3 ms·

Who has? Surely not the person who wrote the tutorial.

jerf 11y ago
Under CFAA, I don't know. The DMCA may have some problems with that blog post, though. And by "may", I do mean "may". I don't know. But it's at least possible.
- zaroth 11y ago
  That's a great point, it's likely an illegal DMCA circumvention device too! No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. I mean, obviously it's all quite ridiculous, but also deadly serious at the same time :-(
  - majewsky 11y ago
    > is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title The wording reminds me of a similar section in the German Copyright Law which outlaws the circumvention of "effective" copy-protection schemes. How an access control scheme can be effective and circumventable at the same time is completely beyond me. :)
zaroth 11y ago
Even worse, the poor author has created a hacking tool capable of enabling said felony, which I believe could get them 10 or 20 years... I'm looking for the statute now. Edit: I was mis-remembering, the current law is against possession or manufacture of eavesdropping or wiretapping devices, not hacking tools. The EU has been playing with laws against hacking tools, but apparently nothing in the US yet against it. The law makes it illegal to distribute devices (incl. software) that the design of such [software] renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. Punishable by not more than 5 years and/or not more than $250,000. 18 U.S.C. 2512. I don't think this blog post qualifies as an "interception" device,... however unauthorized retrieval and recording of another's voice mail messages constitutes an "interception" so who the hell knows. I'm sure you could find a US DA who would argue the falsified User-Agent meant the software is designed to "intercept" communication meant only for Google.
- stonemetal 11y ago
  Wouldn't it run afoul of the DMCA for making available a tool for circumvention?
- majewsky 11y ago
  The German Criminal Code has §202c StGB [1], commonly known as the "hacker section" (or "Hackerparagraph" in German). While §202a and §202b punish unauthorized access to or interception of data, §202c extends this threat to obtaining passwords or creating tools in preparation of such an act. Note that this section has only existed for a few years. I am not aware if white-hat hackers have actually been prosecuted for creating hacker tools. [1] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__202c.html http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__202c.html

jerf 11y ago

Under CFAA, I don't know. The DMCA may have some problems with that blog post, though. And by "may", I do mean "may". I don't know. But it's at least possible.

zaroth 11y ago
That's a great point, it's likely an illegal DMCA circumvention device too! No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. I mean, obviously it's all quite ridiculous, but also deadly serious at the same time :-(
- majewsky 11y ago
  > is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title The wording reminds me of a similar section in the German Copyright Law which outlaws the circumvention of "effective" copy-protection schemes. How an access control scheme can be effective and circumventable at the same time is completely beyond me. :)

zaroth 11y ago

Even worse, the poor author has created a hacking tool capable of enabling said felony, which I believe could get them 10 or 20 years... I'm looking for the statute now. Edit: I was mis-remembering, the current law is against possession or manufacture of eavesdropping or wiretapping devices, not hacking tools. The EU has been playing with laws against hacking tools, but apparently nothing in the US yet against it. The law makes it illegal to distribute devices (incl. software) that the design of such [software] renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. Punishable by not more than 5 years and/or not more than $250,000. 18 U.S.C. 2512. I don't think this blog post qualifies as an "interception" device,... however unauthorized retrieval and recording of another's voice mail messages constitutes an "interception" so who the hell knows. I'm sure you could find a US DA who would argue the falsified User-Agent meant the software is designed to "intercept" communication meant only for Google.

stonemetal 11y ago
Wouldn't it run afoul of the DMCA for making available a tool for circumvention?
majewsky 11y ago
The German Criminal Code has §202c StGB [1], commonly known as the "hacker section" (or "Hackerparagraph" in German). While §202a and §202b punish unauthorized access to or interception of data, §202c extends this threat to obtaining passwords or creating tools in preparation of such an act. Note that this section has only existed for a few years. I am not aware if white-hat hackers have actually been prosecuted for creating hacker tools. [1] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__202c.html http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__202c.html