Re: [Full-disclosure] Barracuda backdoor

[Tõnu Samuel <tonu@xxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 17:05 +0100, corpus.defero wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 08:29 -0700, ichib0d crane wrote:
> (snipped)
> > but that doesn't
> > change the fact that Barracuda has done something likely bad here. A
> > vendor should make it explicitly clear when they have the capability
> > to disable remote products that have already been purchased. Maybe
> > their ToS allows it, maybe not. Either way it is highly unethical.
> > 
> They can't. All they can do is disable updating of the virus and spam
> definitions. It will still work without a subscription to 'energize
> updates'.

Reread topic again. This is exactly what they did - they disabled
essentially needed features of customer property, unrelated to annual
subscription. Also this is less important in my opinion but actually all
bills were paid which removes even last options to make customer guilty
here. 

I would really be angry is BMW remotely disables my car because they
have some civil disagreement with local service center for example. 

   Tõnu

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/