We have several Dell Laptops that have come up with the 5b010019 error
when we try to an emergency recovery then we get 92h corrupt error.
We are able to get the drives decrypted and reinstall safeboot on most
but this is a 4 hour work around.
Has anyone else seen this - we are trying to find a common thread but
we have not be able to find one. This started yesterday Monday
12-17-07 we have ruled out MS Patches.
> We have several Dell Laptops that have come up with the 5b010019 error
> when we try to an emergency recovery then we get 92h corrupt error.
> We are able to get the drives decrypted and reinstall safeboot on most
> but this is a 4 hour work around.
>
> Has anyone else seen this - we are trying to find a common thread but
> we have not be able to find one. This started yesterday Monday
> 12-17-07 we have ruled out MS Patches.
>
> Any help or thought appreciated.
Why don't you ask the vendor of the mentioned software product for support?
(Aside from that, anyone using a closed-source crypto product obviously has
no clue what he's doing.)
> ok let me rephrase that - is anyone else seeing this issue
I have tested this SafeBoot stuff once for an evaluation of multiple full
disc encryption software for a company. I found it horribly broken, it
didn't even either install, the boot loader locked up, the correct pasword
didn't get accepted etc.
And still the question: Why do you think that closed-source crypto could
provide any security?
> mjknudse wrote:
>
> > ok let me rephrase that - is anyone else seeing this issue
>
>
> I have tested this SafeBoot stuff once for an evaluation of multiple
> full disc encryption software for a company. I found it horribly
> broken, it didn't even either install, the boot loader locked up, the
> correct pasword didn't get accepted etc.
>
> And still the question: Why do you think that closed-source crypto
> could provide any security?
Sebby,
We find you horribly broken, but that doesn't answer his question
either.
It's rather likely the guy merely has to support the junk and didn't
have a hand in selecting it. Why (other than your being quite an
asshole), do you feel compelled to berate this guy for having a
problem he needs to solve? One that he very likely didn't create?
Merry Christmas, in case we don't chat again this week.
> We find you horribly broken, but that doesn't answer his question
> either.
Obviously you failed to notice that I already answered his question: Since
SafeBoot is a software of horrible quality, and since closed-source crypto
is insecure by design, he should simply decrypt the disk and uninstall SafeBoot.
I am fighting the same battle at my company and our IBM ThinkPads. The
issue seemed to have manifested over the weekend. I have been working
with SafeBoot and our other software vendors (antivirus, firewall,
etc.). I have also opened a severity A case with MS (which basically
means we have a small army working on this).
So far, we have been unable to reproduce the issue. I'll be sure to
share any info I come across, and would appreciate any thoughts you may
have on this issue...
Jace - thanks for contacting me we too have been working with a small
army from MS - safeboot and Symantec I have forwarded you my contact
info - please contact me when you have a chance would love to talk
further with you. - Joe
Joe - haven't pinpointed any possible cause as of yet, but I have
written a VBscript that can examine the MBR of a system to determine if
SafeBoot has been corrupted. I can share the code with you if you would
like.
this issue has been identified as a rogue Computrace server corrupting
boot sectors. You can contact SafeBoot or Computrace (Absolute
Software) for more info.
On Dec 18, 2:27*pm, "Sebastian G." <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> Todd H. wrote:
> > We find you horribly broken, but that doesn't answer his question
> > either.
>
> Obviously you failed to notice that I already answered his question: Since
> SafeBoot is a software of horrible quality, and since closed-source crypto
> is insecure by design, he should simply decrypt the disk and uninstall SafeBoot.
closed source software has (by design) an unknown level of security,
thats why it goes through independant source code review. The source
is only closed to the public, not to reviewers etc. With very view
exceptions you can trust the labs who specialise in source code review
to pick things up that peer review would never find.
> closed source software has (by design) an unknown level of security,
> thats why it goes through independant source code review. The source
> is only closed to the public, not to reviewers etc. With very view
> exceptions you can trust the labs who specialise in source code review
> to pick things up that peer review would never find.
The special problem with cryptography is that there're thousands of trivial
pitfalls that can make the implementation horribly insecure despite a secure
cipher. Even if you trust the vendor to not include anything malicious (like
f.e. a backdoor), you cannot reasonably trust him to get every little detail
right. The only way to mitigate this issue is to open the source code to the
public to allow independent review.
On Dec 21, 6:32*am, "Sebastian G." <se...@seppig.de> wrote:
> SafeBoot Simon wrote:
> > closed source software has (by design) an unknown level of security,
> > thats why it goes through independant source code review. The source
> > is only closed to the public, not to reviewers etc. With very view
> > exceptions you can trust the labs who specialise in source code review
> > to pick things up that peer review would never find.
>
> The special problem with cryptography is that there're thousands of trivial
> pitfalls that can make the implementation horribly insecure despite a secure
> cipher. Even if you trust the vendor to not include anything malicious (like
> f.e. a backdoor), you cannot reasonably trust him to get every little detail
> right. The only way to mitigate this issue is to open the source code to the
> public to allow independent review.
so what is your point? are you saying that FIPS, BITS, CC, NIST etc
source code reviews are not acceptable? in my experience the public
are no where near as good at security code review as the professionals
who do it day in day out and charge a premium for their experience. if
public review as so good, then govenments would insist on open source.
They don't though, they insist on professionaly reviewed source.
PGP was open source for years before a "public" reviewer found a
glaring implementation error...
> so what is your point? are you saying that FIPS, BITS, CC, NIST etc
> source code reviews are not acceptable?
BITS, CC and NIST don't require any source code review, only documentation
review and testing that the implementation actually belongs to the
documentation. FIPS auditing doesn't disclose any evaluation results.
> if public review as so good, then govenments would insist on open source.
Nonsense.
> They don't though, they insist on professionaly reviewed source.
So the AES competition was just an illusion?
> PGP was open source for years before a "public" reviewer found a
> glaring implementation error...
Your point being? Would it be closed source, the public might have never got
known about this. He could have just kept it secret, as a backdoor for some
intelligence service.
BTW, why exactly should I presume that you, who is obviously abusing a .NET
infected MSIE as a webbrowser, had any clue about security?
>
> BITS, CC and NIST don't require any source code review, only documentation
> review and testing that the implementation actually belongs to the
> documentation. FIPS auditing doesn't disclose any evaluation results.
you are wrong about cc and nist not requiring source code review.
> BTW, why exactly should I presume that you, who is obviously abusing a .NET
> infected MSIE as a webbrowser, had any clue about security?
very true, I guess that being a windows user I indeed have no right
whatsoever to claim any competence. I guess I've been lucky not to get
caught out as such an obvious fraud for so long, oh well I guess you
win Sebastian. Someone better tell my shareholders before I speak at
any more conferences or design any more products...
>> BTW, why exactly should I presume that you, who is obviously abusing a .NET
>> infected MSIE as a webbrowser, had any clue about security?
>
> very true, I guess that being a windows user I indeed have no right
> whatsoever to claim any competence.
Now this guess only proves how clueless you are, since at least the kernel
and the core APIs of the Windows NT line are C2 conform implementations of
discretionary access control.
> I guess I've been lucky not to get caught out as such an obvious fraud
> for so long,
I doubt that this even holds. Any reasonable person would as well, since
effectively mounting a remote shell to every website you visit clearly is a
horribly stupid thing.
Are you trying to bait me into a flame war Sebastian?
Look,
1. I am sorry you had trouble with SafeBoot, but 5.2 million other
people are working with it and don't have the same issue, including
over 20 governments, so at least meet me half way and grudgingly
accept that the product *might* actually be ok, especially seeing that
McAfee just paid $350m to buy the company. I am not asking you to
agree it's a good product, just asking you to agree that it might
possibly be, and that your experience may not be the norm.
2. Do you accept that the predominant user operating system is
Windows, and that despite its faults the reason it's the most popular
is because it works for the most people? I would agree that *out of
the box* Windows is not as secure as linux, but, linux is not as user
friendly or as feature rich (which is why it's provably not as
popular). One day the scales may tip in favour of some other OS, but
at the moment in this (imperfect) world Windows has the mass-market
sewn up.
MSIE and .NET may have their flaws, but don't you accept that these
flaws must be massively outweighed by their benefits, otherwise again,
why would Windows and MSIE be the prevalent systems of choice for the
uneducated masses?
> especially seeing that McAfee just paid $350m to buy the company
This is quite a counter-argument.
> that it might possibly be, and that your experience may not be the norm.
Might be, but failure on three totally different test machines is simply
unacceptable. Maybe the typical users don't have to deal with such a diversity.
> 2. Do you accept that the predominant user operating system is
> Windows, and that despite its faults the reason it's the most popular
> is because it works for the most people?
Did I ever claim the contrary?
> MSIE and .NET may have their flaws, but don't you accept that these
> flaws must be massively outweighed by their benefits,
No, and they aren't. Real webbrowser exists, have much better usability and
compatibility, and aren't insecure by design. .NET might be a nice
framework, but has never been and probably will never be a sandbox, so using
it as a browser plugin is, again, insecure by design - so any sane person
would use Java for applets.
> why would Windows and MSIE be the prevalent systems of choice for the
> uneducated masses?
You already stated the reason: because they're uneducated. Heck, even the
official documentation of MSIE explains in detail why it should never be
abused as a webbrowser on nontrusted networks (like the internet).
Safteboot 5b010019 error then 92h 
Linear Mode
