full-disclosure - Re: Request to publish your Proof of Concept (esc1.html)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon Sep 26 19:57:48 2005
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu)
Subject: Re: Request to publish your Proof of Concept
	(esc1.html) 

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:02:28 +0545, Bipin Gautam said:

> WHAT/who is stoping you from rewriting the POC making slight changes
> in program flow? No that ain't against the law... or is it?

At least under US law, "slight changes" would make the POC a "derivative work",
which would be against the law without a suitable license from the original
copyright holder - and you can't even use "fair use" to wiggle around this one,
as the POC would almost certainly require much more code copying than what "fair
use" would cover.

What *would* be legal is looking at the original, figuring out how it worked,
and then writing a totally new and original POC that utilized the same principle
(as only the expression is copyrightable, not the idea expressed).

Of course, IANAL, and you'd probably want to ask a competent lawyer specializing
in intellectual property if you think the lawyer's answer might matter....
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20050926/10c575b7/attachment.bin