Why the World Needs Reverse Engineering

bl968 writes: "Zdnet has an article entitled "Why the world needs reverse engineers." The article covers among many things the Cuecat barcode scanner and some of the reason the hardware or software manufacturers dislike reverse engineering of their products. Privacy violating serial numbers anyone? Security problems and the DMCA are also touched upon."

Comments

The nature of capatalism

[Adam Wiggins]

Reverse engineering allows capitalism to happen in the world of technology, where the "standard" (which is usually defined by whoever comes first) is all-powerful. It's not only just acceptable, it's absolutely necessary if we want the market to move forward.

Checks and balances

[Adam9]

Reverse engineering is one of the few things consumers can do that can check the quality, integrity, and for the most part, ethics of a company's product. It can be most compared to the government's checks and balances system, except where the real power lies wit hthe consumer in this situation. Almost seems like the exploits that are released for security holes, it might seem evil, but it's needed to keep the corporations on their toes.

Blizzard

[Goldberg's Pants]

I seem to recall going back when Starcraft came out that someone reverse engineered it to write, I believe, a Battlenet server type program. Blizzard sent the guy a cease and desist order and said reverse engineering was illegaly, usual legal spiel. He stood up to them and said no and they threatened legal action but he stood his ground and they backed down.

A collective community dedicated to reverse engineering, say, the Cuecat would stand a much better chance of fighting the stupidity of the designers claims than if the developers stay in disparate camps. One collective force will put up more of a fight then a bunch of little camps. I think that is probably the only way that reverse engineerings laws will be changed, and even then it is going to take a LONG time.

---

Reverse engineering can help an industry

[magic]

id, the makers of Quake & Doom have consistently supported the reverse-engineering community that has grown up around their products. Within days of the release of Quake III, independent developers were posting their own level editors because they had successfully reverse engineered the binary format of id's files.

Not only does id not take action against these folks, they support them with code releases from the product and ongoing .plan files describing upcoming tweaks and the algorithms used in the games. Write to the id developers and they are likely to write back, answering questions about the game and encouraging you to write your own tools for it.

These independent tools are what have allowed the game modification (mods) communities to grow around their games and have led to id's real cash cow: licensing game engines. Other game makers license id's engine in part because there are so many tools available for it. In a recent Gamasutra article, the lead programmer for Soldier of Fortune, a new 3D game, talked about why his company chose to license the Quake engine: because the tools created by independent developers for level editing and cut scene creation were so good.

-m

Reverse engineering: bane or boon?

[Kreeblah]

The benefits of reverse engineering apply not only to the consumer world, but also to the coporate world. Consumers get detailed info on the innards of a particular piece of hardware or software, and companies scream bloody murder. What they are ignoring, however, is the opportunity to improve their products. The reverse engineering people are a perfect target market. Companies can give (or sell) initial versions of their products to reverse engineers, in the HOPES that a security flaw or bug will be uncovered. They can reduce their PR problems by fixing the major (and, hopefully, minor) bugs and security holes in their products BEFORE THEY BECOME A MAJOR ISSUE. This benefits companies in another way, as well: a decrease in their quality assurance budgets. By turning over their products to a few people to play with, they don't have to spend hundreds (or, in some cases, dozens) of man-hours testing a product for bugs. You can be sure that reverse engineers will either be pushing the product to the limit, or going over every square inch of it to try to figure out how it works. This brings me to a third point. Companies can use reverse engineers as a test market for new tech toys. Wouldn't it have been nice if Digital Convergence had decided to let people use their devices for USEFUL purposes? They could have found out any number of applications for them by simply giving them out to people who would have some idea of the implications of such devices.

Schools teach reverse engineering

[www.sorehands.com]

We had to disect flatworms and frogs to see how they worked.

In programming classes, we are given parts of programs to understand what they are doing. When we get an exam in these classes, we have to reverse engineer the program in the question to know what it does. Remember, having to take apart a car engine and put it back together in autoshop?

I've posted it before, I'll post it again.

[AFCArchvile]

"Joe Sixpack and Vinny Bagadonuts [don't] care about [the] DMCA, freedom or anything like that. As long as the football game will be broadcast on time they're happy."

Well, it's time to MAKE them care, by making them aware of the impact that the DMCA will have on their lives. It might turn out that Joe Sixpack downloads his favorite Elvis Costello tunes from Napster because his LP's are scratched beyond recognition. And what if he wanted to get DVD soon, but didn't want to worry about the MPAA charging him a flat rate to play the movie? Then he should start caring about how the DMCA will affect his life.

One of the major reasons why I hate the DMCA is because of how it became law: a joint venture between the MPAA, RIAA, and the government. In no way was this act approved by the US citizens. The very fact that the DMCA will become law soon flies in the face of this passage of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

From the consent of governed. Now, did we give any consent to have the DMCA passed into law? NO. Were any referendums held to study public opinion on this issue? NO.

The DMCA IS destructive of the ends established in the Declaration, and it is our right to abolish the DMCA. It is not only our right, but now it is our responsibility to eliminate the DMCA. The DMCA will affect our happiness in the future; we will become drones, being forced by the MPAA to shell out X amount of dollars to watch a pre-recorded movie for Y amount of time. Even worse, the RIAA might soon mandate that we pay for FM radio by the minute. I fear that this idea (or a similar incarnation) isn't far off.

Do I sound a little like Henry David Thoreau? Good! It's nice to know that I'm one of the only remaining Transcendentalists in the US.

Shrink wrapped car

[onyxruby]

I'm waiting for the day that cars are delivered shrink-wrapped. After all, a car has a computer, chips and software. Why not wrap the whole thing up, and make the user agree to whatever draconian terms you like?

Think about, they could rapid oil change places, repair shops, chiltons, haynes, and body shops all out of business within a few years. The real fun would begin when people would realize that they no longer have the right of first sale. That's right, that brand new car you just bought can't be given away, but your allowed to trade it in for a $1,500 discount. Ala AT&T, gas stations would have to pay money to auto manufactures for a /right/ to sell gas for their cars. And the thing that they would love the most, popping the hood of your car could void your warranty. After-all, no one other than the dealer needs to look inside there, right?

Altair / IBM PC / Mac

[Overnight Delivery]

It's interesting to look at how reverse engineering affected these products.

When the Altair originally succeeded companies such as Proc Tech reverse engineered the bus and made add on boards. MITS called these companies "parasites" but ther were actually adding value to the product and helped it succeed.

When the IBM PC came out it was pretty much open apart from the BIOS. Even before Compaq reversed engineered it there were heaps of 3rd party add-ons that make the product more attractive to buyers.

Contrast that to the Mac which was closed in every regard, you had virtually one source for add-on's, Apple. The Mac was at a severe disadvantage even before the PC Clone market go going because there were so many people creating extra value for PC's.

Companies hate reverse engineering because they have delusiuons of grandure. They believe that they will be able to predict every possible use for their product AND be able to supply the demand for those products.

The long term fortunes of businesses that take the "reverse-engineering-bad" mentality follows a pretty similar path.

The Learning Patern of being a child.

[gavinhall]

Posted by DRAGONWEEZEL@HOTMAIL:

Reverse engineering is instinct in most children. Remember when you were two and all you ever did was ask WHY? Once you knew what why meant, You asked it till you were blue in the face. REMEMBER?? I KNOW YOU DO!! I personally remember reverse engineering some kewl toys I had. I.E. remote/radio controled vehicles, my bicycle, fire, the toilet, and a feeble atempt to recreate the cooking of popcorn (when I was three). my point here is not only is reverse engineering something that may help our society, it is instinctive to human nature to do so. dw Fire is red,violets are blue I am a schitzophranic, so am I.

Re:Reverse- Engineering.

[sulli]

Clearly. It's the "proprietary at all costs" vendors who don't see this, because their VCs believe that controlling some proprietary standard will make you rich beyond your wildest dreams. The actual experience of real users doesn't reflect this (after all, even Micros~1 wouldn't exist without its developers) but somehow the PHBs and PHLs (pointy headed lawyers) fail to understand it.

But in the interest of consumer protection, and in the absence of rational corporate behavior, we really do need a Reverse Engineering Protection Act. Bad engineering and the like cause much more harm (privacy loss, for one thing) than reverse engineering ever has. Who'll support this??

I'm a Reverse Engineer

[goingware]

I also posted this in the discussion at ZDNet, although it hasn't been posted by the moderators yet as I write this.

I'm a reverse engineer. The very first contract job I did when I started my new consulting business was to reverse engineer the file format for a project management database used by the motion picture industry.

My client, Graphical Planet, wanted to make a product that would interoperate with Movie Magic Scheduling. Only the Movie Magic publishers wouldn't tell them how, and in fact were quite unfriendly towards them.

We initially agreed that I would complete the reverse engineering in a week and be paid $1500.

It actually took me three weeks, and was some of the most difficult work I have done as a programmer - while it was interesting, it was mentally painful, like cracking an enemy code. Perhaps what made it worse was that I desperately needed the money and only would get paid if I succeeded.

In the end I was able to write up a detailed file format specification document, and I also wrote a C program that would dump the contents of a MM project file into a human-readable text file. I successfully tested it by dumping out the full project file from an actual full-length motion picture.

How did I do it? I created lots of little sample files, for example, my first document I added only the letter "A" in one field, then made a second, where I changed that to the letter "B". I made hex dumps of the files and then compared the hex dumps. A lot of the work went into trying to find the best kind of files to make for my testing.

I want to point out that, until the DMCA reverse engineering was always perfectly legal in the US, and in fact state trade secret protection laws specifically grant reverse engineering an exemption from trade secret protections.

Even now, most things are still legal to reverse engineer, and I think it is likely that the DMCA will be found unconstitutional - or some applications of it will be, for example the Content Scrambling System is clearly a violation of well-established antitrust laws.

One of the reasons that reverse engineering is legally protected, I understand, is that it is not the public's objective that novel inventions be kept secret.

What the government would prefer a company do if it wants to have a monopoly over an invention is to apply for a patent, because part of the patent application is a full disclosure of the invention (sufficiently detailed that some one expert in the art could reproduce it), and then the monopoly is granted for a limited time.

Twenty years may seem like forever in high-tech, but keep in mind that the monopoly does eventually come to an end. This is why we have generic drugs, for example, and also not that the patent on RSA public key cryptography, the basis of PGP encryption and the SSL or secure socket layer, used for https secure web pages, expired in September of this year.

Re:What we need is LICENSED reverse engineers.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

so-called "right".

I propose that reverse engineering is always a right regardless of the economic consequences to the parties being reverse engineered. No one has the right to steal. Everyone has the right to reverse engineer.

granted the privelege of practicing reverse engineering

The act of understanding how something works that one has bought is not a priviledge. The only possible check on this action is stupidity. Those who are unable to analyze a system won't ever understand it. Those who can, should. If that understanding leads to better products we as a species benifit.

To suggest that security vulnerabilities must be fixed before they are made public is to say they must never be made public. It is only public censure that insures the fixes.

I apoligize to all if I am responding to a troll.

DMCA Infringement Notification Requires Wet Sig.

[goingware]

I found the following in the ZDNet discussion at:

http://www.zd net .com/tlkbck/comment/22/0,7056,99112-589101,00.html

Apparently the DMCA itself requires that notifications of violations of the DMCA must be made in writing with a "wet" signature, that is actually written by hand with ink. Email and fax is insufficient.

The fellow suggests that you post the following on your site as a legal notice to those who may attempt to contact you about material on your site that they claim infringes their copyright:

Procedure for Notifying Yourname.com of Copyright Infringement Claims

In accordance with the DMCA, copyright owners, or persons authorized to act on behalf of owners who believe specific Shared Content may infringe any exclusive right(s) of the copyright owner should notify Yourname.com's designated agent in the following manner:

Notices Must Be in Writing: Yourname.com must obtain all required information in writing in the form of a 'Notice of Copyright Infringement' ("Notice"). Telephonic, verbal or other non-written communications are insufficient under Yourname.com's policies and do not meet the requirements of the DMCA.

Content of Notice: Notice to Yourname.com must include the following information:

1. Identification of the copyrighted work that You claim has been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works are covered in the Notice, a representative list of the copyrighted works that You claim have been infringed using Yourname.com's services; 2. Identification of Shared Content, material or activity that You claim is infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled. Such identification must contain information sufficient to permit Yourname.com to locate that Shared Content; 3. Your street and mailing address, telephone number and, if available, Your electronic mail address; 4. A statement by You that You have a good faith belief that the disputed use of the copyrighted material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law (e.g., fair use); 5. A statement by You, made under penalty of perjury, that all the information in Your Notice is accurate and that You are the copyright owner, or authorized to act on behalf of an owner of any exclusive right that is allegedly infringed by the materials referenced in Your Notice.

Notices Must be Signed: The written notice must be subscribed with the "wet signature" (no facsimiles, proxies or copies) of the copyright owner or of a person authorized to act on behalf of an owner of any exclusive right(s) that are allegedly infringed by the materials referenced in the Notice.

Delivery to Designated Agent: The Notice must be addressed and delivered via U.S. Mail, Express Mail, or Courier to Yourname.com's Designated Copyright Agent, as follows:

Copyright Agent

Yourname.com

Your Blvd

Your Town, State Zip Code

Your Phone Number

If You suspect specific Shared Content may constitute copyright infringement, but are not the copyright owner or authorized to act on behalf of an owner of any exclusive right(s) that You believe may be infringed, please notify Yourname.com at legal@Yourname.com. If You are not the copyright owner or the owner's representative, Yourname.com may not be able to remove the Shared Content. Yourname.com will attempt to investigate each report and forward each notice to the appropriate copyright owner, if identified.

Re:What we need is LICENSED reverse engineers.

[JCMay]

AC wrote:

The world needs dynamite too; but that doesn't mean it ought to be available to just anyone on a whim as some so-called "right".

First, this whole message has got to be a troll.

That said, the bigger question is, "where does it end?"

If you regulate explosives, as your example, does that mean that you regulate the chemicals required the make an explosive, or just the explosive itself? Will farmers have to get a special permit to buy high nitrogen content fertilizer? What about the knowledge of chemisty required to make that explosive? Should books detailing the steps required to make explosives be banned or regulated as well?

The answer to all these, of course, is, "No!"

We live in a time where nobody is responsible for their actions. Just this month, a new law took effect here in Florida that requires home swimming pools to have a fence, alarm, or some other cost-adding feature to "protect the children." Kids are required to wear bicycle helmets or face ticketing by police. Presidential campaigns talk about shoring up failing dole programs with more and more taxes.

These laws all say that we're too dumb as individuals to take care of ourselves, and momma Government must come in and take care of us.

Living our lives is not a privelege. It's our right. Government's role should not, can not, be that of nanny.

Jeff

Jeff

Re:What we need is LICENSED reverse engineers.

[UnknownSoldier]

&gt The world needs dynamite too; but that doesn't mean it ought to be available to just anyone on a whim as some so-called "right."

Remember "The Freedom to swing your first, ends at the tip of my nose." EVERYONE has the RIGHT to buy it, what do you think capitalism is founded upon (FREE market, meaning NO discrimination against any BUYER.)
Ownership of so called "dangerous" items, is NOT the problem, its the MISUSE and blantant LACK of RESPECT for OTHER people's LIFE, and LIBERTY. Banning items doesn't solve anything.

&gt I'm sorry, but you have no "right" to steal that from them in the name of OSS or whatever golden idol you worship.

"Intellectual property rights" are neither "property" nor "rights."
The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights


You can't STEAL ideas, you can only borrow them.

The sooner the dumb world gets over the 2-year old mentality of "this information is exclusively mine", and starts exchanging ideas for the better of ALL humanity, the sooner we'll have a better world.

So you think of a great new idea. Guess what, someone else will too. The very BASICS of science is founded upon BUILDING upon other's people's work. (The difference in this case is that scientists WANT to share their knowledge.)

Let's say I reverse engineer the recipe for a popular soda. Does that mean I'm illegally using intellectual property?! How can it be, when I came to the SAME conclusion (formula) as someone else? Granted, that doesn't give me the "right" to go stealing another person's "Secret" formula, but if I _INDEPENDENTLY_ discover the same knowledge, that knowledge is NO longer PROPRIETARY.

&gt> reverse engineering (and also programmers developping for life critical components) needs to be licensed by a regulatory body ...

So now I need PERMISSION to THINK?! That's ludicrous.

Cheers

--
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, 1759