, and as an ethical person, I plan to uphold these
promises. I do have a legitimate need for an alternate boot source
that will allow me to update and/or repair XP embedded installations in
the field, and USB is the obviously available source.

I suspect that some of the techniques that Dietmar has employed would
violate some of these promises, and therefore not be usable for me.
I appreciate clear indications that I have seen in the past by posters
that state things such as 'While this is not legal, it works if you do
...'. This allows me to steer clear of the wrong side of the tracks.

While perhaps I could state some of these things better, i need to get
some real work done. I hope that this instigates some further
discussion.

SteveS
SteveSATeyeDASHimagingDOTcom
 
Back
Top