|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > full-disclosure-uk archives|
im not an alias of n3td3v. my penis isn't as big as his.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Exibar <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think we should have "n3td3v's law" where n3td3v and all his aliases
> (professor, uleet, <insert troll douche's name here>, etc) are required to
> get signed written authorization from the community before he can post a
> single message....anywhere.... if it's not a unanimous agreement that he
> can post, and he does so anyway, he goes to jail....
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "n3td3v" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:56 AM
> Subject: [Full-disclosure] Kaminsky's Law
>> So what you're saying is HD Moore and |)ruid are exploiting a loop
>> hole in the law to do what they do... looks like we need to get the
>> law tightened.
>> I say a "Responsible Disclosure Act" is drawn up, and anyone who
>> breaks it goes to jail.
>> That will mean:
>> - People will think twice before hitting send on blog entries,
>> - People will think twice about releasing code early,
>> - That the decided time line for disclosure can be enforced,
>> - That the people who release information and/or code early, they get
>> fined for every computer system compromised because of the
>> vulnerability information and/or code disclosure, on top of the jail
>> So instead for the future its not just a verbal contract for
>> responsible disclosure, its a legally binding contract as well meaning
>> if the Responsible Disclosure Act has been signed by the security
>> researcher and its affected vendors, then ass hats like HD Moore and
>> |)ruid are breaking the law.
>> The details are a bit fuzzy right now, but i'm sure the big guys in
>> the industry can draw up proper rules for a Responsible Disclosure
>> Its likely the Responsible Disclosure Act would only be used in
>> exceptional circumstances like this DNS caching vulnerability, and the
>> approval of the act per vulnerability case has to be decided on by a
>> judge in a court of law, so that the Responsible Disclosure Act can't
>> be over used and abused, to keep the use of the act fair and
>> proportional in relation to the level of the threat.
>> That means, Full-Disclosure of vulnerability information and/or
>> wouldn't be illegal all the time, just in exceptional circumstances
>> that has to be OK'd by a judge.
>> This safe guards the deployment of a patch or patches while telling
>> what the importance of patching is to the public, while disallowing
>> security researchers to release information and/or code before the
>> time line for responsible disclosure.
>> So the scenario would be,
>> jake: hey did you hear about the patches being deployed and the news
>> reports about the flaw and why the patch is critical?
>> joe: yes, but the responsible disclosure act has been signed so we
>> need to wait until it expires before we can share info.
>> jake: no way, whats the assigned disclosure date?
>> joe: the standard 4 weeks, although with the responsible disclosure
>> act, after the 4 weeks, the security researcher and vendors can go
>> back to the judge to ask for an extra 4 week extension onto that, so
>> it could be eight weeks bro before we can become famous for five
>> minutes by releasing attack code.
>> jake: ah, sucks for us, but yeah if the judge has approved the signing
>> there isn't alot we can do unless we want to be labeled criminals, and
>> hunted down by interpol.
>> What has to be told to the community under the act:
>> - The community must be told the Responsible Disclosure Act has been
>> signed and OK'd by a judge.
>> - The community must be told the date the Responsible Disclosure Act
>> expires and disclosure can be made.
>> - The community must be told that security researcher and vendor can
>> go back to the judge after 4 weeks and ask for extension of the act if
>> extra time is needed, this must be announced to the community again
>> with notice.
>> All members of the community who break the Responsible Disclosure Act
>> are breaking the law and face charges.
>> Obviously this is just an email I rattled up in five minutes during a
>> water machine break, so the big guys in the industry can take these
>> ideas and throw them into a properly put together act.
>> I think Dan Kaminsky should lobby the industry and the government to
>> get something like this drawn up, since he is the one who has inspired
>> me to come up with the Responsible Disclosure Act.
>> I kind of feel sorry for Dan Kaminsky, and that HD Moore and |)ruid
>> had to be dick heads about releasing code on purpose against his
>> request of Dan Kaminsky, the vendors and people who agree with
>> responsible disclosure, especially in exceptional circumstances like
>> the DNS flaw.
>> Maybe we should name it "Kaminsky's Law" out of Solidarity for Dan.
>> All the best,
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
>> Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Comments on: DNS exploit code is in the
>> To: n3td3v <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Cc: email@example.com
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:17:08 BST, n3td3v said:
>>> This whole HD Moore savior of info sec thing has gone on long enough,
>>> its time to see him for what he is and get him slammed up in jail
>>> along with his counterpart |)ruid.
>> I'll point out that you happen to live in the country that invented the
>> concept of "habeus corpus". In other words, you cant slam him in jail
>> unless you actually *charge* him with something.
>> Please tell us which countr(y|ies) you intend to have him charged, and
>> offense. Specific references to statutes would be appreciated (for
>> I'll help you out and point out that in the US, he probably could *not* be
>> charged under 17 USC 1201 (the DMCA anti-circumvention clause), nor under
>> USC 1030 (the primary federal anti-hacking statute), unless you have
>> evidence that HD personally hacked into a computer covered by 18 USC 1030.
>> run into similar issue with 18 USC 2701 (access to stored communication).
>> You *might* be able to make a case under 18 USC 2512 (dealing in devices
>> intercepting communications), except that there's the nasty clause
>> "knowing or
>> having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily
>> useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or
>> electronic communications;" - and you'd fail on the "primarily" because
>> lots of *other* uses for Metasploit.
>> He *is* probably in violation of 36 USC 117, 7 USC 411b, and 26 USC
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/