Re: Greg Hoglund's mail spool

[Dave Aitel <dave () immunitysec com>]

Matt Hargett wrote:

> Dave Aitel wrote:
>
> > So, today everyone got a copy, pretty much, and one thing I have to 
> > say is that he comes off in private (as they say, SIGINT never lies) 
> > as someone who actually has honor. You can tell by the way he doesn't 
> > support bogus software patents, even when people press him to do so 
> > privately. Software patents are bad, people. Stop supporting them, 
> > and they'll stop hurting us all.
>
>
> What is your opinion on process patents, oh great one? That is 
> actually what I was referring to in the now public but then private 
> email you are obviously reffering to. If you're against, please use 
> the fast food preparation process example that is so popular among IP 
> folks due to its technology neutrality.


Process patents are stupid and evil too. It's not like any of this stuff 
is truly new. Runtime decompilation to look for security bugs? It's all 
been done, and long before we stepped onto the scene. Lcamtuf, anyone? 
Even Immunity has an automatic exploit generation tool and "integrated 
remote debugging environment" that we use within a VM. And we're tiny.

Greg was right, and even though he could have abused the system and 
maybe even gotten a patent, he didn't do so. Anyone rich can abuse the 
patent system right now, including fast food companies and book 
companies that should be concentrating on selling food and books. You 
really get a choice: You get to use Linux and free software and support 
that lifestyle, or you can get rich from patents. But you can't claim to 
support free software, and still get software patents. "For defensive 
purposes only." is insincere, and we can all tell. Do you want to live 
in a country where it's impossible to start a small software business, 
or not?

Even disregarding the ideology, it's just bad economics to have software 
and process patents. Companies that get them and abuse them find it hard 
to buy CANVAS. That's the most I can do, other than whining here and 
supporting the EFF with what cash I have left over.

> PS: Why would you choose to draw more attention to these leaked emails 
> when there are some interesting ones in there between you and Greg 
> that aren't exactly positive? This confuses me. Is this some kind of 
> marketing thing?

I didn't see anything that wasn't positive between myself and Greg, 
which would make sense, since there aren't any bad emails to leak.

-dave
(and on that note, ad nauseum)
claim 1: The process of taking a leak, but with a computer
claim 2: The process described in Claim 1, but also including taking a dump.
claim 3: Computer code, possibly in an interpreted language, which 
incorporates claims 1 and/or 2.
claim 4: Claims 1 and 2, done remotely via an RPC (remote procedure 
call) over a computer network.
claim 5: claims 1 and 2, in an embedded control in a car
claim 6: claims 1 and 2, but including a Virtual Reality helmet
claim 7: claims 1 and 2, but using a virtual machine (VM)
...
_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydave () lists immunitysec com
http://www.immunitysec.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave