Slashdot Mirror
Can Watermarking Help Find GPL Violations?
bitkid writes "I recently run across techniques that can be used to
watermark
program code.
While I yet have to see some source code for this to play with, the authors claim that
the watermarks can be introduced into the source code and can be found in the compiled executable.
My question for the slashdot-crowd is: Do you think free software (GPL or other viral licenses)
should be watermarked? This could help to find GPL violations (think
Everybuddy or
Linksys) or can
be used in court someday against the next SCO to prove authorship.
What might be the ramifications of this?"
This would be useful to prove that code is under the GPL, but this could be simply gotten around by just looking at the code, then rewriting it yourself. But, of course this will take time and money, something the big business hate to spend.. But the technology is useful.
To NULL or not to NULL.
I would be very careful with using something like this. Its nice to think that one could use watermarking for protecting GPL'ed code. However, should the technique prove successful, expect to see everything under the sun watermarked by less benevolent entities.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
GPL appears to common sense still found in people, and simply decency.
If the trademark stuff gets too hectic, then maybe this will be needed, but for now i dont think it's needed
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
It might cause the sky to fall down on our heads, or the atmosphere to evaporate, killing us all with solar radiation.
Get your own free personal location tracker
we are talking about a bunch of 1s and 0s here. If it can be watermarked, it can be unwatermarked. A simple script will be able to rearrange stuff to disrupt the watermark without affecting the execution of the program.
I think this would only help the most blatent copying. If the watermark code is embedded in the datastructures of the source code either it would be fairly easy to remove or the software would be in such a state that it would be hard to maintain and evolve. The attempt to avoid piracy would have a negative long term effect on the project.
I can still see this being useful if blatent copying of the software is the biggest problem the project faces, however I'm having trouble envisioning a scenerio where that's the case.
The paper cited in the first link is from a professor I once had.
On his website I found his full article, if you want some details about watermarking techniques. It's has a lot more meat than presentation slides.
The main idea is that you embed the watermark into the code and then obfuscate it. The resulting code is unreadable, otherwise watermark would be trivial to remove, which makes it absolutely useless as far as open source is concerned.
Caveat - I haven't read the paper but from the description is looks like you apply your watermark to the class files after compilation.
... therefore not applicable in its current form to source code which would be required for any usefullness to GPL.
/.
So,
1) only protects binaries not source
2) its for Java which is easier due to the cannonical form (bytecodes) that can be manipulated by the watermarking tool. You could probably do this to protect GPL binaries but with less portability
IMHO opinion, not usefull for source but sure if you're worried that some of your precompiled binaries are being ripped, then maybe.
For source, you need to detect common code patterns and use source tools that have been discussed elsewhere on
I wrote a book ages ago about Windows File Formats. Included in the book was some code which was written by a third party. I obtained permission from the code's author to put it in the book, but it was very clearly copyrighted by the author of the code, both in the code, and in the book.
So Intel is working on a product and they just swipe up the code out of the book, never ask for permission or anything, and use it in a commercial product (VTune). The author of the code, of course, was furious. He approached Intel. They blew him off. He had reverse engineered their code. He could produce an exact replica of the binary with his own code using the MS C compiler.
He never got anything out of Intel. I suppose he could have hired attorneys, but he wasn't a wealthy guy. He couldn't find attorneys to take it without cash up front. So my question is: How do watermarks help him? I mean the guy could put the binaries side-by-side, and there was no question, it was his code.
Your code is as protected as the lawyer you can afford...
I like the idea behind it but I don't think it's the answer. It would be easier and more applicable to have a 3rd party database that held published coding rather than having to graph and mark my work everytime I released etc... this way I have it (1) in the public domain and (2) have a published reference for it. (For smaller works).
And borrowing code despite our hatred for it is one of the tools of software development, not so much in the word for word copying and ctrl-V (thats a whole separate discussion) but capturing the methods and innovating them, then re-releasing it into the wild for the next innovator or janitorial white hat. Thats what open source coding is for me anyway not the profit or the credit but the goal.
Let's keep in mind that patents are in place to keep lawyers employed and keep them litigating. -CatGrep
Isn't the code itself a watermark? Sure, you can change things here and there, but ultimately the similarities are going to be far to much to be pure coincidence.
The purpose of digital watermarking seems to be to identify unique instances of the thing being watermarked. So if I have a copy of Britney Spears' album, it's obviously copyrighted by her record company. With watermarking I can get more specific, and see that it was burned from a CD which was sold to Bob Jones. With the GPL this isn't useful. Sure, the code might have been derived from a copy sold to Bob Jones, but he may have legally made a million copies and distributed them around the globe before the GPL was violated, by someone else. You can't control the watermarks, because you can't control the distribution.
Look at the techniques. This stuff is designed for use on binary-only software (with the sole exception of the comment embedding, which is easy to strip, and the embedded strings, which are easy to remove/modify).
The approaches they're talking about are done at the compilation phase or post-compilation on Java bytecode.
It's *extremely* difficult to produce good, reliable watermarks, because different compilers will build software differently, as will different optimization options.
I'd essentially say that source-based watermarks are a lost cause (at least with C, and with the current constraints of readability and simplicity on code).
A much better approach would be a project that does fuzzy comparisons on binaries, and is somewhat aware of ELF. Basically, you'd have a program that would have a set of known GPL code (a compiled Linux system would work well) and compare it to a set of compiled code.
This is still not perfect if the person is malicious and just tries using a different compiler. This has happened before with xvid and use of icc. However, there aren't *too* many compilers out there.
Hmm...this is an interesting problem.
A more interesting approach that just occurs to me now -- in general, the proportions of compiled code should be roughly the same, independent of compiler -- adding padding, etc. Generate a call graph of the function tree in a set of GPL code. Then your checker would do fuzzy matching on chunks of that call graph against the suspicious code. It'd take a bit of massaging. It'd also still need some manual looking at the target once identified. However, this should be able to run in a pretty automated manner (even if it takes a long time to run) and could potentially turn up some interesting goodies. It'd certainly discourage commercial folks from ripping off GPL-using authors and companies.
Try taking a Windows system with a lot of installed (non-GPL) software and a Linux system with a lot of (GPL) installed software. Start a comparison running. See what turns up.
May we never see th
Pardon my naievity. I just wanted to ask, are GPL violations a big problem?
If it's happening all the time and this is a method slow progress of it, then I don't see a huge issue with it. But if it is a once in a while type of thing, then how could this have anything but a negative impact on GPL? The potential is there (reality could tell a different story) for people to shy away from it, worrying that they haven't quite got all their ducks in a row. If it's easy to automatically scan their code and say they're in violation, well then what? I guess what I'm trying to say is that it could be mishandled, thus treating the users of GPL code like they're potentially thieves. It strikes me that one of the compelling factors of GPL is their reliance on the honor system. Whatever you do, don't play games that can damage that bright point of GPL.
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. I suppose it could be used to defend against an accusation not unlike what SCO has claimed. "You copied our code!" "No, we used GPL'd code, see?" In that case, my previous comment about disrupting GPL's trust might not be as likely. "Well, we're just doing it so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again." I can see people nodding their head in agreement in that case.
In short, it's one thing to do it if your aim is to defend yourself from SCO'esque accusations, it's another to use it to look for victims to sue. Whatever is implemented, be very careful about damaging GPL's image to the community that values it.
"Derp de derp."
Read the presentation. Although complete sentences aren't exactly present, there seems to be the indication that access to the source can provide an attack on the watermarking scheme: well, duh, if it's open source just modify the source to eliminate the watermark.
But what's the likelihood a lazy company/individual will actually do this before violating the GPL? Probably slim, but more of the world seems to be going GPL anyway; and if the whole world did GPL, why would you need watermarks?
Point is: if the monopolies of the world insist on using GPL code without releaing the source, they'll expend the effort to remove the watermark.
ESR and others argue that GPL is "free" as in "free speech." Well, in the United States, we enjoy a lot of this "freedom" (at least until the RWEs are through with us). Much of this has to do with the fact that we go to great lengths to NOT encumber ourselves with systems designed "to get the bad guys." Rather, we depend on a system of mutual responsibility and respect for the law. It's only when an infraction occurs should we seriously consider using effort to detect such fraud. Americans need to be less afraid of their neighbors and demand each other to rise to our expectations.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
The UK doesn't have a Copyright Office. Neither does Australia. I guess they'd have to use their traditional notary channels.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Put a copy in an envelope - printed or CD, whatever you like. Post it to your solicitor and have them put it in their safe unopened.
Later when Parasitesoft trys to claim you stole it from them, the solicitor can produce this as legally acceptable evidence of its date of existence.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Heck, I've lost two keyboards to spilled coffee so far this year...
Oh well, what the hell...
If you have access to the source, you could probably find a way to remove the watermarks, unless they are somehow tightly worked into the executable code itself. And, if they're tightly worked into the executable code itself, then this has to mean that the code will not be as efficient, and that there'd be some kind of performance cost to watermarking that does not benefit the end user at runtime.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Having read the .PDF paper and then skimmed the /. comments it would seem few people have taken the time to actually read (or understand) the paper before commenting on it. Hats-off to those who have.
.class files, as opposed to signing .cab's for whole Java apps/applets. .class, which is achieved by pretending to call the dummy method(s) from other methods using always-false logic constructs.
.NET and other bytecode environments.
.class files from decompile/recompile attacks than *I* feel it should have: five of the ten .class files crashed their test decompiler (Mocha), thereby "protecting" their watermarks. If someone is keen to re-source your .class file, particularly if there's money to be made, I'm fairly certain they'd try another decompiler instead of giving-up on just one crash. I suspect that these five .class files could be decompiled by another utility, so the question of their watermark protection remains unanswered. Potentially this could cause up to 18 (instead of 3) of their 23 watermarks actually being defeated. This is entirely feasible, since only 3 of the 8 watermarks fully tested survived (the other 15 being in the five .class files which crashed Mocha).
.class, you'd have to compile it, watermark it, decompile it and then post the decompiled version. Not very pretty and what about comments? I suppose you could have a Perl script reinsert comments from the original source, or copy-and-paste the watermarked dummy methods back in.
What is the essence of this watermarking technique?:
- For embedding copyright information into individual
- It modifies compiled Java bytecode, shuffling eight bytecode operators in targeted "dummy" class methods. The shuffling is able to encode only three bits per operation, so watermarks need to be short or dummy methods need to be large.
- It relies on the watermarked dummy method(s) appearing in stolen (decompiled/recompiled)
What are its downfalls?:
- The technique is specific to Java. Forget about using it for other languages which output platform-specific machine code binaries, although it might be possible to modify it for use in
- If an intelligent thief (or smart optimizing compiler) is able to detect the always-false condition used to shield the dummy method(s) the watermark(s) will be removed.
- The larger your watermark, the larger you need to make your dummy method(s), or you need to embed more of them. The larger you make your dummy methods, the more obvious it will be that there's something strange about them.
- Optimizing compilers could still destroy the modified operators used to form the watermarks.
The paper also claims it protected more
How does this technique benefit GPL? I'm not sure that it would. Even if the above problems were fixed:
- To submit "source code" for your protected
- It's really designed to embed personal/corporate copyrights into code, protecting the IP of the submitter not the GPL community. I suppose the GPL community could design a community-wide watermark policy, but then that would become public knowledge and so thieves would be aware of its existence and be inclined to search harder to remove it.
Do you think free software (GPL or other viral licenses) should be watermarked? This could help to find GPL violations (think Everybuddy or Linksys)
You missed the point of Free Software. Ignoring some of the antics of zealous fringe, the idea of "Free Software" isn't to be a separate-but-equal analogue to proprietary software. The point of Free Software is freedom, not surveillance. Too many advocates for Free Software say their contributions are free, but act as proprietary masters with their obsession over owning, controlling and regulating the software.
It saddens me to see people advocating watermarking Free Software. Next they'll want a "FSSA" analogue to the BSA and their brownshirts.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Ok, assume a corporation CAN sucessfully steal GPL code, with or without watermark. Let's say M$ paints an IE browser look on top of the mozilla firebird codebase:
So aside from ethical issues, why should the GPL community really care?