OT Extracting code from chips, deompiling

[micky]

OT Extracting code from chips, deompiling


What is the current status of things.

1) Primarily, if a chip has computer code burned into it, can the code
be retrieved by someone in possession of the chip?**

2) Assuming the answer to 1 is yes, what is the state of decompiling?
Without the comments and data types, how often can the logic or the
exact pre-compiled code be determined well enough to make one's own
devices?

**Related to this, 3) can the circuity in an IC or LSIC, intergrated
circuit or iirc large scale integrated circuit, be determined by
disassembling the IC?

Is stealing design secrets harder than when everything was mechanical?
Much harder? Impossible?

[Terry Schwartz]

That's a big question. Some chips have built in security and some are wide open, depends on the programmer and the chips capabilities.

Decompiling is another matter. While it may be possible to extract the code in some cases, it may not be useful once you have it.

Reverse engineering a chip by disassembling the chip itself would be near impossible for Joe Average. Maybe the NSA can do it with sophisticated tools.

Finally... theft of intellectual property is still theft.

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/18/18 11:48 AM, micky wrote:
> OT Extracting code from chips, deompiling
>
>
> What is the current status of things.
>
> 1) Primarily, if a chip has computer code burned into it, can the code
> be retrieved by someone in possession of the chip?**

Usually. If the code protection modes aren't enabled, you can just read
it back over the JTAG connector.

>
> 2) Assuming the answer to 1 is yes, what is the state of decompiling?
> Without the comments and data types, how often can the logic or the
> exact pre-compiled code be determined well enough to make one's own
> devices?

Dunno. If you have the binary, you can disassemble it, for sure.

>
> **Related to this, 3) can the circuity in an IC or LSIC, intergrated
> circuit or iirc large scale integrated circuit, be determined by
> disassembling the IC?

Yes. There are outfits that specialize in decapping ICs and producing
transistor-level schematics, including estimated transistor
characteristics from doping profiles, area, and so on. It's a very
mainstream thing to do, but it costs a lot so you don't do it for niche
products.

IIRC they can also read out the flash by probing the decapped chip.

>
> Is stealing design secrets harder than when everything was mechanical?
> Much harder? Impossible?

Mechanical parts can have all sorts of secrets, e.g. for metals, cold
working, heat treatment, surface modification (case hardening or
metalliding), powder metallurgy and hot isostatic pressing (HIPping).

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/18/18 11:57 AM, Terry Schwartz wrote:

>
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 10:48:32 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:
>> OT Extracting code from chips, deompiling
>>
>>
>> What is the current status of things.
>>
>> 1) Primarily, if a chip has computer code burned into it, can the code
>> be retrieved by someone in possession of the chip?**
>>
>> 2) Assuming the answer to 1 is yes, what is the state of decompiling?
>> Without the comments and data types, how often can the logic or the
>> exact pre-compiled code be determined well enough to make one's own
>> devices?
>>
>> **Related to this, 3) can the circuity in an IC or LSIC, intergrated
>> circuit or iirc large scale integrated circuit, be determined by
>> disassembling the IC?
>>
>> Is stealing design secrets harder than when everything was mechanical?
>> Much harder? Impossible?
>

(Top posting fixed)

> That's a big question. Some chips have built in security and some are
wide open, depends on the programmer and the chips capabilities.
>
> Decompiling is another matter. While it may be possible to extract
the code in some cases, it may not be useful once you have it.
>
> Reverse engineering a chip by disassembling the chip itself would be
near impossible for Joe Average. Maybe the NSA can do it with
sophisticated tools.
>
> Finally... theft of intellectual property is still theft.

Reverse engineering is legal everywhere AFAIK. It doesn't get you
around patents or copyrights, but any trade secret that can be
discovered by examining an article offered for sale is no longer a trade
secret. That includes the ideas in the binary, but not their
expression, i.e. the binary itself, which is copyrighted.

[David B.]

On 18/12/2018 17:04, Phil Hobbs wrote:
[....]
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs

Moving even further off topic!

Hi Phil :-)

May I ask a favour?

Will you, please, explain in simple terms, why YOU are happy to publish
your personal details on-line when so much is written about how one
should be really careful about maintaining personal privacy? Some folk,
I've noticed, are most reluctant to even put their BUSINESS information
out on the Internet!

I simply do not understand why any good and honest citizen should live
their life in fear.

--
With kind regards,
David B.

My Blog about Dustin Cook: https://vxer.home.blog/2018/12/08/vxer-a-profile/

[Shadow]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:43:15 +0000, "David B." <"David
B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>Moving even further off topic!

Why change the thread ? Oh, I see.
>
>Hi Phil :(

>
>May I ask a favour?
>
>Will you, please, explain in simple terms, why YOU are happy to publish
>your personal details on-line when so much is written about how one
>should be really careful about maintaining personal privacy?

He probably doesn't know you.

If he reads this carefully

https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

He will. I hope.
YW
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[BurfordTJustice]

cause he is not in a third world shithole like Brazil?


"David B." <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:XkaSD.2981$922...@fx06.fr7...

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/18/18 12:43 PM, David B. wrote:
> On 18/12/2018 17:04, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> [....]
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> Moving even further off topic!
>
> Hi Phil :-)
>
> May I ask a favour?
>
> Will you, please, explain in simple terms, why YOU are happy to publish
> your personal details on-line when so much is written about how one
> should be really careful about maintaining personal privacy? Some folk,
> I've noticed, are most reluctant to even put their BUSINESS information
> out on the Internet!
>
> I simply do not understand why any good and honest citizen should live
> their life in fear.
>

Well, I'm self-employed, and expect to be for the rest of my career, so
I don't have to worry about being ratted out to management or subjected
to re-education to keep my job, or things like that.

Second, my posts are generally helpful, good-tempered, and as accurate
as I can make them, so there's not much danger of reputation damage.
One exception is if some prospective customer doesn't like my politics
and cares enough about it to not do business with me, in which case I'm
happy to have them self-select. (I don't talk politics with customers.)

Third, putting my contact info and a few keywords in my sig is a
surprisingly effective SEO strategy. SED is widely mirrored on sites
like narkive and electronics-related, so there are lots of links.

Fourth, I'm a Christian, so there's nothing very important that any
temporal power can do to me anyway. (They can make life temporarily
unpleasant, of course.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant

ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics

Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

[David B.]

On 18/12/2018 18:48, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 12/18/18 12:43 PM, David B. wrote:
>> On 18/12/2018 17:04, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> [....]
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>> Moving even further off topic!
>>
>> Hi Phil :-)
>>
>> May I ask a favour?
>>
>> Will you, please, explain in simple terms, why YOU are happy to
>> publish your personal details on-line when so much is written about
>> how one should be really careful about maintaining personal privacy?
>> Some folk, I've noticed, are most reluctant to even put their BUSINESS
>> information out on the Internet!
>>
>> I simply do not understand why any good and honest citizen should live
>> their life in fear.
>>
>
> Well, I'm self-employed, and expect to be for the rest of my career, so
> I don't have to worry about being ratted out to management or subjected
> to re-education to keep my job, or things like that.

Understood!

> Second, my posts are generally helpful, good-tempered, and as accurate
> as I can make them, so there's not much danger of reputation damage. One
> exception is if some prospective customer doesn't like my politics and
> cares enough about it to not do business with me, in which case I'm
> happy to have them self-select.  (I don't talk politics with customers.)

I'd have no hesitation in asking for, and following, your advice.

> Third, putting my contact info and a few keywords in my sig is a
> surprisingly effective SEO strategy.  SED is widely mirrored on sites
> like narkive and electronics-related, so there are lots of links.

Good thinking! :-)

> Fourth, I'm a Christian, so there's nothing very important that any
> temporal power can do to me anyway.  (They can make life temporarily
> unpleasant, of course.)

Ah! THAT's the secret! I'm a Christian too! :-D

https://thoughtcatalog.com/rania-naim/2017/11/if-you-trust-god-youll-never-be-afraid/

> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs

Many thanks, Phil. Pleased to meet you.

--
Regards,
David B.

[David B.]

On 18/12/2018 18:00, Shadow wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:43:15 +0000, "David B." <"David
> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> Moving even further off topic!
>
> Why change the thread ? Oh, I see.
>>
>> Hi Phil :(
>>
>> May I ask a favour?
>>
>> Will you, please, explain in simple terms, why YOU are happy to publish
>> your personal details on-line when so much is written about how one
>> should be really careful about maintaining personal privacy?
>
> He probably doesn't know you.
>
> If he reads this carefully
>

> hxxps://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

>
> He will. I hope.
> YW
> []'s

It's now apparent that he and I are already part of the body of Christ.

When was the malware removed from the destination of that link, Shadow?

--
Regards,
David B.

[Shadow]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:41:25 +0000, "David B." <"David

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>On 18/12/2018 18:00, Shadow wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:43:15 +0000, "David B." <"David
>> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Moving even further off topic!
>>
>> Why change the thread ? Oh, I see.
>>>
>>> Hi Phil :(
>>>
>>> May I ask a favour?
>>>
>>> Will you, please, explain in simple terms, why YOU are happy to publish
>>> your personal details on-line when so much is written about how one
>>> should be really careful about maintaining personal privacy?
>>
>> He probably doesn't know you.
>>
>> If he reads this carefully
>>

>> https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

>>
>> He will. I hope.
>> YW
>> []'s
>
>It's now apparent that he and I are already part of the body of Christ.
>
>When was the malware removed from the destination of that link, Shadow?

According to WOT, it has NEVER housed malware. In fact, I'm
sure Phil can check it out for himself.
Have you sent him an email asking him to crack a site for you
yet ? And threatened to report him for pedo porn if he doesn't, or
haven't you got through the usual foreplay yet ?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:04:17 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>Mechanical parts can have all sorts of secrets, e.g. for metals, cold
>working, heat treatment, surface modification (case hardening or
>metalliding), powder metallurgy and hot isostatic pressing (HIPping).

Those can all be reverse engineered given expertise, time, and proper
equipment. However, the one thing that cannot be reverse engineered
in a mechanical system are the product tolerances. This becomes
critical when dealing with tiny parts like MEMS devices, rotating
memory components, and tight tolerance fasteners. Long ago, I was
marginally involved in some industrial espionage. The only things
taken were some key component tolerances. Everything else could be
deduced or measured from the purchased product.

Also, the end result of reverse engineering is not always an exact
clone of the original product. More commonly, it's a "work alike"
device, that has all the key features and patent violations, and
carries its own collection of component and product tolerances. Close
is usually good enough.



--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[David B.]

On 18/12/2018 20:04, Shadow wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:41:25 +0000, "David B." <"David
> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> On 18/12/2018 18:00, Shadow wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:43:15 +0000, "David B." <"David
>>> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moving even further off topic!
>>>
>>> Why change the thread ? Oh, I see.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Phil :(
>>>>
>>>> May I ask a favour?
>>>>
>>>> Will you, please, explain in simple terms, why YOU are happy to publish
>>>> your personal details on-line when so much is written about how one
>>>> should be really careful about maintaining personal privacy?
>>>
>>> He probably doesn't know you.
>>>
>>> If he reads this carefully
>>>

>>> hxxps://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

>>>
>>> He will. I hope.
>>> YW
>>> []'s
>>
>> It's now apparent that he and I are already part of the body of Christ.
>>
>> When was the malware removed from the destination of that link, Shadow?
>
> According to WOT, it has NEVER housed malware. In fact, I'm
> sure Phil can check it out for himself.

Then WOT must be incorrect.

Here's visual proof that the site DID house malware:-

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6nj382qhv4wzmju/Tekrider.net%20-%20Infected%20with%20malware%20%28Sucuri%29.tiff?dl=0

I've little doubt that Phil will be able to look after himself.

> Have you sent him an email asking him to crack a site for you
> yet ? And threatened to report him for pedo porn if he doesn't, or
> haven't you got through the usual foreplay yet ?
> []'s

No. You may twist things, Shadow, but you'll never change the truth.

You've been helping the Devil to do his work and that will not be forgotten.

--
David B.

[Mike]

In article <pp8i1e598ivqknbj6...@4ax.com>,

micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>**Related to this, 3) can the circuity in an IC or LSIC, intergrated
>circuit or iirc large scale integrated circuit, be determined by
>disassembling the IC?

Yes. There's a fair few people chemically/mechanically de-encapsulating
old chips where the design documents are lost/unavailable, and given
a good enough picture of the bare die, and some optical analysis, you
can recover the circuit with reasonable accuracy.

It's been done with Sinclair related ULAs/CLAs, and similar
projects for other 1980s era chips.

How hard this gets on modern technology, where everything is tinier,
layered, and sometimes designed deliberately to thwart reverse
engineering is another thing ...

From raw pictures, to schematics and working simulation of an
Oric ULA, documented in detail here. NSA not involved :)

http://oric.signal11.org.uk/html/ula-dieshot.htm

http://oric.signal11.org.uk/files/pub/ula-dieshot/OricAtmosUnofficialULAGuide-2.00-WithSchems.pdf
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk

[Shadow]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:48:35 +0000, "David B." <"David

B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>On 18/12/2018 20:04, Shadow wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:41:25 +0000, "David B." <"David
>> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/12/2018 18:00, Shadow wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:43:15 +0000, "David B." <"David
>>>> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Moving even further off topic!
>>>>
>>>> Why change the thread ? Oh, I see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Phil :(
>>>>>
>>>>> May I ask a favour?
>>>>>
>>>>> Will you, please, explain in simple terms, why YOU are happy to publish
>>>>> your personal details on-line when so much is written about how one
>>>>> should be really careful about maintaining personal privacy?
>>>>
>>>> He probably doesn't know you.
>>>>
>>>> If he reads this carefully
>>>>

>>>> https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

>>>>
>>>> He will. I hope.
>>>> YW
>>>> []'s
>>>
>>> It's now apparent that he and I are already part of the body of Christ.

Well, the drinking the wine part might be possible.

>>>
>>> When was the malware removed from the destination of that link, Shadow?
>>
>> According to WOT, it has NEVER housed malware. In fact, I'm
>> sure Phil can check it out for himself.
>
>Then WOT must be incorrect.

And you, an "expert on decompiling binary code from hardware
chips" (why else would you crash the thread) are correct ?

>
>Here's visual proof that the site DID house malware:-
>

>https://www.dropbox.com/CUT_POSSIBLE_MALWARE_DOWNLOAD

Javascript is NOT malware, per se.
You accused the site owner of hosting malware on 8 newsgroups,
but only apologized on 2 when Sucuri admitted it made a mistake
because of the hosts file. That was almost 2 years ago. A lifetime for
your drunken memory.

If I'm wrong, post a DIRECT link to the Sucuri analysis.

>I've little doubt that Phil will be able to look after himself.
>
>> Have you sent him an email asking him to crack a site for you
>> yet ? And threatened to report him for pedo porn if he doesn't, or
>> haven't you got through the usual foreplay yet ?
>> []'s
>
>No. You may twist things, Shadow, but you'll never change the truth.

Just tell us what part of the webpage about you is not true,
and I'll ask the owner to change it. Maybe add some new nyms he forgot
about ?

[David B.]

On 18/12/2018 21:42, Shadow wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:48:35 +0000, "David B." <"David
> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> On 18/12/2018 20:04, Shadow wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:41:25 +0000, "David B." <"David
>>> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/12/2018 18:00, Shadow wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:43:15 +0000, "David B." <"David
>>>>> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Moving even further off topic!
>>>>>
>>>>> Why change the thread ? Oh, I see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Phil :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> May I ask a favour?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will you, please, explain in simple terms, why YOU are happy to publish
>>>>>> your personal details on-line when so much is written about how one
>>>>>> should be really careful about maintaining personal privacy?
>>>>>
>>>>> He probably doesn't know you.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he reads this carefully
>>>>>

>>>>> hxxps://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

>>>>>
>>>>> He will. I hope.
>>>>> YW
>>>>> []'s
>>>>
>>>> It's now apparent that he and I are already part of the body of Christ.
>
> Well, the drinking the wine part might be possible.

You don't have to Prove you are a cretin, Shadow.

>>>> When was the malware removed from the destination of that link, Shadow?
>>>
>>> According to WOT, it has NEVER housed malware. In fact, I'm
>>> sure Phil can check it out for himself.
>>
>> Then WOT must be incorrect.
>
> And you, an "expert on decompiling binary code from hardware
> chips" (why else would you crash the thread) are correct ?

Certainly not, as well you know.

>> Here's visual proof that the site DID house malware:-
>>

>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/6nj382qhv4wzmju/Tekrider.net%20-%20Infected%20with%20malware%20%28Sucuri%29.tiff?dl=0

>
> Javascript is NOT malware, per se.

No one ever explaine why that Javascript was ON the website. Phile might
be interested to view this finding too:-

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7lnpy4pez26jlta/Tekrider%20URL%20-%20Javascript%20site.jpeg?dl=0

> You accused the site owner of hosting malware on 8 newsgroups,
> but only apologized on 2 when Sucuri admitted it made a mistake
> because of the hosts file. That was almost 2 years ago. A lifetime for
> your drunken memory.
>
> If I'm wrong, post a DIRECT link to the Sucuri analysis.

https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/tekrider.net

The malware was quickly removed to save embarassment - the site owner
WAS once a professional and SHOULD have been more careful. :-(

>> I've little doubt that Phil will be able to look after himself.
>>
>>> Have you sent him an email asking him to crack a site for you
>>> yet ? And threatened to report him for pedo porn if he doesn't, or
>>> haven't you got through the usual foreplay yet ?
>>> []'s
>>
>> No. You may twist things, Shadow, but you'll never change the truth.
>
> Just tell us what part of the webpage about you is not true,
> and I'll ask the owner to change it. Maybe add some new nyms he forgot
> about ?
> []'s

I don't mind him stalking me, just as you do. Maybe you'll explain why
YOU propogate his website yet he does not? Has anybody ever suggested
that you may be one and the same entity?

--
Regards,
David B.

[David B.]

On 18/12/2018 18:48, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Can you relate to this, Phil?

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if---


--
Regards,
David B.

[Shadow]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 22:12:51 +0000, "David B." <"David
B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>Phile might
>be interested to view this finding too:-

Message-ID: <vGx6B.191110$rM3.1...@fx17.fr7>

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 21:20:42 +0100, "David B."
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:


>OK - I'll accept that the 'code' is NOT actually malware ...... but it
>WAS shown in the source code of BTS's www.Tekrider.net site.

That was one your "apologies".

The webpage is SAFE, as evidenced by YOUR post made 18 months
ago. Who is lying, the drunken you or the much more drunken you ?

https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Have you sent the email to Phile yet, asking him to hack a
site for you ? He's very "patient", he'll wait.

[peterw...@gmail.com]

Please, you two get a room!

Clearly, one of you is a scum-sucking bottom-feeder, the other a fish.

[Diesel]

"David B." <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org>

news:J3cSD.370640$7P5....@fx19.fr7 Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:41:25 GMT

in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

> On 18/12/2018 18:00, Shadow wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:43:15 +0000, "David B." <"David
>> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Moving even further off topic!
>>
>> Why change the thread ? Oh, I see.
>>>
>>> Hi Phil :(
>>>
>>> May I ask a favour?
>>>
>>> Will you, please, explain in simple terms, why YOU are happy to
>>> publish your personal details on-line when so much is written
>>> about how one should be really careful about maintaining
>>> personal privacy?
>>
>> He probably doesn't know you.
>>
>> If he reads this carefully
>>
>> hxxps://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
>>
>> He will. I hope.
>> YW
>> []'s
>
> It's now apparent that he and I are already part of the body of
> Christ.

Along with the priests who can't keep their hands off the private
parts of small children entrusted in their care? Or, are you speaking
of another body of Christ?

> When was the malware removed from the destination of that link,
> Shadow?

When was malware ever present via that link, David? As you full well
know, Securi hit on a false positive and has since corrected it. At
no time (And you know this, it was explained the first time you tried
to distract people from the site contents with totally made up slime
about the site and/or it's administrator) was the site ever infected
with anything or capable of infecting any visitors with anything.

This was explained like I said, ad nausem the first time you tried to
besmirch the site in an effort to try and discredit it. You failed to
do so because anyone who's interacted with you over time previously
already knows by experience with you that the contents of the site is
accurate to the letter concerning you. Stalking is what you do. It's
what you've done for years, and, I've little doubt you'll continue to
do it until the police visit you (again) and explain (again) that
what you're doing isn't okay, is infact illegal in some parts of the
world, and you should stop doing it. It's just the gun thing all over
again for you.

Btw, about that gun. You made it a point on several occasions to tell
the usenet audience at large that you had special permission and
paperwork that goes along with it to have it. Why, when the cops
visited you didn't they know about this paperwork? Why did you have
no firearm to show them? They came to see you (after months of you
ducking their attempts to make contact with you; yes, you remember
telling us about your concerns that 'fake' police were trying to
reach you? :) They were trying to reach you because of your posted
threat of using a firearm towards another posters children, on your
boat. You tried to back peddle and do some serious damage control
when, basically, everybody picked up on your veiled threat and called
you out on it. Wasn't a good enough cover thy ass job though, because
the police considered it serious enough to warrant multiple
communications attempts as well as an in person visit when they
finally could reach you.

You intentionally ignored them while out on the sewage canals though
and kept usenet uptodate with your 'concerns'. Do you remember any of
this David? Or, has the alcohol gone ahead and pickled that area of
your long term memory?

I'll remind you, again:

You told many of us on usenet in various newsgroups that you not only
had a handgun, but also had the necessary paperwork to be in
possession of it. Yet, the police recovered no firearm and told the
victim you claimed not to have one. And, they couldn't find any valid
paperwork stating that you had permission to have one.

Were you lying to the cops or us David? At some point, it's obvious
you lied about the gun. The only question is, who did you lie to
about the gun? The police, or us? If you lied to the police about it,
then it's clear you lied to us about having the necessary paperwork.

Either way you slice it, David, you lied at some point about the gun.
You may have lied to both parties, infact. One, you have the gun, but
it's not legal so you couldn't let the police know you had it. So you
lied to us about having permission to 0wn one in your home. Or, you
really don't have a gun, and, lied to us all when you stated that you
did as well as have permission to be in possession of it, due to your
previous military service.

Again, either way, you lied your ass off at various points along the
way. So much for that 'good guy' facade you try so hard to convince
people you are. You just continue to forget this important little
detail: You have an established reputation as a lying, scumbag,
stalking troll of the worst kind. I just don't see how you could
possibly go about fixing it when you continually lie as often as you
do.

It's really bad when you consider how easy it is to prove you're
lying. You don't even put forth real effort into it. You insult
others intelligence with your facade 'investigator' claims. You have
no training, no license, nothing of the sort. You *are* a stalker,
not an nvestigator. And, I don't think your investigator rouse is
going to keep you out of trouble for an indefinate period of time.

Speaking of some of the lies you've told, you also recently admitted
to considering filing a known false counter notice to a DMCA
notification you got served. You know full well that fair use doesn't
cover what you were doing and never did. You also know that the
counter notice cannot be filed out by you and be completely honest
and legal as you do so.

At no time were you given permission, and, on more than one occasion
you've been specifically made aware of the fact you do NOT have
permission to host my things elsewhere, in public you've been told
this on more than one occasion. I have succesful previous dmca
notices which were upheld against you for the very same thing you
recently abused wordpress, imgur, and vimeo terms of service to host
video and images that you knew, first hand, prior to uploading either
that you didn't have permission to do so and were infact, knowingly
committing copyright infringement for the purposes of stalking and
blackmail.

It's worth more to me from a 'boo ya' point of view than the dmca
notices i've got you with in the time I've had the misfortune of
knowing of your sorry existance.

You have until this weekend before I make my next move, that, I
guarantee you, isn't going to be fun for you. :-) I promise that if
you think you regret having met me now, you'll really be kicking
yourself in the ass for not negotiating a cease fire when you had the
chance. When i'm done firing on your zone, they'll be nothing left
but craters.

I sincerely hope you think I'm bluffing and do absolutely nothing
with the clear evidence all over your blog that supports my
complaint. Along with email correspondence I retained between myself,
google, youtube, vimeo and imgur (You've got several valid dmcas
against you with imgur, I'm sure you know that already though), I've
got you dead to rights this time around, and this time, David, I'mnot
going to let you go to rejoin the swarm. This time, you're coming
onboard to be processed into food.

--
Don't become the next David Brooks cyberstalking victim!
Visit https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php (10/10 WOT)
to learn more. If you've already become a victim or know someone who
has, you can provide the following information to them, your lawyer,
local law enforcement, etc.
https://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk - His local police. Report?
David Brooks (BoaterDave)
Jersey Cottage 86 Granary Lane
Budleigh Salterton Devon EX9 6ER United Kingdom
Phone: 44-1395-443340 (H) 07974-193550 (M)
Email(s): davidan...@btinternet.com, boater...@aol.com

[David B.]

On 19/12/2018 21:41, Diesel (Dustin Cook) threatens David B.

> I sincerely hope you think I'm bluffing and do absolutely nothing
> with the clear evidence all over your blog that supports my
> complaint. Along with email correspondence I retained between myself,
> google, youtube, vimeo and imgur (You've got several valid dmcas
> against you with imgur, I'm sure you know that already though), I've
> got you dead to rights this time around, and this time, David, I'm not
> going to let you go to rejoin the swarm. This time, you're coming
> onboard to be processed into food.

You once told me that you don't MAKE threats, Dustin.

Shall I add this one to my Blog?

One small point about taking down items. Can you remove them from an
'alt' Usenet newsgroup, where I've already put them for safe keeping?

--
Regards,
David B.

https://vxer.home.blog/2018/12/08/vxer-a-profile/

[David B.]

On 19/12/2018 10:53, Shadow wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 22:12:51 +0000, "David B." <"David
> B"@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>

>> Phil might

>> be interested to view this finding too:-
>
> Message-ID: <vGx6B.191110$rM3.1...@fx17.fr7>

The website details found in the Source Code of the Tekrider site, when
followed, go to a website which, when submitted to Virus total show that
said site *IS* infected.

https://www.virustotal.com/#/url/42cbd72a208a75cd3526fc7fce3e3b4d7ddac2c55a78694434ad69416d2992ad/detection

Co-incidence? I don't know.

Final URL
http://detail-cc.cc/check_availability.php?s=windows-web-browsers
Serving IP Address
199.59.242.151
Status Code
200
Body Length
3.84 KB
Body SHA-256
f7853b4ad6d9a012677e6a492443a13152e1733ff5ec601caac634367edcdc11
Headers
connection: keep-alive
content-type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:24:13 GMT
server: openresty
transfer-encoding: chunked
x-adblock-key:
MFwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADSwAwSAJBANDrp2lz7AOmADaN8tA50LsWcjLFyQFcb/P2Txc58oYOeILb3vBw7J6f4pamkAQVSQuqYsKx3YzdUHCvb

--
Regards,
David B.

[Diesel]

"David B." <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org>

news:I2dSD.137821$sG.3...@fx16.fr7 Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:48:35 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

> Then WOT must be incorrect.
> Here's visual proof that the site DID house malware:-
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/6nj382qhv4wzmju/Tekrider.net%20-%20Infect
> ed%20with%20malware%20%28Sucuri%29.tiff?dl=0

Liar. Your visual proof is a known sucuri false positive; that you
were told a considerable amount about the first time you made this
accusation. You knew the second you wrote that reply that you were
spreading false and misleading information, David.

> I've little doubt that Phil will be able to look after himself.
>
>> Have you sent him an email asking him to crack a site for
>> you
>> yet ? And threatened to report him for pedo porn if he doesn't,
>> or haven't you got through the usual foreplay yet ?
>> []'s
>
> No. You may twist things, Shadow, but you'll never change the
> truth.

He didn't twist anything, David. The only thing you haven't
threatened me with in those examples is the pedo porn, despite
'jokingly' (I don't believe you) accusing me of having it at one
point. Since it's a pretty serious accusation and I didn't take it
mildly, you quickly tried to back peddle away from it. you don't joke
about things like that, David. You just don't.

> You've been helping the Devil to do his work and that will not be
> forgotten.

Oh please, you've been the devils right hand (in more than one way)
for sometime now. Under the guise of a good guy. Except, that, unlike
the devil, you're having a hell of a time selling the bullshit story.

Which is why I consider it to be my civic duty to warn others about
you, so that they may not have to know you in the way in which myself
and BTS do. Amongst other victims along your path of destruction.

[Diesel]

"David B." <"David B"@nomail.afraid.org> news:HheSD.7$n8...@fx01.fr7

Tue, 18 Dec 2018 22:12:51 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

>> Well, the drinking the wine part might be possible.
>
> You don't have to Prove you are a cretin, Shadow.

He wasn't. But, you've proven yourself to be every bit the stalker
I've stated you were on more than one occasion.

>> Javascript is NOT malware, per se.
>
> No one ever explaine why that Javascript was ON the website. Phile
> might be interested to view this finding too:-

It never was.

> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7lnpy4pez26jlta/Tekrider%20URL%20-%20Java

> script%20site.jpeg?dl=0
>
>> You accused the site owner of hosting malware on 8
>> newsgroups,
>> but only apologized on 2 when Sucuri admitted it made a mistake
>> because of the hosts file. That was almost 2 years ago. A
>> lifetime for your drunken memory.
>>
>> If I'm wrong, post a DIRECT link to the Sucuri analysis.
>
> https://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/tekrider.net
>
> The malware was quickly removed to save embarassment - the site
> owner WAS once a professional and SHOULD have been more careful.
> :-(

That's another, lie, David. The malware in question was NEVER on the
site to begin with. It was a false positive on the part of sucuri and
you were told that the first time you made the accusation. And the
second, and the third. You finally stopped (evidently only
temporarily) when more people shared additional urls also pointing
out the FALSE POSITIVE on the part of sucuri.

And, it should also be stated, that the piece of code you shared is
not in any possible way, malware; and you were told that too, at the
time you originally claimed it to be.

Infact, you acknowledged it:

Message-ID: <vGx6B.191110$rM3.1...@fx17.fr7>

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 21:20:42 +0100, "David B."
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:


>OK - I'll accept that the 'code' is NOT actually malware ...... but
>it WAS shown in the source code of BTS's www.Tekrider.net site.

It was 'shown' when sucuri injected it, falsely, in order to sell you
(it thought you were a site administrator) on a security package.
And, you've been told that too.

> I don't mind him stalking me, just as you do. Maybe you'll explain
> why YOU propogate his website yet he does not? Has anybody ever
> suggested that you may be one and the same entity?

Nobody is stalking you, David. YOU have been stalking people for
years and you've been caught doing it, many times. It's only recently
that enough has become enough and people are not only being warned
about you, but provided information they can use to protect
themselves from you as well as bring charges against you in the event
you've wronged them. You're no longer able to hide and try to ruin
people without having to answer for it, David. Your cover is blown:

[micky]

Thanks for the detailed answer. I changed the letter I was in the
middle of writing and just left out what related to that. And I know
for the future.

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:04:17 -0500, Phil Hobbs

[bitrex]

Except in the case if you've implicitly or explicitly agreed to a EULA
when you purchase the hardware or software that prohibits you from doing
any kind of de-compilation or reverse engineering, then you've breached
your contract and all bets are off.

I'm pretty sure there are some e.g. video game systems where the
language is such that simply by opening the box and using the product
you wave all reverse engineering rights to extracting, de-compiling, or
modifying the hardware or software.

LTSpice's EULA for example prohibits "de-compiling or modifying" their
binaries or device models, whether that includes somehow decrypting
their just-encrypted device models to examine them I don't know, the act
of simply de-crypting a file isn't decompiling anything and you're not
modifying the model itself.

[bitrex]

To what degree any of that is actually Constitutional I'm not sure
either, the NFL seems to have for a long time been getting away with
putting language in their telecasts and ticket sales that it's against
your "user contract" to even publish a written description of events you
saw with your own eyes on an NFL TV broadcast or at an NFL game.

[Phil Hobbs]

You can write a contract pretty well any way you like. It's pretty
tough to enforce a hardware EULA on something you bought at a tag sale
though. ;)

[bitrex]

At least for usage as opposed to dis-assembling the hardware the way
some consumer manufacturers deal with the problem of used sales is their
widget requires an Internet connection and user account to operate; it's
a brick unless it can connect to the Internet and self-validate that it
hasn't been mucked with and the secondhand user also signs off on all
the stuff that the original owner did.

Not uncommon nowatimes for software distributors to only allow software
to be downloaded to a machine that has an Internet connection using a
special installer, keyed to the hardware configuration of the machine
and run on that particular machine. If you want to install on a machine
with no Internet connection, or download on a machine with a faster
connection and transfer you're out of luck. If your hardware
configuration changes whether you're out of luck or not depends on if
the software-seller feels generous

[Phil Hobbs]

Good luck doing that after decapping the flash and reading it out via
SEM. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant

ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics

Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

[David B.]

On 19/12/2018 07:00, David B. wrote:
> On 18/12/2018 18:48, Phil Hobbs wrote:

<SNIP>

>> Fourth, I'm a Christian, so there's nothing very important that any
>> temporal power can do to me anyway.  (They can make life temporarily
>> unpleasant, of course.)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
>
> Can you relate to this, Phil?
>
> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if---

Did you ever listen, Phil?

--
David B.
Devon, UK

[Phil Hobbs]

I've known that poem since I was a school child. Courage is not just
one of the virtues, it's what enables us to exercise all the others.

[David B.]

On 09/06/2019 21:54, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 6/9/19 7:38 AM, David B. wrote:
>> On 19/12/2018 07:00, David B. wrote:
>>> On 18/12/2018 18:48, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>>> Fourth, I'm a Christian, so there's nothing very important that any
>>>> temporal power can do to me anyway.  (They can make life temporarily
>>>> unpleasant, of course.)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you relate to this, Phil?
>>>
>>> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if---
>>
>> Did you ever listen, Phil?
>>
>
> I've known that poem since I was a school child.  Courage is not just
> one of the virtues, it's what enables us to exercise all the others.
>
> Cheers

I am in no way surprised by your answer, Phil! :-)

Thank you.