We have several Dell Laptops that have come up with the 5b010019 error
when we try to an emergency recovery then we get 92h corrupt error.
We are able to get the drives decrypted and reinstall safeboot on most
but this is a 4 hour work around.

Has anyone else seen this - we are trying to find a common thread but
we have not be able to find one. This started yesterday Monday
12-17-07 we have ruled out MS Patches.

Any help or thought appreciated.

mjknudse wrote:


Why don't you ask the vendor of the mentioned software product for support?

(Aside from that, anyone using a closed-source crypto product obviously has
no clue what he's doing.)

ok let me rephrase that - is anyone else seeing this issue

mjknudse wrote:


I have tested this SafeBoot stuff once for an evaluation of multiple full
disc encryption software for a company. I found it horribly broken, it
didn't even either install, the boot loader locked up, the correct pasword
didn't get accepted etc.

And still the question: Why do you think that closed-source crypto could
provide any security?

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> writes:

Sebby,

We find you horribly broken, but that doesn't answer his question
either.

It's rather likely the guy merely has to support the junk and didn't
have a hand in selecting it. Why (other than your being quite an
asshole), do you feel compelled to berate this guy for having a
problem he needs to solve? One that he very likely didn't create?

Merry Christmas, in case we don't chat again this week.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H. wrote:



Obviously you failed to notice that I already answered his question: Since
SafeBoot is a software of horrible quality, and since closed-source crypto
is insecure by design, he should simply decrypt the disk and uninstall SafeBoot.

I am fighting the same battle at my company and our IBM ThinkPads. Th
issue seemed to have manifested over the weekend. I have been workin
with SafeBoot and our other software vendors (antivirus, firewall
etc.). I have also opened a severity A case with MS (which basicall
means we have a small army working on this).

So far, we have been unable to reproduce the issue. I'll be sure t
share any info I come across, and would appreciate any thoughts you ma
have on this issue..

--
jac
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jace's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=3772
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=87420

http://forums.techarena.i

See also
http://blog.joshwnet.com/?p=3

--
jac
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jace's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=3772
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=87420

http://forums.techarena.i

Jace - thanks for contacting me we too have been working with a small
army from MS - safeboot and Symantec I have forwarded you my contact
info - please contact me when you have a chance would love to talk
further with you. - Joe

Joe - I haven't received your contact info - PM me when you can..

--
jac
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jace's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=3772
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=87420

http://forums.techarena.i

give me call 402-206-5169

Joe - haven't pinpointed any possible cause as of yet, but I hav
written a VBscript that can examine the MBR of a system to determine i
SafeBoot has been corrupted. I can share the code with you if you woul
like

--
jac
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jace's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=3772
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=87420

http://forums.techarena.i

Joe - tried to call, no answer. send me your email - we can chat.
This should help:
'Link' (http://home.comcast.net/~jasonsmiller/MBRChecker.zip

--
jac
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jace's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=3772
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=87420

http://forums.techarena.i

Jace - Can you hit me up at email: mjknudse@yahoo.com

On Dec 19, 4:32*pm, jace <jace.31v...@DoNotSpam.com> wrote:
this issue has been identified as a rogue Computrace server corrupting
boot sectors. You can contact SafeBoot or Computrace (Absolute
Software) for more info.

On Dec 18, 2:27*pm, "Sebastian G." <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
closed source software has (by design) an unknown level of security,
thats why it goes through independant source code review. The source
is only closed to the public, not to reviewers etc. With very view
exceptions you can trust the labs who specialise in source code review
to pick things up that peer review would never find.

SafeBoot Simon wrote:



The special problem with cryptography is that there're thousands of trivial
pitfalls that can make the implementation horribly insecure despite a secure
cipher. Even if you trust the vendor to not include anything malicious (like
f.e. a backdoor), you cannot reasonably trust him to get every little detail
right. The only way to mitigate this issue is to open the source code to the
public to allow independent review.

On Dec 21, 6:32*am, "Sebastian G." <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
so what is your point? are you saying that FIPS, BITS, CC, NIST etc
source code reviews are not acceptable? in my experience the public
are no where near as good at security code review as the professionals
who do it day in day out and charge a premium for their experience. if
public review as so good, then govenments would insist on open source.
They don't though, they insist on professionaly reviewed source.

PGP was open source for years before a "public" reviewer found a
glaring implementation error...

SafeBoot Simon wrote:



BITS, CC and NIST don't require any source code review, only documentation
review and testing that the implementation actually belongs to the
documentation. FIPS auditing doesn't disclose any evaluation results.


Nonsense.


So the AES competition was just an illusion?


Your point being? Would it be closed source, the public might have never got
known about this. He could have just kept it secret, as a backdoor for some
intelligence service.


BTW, why exactly should I presume that you, who is obviously abusing a .NET
infected MSIE as a webbrowser, had any clue about security?

you are wrong about cc and nist not requiring source code review.


very true, I guess that being a windows user I indeed have no right
whatsoever to claim any competence. I guess I've been lucky not to get
caught out as such an obvious fraud for so long, oh well I guess you
win Sebastian. Someone better tell my shareholders before I speak at
any more conferences or design any more products...