Re: Re: Help put a stop to incompetent computerforensics

["Jason Coombs" <jasonc () science org>]

J.A. Terranson wrote:
> The simple fact of the matter is that
> "what matters" *IS* the definition,
> and you full well know it.  What
> happened here is you slipped and
> fell, and rather than admitting it
> you're crying foul - shame on you!

I didn't disagree that the broader definition of Trojan was completely unknown to me. How did I miss it? Was it me who 
slipped and fell, because I was being careless, or is there more to the story... This was and is a good question.

In my entire life I have not encountered a real-world use of the term Trojan where the software at issue did not grant 
remote access to an attacker after the Trojan infection occurred.

Now we use other terms like spyware to classify what I have recently learned used to be called Trojans.

My conclusion is that I slipped and fell because the definition has changed and computer dictionaries haven't caught up 
yet.

As for whether or not you'd roast me in front of the judge,

'Your honor, the evidence shows that the term Trojan hasn't been used in practice since before public dial-up access to 
the Internet first became possible. The parties clearly have adopted other language to describe the software in 
question in this case and they have formalized this language in contract. I believe that there was no definition of 
Trojan set forth in the contract because, your honor, neither party believed that the term Trojan needed a definition, 
because it's obvious to anyone with a high school education what the word Trojan means. Its only meaning to this 
contract (or in this patent) is the common sense meaning, regardless of the computer dictionary definitions and 
computer expert testimony dating back to the 1960s that the opposing counsel and opposing experts would have this court 
believe was in the mind of the parties (or the inventor) when they drafted this contract (or patent claim).

We're all familiar with, and have experienced, the broadening of the meaning of familiar terminology. However, the 
narrowing of the meaning of familiar terminology can and does also occur. I conclude, and it is my opinion, that just 
such a narrowing has occurred and is occurring with respect to Trojan as the term is applied and used in computing.

Who roasts who at trial? It depends on the evidence, and so far I haven't seen anything other than dictionaries that 
disagree with my argument above. You probably know that dictionaries are written by people, and even with peer review 
that often leaves room for mistakes.

Of course my argument was born out of the pain caused by my fall. But that doesn't make the argument invalid. So many 
people share my definition of Trojan that those of you who think you can dismiss it as wrong simply have to think twice.

Cheers,

Jason Coombs
jasonc () science org
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/