Not really Epic’s fault, but more Microsoft’s. It’s a good argument against DRM, though. Especially this kind. Expiring certificates? I can understand that for SSL. A game should never expire.
Yeah, that’s really embarrassing. It would be one thing if this was like 14 years down the line, but only a couple years after it came out? How does that happen? I also read recently that all GfWL titles apparently have some secret, undisclosed install limit.
The expired certificate can’t be the hole story. I just checked and ut3.exe is signed with the same expired certificate but Unreal Tournament 3 still runs.
DRM. It only hurts the ones it loves.
Right, it must be the combo of G4WLive requiring a signed game executable and G4WLive going all retarded if the cert expires. We sign all of our exes and I don’t think if they expire they stop working. I mean, I am sure as hell going to test this tomorrow.
Digital certs are not DRM and its getting crazy out there listening to the confusion.
Nevertheless these expired or potentially unsafe certificates on websites is annoying as fuck and shows how much / little a company cares about its image in general.
I work for a company that has some of them as well and it pisses me off every time I log into my remote email etc.
If a company is serving expired or non-CA certificates on a public website that end-users are going to visit, yeah that’s stupid, but on internal sites like remote email? That’s an entirely different story.
Trust and security are two very different issues at play here and there’s really no sense in a company paying for CA-issued certificates for internal sites, though there are very good reasons for them to use SSL. Just configure your browser to ignore the warning for your remote email site and suck it up.
I AM surprised.
I think IT departments should start to promote themselves a bit better because usually we are seen as “freaks” that do some “black magic” in some windowless rooms.
If every user that goes to check his email has to always see “an error message” before accessing them I think it’s worth thinking about updating these internal CA certificates…
It’s not as simple as ‘updating’ them though - very often they’re self-generated and not signed by a recognised CA (i.e., Thawte or Versign). As CCZ says, that’s fine for a site that’s intended for internal use (even if it’s publically accessible, like OWA or whatever). In that instance it doesn’t make any sense to use CA-signed certs, since the people who are using the OWA can be reasonably confident that it’s a legit site.
But for anything that’s going to be used by the general public and is - to them, at least - an unknown quantity that may be looking for credit card details etc. then a proper certificate signed by a CA is a must.
This could be where the problems began. RAID is not a backup, babies are not free labour and security certificates are not copy protection.
I can’t believe they’re simply doing that, though. It’s almost as if somebody at Epic was fed up with DRM and implemented a guaranteed broken method out of spite when the publisher requested it.
People using RAID for backup are stupid.
RAID is for high availability and uptime.
Considering that the major point of backups IS availability, I’m not seeing the contradiction.
Nope, it’s not a contradiction. RAID is only a short-term solution that enables you to to react quickly should one of the HDDs fail. However, should, let’s say, your software screw up, then it’ll screw up on all drives. If you don’t have a way of going back to older versions then, a RAID setup is not going to help it. Also, a good back-up solution is not stored at the same place as your primary data, so it doesn’t get lost if said location burns downs, gets flooded or whatever.
So, if you experience a data corruption error on 1 drive, it’s replicated and all your data is gone.
People using RAID mirror as a backup measure are stupid and should not be a primary/sole means of ‘backup’ without making real backup copies.
I have a RAID set up and use Time Machine to back up to it. Other than it not being off site, it’s been a great backup system for me.
Oh god, as for the JournalSpace thing … If I were running a business, I would have a far more comprehensive backup plan in place. No doubt. Running a business under the assumption that “RAID == backup” is indeed stupid.
RAID is for redundency, not backup. RAID is fabulous if one of your harddrives suffers a hardware failure, but it’s useless if your data centre burns down or you need to restore a file that a dumbass user deleted two months ago.
Hey EpicBoy, what are you doing posting? You should be fixing the Gear of War PC certificate, because obviously you are personally responsible for all things possibly related to Epic!
I was thinking in the context of home users, where the vast majority of the time RAID and offline backups cover the same contingency-- hard drive failure.
If there are actual businesses not running both… well, they deserve what they get.