full-disclosure - Fwd: HBGary Mirrors?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:50:15 +0000
From: "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]"
	<cal.leeming@...plicitymedialtd.co.uk>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Fwd:  HBGary Mirrors?

Sorry, when I say eligible, I mean "which server would they be allowed to
take down by law?".

I'm not too hot on the laws of encryption, but I'm sure there is something
which states that hosting encrypted files are not illegal, it's distributing
the key which allows you to gain access to those fails, which is actually
illegal.

*DISCLAIMER: I don't know if the above is true or not, so apologies if I got
this wrong*

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:46 PM, ck <c.kernstock@...glemail.com> wrote:

> I go with the server hosting the files since the key should be
> significant smaller than the files and therefor much easier to mirror.
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]
> <cal.leeming@...plicitymedialtd.co.uk> wrote:
> > So here's a thought.
> > If illegally distributed files (such as this one) were encrypted and
> hosted
> > on one server, and the key hosted on another, which server would
> > be eligible for take down?
> >
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/