I understand .. but to attack a program that has always shown good faith for a simple security procedure that most other companies have something similar to seems a bit tedious. If you look at the first question above there is a statement from Steve saying that. I just know that the entire curious labs tema worked really hard to keep patches coming when they were going under at Meta and I would liek to give them a little benefit of the doubt. A lot of the statements are simply hearsay. People aren't reading the facts or even the notices. And like I said. No software would put an official notice of "in case we go under" or "in case we are nuked." You say "And if a simple patch is going to "nuke" the security system, then how long will it be before one of the "warez-kiddies" has one floating throughout cyber-space?" but that doesn't stop other companies from implimenting security proceedures, dongles, etc.