Message-ID: <002401c8ee4e$087f4f40$1214dd80@corp.emc.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:00:25 -0400
From: "Exibar" <exibar@...lair.com>
To: "n3td3v" <xploitable@...il.com>,
	<full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Kaminsky's Law

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" <xploitable@...il.com>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
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
> sentence.
>
> 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
> Act.
>
> 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,
>
> n3td3v
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:  <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>
> Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Comments on: DNS exploit code is in the 
> wild
> To: n3td3v <xploitable@...il.com>
> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>
>
> 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 
> what
> offense.  Specific references to statutes would be appreciated (for 
> starters,
> 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 
> 18
> USC 1030 (the primary federal anti-hacking statute), unless you have 
> actual
> evidence that HD personally hacked into a computer covered by 18 USC 1030. 
> You
> 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 
> for
> 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 
> there's
> lots of *other* uses for Metasploit.
>
> He *is* probably in violation of 36 USC 117, 7 USC 411b, and 26 USC 
> 7523(a)(1),
> however.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists