There are a number of concerns with your legal declaration and protocol for responding with interpreted register directives to this target when emulating the intercepted communication. Though page 47 and Karo indicate the likelyhood of no adverse impact on systems that interpret the shutdown command, this should have had emphasis that the target (client) machine had the option to interpret your injected "command" and statistical evidence that only one version set of the tool existed and ideally 100% of clients had verifiable and predictable results. There is no indication you studied the possibility of "counterpart" systems existing to monitor your target and preempted damage to user contexts. There is still option for this retalitory intervention by the criminals to monitor and counteract your progress. It is surprising that such an antique and legacy method of action even exists in real world deployment, such techniques might have been common in the early 1990s but irrational except when deployed within a fully controlled corporate network. There are a number of specific concerns to be relayed upon your response to this message. The exploits and vulnerabilities which make these criminal activities possible are intentionally designed and DO NOT facilitate equal market opportunity nor advancement of commerce, these provide exploits which sponsor organized crime and terrorism. -LEE