RE: Honeynet and copyright law

["Andrew Hintz \(Drew\)" <drew () overt org>]

It is a really hairy situation.

Just mangling the data a bit wouldn't help.  The new bit stream would be a
derivative work and subject to the same copyright restrictions and ownership
as the original bit stream.
<http://www.artslaw.org/DERIV.HTM>

On an almost on-topic note, earlier this year there was a stink about
bugtraq & packetstorm publishing a TESO telnet exploit.  The exploit was
clearly marked as copyrighted by TESO and non-distributable.  Supposedly
someone found the telnet exploit on a compromised honeypot, and then mailed
the exploit to bugtraq.  TESO threatened legal action against bugtraq &
packetstorm for publishing their copyrighted material, but I don't know if
anything ever came of it.
<http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/855911>
<http://www.team-teso.net/news.php>
<http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/bugtraq0107/293.html>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt Seifried [mailto:kurt () seifried org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:19 AM
> To: honeypots () securityfocus com; Alexandre Dulaunoy
> Subject: Re: Honeynet and copyright law
>
>
> maybe mangle the data a teeny bit (swap a few bits)? That's a darn good
> question.
>
>
> Kurt Seifried, kurt () seifried org
> A15B BEE5 B391 B9AD B0EF
> AEB0 AD63 0B4E AD56 E574
> http://seifried.org/security/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexandre Dulaunoy" <adulau () foo be>
> To: <honeypots () securityfocus com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 8:08 AM
> Subject: Honeynet and copyright law