full-disclosure - Publishing exploit code ruled illegal in France?

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]

Message-ID: <DC09DB522D858648AC430F0DBC51F63208080F@its-exmail1.its.corp.gwl.com>
From: james.burnes at gwl.com (Burnes, James)
Subject: Publishing exploit code ruled illegal in France?

So, in France, which of the following statements are true?

1. You must literally own the software in question before reverse
engineering it?  A normal user license is not good enough.  In other
words, only Microsoft may reverse engineer its own software.  Pointless,
but whatever...

2. You may reverse engineer a copy that you have licensed.

3. You may reverse engineer a copy that a license owner has given you
permission to examine.

4. You must have formal permission of a license owner in hand and
notarized before you may examine such a piece of software.

Any comments from our friends in France?

JB

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of
jean-philippe Gaulier
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:40 AM
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Publishing exploit code ruled illegal in
France?

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:40:46 +0100
sec-list@...og.org wrote:

Hi,

> in France some strange things happen:
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39183862,00.htm

I disagree with this article. I'm french, I know Guillaume and don't
like
Viguard, so I think that I could chat about that a little more.

Guillaume was convicted not for his publication, but because he used
first
a "pseudo" illegal copy of tegam viguard, and disassemble not for
compatibility

The decision of the court is defined as "really friendly" for the
researcher
community. 

This point of view is explained by a french lawyer there :
http://maitre.eolas.free.fr/journal/index.php?2005/03/08/87-guillermito-
condamne-mais-tres-legerement

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