Great input, I wish I could mod you up for this (possible slashdot feature in the future, creators of ask slashdot stories mod up the information they found helpful and useful alongside the other moderators?)
I think while laptops would be easier all the way, they are pricey and we need to demonstrate on a machine well-capable of handling the system requirements for the software we're testing. That does get kind of expensive given the game requirements. (If you thought it was SPORE, sorry, not the problem in question, not nearly intensive enough.)
You brought about another thought but after careful consideration I believe it's not feasible. However, you do bring to light another idea after consideration of the system I thought of and rejected.
Can the MBR be modified to allow of a multiple-install of the same image across multiple drives? I am not that technical, so that absolutely falls into the range of non-applicable for regular computer users. However, with the proper technical assistant to help me translate from geek to layman, we might be able to show that "Here are the differences, here are the tested functions in a clean environment, and here are the same functions in the infected environment."
If I could modify an MBR quickly enough to just point it to another bootable partition on another physical drive, that'd be AWESOME. It'd save me on the two identical computer idea.
Great suggestion - however I need this to be easy for the average clueless American computer user to be able to do and come to the same conclusion. I've outlined the details in a few of my responses to this thread, the most recent and updated idea/system in mind is in response to GNU above.
1. Install fresh copy of XP on a full-formatted hard drive. 2. figure out a reliable way to either DIR/B/S/A:ASRH > file.txt from a USB stick or make a RELIABLE image of the drive (at that stage, about 2 GB in size) with EVERYTHING, hidden, system, etc folders and files accounted for, all without needing to install another program directly to the drive I'm trying to image. 3. Install the program that I believe causes the conflict. 4. Repeat step 2 for the now-changed contents of the drive. 5. Rinse, lather, repeat until I get past my burning capability (thankfully I install very little on my machine since I only do music, internet, and minor gaming, mainly emulation of consoles.) 6. Use some program to compare the differences in results to point out where the problem in theory lies, then demonstrate that the problem itself lies within this program using that gathered data.
The problem is I need this to be easy enough that an average mindless computer user can do it themselves and discover what's going on. That's the hardest part of all.
That would be nice except I wish to have *ONLY* the original OS install, and the programs which I will be installing, nothing more.
Got anything that would work on a USB stick so the OS install isn't touched besides from what I plan on installing on it for the demonstration? Preferably freeware and will work in Windows itself (the comparison tool, whether it be for drive images or just filechange logs) so the average juror can understand it easier?
So many suggestions, I'm having problems deciding which woudl be better:
my original suggestion - the DIR command with all the extended parameters outputting to a text file - can be used to demonstrate changes made to the system and be used for demos
Anon-inspired idea: Dual boot XP on separate hard drives within the same system, C as base comparison control, D with the software causing the problem - easier hardware forensics analysis and comparison
Majorly recommended but not feasible for the average person/juror/tech-incompetent judge - Virtualization.
Dual-boot environment - Two copies of Windows XP on separate hard drives would be almost perfect for hardware forensics analysis. I'm mainly dealing with software issues, but the issue I am addressing in court has been known to cause hardware problems as well. This might be a more useful approach.
Virtualization is useless in a live demo in front of a jury that has NO CLUE what virtualization/Linux/Unix is.
I must keep this simple and to the level the regular juror will understand.
The full process goes like this.
1: Install Windows on a freshly full-formatted HD. 2: DIR/b/s/A:ASRH > file.txt to get a listing of every file present, hidden, system, read-only, etc. 3: Install a program with a DRM feature 4: Repeat step 2, then check with some form of GREP for windows or something to compare the two written output files. 5. Demonstrate the damages caused by said DRM after installation to a jury.
All this virtualization crap will take TOO FUCKING LONG. As of this point, all I need is a windows tool to compare the two output files, go to those files mentioned in the comparison, and demonstrate the point trying to be made in court.
I'm going to be demoing this LIVE in court. That's NOT FEASIBLE AT ALL.
I've got most of what I need - I just need a GREP tool for windows. DIR/b/s/a:AHRS > file.txt is fine for almost everything. I need a comparison tool.
Does the command I listed above happen to record filesizes as well? The faster and quicker I can make this happen in court, the better off EVERYONE will be. It's gotta be simple enough for a JURY OF MINDLESS IDIOTS TO UNDERSTAND.
In other words - LINUX, UNIX, etc IS FUCKING USELESS FOR MY REQUIRED TASK.
I want to do this on a level THE REGULAR COMPUTER USER CAN ACHIEVE. This needs to be easily and SIMPLY explained and proven in a court of law. As the machine I will be doing this test on will be the same machine admitted as evidence, it will be much simpler to have it all contained within a pure windows environment.
ANYTHING requiring Linux or Unix will not be that simple, period, as this only involves the Windows OS and the BEST evidence is a direct comparison through the Windows OS itself (i.e. what Windows reports as having changed)
I've almost gotten what I need from a built-in windows tool - the ol' DIR command. DIR/b/s/A:AHRS > File.txt but I need a comparison tool that will show me the differences (like a grep for windows) so I can track what got changed, how it was changed, and WHY.
Registry comparison tools would be helpful as well.
No, I'm operating off of a copy of my father's contract when he worked for Texas Instruments, and a copy of my NDA from working ADECCO, AND from cleaning pools for pool companies, all of which very CLEARLY details all of our legal rights and exactly what constitutes an acceptable contract and Non-Disclosure Agreement.
I was born in Plano. Don't tell me I don't know my own home state, especially when I've worked in it for many years.
It's already been done. The download version of STALKER: SoC is 100% incompatible with the physical disc version as of the latest update to patch 1.0006. The reason? The download version of STALKER can only patch up to 1.0005 because of issues with the DRM between download version and DVD version.
I paid for multiplayer and was screwed before I even knew it.
Specifically, non-competes aren't ENFORCEABLE without very, VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE in Texas.
Vauge crap such as "Upon your termination, willingly or not, with this company, you may not work for any of our competitors for one year," would not hold up in court. Specific competitors, certain geographical locations, etc. MUST be clearly laid out.
I just need to go into court with a fresh system, load up a fresh copy of XP and all related drivers, then install the game and check what's changed, then attempt to remove what's been changed. Without Dial-A-Fix or a full reinstall, I'd not be able to regain my removed administrative privileges, thus making me unable to delete leftover stuff from the game's installation.
That's wire fraud and computer hacking proven in court, live. No other demonstration would be needed.
Band together, plan out a distributed attack against EA in court. file multiple individual lawsuits for different charges for the maximum allowed in your small claims court area.
Basically a legal-system DDoS - no lawyers allowed in small claims court, and multiple suits (loss of property, trespassing, etc.) will be enough to bring up so many criminal charges against the company they'll likely lose their business charter and be sued out of existence by their shareholders.
SecuROM revokes some of your administrator priviledges and disables other legitimate programs on your computer. This is anti-competitive behavior (interfering with other products from other companies/individuals,) and a violation of my property rights. I own this computer, you do not have the right to revoke some of my administrator priviledges and make it to where I cannot delete files from my own goddamned system.
Maybe in YOUR bizarro world this wouldn't go anywhere, but then again facts always fly in the face of the bizarre.
The community had access as soon as the device came out. Granted Q/A from the COMPANY was shitty but the users making the fix is what makes FOSS great. The fact users can implement a fix, and have it sanctioned (whereas Microsoft and Apple most likely wouldn't sanction a user-fix,) makes the FOSS community even better. The information isn't FUCKING RESTRICTED LIKE YOUR MOTHER'S SNATCH, it's open like Las Vegas whores! Anyone can inspect it and determine the quality once it's available on the street!
Besides, how many whores are you going to get to inspect before they hit the street? Unless you're the pimp, you aren't going to likely see that at all. Same goes for most products. You still have to wait until it's on the street, but once it's there, everyone can look at it.
And I don't wear rose-tinted glasses, thank you. And it's spelled Kool-aid, just to add some annoyance.
And if it weren't for open source, you wouldn't be posting on this GREAT Slashdot.
For a bunch of people that don't work for the company that produced the flaw? Fuck yes that's goddamned GOOD turnaround time. Apple would have kept it under wraps for a month+ (just like Microsoft, don't think I'm playing favorites,) and issue the fix on their next patch cycle. FOSS doesn't have a patch cycle.
Usually, flaws like this get discovered on an iPhone, Apple tries to shut everyone up. In the FOSS world, you won't get that sort of bullshit nearly as often, as someone will look it over and figure out the fix, and spread it around. And, also, if any other flaws are discovered, the code's RIGHT THERE, so it can be fixed.
Bingo - You won't see this sort of turnaround time for a fix for the iPhone.
and this is why FOSS is a champion to me - the community fixes the issue and everyone else can check the fix to make sure it's not malicious.
And this is why all gov't entities in the USA should use FOSS. The people/community as a whole can do a better job of keeping the government secure than corporations can.
City to Telecom:"Build us a fiber network" TC to City: "No, fuck you." C to TC: "Fine, we're laying our own" TC to Judge: "Unfair competition!" Judge: *looks at monopoly status, decides case is meritless on the grounds of 'unfair competition'*
The TC has NO BUSINESS telling a government entity what to do when it comes down to public works and utilities. If the city is making a fiber network as a public utility, the TC has no rights, period. The city may create and deploy it's own network as it sees fit without ANY permission needed from a fucking business.
Contract or no contract, TDS is abusing monopoly power in an attempt to force the government to back down - that counts partially as terrorism (using a threat, legal or not, to attempt to coerce/influence the government can be construed as such.)
In reality, the city needs to file RICO against TDS. This reeks of attempted extortion.
Slashdot Mirror
Great input, I wish I could mod you up for this (possible slashdot feature in the future, creators of ask slashdot stories mod up the information they found helpful and useful alongside the other moderators?)
I think while laptops would be easier all the way, they are pricey and we need to demonstrate on a machine well-capable of handling the system requirements for the software we're testing. That does get kind of expensive given the game requirements. (If you thought it was SPORE, sorry, not the problem in question, not nearly intensive enough.)
You brought about another thought but after careful consideration I believe it's not feasible. However, you do bring to light another idea after consideration of the system I thought of and rejected.
Can the MBR be modified to allow of a multiple-install of the same image across multiple drives? I am not that technical, so that absolutely falls into the range of non-applicable for regular computer users. However, with the proper technical assistant to help me translate from geek to layman, we might be able to show that "Here are the differences, here are the tested functions in a clean environment, and here are the same functions in the infected environment."
If I could modify an MBR quickly enough to just point it to another bootable partition on another physical drive, that'd be AWESOME. It'd save me on the two identical computer idea.
Great suggestion - however I need this to be easy for the average clueless American computer user to be able to do and come to the same conclusion. I've outlined the details in a few of my responses to this thread, the most recent and updated idea/system in mind is in response to GNU above.
going deeper than that, actually.
The system, without too much detail revealed.
1. Install fresh copy of XP on a full-formatted hard drive. /B /S /A:ASRH > file.txt from a USB stick or make a RELIABLE image of the drive (at that stage, about 2 GB in size) with EVERYTHING, hidden, system, etc folders and files accounted for, all without needing to install another program directly to the drive I'm trying to image.
2. figure out a reliable way to either DIR
3. Install the program that I believe causes the conflict.
4. Repeat step 2 for the now-changed contents of the drive.
5. Rinse, lather, repeat until I get past my burning capability (thankfully I install very little on my machine since I only do music, internet, and minor gaming, mainly emulation of consoles.)
6. Use some program to compare the differences in results to point out where the problem in theory lies, then demonstrate that the problem itself lies within this program using that gathered data.
The problem is I need this to be easy enough that an average mindless computer user can do it themselves and discover what's going on. That's the hardest part of all.
No, being a Game Informer subscriber when you apply for the edge card gives you the deeper discount. Did you get the magazine subscription?
That would be nice except I wish to have *ONLY* the original OS install, and the programs which I will be installing, nothing more.
Got anything that would work on a USB stick so the OS install isn't touched besides from what I plan on installing on it for the demonstration? Preferably freeware and will work in Windows itself (the comparison tool, whether it be for drive images or just filechange logs) so the average juror can understand it easier?
cygwin might work.
So many suggestions, I'm having problems deciding which woudl be better:
my original suggestion - the DIR command with all the extended parameters outputting to a text file - can be used to demonstrate changes made to the system and be used for demos
Anon-inspired idea: Dual boot XP on separate hard drives within the same system, C as base comparison control, D with the software causing the problem - easier hardware forensics analysis and comparison
Majorly recommended but not feasible for the average person/juror/tech-incompetent judge - Virtualization.
Now *THAT* might be an idea!
Dual-boot environment - Two copies of Windows XP on separate hard drives would be almost perfect for hardware forensics analysis. I'm mainly dealing with software issues, but the issue I am addressing in court has been known to cause hardware problems as well. This might be a more useful approach.
Thanks for the brilliant idea!
Process Monitor is blocked by the issue I'm encountering.
Virtualization is useless in a live demo in front of a jury that has NO CLUE what virtualization/Linux/Unix is.
I must keep this simple and to the level the regular juror will understand.
The full process goes like this.
1: Install Windows on a freshly full-formatted HD. /b /s /A:ASRH > file.txt to get a listing of every file present, hidden, system, read-only, etc.
2: DIR
3: Install a program with a DRM feature
4: Repeat step 2, then check with some form of GREP for windows or something to compare the two written output files.
5. Demonstrate the damages caused by said DRM after installation to a jury.
All this virtualization crap will take TOO FUCKING LONG. As of this point, all I need is a windows tool to compare the two output files, go to those files mentioned in the comparison, and demonstrate the point trying to be made in court.
virtualization takes TOO LONG.
I'm going to be demoing this LIVE in court. That's NOT FEASIBLE AT ALL.
I've got most of what I need - I just need a GREP tool for windows. DIR /b /s /a:AHRS > file.txt is fine for almost everything. I need a comparison tool.
Does the command I listed above happen to record filesizes as well? The faster and quicker I can make this happen in court, the better off EVERYONE will be. It's gotta be simple enough for a JURY OF MINDLESS IDIOTS TO UNDERSTAND.
In other words - LINUX, UNIX, etc IS FUCKING USELESS FOR MY REQUIRED TASK.
No, I do not need a virtual environment.
I want to do this on a level THE REGULAR COMPUTER USER CAN ACHIEVE. This needs to be easily and SIMPLY explained and proven in a court of law. As the machine I will be doing this test on will be the same machine admitted as evidence, it will be much simpler to have it all contained within a pure windows environment.
ANYTHING requiring Linux or Unix will not be that simple, period, as this only involves the Windows OS and the BEST evidence is a direct comparison through the Windows OS itself (i.e. what Windows reports as having changed)
I've almost gotten what I need from a built-in windows tool - the ol' DIR command. DIR /b /s /A:AHRS > File.txt but I need a comparison tool that will show me the differences (like a grep for windows) so I can track what got changed, how it was changed, and WHY.
Registry comparison tools would be helpful as well.
No, I'm operating off of a copy of my father's contract when he worked for Texas Instruments, and a copy of my NDA from working ADECCO, AND from cleaning pools for pool companies, all of which very CLEARLY details all of our legal rights and exactly what constitutes an acceptable contract and Non-Disclosure Agreement.
I was born in Plano. Don't tell me I don't know my own home state, especially when I've worked in it for many years.
No, OP refers to those at GameStop that have the EDGE Card and get even DEEPER discounts on used games instead of the used sticker price.
Fallout 3, used, 35.99 USD in SoCal
It's already been done. The download version of STALKER: SoC is 100% incompatible with the physical disc version as of the latest update to patch 1.0006. The reason? The download version of STALKER can only patch up to 1.0005 because of issues with the DRM between download version and DVD version.
I paid for multiplayer and was screwed before I even knew it.
Specifically, non-competes aren't ENFORCEABLE without very, VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE in Texas.
Vauge crap such as "Upon your termination, willingly or not, with this company, you may not work for any of our competitors for one year," would not hold up in court. Specific competitors, certain geographical locations, etc. MUST be clearly laid out.
Actually one doesn't even need to go that far.
I just need to go into court with a fresh system, load up a fresh copy of XP and all related drivers, then install the game and check what's changed, then attempt to remove what's been changed. Without Dial-A-Fix or a full reinstall, I'd not be able to regain my removed administrative privileges, thus making me unable to delete leftover stuff from the game's installation.
That's wire fraud and computer hacking proven in court, live. No other demonstration would be needed.
Band together, plan out a distributed attack against EA in court. file multiple individual lawsuits for different charges for the maximum allowed in your small claims court area.
Basically a legal-system DDoS - no lawyers allowed in small claims court, and multiple suits (loss of property, trespassing, etc.) will be enough to bring up so many criminal charges against the company they'll likely lose their business charter and be sued out of existence by their shareholders.
Umm, BULLSHIT.
SecuROM revokes some of your administrator priviledges and disables other legitimate programs on your computer. This is anti-competitive behavior (interfering with other products from other companies/individuals,) and a violation of my property rights. I own this computer, you do not have the right to revoke some of my administrator priviledges and make it to where I cannot delete files from my own goddamned system.
Maybe in YOUR bizarro world this wouldn't go anywhere, but then again facts always fly in the face of the bizarre.
Dial-A-Fix is your friend
Fuck you very much.
From all the people who've contracted HIV through no fucking fault of their own (blood transfusions come to mind.)
Mandatory Sterilization. You came up with the idea, I suggest YOU contract HIV and then go promptly get yourself sterilized FIRST.
Black Death is not a virus. It is a bacterium. Yersinia pestis.
The community had access as soon as the device came out. Granted Q/A from the COMPANY was shitty but the users making the fix is what makes FOSS great. The fact users can implement a fix, and have it sanctioned (whereas Microsoft and Apple most likely wouldn't sanction a user-fix,) makes the FOSS community even better. The information isn't FUCKING RESTRICTED LIKE YOUR MOTHER'S SNATCH, it's open like Las Vegas whores! Anyone can inspect it and determine the quality once it's available on the street!
Besides, how many whores are you going to get to inspect before they hit the street? Unless you're the pimp, you aren't going to likely see that at all. Same goes for most products. You still have to wait until it's on the street, but once it's there, everyone can look at it.
And I don't wear rose-tinted glasses, thank you. And it's spelled Kool-aid, just to add some annoyance.
And if it weren't for open source, you wouldn't be posting on this GREAT Slashdot.
Perhaps you need to take your blindfold off.
For a bunch of people that don't work for the company that produced the flaw? Fuck yes that's goddamned GOOD turnaround time. Apple would have kept it under wraps for a month+ (just like Microsoft, don't think I'm playing favorites,) and issue the fix on their next patch cycle. FOSS doesn't have a patch cycle.
Usually, flaws like this get discovered on an iPhone, Apple tries to shut everyone up. In the FOSS world, you won't get that sort of bullshit nearly as often, as someone will look it over and figure out the fix, and spread it around. And, also, if any other flaws are discovered, the code's RIGHT THERE, so it can be fixed.
Bingo - You won't see this sort of turnaround time for a fix for the iPhone.
and this is why FOSS is a champion to me - the community fixes the issue and everyone else can check the fix to make sure it's not malicious.
And this is why all gov't entities in the USA should use FOSS. The people/community as a whole can do a better job of keeping the government secure than corporations can.
Umm, no.
City to Telecom :"Build us a fiber network"
TC to City: "No, fuck you."
C to TC: "Fine, we're laying our own"
TC to Judge: "Unfair competition!"
Judge: *looks at monopoly status, decides case is meritless on the grounds of 'unfair competition'*
The TC has NO BUSINESS telling a government entity what to do when it comes down to public works and utilities. If the city is making a fiber network as a public utility, the TC has no rights, period. The city may create and deploy it's own network as it sees fit without ANY permission needed from a fucking business.
Contract or no contract, TDS is abusing monopoly power in an attempt to force the government to back down - that counts partially as terrorism (using a threat, legal or not, to attempt to coerce/influence the government can be construed as such.)
In reality, the city needs to file RICO against TDS. This reeks of attempted extortion.