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: Tue, 04 May 2010 13:37:05 -0400
From: "Justin C. Klein Keane" <>
Subject: Re: WTF eEye Really?

Hash: SHA1

For an interesting take on this see page xxxix in Ross Anderson's
"Security Engineering" (the Legal Notice).  Apparently the debate over
whether or not to publish tools/techniques that could be used for evil
(specifically with respects to crypto) dates back to 1641.

Justin C. Klein Keane

The digital signature on this message can be confirmed
using the public key at

On 05/04/2010 01:32 PM, Marsh Ray wrote:
> On 5/3/2010 7:44 PM, Sec News wrote:
>> Did anyone else see this?
>> """
>> Penetration Tools Can Be Weapons in the Wrong Hands
>> Author: Morey Haber Date: May 3rd, 2010 Categories: Network Security,
>> Vulnerability Management
>> After a lifetime in the vulnerability assessment field, I’ve come to look at
>> penetration testing almost as a kind of crime, or at least a misdemeanor.
> Is this for real?
>> We enjoy freedom of speech, even if it breaks the law or license agreements.
> No, there are laws and contracts that can restrict speech.
>> Websites cover techniques for jailbreaking iPhones even though it clearly
>> violates the EULA for Apples devices.
> Since when did devices have an EULA? I haven't bought an Apple in modern
> times, do they make you sign something before buying it?
>> Penetration tools clearly allow the
>> breaking and entering of systems to prove that vulnerabilities are real, but
>> clearly could be used maliciously to break the law.
> It took you a lifetime in the vulnerability assessment field to figure
> this out?
>> Making these tools readily available is like encouraging people to play with
>> fireworks. Too bold of a statement? I think not. Fireworks can make a
>> spectacular show, but they can also be abused and cause serious damage. In
>> most states, only people licensed and trained are permitted to set off
>> fireworks.
> Fireworks are macroscopic physical objects the transportation which can
> reasonably be regulated.
>> Now consider a pen test tool. In its open form, on the Internet, everyone
>> and anyone can use it to test their systems, but in the wrong hands, for
>> free, it can be used to break into systems and cause disruption, steal
>> information, or cause even more permanent types of harm.
> Yep.
> Your mistake is assuming that there is some jurisdiction of law that
> encompasses the Internet. Indeed, it appears that often the adversary is
> a state entity itself.
> Those who accept this argument that testing tools should be somehow
> restricted are only tying their own hands. You can bet that your
> adversary will not feel so restricted (if you have anything actually
> worth protecting that is.)
> It is even more foolish to assume that your adversary doesn't already
> have it.
>> How many people remember the 80’s TV show Max Headroom?
> I stop reading now.
> - Marsh
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter:
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -


Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -

Powered by blists - more mailing lists