Dave & All,
No, I was thinking the same thing. Let's take a look at some significant "red flags" with the ROS software: 1.) Special code added in apparent anger to keep critics from using the software (although reportedly removed in recent versions) 2.) Won't make the source code open for public inspection (not that it is 100% required, but it would allay a lot of concerns about the software) 3.) Requires Gmail e-mail account and password - (giving such things away would make any IT security professional lose their mind). is this still the case? 4.) PDF literature provided by Jose had PDF file signatures and "Authored by" signature of another well know digital mode author in Jose's own work... I wonder how that happened? 5.) Automatically sends messages to a hard coded list of servers. and possibly other places? 6.) Apparently sends bogus callsigns and spots to various reflectors 7.) Gives users little if any control over the software's spotting to the internet 8.) Now, after "going away" for a short time, has a new version that if you try and defeat the automatic spotting with a firewall, it automatically shuts down. (Sounds like a child's temper tantrum to me.) Well, I've make it known that I've been suspicious of Jose's intentions all along, but if this all seems "Normal" to you and doesn't bother you.. I say good luck and press on with your use of ROS. But from my limited interactions in the world of IT security, it sure sets off a lot of alarms and warning signs to me. Jim N1SZ PS - I know. I'm feeding Jose's need for attention From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Wright Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:45 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New question Why would anyone want to use any version of this software? Which is better; the software that sends out false reports that you can block, or the software that sends out false reports that you can't? In any case, it is doing who knows what in the background. The fact that Jose has now coded a new version that you can't block simply indicates that there is more to this than just the spots to the cluster. Why must it have access to the internet to work? What else does it send out that is so important that the software MUST have access to the internet?? Such activity would be considered a major threat to computer security in most circles. Am I the only one that wonders this? Wow! Dave K3DCW On Jul 15, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Robert Bennett wrote: Everyone better use V1.0 then, or we shall end up using different versions that don't talk to each other! ----- Original Message ----- From: Siegfried Jackstien <mailto:siegfried.jackst...@freenet.de> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:34 PM Subject: AW: [digitalradio] New question All versions after the first 1.0 (the new 1.0, 470beta and 471 beta) close after a while if adifdata can get no inet So if you wanna use that soft WITHOUT sending spots you should keep the old 1.0 Dave K3DCW www.k3dcw.net
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
