I doubt that this topic will rise up to be noticed here on Hacker News, but I'm genuinely curious how other non affiliated parties will view this situation.
> “the contractor says the problem is the result of an expired software license”
I mean, the article is light on specifics but it seems irresponsible to be throwing around the terms “ransomware” and “malicious code” or letting Orqa co-opt the article into parroting the claims repeatedly with very little in the way of inquiry, specifics, or supporting technical detail. The word is associated with crime.
The article does say:
“But it looks like the bricking wasn't a traditional ransomware attack, but rather due to a corporate dispute.”
The article is also using the term “bricked” incorrectly - if you’re in the boot loader and can still upgrade firmware, especially in a way that fixes the problem, your device is not bricked in the way we typically use that term.
Anyway, this sounds like Orqa should have read their license agreement a little more closely. Maybe they knew there was a fee due but assumed that once the hardware shipped they wouldn’t have to pay. Maybe they’re the bad guys here.
There’re a lot of possible explanations, but it sounds like a contractual dispute, not a case of ransomware.
The issue here is that the bootloader (apparently written by a contractor) was preprogrammed to prevent booting after a certain date. The contractor is claiming this is the result of some kind of license agreement (or maybe disagreement?) with Orqa, the manufacturer.
