No, you misunderstood me. Putting it on/. is fine. I was wondering why the paper was published in the first place. It seemed to indicate that new, groundbreaking work had been done, but IMHO the practices described in the paper have been in common practice for many years.
I've got to be missing something here. Reverse engineering worm/virus code with tools like IDA Pro has been actively done by the anti-virus community for 17+ years. In November 1987 when a virus hit us at Lehigh University (where I worked at the time), a bunch of our students helped out by disassembling the virus and writing a piece of software to prevent it from spreading further.
And we didn't feel that this was even groundbreaking work back then...
Am I the only person that noticed that these are just minutes from a Novell board meeting? So, they agreed internally that they want to keep the rights. I don't see anything here saying that SCO agreed to the terms.
I'm not trying to defend SCO (!), but this doc sure doesn't seem _to me_, a NOT-lawyer, to be a smoking gun of any sort.
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Coward -
/. is fine. I was wondering why the paper was published in the first place. It seemed to indicate that new, groundbreaking work had been done, but IMHO the practices described in the paper have been in common practice for many years.
/.
No, you misunderstood me. Putting it on
I wasn't questioning its inclusion on
Cheers,
Ken
I've got to be missing something here. Reverse engineering worm/virus code with tools like IDA Pro has been actively done by the anti-virus community for 17+ years. In November 1987 when a virus hit us at Lehigh University (where I worked at the time), a bunch of our students helped out by disassembling the virus and writing a piece of software to prevent it from spreading further.
And we didn't feel that this was even groundbreaking work back then...
What am I missing here?
Cheers,
Ken van Wyk
Am I the only person that noticed that these are just minutes from a Novell board meeting? So, they agreed internally that they want to keep the rights. I don't see anything here saying that SCO agreed to the terms.
I'm not trying to defend SCO (!), but this doc sure doesn't seem _to me_, a NOT-lawyer, to be a smoking gun of any sort.
I hope that I'm wrong...
KRvW