I have to wonder how many owners they will be able to successfully contact. It has been a long time since I've actually seen a WHOIS record listing a valid email address. Plus, popular registration services like Dotster now offer email masking as a standard part of domain registration.
I think this is mostly due to the trend of spammers attempting to "steal" domain registrations by doing thousands of WHOIS searches and contacting domain owners.
I use a standard MP3 CD player in my car - and as a result have a very simple way to convert audible content to pure MP3.
Just download the older version of Audible's software - I think version 3 or below will work, and use the codec that comes with it. Grab Goldwave, a very impressive digital audio editing program, for less than $50. It'll be happy to open audible files using the codec mentioned, put in splits at silences (cue points), and save the individual blocks into MP3 files. Overall, conversion of a 6 hour book or book part takes 2-3 hours on my P4 1.3.
I've converted dozens of audiobooks this way and never had a problem playing them in my RFX9000.
That would be an easy way to listen to audible content on these new Dell players.
Thanks to all for clarifications. I'm pretty familar with hashes - but just assumed the password itself was stored. Moronic logic at its best.
Now, I still maintain that this is nothing new. Using my commercial cracker, I can still change data, re-protect with my same-hash password, and the original person would never know the difference as their password would unprotect just as well.
There have been utilities to obtain Word passwords for quite a while. I've tested mine on Office 2000 and XP protected documents and had great success.
What's odd: The password returned by my tool of choice is not the same as the one actually stored - but when I enter this new password OR the original password into Word, the document is successfully unprotected. Some sort of odd math that makes more than one password work?
Example - I protected both a Word 2000 and Word 2002 document with the password "test" then ran them through my cracker. The cracker returned the password "QFQDOBCTGLHGEE" virtually instantly for both documents. Oddly enough, this new unusual password successfully unlocked both Word documents using Tools > Unprotect Document. Subsequent testing reveals that the original password will also unprotect the document.
So, if such passwords can easily be bypassed anyway - what does this really change?
I should note that I'm using a Passware product called Office Key.
This crack just takes what has been commercially available for quite some time and moves it into the public arena.
They seem to be a bit less restrictive than Napster2.
From their usage agreement:
You may download music to a single computer. You may then transfer music files and backup license files to up to two (2) additional personal computers. You may play music an unlimited number of times on up to three (3) personal computers. You shall be entitled to 1) burn Products solely for personal, non-commercial use up to ten (10) times and 2) export Products solely to a portable device capable of playing Windows Media (TM) Audio ("WMA") files such as a WMA-compliant MP3 player an unlimited number of times. WALMART.COM is a reseller to you and does not accept orders from music dealers, exporters, wholesalers, any businesses of any kind or other customers who intend to resell.
Emphasis mine.Still, I won't pay for any music until I can burn it to CD in MP3 or Ogg format. My car has an MP3 player and changing CDs every hour or so has become as objectionable to me as following the speed limit.
As for the submitter's claim that wal-mart might be able to make this the "most prevalent online music service," whatever happened to the ISP that wal-mart tried to float? I rest my case.
I used to do exactly the same thing with my PDA - but what about synchronizing with a server? If you lose the phone, you report it stolen and get a replacement. The server dispatches your saved items to you via some sort of initialization process, disables your old phone via a unique ID of sorts, and you're back in business.
While I love this idea in principle, I do have a few concerns before I welcome our new overlords.
What about standards? The article compares the smart chip technique to credit cards, but credit cards use a pseudo-standardized magnetic strip methodology. Are retailers to have 10 different receivers sitting at their POS terminals for 10 different cell phone/smart card providers? Along these lines - adopting early could be dangerous as one may invest in hardware that does not conform to the final standard and therefore be useless.
What about security? Until more information about how the protocol works, how security is maintained, and exactly how one can control what information is broadcasted is released, can we really trust this technology with our personal information? And this doesn't even begin to cover eavesdropping. (My tinfoil hat may be disrupting my thinking here)
When I hand my credit card to a clerk, I know exactly what information will be gleaned by the scanner from the magnetic strip. It doesn't change. What happens when I get a firmware upgrade on my phone? Can I trust that I am still secure from unauthorized access or even that my phone/ID/credit card gizmo is still only transmitting information that I approve?
One interesting alternative to this close-contact technology would be an internet-based alternative. In this scenario, my phone would use XML over SSL or some other standardized system to tell my provider to tell the POS that I am there and to relay what other information is necessary. Using this method, software-based upgrades could take care of standardization without any modification to hardware.
Re:I won't give them the satisfaction.
on
Paperless Billing?
·
· Score: 1
I should clarify.
I do PAY my bill online by credit card - but can't access itemized details like I can with my paper bill. (I still save them the cost of opening an envelope and taking out a paper check - mostly because I hate writing checks.)
Josh.
I won't give them the satisfaction.
on
Paperless Billing?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
My credit card provider has been trying to get me to go with online billing for a while now, and to be honest, it would be easier for me - but I just won't give them the satisfaction.
They save money when you choose to get your bill online only, and so they refuse to allow me to get my bill online and off, though that would be truly customer-centric. So, until they offer to give ME a portion of the savings from mailing every month, they'll just have to keep licking envelopes.
D-Squared is basically sending a series of packets to a specific port on the user's machine that is causing code to be ran, right?
What about the latest list of RPC virii? Don't they do exactly the same thing? Sure, the code that D-Squared is causing to be executed was written by MS and the code that the virii run are written by their respective authors - but the two are essentially the same.
How long before the courts allow virus authors to write antivirii and advertise them in the virus itself?
I recently wrote a traffic stop statistical program for a sheriff's office that used their laptop touchscreens as the primary mode of input. From that short 2-day project, I learned a few points that I'll pass on now.
First, make everything larger than you need it to be. I've found that the size of buttons I need on a touchscreen is only about 1/3rd as large as some of my less adept users. (Of course, they are also using these in laptops in often-moving vehicles.)
Secondly, try to severely limit the items on any given screen. I've found that users tend to be faster visual-scanners when they can just "tap" as they move their eyes, providing too many options on one screen can lead to more false-clicks.
As far as drivers go - just process the input as a one button mouse.
Not really. Access has an odd version of non-standard SQL. I write code to interact with mySQL, MSSQL, and Oracle databases at work all the time. Recently, I had to write some code to interact with Access for police laptops as interacting with a central server was too bandwidth intensive for their in-cruiser RF computer network. Access was VERY picky and rejected more than a dozen commands that would have worked fine in any of the three major SQL DBMS products.
In short, Access shouldn't be used to teach SQL. Anything more than basic SELECT operations on integer fields will start requiring the use of non-standard extensions and work-arounds.
Access is great for teaching the basics of relational databases - but Enterprise Manager, which ships with MSSQL, is superior in this respect also.
Though many have criticized this article as not really representing cracking or bypassing security in any impressive manner, I think there is a deeper issue here.
What information of use could be gleaned at future meetings or other UN events? The same people very likely do event security for this and other conferences, and the type of information that could be gleaned or the damage that could be done at other events is something to be taken seriously.
Personally, I despise the UN - but they (through US) are a force in the world and a breach of their security is nothing to laugh at too quickly.
To a certain extent, I agree with you. However, I also have a serious concern. If ISPs start taking compensation from various individuals or organizations to monitor their customers, where does the privacy line get drawn? Can a spammer pay to obtain usage statistics for users? Can the government pay for email logs without any sort of legal clarification? The idea is solid in principle, but I am concerned with the implementation and what effects we may see as a byproduct.
Secondly, I'm concerned with false positives due to log monitoring. We've all heard the horror stories of perfectly legal MP3 files tripping flags in BOT scans. Does an ISP have the right to listen to those files to validate if they're legitimate or not?
The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
Its not clear whether this refers to "intellectual property" or not, but I would presume it does. I believe my original comments hold up as the threat to sue employees of the company would constitute wrongful use of... threatened force, or fear.
I wouldn't be surprised if the employees yielded anyway, just to avoid the expense of a possible lawsuit.
To clarify, its not the use of the civic legal system that I object to. Rather, its the fact that they are threatening to do something obviously inappropriate (sue an employee of a company that did nothing illegal and may have had no knowledge of the illegal operation) if said employee does not cooperate. (By cooperate, I mean sell one's soul to the industry.)
I guess what it really comes down to is this: Did the employees themselves do anything that is illegal or otherwise violates the industry's rights? Unless they personally contributed to the client site in question, the answer is no - and the threat is therefore extortion in my view.
Though I had considered this case closed, some dark corner of my mind hates half-truths and poor logic and must respond. First, allow me to assure you that I am informed as to the meaning of "BTW" and any number of other short-hand devices. With that critical on-topic detail at rest, allow me to correct a few of your summary assertions. 1. Belkin is actually still screwing the pooch on this one. 2. Some individuals may never understand analyzing something on the basis of principle, with respect to scope. 3. The word "vengeance" is not spelled "vengence." 4. The length of this thread is entirely out of proportion to my interest in it. 5. This isn't just a sign-up page, its an advertisement for a subscription service. 6. Any intelligent disagreeing opinion is classified as a flame. 7. This thread is overdue for a respectful agreement to disagree on principle here. 8. I have work in 4 hours, I'm really should be going to bed.
Belkin changed the statement on their website today. They are no longer admitting that they made a mistake. The new text reads:
Belkin is aware of some recent postings that claim that Belkin wireless routers are spamming users during the setup process and periodically thereafter. It is not now, nor has it ever been, the policy of Belkin to intentionally spam our customers or anyone else. Belkin offers a free trial of our parental control feature in our routers, and to make our customers aware of the feature itself and to give them the opportunity to take advantage of the free trial, we have tried to direct users to the information regarding the parental control features. However, since this has become a source of concern to our users, and it is Belkin policy to address the concerns of our users quickly, Belkin has decided to remove this function from the routers. Each router's firmware that incorporates parental control as an option will be changed.
Please expect more detailed information to follow early next week. Thank you.
It would appear as though our concerns were not taken as seriously as I, for one, had thought. If Belkin isn't admitting wrong-doing, what is to prevent them from doing something like this in the future? Their quick response had put some of their products back on my list, but this changes has eliminated them - forever.
I'll start by paraphrasing something you said earlier in this thread: stick to the issue. Personal attacks will get you nowhere.
Now, parental controls may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but its not relevant here. That is the first point I've tried to make and you've not, as of yet, supplied any evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, the fact that you agree with virtually 100% of those who've voiced an opinion on this topic on/. doesn't prove that you understand the principle involved. We must realize that principle and practice aren't two totally detachable concepts, one flows into the other. Perhaps this is the difference in our thinking. I firmly believe that the error is important, regardless of the end-user benefits that might eventually be received.
An associate of mine does use a Belkin wifi router on his home network, and we already are trying to find some time to get together and test it. We're curious to understand as much about the problem as we can, as is the case with us and all IT problems.
While it is important to analyze an issue in scope, it is also important to consider the principle - something that seemed lost in your original messages.
There are any number of times when most of us have let something slide because it didn't really matter in the long run, and this often results in increasing boldness of inappropriate behavior. Had we all complained in unison when the first "Service Charge" was introduced on cell phones, would we have so many charges above our "monthly cost" now? Exaggerating is valid and only distorts the debate when one does not consider it in proper context.
Belkin is starting down a slippery slope here, and my exaggeration can help us to understand just how far such slopes can go.
The two are obviously very different in scale, but one of the best ways to understand a point is to exaggerate it into stark relief. Look at the issue in principal for a moment and you'll see that my point is not a flame but a valid way of considering the issue. The "advertisement methodology" is the act of redirecting an HTTP request to a sign-up page for a subscription service. Think through the point.
Flame on.
The value of the feature isn't really relevant to this discussion. One could argue that Hitler's research scientists learned lessons that helped modern medicine, but that in no way validates the brutalities they committed in the process. In the same way, an innovative router control feature is nice and deserves respect, but in no way validates an obviously asinine advertisement methodology used to advance that new feature.
Belkin is in the wrong here. If they do fix this problem promptly, then they'll be back in consideration for my IT purchases, though certainly a few pegs lower. I certainly won't purchase any other Belkin routers, but their rapid response to this issue just might save their KVMs etc. from by blacklist.
I got the same thing back from Belkin. The response had a very oddly spaced partial-quote of my original email to them and appeared very hastily sent. I'm guessing we've got their support people running ragged. I say we all use our second and third accounts and contact all of their addresses again - just to make sure they understand the breadth of the group they are now locked in a conflict with.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to wonder how many owners they will be able to successfully contact. It has been a long time since I've actually seen a WHOIS record listing a valid email address. Plus, popular registration services like Dotster now offer email masking as a standard part of domain registration.
I think this is mostly due to the trend of spammers attempting to "steal" domain registrations by doing thousands of WHOIS searches and contacting domain owners.
I use a standard MP3 CD player in my car - and as a result have a very simple way to convert audible content to pure MP3.
Just download the older version of Audible's software - I think version 3 or below will work, and use the codec that comes with it. Grab Goldwave, a very impressive digital audio editing program, for less than $50. It'll be happy to open audible files using the codec mentioned, put in splits at silences (cue points), and save the individual blocks into MP3 files. Overall, conversion of a 6 hour book or book part takes 2-3 hours on my P4 1.3.
I've converted dozens of audiobooks this way and never had a problem playing them in my RFX9000.
That would be an easy way to listen to audible content on these new Dell players.
Thanks to all for clarifications. I'm pretty familar with hashes - but just assumed the password itself was stored. Moronic logic at its best.
Now, I still maintain that this is nothing new. Using my commercial cracker, I can still change data, re-protect with my same-hash password, and the original person would never know the difference as their password would unprotect just as well.
There have been utilities to obtain Word passwords for quite a while. I've tested mine on Office 2000 and XP protected documents and had great success.
What's odd: The password returned by my tool of choice is not the same as the one actually stored - but when I enter this new password OR the original password into Word, the document is successfully unprotected. Some sort of odd math that makes more than one password work?
Example - I protected both a Word 2000 and Word 2002 document with the password "test" then ran them through my cracker. The cracker returned the password "QFQDOBCTGLHGEE" virtually instantly for both documents. Oddly enough, this new unusual password successfully unlocked both Word documents using Tools > Unprotect Document. Subsequent testing reveals that the original password will also unprotect the document.
So, if such passwords can easily be bypassed anyway - what does this really change?
I should note that I'm using a Passware product called Office Key.
This crack just takes what has been commercially available for quite some time and moves it into the public arena.
Josh
They seem to be a bit less restrictive than Napster2.
From their usage agreement:
You may download music to a single computer. You may then transfer music files and backup license files to up to two (2) additional personal computers. You may play music an unlimited number of times on up to three (3) personal computers. You shall be entitled to 1) burn Products solely for personal, non-commercial use up to ten (10) times and 2) export Products solely to a portable device capable of playing Windows Media (TM) Audio ("WMA") files such as a WMA-compliant MP3 player an unlimited number of times. WALMART.COM is a reseller to you and does not accept orders from music dealers, exporters, wholesalers, any businesses of any kind or other customers who intend to resell.
Emphasis mine.Still, I won't pay for any music until I can burn it to CD in MP3 or Ogg format. My car has an MP3 player and changing CDs every hour or so has become as objectionable to me as following the speed limit.
As for the submitter's claim that wal-mart might be able to make this the "most prevalent online music service," whatever happened to the ISP that wal-mart tried to float? I rest my case.
I used to do exactly the same thing with my PDA - but what about synchronizing with a server? If you lose the phone, you report it stolen and get a replacement. The server dispatches your saved items to you via some sort of initialization process, disables your old phone via a unique ID of sorts, and you're back in business.
While I love this idea in principle, I do have a few concerns before I welcome our new overlords.
What about standards? The article compares the smart chip technique to credit cards, but credit cards use a pseudo-standardized magnetic strip methodology. Are retailers to have 10 different receivers sitting at their POS terminals for 10 different cell phone/smart card providers? Along these lines - adopting early could be dangerous as one may invest in hardware that does not conform to the final standard and therefore be useless.
What about security? Until more information about how the protocol works, how security is maintained, and exactly how one can control what information is broadcasted is released, can we really trust this technology with our personal information? And this doesn't even begin to cover eavesdropping. (My tinfoil hat may be disrupting my thinking here)
When I hand my credit card to a clerk, I know exactly what information will be gleaned by the scanner from the magnetic strip. It doesn't change. What happens when I get a firmware upgrade on my phone? Can I trust that I am still secure from unauthorized access or even that my phone/ID/credit card gizmo is still only transmitting information that I approve?
One interesting alternative to this close-contact technology would be an internet-based alternative. In this scenario, my phone would use XML over SSL or some other standardized system to tell my provider to tell the POS that I am there and to relay what other information is necessary. Using this method, software-based upgrades could take care of standardization without any modification to hardware.
I should clarify.
I do PAY my bill online by credit card - but can't access itemized details like I can with my paper bill. (I still save them the cost of opening an envelope and taking out a paper check - mostly because I hate writing checks.)
Josh.
My credit card provider has been trying to get me to go with online billing for a while now, and to be honest, it would be easier for me - but I just won't give them the satisfaction.
They save money when you choose to get your bill online only, and so they refuse to allow me to get my bill online and off, though that would be truly customer-centric. So, until they offer to give ME a portion of the savings from mailing every month, they'll just have to keep licking envelopes.
Josh.
Ok, let's analyze this on a technical level.
D-Squared is basically sending a series of packets to a specific port on the user's machine that is causing code to be ran, right?
What about the latest list of RPC virii? Don't they do exactly the same thing? Sure, the code that D-Squared is causing to be executed was written by MS and the code that the virii run are written by their respective authors - but the two are essentially the same.
How long before the courts allow virus authors to write antivirii and advertise them in the virus itself?
I recently wrote a traffic stop statistical program for a sheriff's office that used their laptop touchscreens as the primary mode of input. From that short 2-day project, I learned a few points that I'll pass on now.
First, make everything larger than you need it to be. I've found that the size of buttons I need on a touchscreen is only about 1/3rd as large as some of my less adept users. (Of course, they are also using these in laptops in often-moving vehicles.)
Secondly, try to severely limit the items on any given screen. I've found that users tend to be faster visual-scanners when they can just "tap" as they move their eyes, providing too many options on one screen can lead to more false-clicks.
As far as drivers go - just process the input as a one button mouse.
Not really. Access has an odd version of non-standard SQL. I write code to interact with mySQL, MSSQL, and Oracle databases at work all the time. Recently, I had to write some code to interact with Access for police laptops as interacting with a central server was too bandwidth intensive for their in-cruiser RF computer network. Access was VERY picky and rejected more than a dozen commands that would have worked fine in any of the three major SQL DBMS products.
In short, Access shouldn't be used to teach SQL. Anything more than basic SELECT operations on integer fields will start requiring the use of non-standard extensions and work-arounds.
Access is great for teaching the basics of relational databases - but Enterprise Manager, which ships with MSSQL, is superior in this respect also.
Though many have criticized this article as not really representing cracking or bypassing security in any impressive manner, I think there is a deeper issue here.
What information of use could be gleaned at future meetings or other UN events? The same people very likely do event security for this and other conferences, and the type of information that could be gleaned or the damage that could be done at other events is something to be taken seriously.
Personally, I despise the UN - but they (through US) are a force in the world and a breach of their security is nothing to laugh at too quickly.
To a certain extent, I agree with you. However, I also have a serious concern. If ISPs start taking compensation from various individuals or organizations to monitor their customers, where does the privacy line get drawn? Can a spammer pay to obtain usage statistics for users? Can the government pay for email logs without any sort of legal clarification? The idea is solid in principle, but I am concerned with the implementation and what effects we may see as a byproduct.
Secondly, I'm concerned with false positives due to log monitoring. We've all heard the horror stories of perfectly legal MP3 files tripping flags in BOT scans. Does an ISP have the right to listen to those files to validate if they're legitimate or not?
Just a few concerns I have...
From the 'Lectric Law Library:
The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
Its not clear whether this refers to "intellectual property" or not, but I would presume it does. I believe my original comments hold up as the threat to sue employees of the company would constitute wrongful use of... threatened force, or fear.
I wouldn't be surprised if the employees yielded anyway, just to avoid the expense of a possible lawsuit.
Interesting point of view.
To clarify, its not the use of the civic legal system that I object to. Rather, its the fact that they are threatening to do something obviously inappropriate (sue an employee of a company that did nothing illegal and may have had no knowledge of the illegal operation) if said employee does not cooperate. (By cooperate, I mean sell one's soul to the industry.)
I guess what it really comes down to is this: Did the employees themselves do anything that is illegal or otherwise violates the industry's rights? Unless they personally contributed to the client site in question, the answer is no - and the threat is therefore extortion in my view.
Food for thought...
Merriam webster's dictionary of extorting:
To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation
So, the industry is saying "give us information or get sued." Sounds like intimidation and coercion to me.
Though I had considered this case closed, some dark corner of my mind hates half-truths and poor logic and must respond. First, allow me to assure you that I am informed as to the meaning of "BTW" and any number of other short-hand devices. With that critical on-topic detail at rest, allow me to correct a few of your summary assertions. 1. Belkin is actually still screwing the pooch on this one. 2. Some individuals may never understand analyzing something on the basis of principle, with respect to scope. 3. The word "vengeance" is not spelled "vengence." 4. The length of this thread is entirely out of proportion to my interest in it. 5. This isn't just a sign-up page, its an advertisement for a subscription service. 6. Any intelligent disagreeing opinion is classified as a flame. 7. This thread is overdue for a respectful agreement to disagree on principle here. 8. I have work in 4 hours, I'm really should be going to bed.
Belkin changed the statement on their website today. They are no longer admitting that they made a mistake. The new text reads:
Belkin is aware of some recent postings that claim that Belkin wireless routers are spamming users during the setup process and periodically thereafter. It is not now, nor has it ever been, the policy of Belkin to intentionally spam our customers or anyone else. Belkin offers a free trial of our parental control feature in our routers, and to make our customers aware of the feature itself and to give them the opportunity to take advantage of the free trial, we have tried to direct users to the information regarding the parental control features. However, since this has become a source of concern to our users, and it is Belkin policy to address the concerns of our users quickly, Belkin has decided to remove this function from the routers. Each router's firmware that incorporates parental control as an option will be changed. Please expect more detailed information to follow early next week. Thank you.
It would appear as though our concerns were not taken as seriously as I, for one, had thought. If Belkin isn't admitting wrong-doing, what is to prevent them from doing something like this in the future? Their quick response had put some of their products back on my list, but this changes has eliminated them - forever.
Josh.
I'll start by paraphrasing something you said earlier in this thread: stick to the issue. Personal attacks will get you nowhere.
/. doesn't prove that you understand the principle involved. We must realize that principle and practice aren't two totally detachable concepts, one flows into the other. Perhaps this is the difference in our thinking. I firmly believe that the error is important, regardless of the end-user benefits that might eventually be received.
Now, parental controls may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but its not relevant here. That is the first point I've tried to make and you've not, as of yet, supplied any evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, the fact that you agree with virtually 100% of those who've voiced an opinion on this topic on
But thanks for reiterating the obvious.
An associate of mine does use a Belkin wifi router on his home network, and we already are trying to find some time to get together and test it. We're curious to understand as much about the problem as we can, as is the case with us and all IT problems.
While it is important to analyze an issue in scope, it is also important to consider the principle - something that seemed lost in your original messages.
There are any number of times when most of us have let something slide because it didn't really matter in the long run, and this often results in increasing boldness of inappropriate behavior. Had we all complained in unison when the first "Service Charge" was introduced on cell phones, would we have so many charges above our "monthly cost" now? Exaggerating is valid and only distorts the debate when one does not consider it in proper context.
Belkin is starting down a slippery slope here, and my exaggeration can help us to understand just how far such slopes can go.
s/principal/principle I hate it when I do that.
The two are obviously very different in scale, but one of the best ways to understand a point is to exaggerate it into stark relief. Look at the issue in principal for a moment and you'll see that my point is not a flame but a valid way of considering the issue. The "advertisement methodology" is the act of redirecting an HTTP request to a sign-up page for a subscription service. Think through the point. Flame on.
The value of the feature isn't really relevant to this discussion. One could argue that Hitler's research scientists learned lessons that helped modern medicine, but that in no way validates the brutalities they committed in the process. In the same way, an innovative router control feature is nice and deserves respect, but in no way validates an obviously asinine advertisement methodology used to advance that new feature. Belkin is in the wrong here. If they do fix this problem promptly, then they'll be back in consideration for my IT purchases, though certainly a few pegs lower. I certainly won't purchase any other Belkin routers, but their rapid response to this issue just might save their KVMs etc. from by blacklist.
I got the same thing back from Belkin. The response had a very oddly spaced partial-quote of my original email to them and appeared very hastily sent. I'm guessing we've got their support people running ragged. I say we all use our second and third accounts and contact all of their addresses again - just to make sure they understand the breadth of the group they are now locked in a conflict with.