Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stuxnet/Flame/Duqu Uses GPL Code

Posted by Unknown on from the state-sponsored-piracy dept.

David Gerard writes "It seems the authors of Stuxnet/Duqu/Flame used the LZO library, which is straight-up GPL. And so, someone has asked the U.S. government to release the code under the GPL. (Other code uses various permissive licenses. As works of the U.S. federal government, the rest is of course public domain.) Perhaps the author could enlist the SFLC to send a copyright notice to the U.S. government..."

11 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Implications by tmosley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would imply that the government is ruled by law rather than the arbitrary decisions of a few "top men".

    It doesn't take long for such attitudes to spread throughout society.

    But hey, Obama said he would have, like, the totally most open presidency ever. Surely the new boss will prove himself different from the old boss in SOME way. Surely!

    1. Re:Implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government, while it makes the laws, is subject to the rule of law. The government can be replaced and the laws changed. But by agreeing on a set of laws that apply to everyone is how we keep our noses out of the aforementioned violent chaos.

      Revolution is not the answer. Civic engagement is. If we take notice, if we talk about and we insist on accountability and seek to elect politicians that act in our interest. A mature and educated electorate is the required cultural change and I'm optimistic we're heading in that direction. The current shenanigans are not irreperable and are serving a purpose in getting people to take notice.

    2. Re:Implications by BKX · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would wager that in 1776 well over 50% of the population of the nascent United States of America was willing to outright defy the ruling government, while somewhere north of 90% of the remainder at least supported said dissidents.

      And you'd be wrong. It's widely accepted that only 1/5 of population were rebels. Another 1/5 were loyalists. The remaining 3/5 were neutral (with a number joining one army or the other for purely economic reasons without actually believing in one side or another). We only won because England was at war with everyone else at the same time.

    3. Re:Implications by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, if 'hiding something' is a significant concern for you, perhaps you should discuss this with your congressman/senator. For example, your own gov't refuses to disclose it's own interpretation of the Patriot act.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Who gets to request code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Under the GPL, only people that the executable was distributed to are allowed to request the code - and since it's a weapon, the US government isn't alliowed to send it to Iran.

    Problem solved.

  3. Re:Not gonna happen by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously copyright is the most important issue of our time. Look at how much went into ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/CISPA and how little is going into fixing our education, healthcare, research and poverty issues.

  4. LZO Licensing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/lzodoc.php:

    "Special licenses for commercial and other applications which are not willing to accept the GNU General Public License are available by contacting the author."

  5. OT - GPL violation doesn't necessarily open code by caseih · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just as an aside, whenever some commercial entity finds itself in violation of the GPL, people start talking like they expect the code to magically be revealed and gifted to the community. This perpetuates the lie that the GPL is viral and can "infect" closed-source code. The reality is far different. If a company is found to be in violation of the GPL, they find themselves in a copyright violation situation. This means that they must a) stop further distribution and b) potentially be held liable for monetary damages resulting from the distribution. They absolutely don't have to release their code. However if they want to continue to distribute and sell their product they will have to do one of three things: 1) remove infringing code, 2) license the infringing code under acceptable terms, possibly by paying a licensing fee to the copyright holder, or 3) release their derivative code under the GPL.

  6. Re:is the CIA selling these viruses? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Option #4: An obscure RFC describing the implementation of TCP/IP on a 5.56x45 'jumbo frame' physical layer is drafted.

  7. Re:is the CIA selling these viruses? by gman003 · · Score: 5, Informative

    5.56x45mm is the specifications for the NATO-standard small-arms ammunition, used by pretty much every modern military assault rifle that isn't a Kalashnikov derivative (and some that are), as well as some police sniper rifles and various civilian rifles.

    And now I've explained the joke.

  8. Re:Not gonna happen by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dammit, people, that was meant to be Funny, not Insightful!