Slashdot Mirror
Apple Laptops Vulnerable To Battery Firmware Hack
Trailrunner7 writes "Security researcher Charlie Miller, widely known for his work on Mac OS X and Apple's iOS, has discovered an interesting method that enables him to completely disable the batteries on Apple laptops, making them permanently unusable, and perform a number of other unintended actions. The method, which involves accessing and sending instructions to the chip housed on smart batteries, could also be used for more malicious purposes down the road. Miller discovered the default passwords set on the battery at the factory to change the battery into unsealed mode and developed a method that let him permanently brick the battery as well as read and modify the entire firmware. 'You can read all the firmware, make changes to the code, do whatever you want. And those code changes will survive a reinstall of the OS, so you could imagine writing malware that could hide on the chip on the battery. You'd need a vulnerability in the OS or something that the battery could then attack, though,' Miller said."
In other news - batteries have firmware.
As of 10/06/03, I hate COBOL developers.
So, kudos for looking at the patches and finding the password, but without providing a tool to set the password to something else this is just kinda weak. 'Hai guys, I rooted your battery and you can't do anything about it!'. Clever but not helpful.
Isn't this sort of like how the Pandora Batteries worked on the PSP? I think they enabled a diagnostic mode as opposed to a direct hack, but the battery being used to corrupt the system thing isn't totally new.
On the plus side, the hard to replace batteries people complain about make this attack more difficult to perform, instead of just taking a few seconds.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I don't have to worry about that. Not only am I using a Dell, but my battery exploded.
This IS important in good and bad ways. Since you have the password to the SBS pack microcontroller, you can change the cells and reset the counters.
This both enables people to refurbish packs (which has its consequences, since untracked Li-Ion cells can be *dangerous*), and to sell counterfeit packs (which is even worse).
The article and Slashdot summary are about laptops, not iPhones or iPods. It is extremely easy to replace a battery on an Apple laptop. Just as easy as it is on other brands of laptop.
so you can have more than one battery bricked?
I would argue that everything with writable firmware should have some kind of jumper on it (default: on) to write protect the firmware. Thus you can only patch firmware by inserting a jumper on the right pins.
Still, anyone should think twice before being told "short these contacts on your battery in order to enable firmware updates."
The battery on my MBP is built-in. I'd expect most other brands to allow you to replace the battery without resorting to screwdrivers.
Oh . . . sorry, I checked and some newer models are not easy to be replaced. They require factory replacement. My MacBook Pro, which is a few years old, has a battery that is extremely easy to pop out, but unfortunately it seems like that's not the case with more recent models.
Windows PHONE has a battery? Wherefore?
This is just one more reason why software that's not designed to be frequently changed should be write-protected unless the user sets a specific hardware switch.
If the hardware switch is in its default location - "protect" - it should be mathematically provable that the firmware cannot be overwritten.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
LOL, Linux is hardly a fortress. Like Windows, it is as secure as you have it configured. Windows can be configured into a fortress, but is usually not by default. I don't think every Linux distribution is configured to be a fortress by default. But how can I know? The entire Linux distribution space is fragmented beyond any sort of standard.
I do agree that OSX is the least secure OS, though.
I only skimmed it, but it doesn't seem to say if he needed physical access to the battery to do this. Obviously the two must communicate (on-battery and OS), but it doesn't say if access was achieved on an in-use battery from the host machine.
Obviously this is important, because it changes the attack vector significantly. There's a big difference between being vulnerable to the battery manufacturer or if a random infection could push code to the battery (or even brick it).
It's actually not that terribly difficult to replace the "non-replaceable" batteries in the unibody MacBook Pros.
I'm not worried, mine has never been anywhere near a Chinaman.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Most firmware flashing requires the root password to perform, so I'm assuming that unless you're talking about removing the battery from the computer. So at least authentication is required for this, which lessens the threat considerably.
However, this is a very interesting angle. I can somewhat see where there's a password required for access, but it's more to keep the battery secure than the computer. Or possibly to prevent cycle-count tampering to get around warranty claims on consumed batteries that are still in warranty by calendar days.
So any bets how many days it takes Apple to push a security update that changes the password on any battery it sees? I can't imagine them letting this stand, and the password (on the battery end) is almost certainly in the firmware, so it should be changeable.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
No it doesn't. He grabbed the passwords from updates and now has access, no vulnerabilities required.
Opening a laptop case normally voids the warranty.
News at 11.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
But windows phone doesn't have spell check or working shift key.
Maybe you could hack the Win Phone's battery to install a spellchecker and a shift key.
It would be a real shame if there was a major malware attack on OSX and Apple was forced to flip the switch to make OSX refuse to run code that isn't signed by Apple. That kind of stuff must keep people in Cupertino awake at night.
If I install windows or some linux flavor on my mac, it doesn't mean this vulnerability goes away. It's a hardware problem, hardware made by someone besides apple. I'm not sure what this has to do with which operating system is most secure.
Let me point out the obvious.
*so you can have a working battery again*
So does anyone know if the firmware can be upgraded to cause the battery to burst into fames? That would be funny and probably not covered by the apple warranty.
Actually this may not be a vulnerability in units without a removeable battery. When a Lithium Ion [or polymer] battery is removable manufactures install microcontrollers with firmware to orchestrate the safety system and do battery life management. This firmware is often provided by the pack subcontractor rather then written by the larger system manufacturer...
The pack has firmware for two reasons:
1) There is a variety of failure mechanisms that can cause fire and explosion with Lithium Ion batteries. When the uC detects one of these is occurring the battery is either temporarily or permanently placed in "Safe" mode. This disconnects the battery from it's terminals. Since on units with removable batteries these conditions can occur outside of the unit, these important safety functions must be built into the battery. Your typical Cell phone battery has three or more terminals for these functions [even though only 2 terminals is needed to charge/discharge the battery]
===> Another safety concern is "fake" batteries which often don't have these safety features, so often the uC authenticates itself to the Laptop before it can be used. This protects from counterfeits and also makes the laptop manufacturer money on replacement batteries.....
2) Charge Cycles and battery capacity information is also stored and calculated. This information is provided to the higher level system, when the battery is inserted. This is important so your Laptop can guess (relatively accurately) how much time is left even after you change the battery to a possibly degraded or partially charged spare. [Current monitors detect how much power goes into the battery and how much is removed. Based on historical information from previous charge/discharge cycles a good guess on the remaining capacity can be made]
Things are different however in units with a non-user serviceable battery. A lot of the safety concerns can be explained away and not protected against, since the battery is in a more protected position (this all comes down to lawsuits, if you can say the user tampered with the unit and prove it then the company is off the hook...). So often they will have a "dumb" charger connected to the battery with most of the safety functions removed. A special purpose capacity monitor chip (without firmware) can be used for the power monitoring feature. Thus in a lot of systems you don't need the uC (and thus the firmware) at all, if you assume the battery can't be tampered with...
The only way Windows can be configured into a Fortress is keeping it in the shrink-wrap. :) It's funny... laugh.
Windows kept in the shrink-wrap is easily hacked. All you need is an ordinary axe.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Cool story bro.
This issue has absolutely nothing to do with OSX.
They employ 13-year-olds now?
Every computer or computer-like device that isn't so cheap that you can just throw it away should have a "factory reset" procedure that doesn't require a lot of technical skill, but which does require physical access.
Here's how it might work on a typical PC with write-able BIOS:
BIOS has 3 or 4 sets of code:
* Mini-bootstrap, which is read-only.
* Rescue code, which is read-only.
* Active boot BIOS, which is read-only except when either the "flash bios" or the "rescue me" jumper or switch is turned on.
* [optional] Copy of those parts of the BIOS needed after boot loaded into temporary memory by the OS
Normal boot sequence is
Mini-bootstrap -> Active boot BIOS -> whatever the boot BIOS loads next.
The purpose of the Mini-bootstrap is to validate the Active boot BIOS and only allow booting to continue if the Active boot BIOS passes an integrity check OR the "validation bypass" switch or jumper, if any, is on. Apple and other locked-device manufacturers will not have this jumper.
When the "rescue me" jumper or switch is on, the boot sequence becomes
Mini-bootstrap - > Rescue code
The rescue code's only job is to validate and copy replacement BIOS code from a defined location, such as the first USB port that has something plugged into it that passes the validation check (or the first USB port, if the "validation bypass" jumper or switch is set), over the existing Active boot BIOS and zero out any remaining bits.
The mini-bootstrap and rescue code and the hardware needed to run them should be simple enough that you are extremely highly confident they are free of bugs that keep them from doing their jobs.
The "normal" BIOS-flash routine would be as it is today, which on most computers is done either within the BIOS user interface or through the operating system's user interface.
By the way, I am very aware that most validation techniques can be defeated with enough time and effort, so this technique will only keep a device "locked" but at the same time "rescue-able" if the validation technique's secrets are kept secret until the device is considered obsolete. In other words, 2-5 years for many devices, a bit longer for home computers.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
No, I just posted something of equal value to your post. You certainly aren't interested in discussion but it's clear you wanted some interaction.
The battery on my MBP is built-in. I'd expect most other brands to allow you to replace the battery without resorting to screwdrivers.
Screwdrivers are scary to you or something? I pulled the back off of my new MBP - took all of 5 minutes. Now, if you're one of those relatively few people that swaps out batteries to keep working, then a new MacBook isn't your best choice. You only have a couple of hundred others. For the rest of us, replacing a used up battery every three years (and cleaning out the fans) isn't such a hardship.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
IIRC, it's not a household screwdriver. It's a tamperproof screwdriver, which is officially sold only to approved companies who use the tamperproof screws in their products. Not that this stops you buying one on ebay... there is always a grey market for something like that.
You must be judging my interest in discussion from some other post; there was nothing to discuss in yours. It would be disingenuous for you to argue differently. If you have an opposing argument I would be happy to consider it.
You may be suffering under a misconception though; I work on a lot of different platforms. Each has it's merits. The closest thing to being a fanboy that I ever exhibit would be for the music of ELO.
See:
http://www.rantsandpranks.com/2010/09/genocidal-hp-tech-support.html
http://www.rantsandpranks.com/2010/09/i-attack-country-of-norway-and-win.html
http://www.rantsandpranks.com/2010/11/joes-wife-got-rooted.html
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
I could write all about over generalizations and bad metaphors, but I'll avoid that, since your comment does a good enough job of demonstrating your hyperbole and rhetoric without me having to add my thoughts. Instead, I'll link to someone who disagrees with you and cites experts who disagree with you.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/21/mac_os_x_lion_security/
Now, I don't know enough about all of the Lion security upgrades to say that I necessarily agree with the article's claims that Lion is as secure as a mythical Windows 7++ or is the most secure OS out there, but to suggest that it's the least secure OS is insincere and illogical for you to have said, and deserves reexamination. You cite Linux as a fortress, but then provide no reasoning other than occasional breaches, which applies equally well to Macs, meaning that the number of breaches isn't the distinguishing feature between secure and insecure for you. If you want to suggest that Macs get by only thanks to security through obscurity, the same could be said of Linux, which enjoys even more obscurity, so calling one a fortress and the other the least secure wouldn't make sense if that were your criterion either. That only leaves the inherent design of the OS itself, but many of the security checkboxes that Windows and Mac OS have been ticking off these last few years are not present by default in the most popular Linux distros (e.g. ASLR isn't in the normal Gentoo distro). I can't find any logic in your comment that would justify calling Mac OS the least secure while referring to Linux as a fortress, which isn't to say that you're necessarily incorrect, just that your stated reasoning is flawed.
Also, I think you've forgotten an important distinction. I've always made an effort to educate people on the difference between security and safety when determining risks involved. A house with bars on the windows and locks on the doors is secure, but if it's in a high-crime area, it's not safe. Conversely, a house lacking bars and locks is insecure, but if it's in an area with no crime, it's still safe. Regardless of your thoughts on Mac security, Macs have enjoyed a great deal of safety in recent years, and safety really is the more important metric, since it talks about reality as opposed to mere possibilities.
Now, that's not to say that security should be ignored. Far from it, in fact, and I want to make that perfectly clear, since the potential does indeed exist for massive damage to be done in an insecure area even if it was previously safe. But the pendulum swings the other way too, and people who repeatedly decry something that is safe for reasons that fail to come to fruition are just made to look the fool. That Apple has improved the security in Mac OS significantly in the last few years should further allay any of those concerns.
Windows server is configured to be secure by default. The other versions are certainly not. There is always a tradeoff between security and convenience for the user. MS sides with security on the server default, and convenience on the non-server default. This can be seen in hundreds of tiny little decisions.
.mp3 file (As WMP doesn't go by extension to identify file type) can easily be enough to pick up something nasty. On server? Media player isn't even installed. Nor, for that matter, is the service for audio enabled by default.
To name just one random example, Windows Media Player can run scripts embedded in WMA/WMV/ASF files, and does by default - a feature intended to allow for DRMed files to fetch licence information from a website, but in practice used mostly by p2p-propagated viruses and malware. On the non-server versions of windows, playing a
I used to work on 'network management' and the NMS systems would drill down and do queries on the equipment in the rack. equipment usually would support an 'environmental' data set that includes dynamic info (volts, current, fan-flow, temperature) but also static info (serial #, vendor #, batch #, pcb version, firmware version). its useful to have that.
I learned from experience that the closer to the device this info lives, the better. there can be multiple NMSs that walk the network or poll devices. if the info is stored 'in the cloud' (barf..) then all the NMSs have to replicate and share that info. otoh, when you keep the info on the device, any NMS can get at the info and the info is more 'definitive' (the closer you are, the more you 'own' that info that describes you).
connect this to batteries. these are devices that could benefit from unique-id's. if the battery is removed from one of your laptops and used in another, the charging history, last charge timestamp - all that would be *on* the battery and the local o/s could use it or the local charging station could use it. it 'belongs' more on the device than on some remote system. this is one reason to have a chip 'in there'.
the down side is that many (most?) 'chipped batteries' exist to lock you OUT of doing things you want, like finding a 2nd or 3rd source for the battery. panasonic was a good example: they once were open and while not officially endorsed, you could find $5 ebay cheap knockoffs instead of the $50 vendor rechargeable. well, the good times ended and they 'pulled a sony' and now pany batteries are chipped. 'for your protection' but they are authentication chipped for vendor lock-in (or lock-out, depending on POV).
there's good and bad. the 'remote element mangement' engineer in me likes having the info really on the device. but the authentication 'chipping' of batteries sickens me to no end.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
No, you really aren't interested in discussion:
To argue anything different would be to argue that Bakersfield, CA is more secure than NYC because they have had no terrorists crash their planes into buildings there.
So, your position is that your opinion is fact, and no amount of arguing will change that.
To all the apple guys out there who tell people that macs are inherently more secure than PCs - shame on you. And if you are a mac user who takes exception to that last sentence, be a flagrant non-conformist and re-read it before you hit the reply button.
Frothing anger whilst you type some variation of "I never do that, how dare you flame ALL mac users" makes you look like a entirely different type of fool than the ones described.
Again, your position here is a pre-emptive ad hominem. You're clearly not interested in discussion, you just wanted to flame Apple.
You cannot start from the position of "I am right, and if you try to say I'm not, you're a clueless fanboy who should be ashamed of holding a different opinion to me" and expect to be taken seriously.
All you have to do is program it to never stop "charging." I would imagine that would not do anything good for the battery - at the very least it will continue heating it until something fun happens.
This why you NEED battry packs that can be Removed from the systems.
Windows PHONE has this.
An operating system has removable battery packs?
Perhaps what you meant is "some (or all?) mobile phones not from Apple have this"; not all such phones run Windows.
I regret not being more specific in my original post. I consider linux to be a server OS, and server builds of linux are generally very secure by default. Desktop versions of linux often have MANY security flaws - but who cares, very few people use it.
I purposely did not use the word "safety", and by your use of it you are trying to change my argument into one you can attack.
Please re-read the sentence that I purposely emphasized by asking the reader to re-read. I spoke only of zealots who tell people that OSX is *inherently* more secure.
Most of your argument applies to subjects I did not touch on. A bit of a waste of typing by my lights.
As for your claim that OSX has improved it's security in recent years - *how could you know that*? Because you read it somewhere? The people at Pearl Harbor probably had vastly superior security in 1941 than they did in 1930 - a fat bit of good that did them.
You can't judge security in a vacuum. Linux as a server OS is under a constant barrage of attacks. Windows as both a server and desktop OS is under a constant barrage of attacks.
OSX in under about the same volume of attacks as Bakersfield, CA.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
And yet you still have nothing to add to the discussion. I stand by my original reply to you.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
The registry. Experience has taught me that everything in Windows is somewhere in the registry.
Where's the registry?
Bow-ties are cool.
If it's a problem at Apple then it's a problem with a number of other hardware devices that use the same battery controllers, so your windoze laptops isn't safe either. Someone could also hack my Logitech Mouse and brick it too, or any number of peripherals that have upgradeable firmware, like my router, printer, keyboard, the list goes on.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Remove batteries from Apple laptops when reimaging them (until after all patches are applied). Sigh. And here I thought it was just the Apple keyboards which were a potential malware nest.
BTW, Apple batteries have had firmware for the last 10-15 years, so your info is a little late.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
I wasn't attacking with my last two paragraphs (aside from the comment about decrying), nor was I attempting to twist your security comments into something about safety. Rather, I was merely attempting to add some additional information in a tangential direction that I thought might be nice to touch on, if not for you, than for anyone else who came along and read it. So, yes, wasted words, perhaps. I don't mind.
I caught your "inherently" comment the first time, and I understood your intent. I never tried to defend the types of zealots you spoke of, nor did I disagree with what you said there. In fact, to the contrary, I agree with what you were saying there. That said, I was trying to point out some degree of hypocrisy on your own part in denouncing those zealots while making similar-ish statements regarding Linux without providing any justification.
As for the rest of your response, you mention that we can't judge security in a vacuum, and I certainly don't disagree, but I do disagree with your assertion that Macs face no attacks. You may criticize me for believing something because I read it (despite the fact that I stated I was skeptical), but at least I had the decency to cite something when making a claim. You've repeated this idea that Macs aren't under attack without providing any factual basis for the statement.
It's well known that Macs attract a more affluent demographic, and they have an installed base in the tens of millions, making them a juicy target. They share the same Internet as the other OSes, so they're just as accessible to the attackers. So, we have a juicy target that's able to be accessed just as easily as the ones you claim are under frequent assault. Why wouldn't it be under attack?
if you're one of those relatively few people that swaps out batteries to keep working, then a new MacBook isn't your best choice
Brilliant. That text should be included, maybe a bullet point, in all of Apple's marketing literature.
One of the problems with LiON cells is that the logic controller can get the wrong impression about the state of the cell it is controlling. (This is for various reasons, but the most common is that it uses a function of charge/discharge time, and voltage output per cell to determine if the cell is bad or not.)
Some charging solutions "Pulse charge" a cell to bring the voltage back up to the point where the charge logic will turn the cell back on again, but this is dangerous because the pulsing can make lithium dendrites in the cell. (Solutions like "Battery conditioners" that try to revive "dead" batteries.)
By being able to hotwire the firmware, you should be able to force the charge logic to re-enable cells using a more sophisticated host-processor controlled logic formula, to better detect truly bad cells, and turn "Not really bad, but miscalibrated" cells back on again.
Such a thing could be a very hot seller, especially given Apple's proclevity for insisting that batteries never be removed or serviced.
the shine's off the Apple!
It wasn't mentioned in the article, but I'm curious whether this is a custom-for-Apple microcontroller/firmware, or one of the several off-the-shelf battery authentication ICs currently on the market. Firmware on a battery is not entirely suprising - charge management, capacity counting, authentication and various safety checks can be cheaply integrated that way, and a little serial bootloader onboard for emergency bugfixes is a "why-not" feature. In the case of authentication, some manufacturers are now using cryptographic hashes (one such chip has hardware SHA-1 built in) to function similarly to the lockout chips on Lexmark ink cartridges. The gadget can refuse to operate from aftermarket / "unauthorized" batteries, ensuring (depending who's telling it) user safety or vendor lock-in / planned obsolescence. Viable hacks for these give some promise that some lazy vendors' battery packs can be replaced usefully beyond the manufacturer's designated product lifespan :-)
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
It is in fact true that any computer, any system can be hacked, infected, etc, it is also true that malware that rages hell on the average Windows O/S *seems* to be bit easier to clean up on a mac OS - in my opinion probably from the design inherited from its Unix core. Something a hardware vulnerability that could exist for ANY O/S, computer system with this kind of tech.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
After Windowsupdate.com, now it will be Batteryupdate.com.
Somewhere in a basement in Guangdong or Beijing, keyboards are already at work to create a new Blaster.
lucm, indeed.
* can not completely negate AT ALL.
*/. cut off my sentence >,_,
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
here is the best part and the one we all hope for: " completely disable the batteries on Apple laptops, making them permanently unusable " and rid the world of these poor excuses for 'computers'......
if electricity is created by electrons, is morality created by morons?
One of the other problems is that Apple is running BSD in there instead of Linux so they wouldn't have to worry about GPL :-)
Anyone remember the 1541? One of the things you could do was store data (code) in its memory that could survive a reboot of the computer itself. Retro malware, anyone?
-=- James.
The only thing about this story that keeps people in Cupertino awake ist the simple fact that people could use this vulnerability to reset the charge counter of the battery and try to file a warranty claim.
My mbp runs for about 5 hours playing eve online without external power. Doing normal work is much better, web browsing will get me 10 from a full charge. I don't have a reason to swap batteries, no bullet point needed, there is only a problem if I go for days without power. Which happens when I go camping, intentionally getting away from technology ... No where in the civilized world have I ever run out of power on my mbp.
Perhaps you should stop buying shitty laptops that require a nuclear pile to run more than an hour or two?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Yea... I have a unibody mbp. The hard part is the 3 screws at the back, they take at least 3 times as many turns!
Seriously, you just unscrew the bottom cover, unscrew the battery itself, one screw, unplug the battery. Revese process with new battery.
Total time? 10 minutes the first time you do it cause your looking at other things while your in there
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Will include an EFI update which verifies the battery firmware and overwrites it if the firmware doesn't match on boot.
Of course, you need root to do any of this, and by the time someone has root on your machine, they can brick it in several other ways now days.
Well, okay, you can't really brick it ... but I'm using bring in the same sense as the article, where its used incorrectly.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Is it that they have more, or openly admit to and fix more?
I'm asking seriously, as an Apple owner, I'm aware of the statistics and that OSX is not at the top of the ladder in security.
I don't have a problem with exploit count when you're forging unknown territory, new ideas are going to be abused in new ways that we can't always see coming no matter how good we are.
I'm more concerned with what the chance of those things causing me problems than how many their are.
I don't worry about mac exploits for the same reason I don't on Windows, I don't put myself in harms way, and I admit, I also believe that OSX (just like Linux) is a much smaller profit to hax0rs than Windows, so they aren't going to waste their time with me. Its not cost effective to exploit me or a Linux box (desktop Linux, servers are obviously much more common and a valid target). We all know it can be done, on both, almost as easy as windows using 'user exploits' (i.e. make the stupid user run something that infects them rather than an actual exploit)
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Allow me a curling analogy. When you don't have the advantage of the last play (the "hammer" in curling), then it is better to first build up your defense, then attack.
Now suppose that you find a weakness in a hardware component (such as a battery) and because of some dark agenda you want to use this to do extensive damage to a lot of computers. If you release your best attack immediately, you will do some damage, but then the vendor (or antivirus companies) will work on a fix and use their existing distribution channels to send this patch as quickly as possible to as many computers as possible. They have the "hammer". So instead what you do? You work on your defense first; you create a worm to disable the patch delivery (such as Windowsupdate.com), and once the patches cannot be delivered anymore, then you release your masterpiece and you do a lot more damage because the opponent cannot use its hammer.
Now did this actually happen with Blaster? I don't know. But it's the way to go, according to the curling handbook.
lucm, indeed.
Use non-Apple batteries when availability is critical. And given the same sort of corporate-entitlement-centered gimmickry is used on things like name-brand printer cartridges, perhaps the lesson is to use non-American knock-off products in general when you need absolute reliability.
Can he hack mine so they don't start expanding in disturbing ways? I've had 2 do that now, in just over 2 years.
Nick Waterman, Sr Tech Director, #include <stddisclaimer>