Slashdot Mirror
HP Uses DMCA To Quash Vulnerability Publication
Several readers wrote to note the fact that HP has evidently threatened to use the DMCA and computer crime laws against SnoSoft who have found a security flaw in Tru64. The quote from the HP VP is that the accused "could be fined up to $500,000 and imprisoned for up to five years."
So this is the real reason HP didn't want Bruce Perens to demonstrate against the DMCA?
Very mature compared to what big business does. "Wahh wahhh wahh!!! Help us Uncle Sam, we're poor defenseless transnational corporations!" Buncha whiners.
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
When Alan Cox originally discussed the notion that companies would (mis)use the DMCA in the security field, he was widely attacked for being silly.
Anyone still feel like laughing?
Finisterre said that while he wanted to resolve the dispute with HP, he resented receiving DMCA threats. "We are like the guys that found out that Firestone tires have issues on Ford explorers," he said. "It's not our fault your Explorer has crap tires. We just pointed it out. We should not get attacked for pointing out issues in someone's product nor for proving it is possible."
When will people learn this is the same thing?
The public has the right to know about these security flaws, just as much as we have the right to know if the tires we buy pass safety standards.
HP trying to cover this up just proves its a problem. HP is using the DMCA to prevent people from discussing valid flaws in their OS'.
People have the right to know if the car they're driving -- or are going to buy -- is unsafe. Why? Because their lives depend on it, literally. For the same reason, people have the right to know if the OS they're using is secure. Why? Because their lives depend on it, or at least their carreers. Data important to one's carreer (i.e., scientific experimental data) is stored on one's computer. Private information -- i.e., credit card information -- is stored on a computer. Security holes can literally destroy one's life.
We have the right to know exactly what problems their are in our software.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
As of now, HP has also only threatened to invoke it.
...
...
...
Uh, no, "invoking the DMCA" is precicely what HP is doing, though they haven't formally filed a complaint with the feds. How can you possibly defend these unscrupulous fucks? From dictionary.com.
invoke Pronunciation Key(n-vk)
tr.v. invoked, invoking, invokes
2. To appeal to or cite in support or justification.
5. To resort to; use or apply:
You know it is possible -- and ethical! -- to not do something because it goes too far. Or is HP obligated to murder someone if it increases shareholder profit? And before you say, "Well, the law imposes too high a cost", answer me this: What if you could prove the legal sanction was less than the profit realized? Should HP kill the person? Must they?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Let the crackers have it.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Call me crazy, but if I were a mega-corporation, I wouldn't want someone releasing "warez" to break into my systems this way.
No, of course you wouldn't like it. And, if you were an emperor who got suckered into walking around naked, you'd be fairly pissed at the kid who pointed out that you were, in fact, naked.
But, this story has nothing to do with HP "liking" or "not liking" it when people (rightly) point out that they're walking around naked. The story is about the fact that the DMCA has emboldened HP to the point that they feel it's better to walk around naked and sue anyone who notices, rather than buying some reasonable clothes.
Etiquette in the security community demands that the discovers of holes give companies reasonable time to respond to security problems, before publicizing the security problems. But this courtesy is not, in any way, a courtesy towards the company that manufactures the flawed product. That company's opinion in the matter doesn't mean squat. It is a courtesy extended entirely to the users of the product. Users are harmed if they do not know about exploitable flaws in the products they use, but at the same time users are harmed if the exploitable flaws are widely known before patches are available. The only reasonable role for a company with flawed products in the security process is to work diligently to minimize the harm to users, by the only method available to them -- by expediting patches for their products, and thus providing an environment where the user can be informed of security flaws in their product as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, what HP has done here is imagine itself to have some other role in the security process -- someone at HP is under the completely mistaken impression that their opinion of the security process matters in any way. It does not. The courtesies of the security process are entirely towards the users of the flawed product. People have a right to know about flawed products. HP has the opportunity to provide patches to their product, so that those users might have some alternative to simply throwing all of their HP equipment in the garbage, but that is entirely HP's opportunity, and really of no concern either to the users or to the security professionals who disclose the hole.
I just want to say that I an 100% behind your request for time instead of having to answer to a horde of mad slashdot zealots wielding pitchforks when you've had no time to investigate. Not all of us here are so quick to assume the worst.
Good luck in your discussions with the PHB's that be.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Today I read an article on news.com (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-947325.html) that Hewlett-Packard has intended to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to punish a company that has released information about a security vulnerability in an HP product. For quite some time I have been telling you that the DMCA is a bad law that needs to be repealed, and this is just more evidence to that effect. HP has known about this vulnerability for a year, but has chosen to do nothing to fix it.
HP's action could set a precedent that would stifle technology research. Companies would be free to release broken technologies that would eventually be used in high-security environments. Anyone who attempted to test the strengths of these products would be branded a criminal.
HP's customers and the American public deserve to know about security issues in HP's products. Withholding such information is just like the accounting scandals that have been rampant in recent times. Insecure technology is a weapon that hackers and terrorists can use against us. So when an American company decides to hide behind an American law rather than fix it products, our politicians need to re-examine that law.
I urge you to sponsor legislation that will repeal the DMCA. Americans deserve better. Please write back to me and let me know that you support my fair use rights in a digital world, and that you'll be working to repeal the DMCA.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Bruce,
I guess I don't understand how full disclosure can equate to a shakedown.
The company (snosoft) seems like a more or less legit research company, and the fact that they have a full disclosure policy in no way says that they are trying to take out companies. It just says, up front, that they have a policy of disclosing these security breaches that they find.
On the other hand they have to make money somehow - so they contract out their services to companies who wish to have their software audited.
I could be wrong, but by looking through their posts on security focus, I don't think they are out to extort money from companies - and this is especially true if they gave HP a year to fix this problem (in fact if that is true then you should REALLY stick it to the top brass).
It could go either way - but it doesn't look like they are in the business of extortion. And the fact that they have been around for a while, and seem to be respected in the security community says quite a lot....
ON THE OTHER HAND.... I don't see how it is in any way shape or form right for HP to sick the DMCA on them, no matter what their business practices are. This is a vulnerability in HPQ's software and should not be treated with such arrogance (don't report it or else!).
Just my $.02
Derek