And the saga continues...
http://r-force.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=44&mode=&order=0&thold=0Starforce Admin are up to their usual antics yet again. We are not even 2 weeks down from when they posted warez links to Stardocks Galactic Civilizations II.
Now they have resorted to, posting libelous comments claiming my research into partitioned primary SATA/SCSI drives and how Starforce spreads accross all partitions as well as any networks drive with read/write capability.
Updated 13:58Hrs GMT 24th March 2006
'Sage386 now directly calls me a liar'
Click Read More for the full Article...
What I did not State in my posts there
I even found the SF drivers on the root of my iMac (which happened to be set up with read/write Authority on the Network), obviously this was not a problem on that Hardware and was easy to delete, but that does not retract from the fact the SF does carry out multidropper type techniques to try and stop it from being deleted.
The main issue was the way in which, SF blue screens XP on this type of SATA setup and generates a non plug and play driver error.
It will not let you into safe mode, to remove SF.
If you use a live Linux Distro to remove all instances of SF on all the partitions, format the primary partition and try to install XP again.
SF attacks the low level access of the OS (from hidden instances of the drivers on the other partitions) install and prevents it from completing.
The only way to get around this is to clean the partitions, create the partitions again and format them. Then you can install XP with no problems.
Sage 386(Starforce Admin) response to this factual post.
Under the title of a locked thread called Best Nonsense Posts and links.
Comment from Sage386 (Starforce Admin)
"What are you talking about??
SF in a MBR?? Spread across every partition and shared network drive?? What a nonsense!
You mister are talking tales.
I understand your attitude to SF, but talking pure LIES???
What kind of person you are?
Or, rather should i ask how much you get paid for those posts?"
Further Comment from Sage 386 (Starforce Admin)
Since i'm one of the core developers, I DO know technical parts.
What 13thHouR has wrote is a pure fiction.
I have posted there asking them to delete the libelous comments, however their response is to delete my further posts and lock the original thread to prevent anybody else challenging what they have said.
So I will be contacting there press office and issueing notice of pending legal action should they not remove those comments.
Updated 11:52 GMT 24th March 2006
I have sent this via pm to Sage386 and posted it on the Starforce forums:
I know you think that your little closed thread is funny and in a less legally intensive scenario I would probably agree.
http://www.star-force.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=796However in the real world what you have posted there is libelous, you cannot acuse somebody of writing fiction or being paid to do so without evidence to back it up.
Thus I am politely requesting that is removed from Starforce, obviously if you are not willing to comply then I will be refering said matter to our legal team in view of prosecution.
This article is just an example of the first step:
http://r-force.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=44&mode=&order=0&thold=0 is now being picked up by various news agencies and also read by various chief executives within Publishers that you currently/In future would count as customers.
Given the recent bad press, Security Technologies could do without another Galciv II type incident.
The data mentioned in my post was obtained by running standard and also thorough bench tests on several systems. Before I even start I think both you and I know that the SATA/SCSI primary drive incompatibility with SF is well documented. Its just the nature of using a Virtual IDE emulation.
SATA/SCSI and IDE are not compliant with each other protocols at the best of times, but when you add an emulation which is not 100% compliant with the IDE subsystem, it does not take a genius to realise that this will have errattic side effects to system stability. FOr one thing SF struggles to isolate which is the primary partition on a SATA/SCSI system. Also if network drive have full read/write permission it will install its drivers there as well (Basically becasue of this not being able to isolate where its supposed to be).
At no time did I ever state that this reaction to the conflicts was an intentional issue created by Security Technologies, thus I am extremely concerned that rather than addressing the issue you chose to present the challenge to the finding in such a libelous manner. I am quite sure the authorities will carry a similar view point on this since I am a reputable tech Engineer/Developer with over 25 years in the business under my belt.
I would prefer to report to our 2.2 Million readers on NGH and R-Force.org that the libelous content has been removed from the Starforce forums and an apology has been issued by yourselves.
Regards
William Taggart II AdDip.Prof.Con.Phys.
(AKA) 13thHouR
Owner/Director
Ideas Unlimited (tm) Thurlby Computers.
Webmaster.
http://www.r-force.orghttp://www.n-gage-help.comWe now await their response on this matter....
Update: 13:58 Hrs GMT, 24th March 2006
Sage386's response to the previous posted request.
Hello!
1. You're telling that SF resides and loads from MBR
2. You're telling that SF occupies HDD partition tables
3. You're telling that SF spreads through network drives.
You're lying!
IF you publish an appology on our forums for being a liar, we may continue converstaiton.
My subsequent response: The last warning before this becomes official.
Excuse me I have explained to you the exact process that causes this, up to now I have been presenting this as an unintentional reaction caused by conflicts between the IDE subsystem and SATA/SCSI primary drives with multiple partitions on a number of setups. I am now beginning to question that assumption of non malicious intent given the response I have received.
Is this how Security Technologies treats all such reports?
Tell me what do you think happens when the SF Virtual IDE Protection drivers are unable to isolate which is the primary drive?
Where do you think they install?
Given that SATA/SCSI drives do not report themselves to the OS in the same manner as IDE. Your time would be better spent isolating this issue rather than calling peeps liars for giving feedback reports on conflicts that are occurring.
I will give you one more chance to apologise and remove the offending posts from that thread which violate both my intellectual Copyrights as well as the Copyrights of NGH and r-force.org. In case you are not aware of online legislation. I can make such a request at any point in time when my Copyrighted material is being used in contradiction to my authorised use.
I had hoped that this issue could have been resolved in a more amicable manner however its becoming very obvious that litigation is going to be the only path.
I am now issuing a formal notice of Unauthorized use of Copyright material on the Starforce Forums.
In case you are not aware, this is as serious of an issue as the previous posting of the Galciv II P2P link. I suggest you have a word with the CEO of Security Technologies or their legal Team before responding, as your responses will be presented in evidence should Security Technologies choose not to comply with International Online legislation.
Once again we now await their response on this matter....
