[mothered]

This'll have no effect on my systems whatsoever.

I've defined a few GPOs to prevent write access on device classes, as well as device Installation restrictions to prevent the Install of removable devices that do not match predefined hardware IDs.
Informative reading though, thanks.

[lux]

This'll have no effect on my systems whatsoever.

I've defined a few GPOs to prevent write access on device classes, as well as device Installation restrictions to prevent the Install of removable devices that do not match predefined hardware IDs.
Informative reading though, thanks.

Pretty sure it will have some effect.

[Eclipse]

This'll have no effect on my systems whatsoever.

I've defined a few GPOs to prevent write access on device classes, as well as device Installation restrictions to prevent the Install of removable devices that do not match predefined hardware IDs.
Informative reading though, thanks.

Lol. You didn't read anything in this thread, did you? Informative reading my ass.

This is all hardware based. Not software. All of your safeguards are on the software level. You should go back and read the OP and the replies before posting.

[mothered]

Lol. You didn't read anything in this thread, did you? Informative reading my ass.

This is all hardware based. Not software. All of your safeguards are on the software level. You should go back and read the OP and the replies before posting.

device Installation restrictions to prevent the Install of removable devices that do not match predefined hardware IDs.

You never cease to entertain me. My Implementations are evidently software-based, to prevent "hardware" from "functioning" as per the predefined rules.

It clearly defines how removable devices that "do not match predefined hardware IDs" on the given system, cannot be Installed and "function" on the "hardware" of which the USB device Is plugged Into. Furthermore, It prevents all Devices AFTER applying the GPOs (previously Installed USB Devices WILL function as per normal).

Please refrain from posting content that you clearly have no Idea what you're on about.
Thank you.

[Bish0pQ]

You never cease to entertain me. My Implementations are evidently software-based, to prevent "hardware" from functioning as per the predefined rules.

It clearly defines how removable devices that "do not match predefined hardware IDs" on the given system, cannot be Installed and function on the "hardware" of which the USB device Is plugged Into. Furthermore, It prevents all Devices AFTER applying the Policy setting (previously Installed USB Devices WILL function as per normal).

Please refrain from posting content that you clearly have no Idea what you're on about.
Thank you.

I partly agree with you, but I believe it is possible, maybe software does prevent changing anything, but if someone can create an USB (not the current one, I think it's to small), which has enough capacitors you should be able to let it crash. I do not think it can set on fire, only way to do that is overloading your GPU or CPU I think.

I think that when they load up and there are enough capacitors, I think that you should be able to overload the system with a certain voltage which kills the HDD or RAM or something.

A computer doesn't need much to crash. I once was working on a build with a friend of mine, his hands were static loaded with electricity (Don't know if I said that right, but you know what I mean), and the motherboard, RAM, CPU were all crashed, he had to order everything again, just because of some static electricity.

So maybe it is possible.

[mothered]

I partly agree with you, but I believe it is possible, maybe software does prevent changing anything, but if someone can create an USB (not the current one, I think it's to small), which has enough capacitors you should be able to let it crash. I do not think it can set on fire, only way to do that is overloading your GPU or CPU I think.
So maybe it is possible.

I certainly agree that It Is possible.

Irrespective of the USB's (In this case) ability to cause hardware damage, my Implementations preclude the device from being Identified by the system on which It's plugged Into. I'm not saying It's the case with all devices of this nature with greater capability, obviously I haven't tested everything that's out there.

[Eclipse]

You never cease to entertain me. My Implementations are evidently software-based, to prevent "hardware" from "functioning" as per the predefined rules.

It clearly defines how removable devices that "do not match predefined hardware IDs" on the given system, cannot be Installed and "function" on the "hardware" of which the USB device Is plugged Into. Furthermore, It prevents all Devices AFTER applying the GPOs (previously Installed USB Devices WILL function as per normal).

Please refrain from posting content that you clearly have no Idea what you're on about.
Thank you.

Just when you think this kid can't get more retarded. You need to do and redo basic GCSE physics mate.

[lux]

It clearly defines how removable devices that "do not match predefined hardware IDs" on the given system, cannot be Installed and "function" on the "hardware" of which the USB device Is plugged Into. Furthermore, It prevents all Devices AFTER applying the GPOs (previously Installed USB Devices WILL function as per normal).

Are you... Are you retarded? Or do you just have your head shoved so far up your internet-alias' arse you cannot comprehend basic physics?

it's E-L-E-C-T-R-I-C-I-T-Y, not a fucking bash script!

[dotcppfile]

You never cease to entertain me. My Implementations are evidently software-based, to prevent "hardware" from "functioning" as per the predefined rules.

It clearly defines how removable devices that "do not match predefined hardware IDs" on the given system, cannot be Installed and "function" on the "hardware" of which the USB device Is plugged Into. Furthermore, It prevents all Devices AFTER applying the GPOs (previously Installed USB Devices WILL function as per normal).

Please refrain from posting content that you clearly have no Idea what you're on about.
Thank you.

You're hilarious haha

[mothered]

Just when you think this kid can't get more retarded. You need to do and redo basic GCSE physics mate.

Are you... Are you retarded? Or do you just have your head shoved so far up your internet-alias' arse you cannot comprehend basic physics?
it's E-L-E-C-T-R-I-C-I-T-Y, not a fucking bash script!

You both seem quite agitated. What's with the flaming? You do realize It's against forum rules?

Be respectful to others aswell, it isn't difficult flaming aren't allowed either

Particularly @"eclipse" you should lead by example, you're supposed to be a representation of the forum as a whole.

Now that we understand each other, for the sake of simplicity, It prevents It from being Identified. If It prevents It from being Identified, It prevents It from functioning. If It prevents It from functioning, It prevents It from serving It's objective. Get It?
If you don't understand this, break It down Into syllables and sound out the words slowly.
Thank you.