Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Restricts Crypto Export
PhilK writes "Symantec is now refusing to sell LC5 (the Windows password cracking tool, previously from @stake) to anyone outside of the USA and Canada, claiming new Homeland Security laws. Symantec declined to field questions on the rationale for its policy and whether it applies to other products." From the article: "Symantec's restrictions recall the dark days of the crypto wars when users outside the US were not entitled to buy products featuring strong ciphers. These rules, relaxed by the Clinton administration and following a long running campaign by cryptography experts and net activists, are once again rearing their head. Symantec's response to our reader (below) suggests the policy was imposed on it by the US government."
Nobody would be stupid enough to think it is possible to keep a commercial product out of foreign hands. Maybe making it illegal to export this product is just a way to provide an excuse for search/wiretap warrants.
Since I think the administration is at least semi-intelligent, I am looking for the ulterior motive.
Or do you somehow believe people be able to send munitions plans to Iran in the name of free speech?
I do. I should be able to trade with whomever I want to trade, without restrictions by the State. That's what freedom means. If we had open trade and didn't stick our noses in other countries' business, we wouldn't be living under fear of restribution.
Nonetheless, I do believe that the Feds can restrict trade by declaring war. They didn't declare war on Iran, or Iraq or Afghanistan or Bosnia or Vietnam, so trading with those people is fine.
Speech is not just words out of your mouth, speech and expression is everything you do -- how you express yourself. I should be able to express my favorite political candidate in an unlimited way with my words, my voice and my money. I should be able to burn flags, dance, and even wear a dress if I want to. That is what freedom is about.
What does freedom mean to you?
Yeah, I know, I'm partly at fault. Still, things could have been great.
But hey, we were all just a bunch of FBI Snitches anyway. Which if true means that there is probably a secret back door in L0phtCrack and still in LC5 that transmits all cracked passwords direct to the FBI so that they can get into any server anywhere. Of course if that is true (and of course it is) DHS and Symantec should actively promote the use and distribution of LC5. All the more passwords they can get. Whatever.
- Space Rogue
L0pht Heavy Industries
Whacked Mac Archives
Hacker New Network
Sell Out
FBI Snitch
(Pay no attention to this rambling bitter old man.)
http://rainbowtables.shmoo.com.nyud.net:8090/
Bittorrent to Download.
FYI
Alpha-Numeric and 14 Symbols = 11 GB
All Characters and the Space Character = 43 GB
It helps if you have enough RAM to load each 700MB section of table into memory. The longest part of this process (for me) is waiting for my puter to finish reading the tables off the DVD I burnt them too.
BTW- If something is illegal for export, that means the only people who will get in trouble are the exporters, not the people 'illegally' obtaining software.
Hell, if it's illegal to export something, is there any reason to buy it? If you don't do business in/with the U.S or Canada, what is the gov't/company going to do if you pirate unexportable software? Sue you for violating their copyright?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The export ban always made me laugh because it arrogantly assumed that no one outside of the US/Canada was capable of developing their own encryption technologies.
This is something that British Secret Services have used to their advantage. Public key encryption technologies were developed at GCHQ in the early 70s but unlike the US, they didn't tell anyone until recently so they could use it without anyone knowing.
Something similar was done with Enigma. The fact that Enigma had been cracked was kept very quiet so that Enigma machines could be sold by the Brits to foreign governments after the war and we could listen in! News that we invented the World's first electronic computer was also kept secret for the same reason.
Your definition of speech is somewhat all-encompassing. If I were to want to "express" myself by taking pictures of naked children (without their knowledge, perhaps) and display them on billboards throughout the country your argument would permit that. You base your argument on some sort of arbitrary freedom that you think you have as a member of this country. Nowhere in the Constitution are you granted that freedom.
In fact, the Commerce clause gives Congress the right (and the power) to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states. Your hypothetical trade of arms with Iran is commerce with a foreign nation, and the Congress has every right to regulate that commerce. You cannot argue reasonably for unrestricted and unregulated trade without also arguing that the Constitution is void, because the Constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate trade. I also happen to know that you do believe that the Constitution is void, because you mentioned on your blog (http://anarcap.blogspot.com/) that you were burning your "Cato pocket Constitution" and replacing it "with a real pro-freedom guide: Champions of Freedom from the Mises Institute."
Coming from that standpoint, your posturing is contradictory because you believe the government can restrict trade during time of war, but that the government itself is based upon a void document and doesn't have any power at all. So which is it? Do you believe the government can restrict trade during war, which means they can restrict trade at any time, or do you believe the government shouldn't even exist?
*"this" being the United States.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
I'm surprised with your oversimplification of the concept of freedom. Saying we can form a militia to protect ourselves is irresponsible. One of the historical reasons for government is to protect its citizens from enemies both forgein and domestic.
I agree with you! A militia is a great way to keep our people strong and able. A militia prevents us from running around the globe trying to instill through force a system that came through voluntary cooperation (over time). Government is supposed to defend our borders, yes, but they're doing the opposite -- they're attacking hundreds of countries (TODAY) and the People are hated all over the world.
I would argue that declaring math of any kind as a munition is silly, but your argument about that government doesn't have an obligation to try to protect us against dangerous information being transferred is equally irrational.
This is the slippery slope towards censorship and tyranny. Once information is printed on paper and in the eyes of a few dozen people, consider it not top secret any longer. In fact, I believe that our government should be 100% transparent to the People, and this means having NO secrets in government. Our most secret weapons have fallen into the hands of enemies through our government's backdoor deals. Remember Iran-Contra? Remember Afghanistan-Russia? We did that, our government, us. It is fair for a government of the People to trade with the enemy, but not the People? Huh?
By your standard, it would be okay to give information to a foreign entity that has openly declared hostilities against the United States. I encourage you to continue to fight for freedom, but doing so blindly, without considering the complexities of an international community is damaging to the cause of freedom
The foreign entity hates us for our actions against people they are aligned with. I would expect no less.
I do business all over the world, and am starting a business in Dubai and in Eastern Europe. These "enemies" don't hate freedom or Christians or MTV, they hate the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of murders we committed in the name of our People. If you've never BEEN to the Middle East or Eastern Europe, don't even start with an opinion that isn't based on facts.
True enough. After all, Clinton forced the DCMA on us; is using the law to prevent the distribution of LC5 any worse than using it to stop the distrubution of DeCSS?
Which gives me an idea. Since most DRM schemes are essentially a form of strong encryption, could this "Homeland Security" law be used to prevent the export of media (DVDs, iTunes songs, Microsoft Reader eBooks, etc.) that are encoded with DRM? If someone manages to use this law to force media companies to sell their products unencumbered with DRM and restore fair use to consumers, then maybe it's not such a bad law after all.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
You are so ignorant it's amazing about so many topics. You obviously don't know history or geo-poltics worth a dam. I have done business in the Middle East and have friends from that region. The nations of the Middle East want American dollars, technology and business interests. If it makes them a buck they don't give rat's ass what your religous beliefs are, but if you EVER say anything negative about THEIR beliefs or contradict something they say about YOUR beliefs you are gone. Your business will dry up in a heartbeat. Business over there is "thier way or the highway" and "ethics smethics". You get tight with the right guy (The Sheik) by making the right promises and you get great results (of course you have to hire HIS people, not the best qualified ones), don't do/say the right things and you'll never see a dollar of profit. Many of the most radical Islam groups DO hate Freedom, MTV and Christians...go read the passages in the Koran about "infidels". Right now Eastern Europe is safe but maybe not for long. I guess you forgot about the war in Bosnia between Christians and Muslims, the 20+ year war in Lebanon between Moslems and Christians. I won't even go into your idiocy about free speech. You really SHOULD be on the Watch list, you sound a lot like some of the OKC terrorists in many ways.
The crypto regulations haven't changed since they were relaxed under Clinton. Either Symantec is just too lazy to follow the export licensing procedures which are unchanged, or they're trying to drum up interest for a faltering product by pretending that "the US government doesn't want you foreigners to have it,"or it could even be a crass political ploy to cause the usual fly-off-the-handle sorts to rant against some imagined sin of Bush.
It's quite difficult to take The Register seriously when they post articles such as this. So many of The Register's articles are breathless screeds of the form Civil Liberties to be Abolished in the USA, Film at 11. Remember that the UK has oppressive laws (e.g., the Official Secrets Act) that make the PATRIOT Act in the USA look like a model of civil liberties protection by comparison. I wonder if The Register is secretly funded by the propaganda arms of the UK government.
Your definition of speech is somewhat all-encompassing. If I were to want to "express" myself by taking pictures of naked children (without their knowledge, perhaps) and display them on billboards throughout the country your argument would permit that. You base your argument on some sort of arbitrary freedom that you think you have as a member of this country. Nowhere in the Constitution are you granted that freedom.
:) In the Constitution, a property owner DOES have the right to take pictures of anyone on that property without warning. See the 9th and 10th Amendments.
:)
You picked one of maybe 5 places where I don't have a good response -- yet. I do believe that if you are taking secret pictures of naked children on your property, you likely DO own the right to those pictures. In my free market utopia (note that I don't believe in utopias), I would have to say that I would not take my children onto anyone's property without an agreement that they won't be taking private video, pictures or record our conversations. I understand that this isn't a perfect reply, but the naked children picture taking debate comes up SO OFTEN that I continue to work on my reply
In fact, the Commerce clause gives Congress the right (and the power) to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states
Wrong. The Commerce clause was written specifically to prevent the individual states from restricting trade. The original founders never intended Congress to restrict trade -- in fact, most of them actually said that we should never have alliances or entanglements with other countries. Trade with all, prosper with all. The Commerce clause is badly abused.
I also happen to know that you do believe that the Constitution is void, because you mentioned on your blog (http://anarcap.blogspot.com/) that you were burning your "Cato pocket Constitution" and replacing it "with a real pro-freedom guide: Champions of Freedom from the Mises Institute
I'm pro-Constitution, actually, but I am anti-State. I made that comment because Cato aligns themselves with the Constitution on their face, but behind your back they attack it at ever chance they get, it seems. A Constitution published by Cato is worthless, in my opinion, unless that Constitution is upheld as the true letter of the law for government.
Coming from that standpoint, your posturing is contradictory because you believe the government can restrict trade during time of war, but that the government itself is based upon a void document and doesn't have any power at all. So which is it? Do you believe the government can restrict trade during war, which means they can restrict trade at any time, or do you believe the government shouldn't even exist?
You are 100% correct -- in some posts I actually will say (and the end) that I don't believe in the State and am only posturing for those who do.
If our citizens want a Constitutional government, they should stick to it, and I will listen. If they don't want one, I will live outside of the law and outside of their rules. The citizens need to make a decision, so I know how to live, but they can't.
I will never accept a government that fights undeclared wars. If we could agree to a truly Constitutionally-limited government, I WILL accept a government that defers to the minority decision of an individual except when that individual commits an act of physical force against another person, or violates a contract.
Sorry for the confusion, thanks for holding me to my beliefs
Hello, my name is Matthew Pang, and I live in Selangor,Malaysia.(This isnt in the U.S or canada just incase you didnt know that. 5:18pm (GMT)-Decides he wants to get lc5 (just because he saw this on /.)
5:19pm (GMT)-performs this search "http://www.torrentz.com/search_lc5_9_0_0.html"
5:20pm (GMT)-Downloads the torrent file from "http://www.seedler.org/en/iindex.x?a=info&id=1952 55"
5:21pm (GMT)-Launches Azureus and starts torrent download.
5:26pm (GMT)-Azureus completes download.Also seeing.
5:26pm (GMT)-Runs lc5 Setup
5:27pm (GMT)-lc5 setup complete,runs lc5,runs keygen and unloacks lc5
5:28pm (GMT)-Runs a dictionary attack on all password the program sniffed from the local network.Found 7 exposed accounts.2 of which are privelaged.
5:29pm (GMT)-Starts comparison against pre-computed hash tables
The moral of the story: Dont restrict export.It`ll just make angry people like me run out and get it.Also making sure to save a copy to distribute to his friends.
OK, so this is a US law, but the product is available in Canada. So what about Canadian resells? How about me as a user. I could buy the software, and then resell it to somebody in another country. EULA preventing that... how about if I leave the shrink-wrap on, then I haven't agreed to anything.
Not that such laws would actually have a snowball's chance in hell of preventing this software from reaching other countries, but I do wonder when the US includes Canada in their private little party whether or not they expect us to play with their rulebook.
Both.
I wasn't around when @Stake was bought by Symatec. I was around for L0pht's sell-out to @Stake.
There were two issues back then, one we were greedy, we all were. We all saw $$ signs and ran towards them. However it wasn't just the money (Which really there wasn't that much of but some of us got more than others.) We had grand visions, "Make a dent in the Universe" and all that. We were niave and believed them. It took me a few months to see the writing on the wall, then HNN got canned and I saw the @Snake for what it was.
I sit here and wonder what could have been. At the time L0phT was pretty much self sufficient and growing. But I hvae no one but myself to blame, well for most stuff. Ah, well, like I said nothing but the memories of a bitter old man.
- SR
Sure, because there's no possible way that any of those evil hackers and terrorists could get a copy without buying it from Symantec.... [snicker]
Well, no kidding, Captain Obvious, but that wasn't the point of my post. Let me try again. The Reg claims that Symantec can't sell the software outside of the US and Canada because the government imposed a regulation on them. Not true. Symantec claims that a certain section of the EAC prohibits them from selling overseas. Not only not true, but they cited the wrong section.
Symantec appears to be incorrectly using the EAC as an excuse for lazy business practices.
-h-
A violation of "freedom of speech" would be the feds telling Symantec that they cant create the software in the first place. Restricting where they sell it is not. The first Amendment only guarantees freedom to create speech/expression, not an audience for said expression. By your theory, do you think that porn not being sold to minors is a violation of the publisher's free speech "rights"?