9 ms·

The app that this data was "stolen" from is a big java mess. The files are encrypted with AES but it takes about three seconds to find the key in the jar file.

by kw71 12y ago

The app that this data was "stolen" from is a big java mess. The files are encrypted with AES but it takes about three seconds to find the key in the jar file. It doesn't really take any thought or effort to get. The app also contains material from other carmakers, because of mergers and acquisitions. For instance, there is material from BMW so that Ford is able to support certain Land Rovers built by BMW which have BMW engines and electronics. I'm sure that the developers of the free "Forscan" app have examined the material in question too.

lsiebert 12y ago
Remember, you don't have to have a good copyright protection scheme to limit circumvention. You could rot13 something and the DMCA applies.
- alanfalcon 12y ago
  Is that literally true?
  - kw71 12y ago
    I think it is, by reading the DMCA. I personally believe that would not withstand a rebuttal. The material cited in this case can also be seen as a subject of the "right to repair" laws in the USA, so in light of other laws that stand along with the DMCA, the DMCA may have some "environmental limitations" (sorry) I don't know if they could claim damage for loss of trade secrets because Ford distributed the information far and wide on their own.
  - chii 12y ago
    yes, it's very stupid. Also, DMCA (from what i read, IANAL) overrides the fair use clause of doing reverse engineering for compatibility, so you can trivially sue somebody for reverse engineering your protocols/interfaces by just doing a token rot13 on it and then claiming that the reverser is circumventing DRM.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Sort of, `(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. However, as ROT13 is not limited to just protecting copy-write works and is reversible you could have an effective tool with other works. (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./temp/~c105eDJ19j:e2850 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./temp/~c105eDJ...: On the other hand, if you only apply ROT13 to part of a file then it probably does qualify for protection.
  - lsiebert 12y ago
    I am not a lawyer or legal expert, and to my knowledge rot13 hasn't been tested in the courts. DeCSS has though, and the code is 434 bytes, or you can brute force a key in seconds on a modern system (per Wikipedia). That was litigated, interestingly, and some people may remember 2600 got sued over it.

by kw71 12y ago

lsiebert 12y ago

Remember, you don't have to have a good copyright protection scheme to limit circumvention. You could rot13 something and the DMCA applies.

alanfalcon 12y ago
Is that literally true?
- kw71 12y ago
  I think it is, by reading the DMCA. I personally believe that would not withstand a rebuttal. The material cited in this case can also be seen as a subject of the "right to repair" laws in the USA, so in light of other laws that stand along with the DMCA, the DMCA may have some "environmental limitations" (sorry) I don't know if they could claim damage for loss of trade secrets because Ford distributed the information far and wide on their own.
- chii 12y ago
  yes, it's very stupid. Also, DMCA (from what i read, IANAL) overrides the fair use clause of doing reverse engineering for compatibility, so you can trivially sue somebody for reverse engineering your protocols/interfaces by just doing a token rot13 on it and then claiming that the reverser is circumventing DRM.
- Retric 12y ago
  Sort of, `(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work. However, as ROT13 is not limited to just protecting copy-write works and is reversible you could have an effective tool with other works. (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./temp/~c105eDJ19j:e2850 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./temp/~c105eDJ...: On the other hand, if you only apply ROT13 to part of a file then it probably does qualify for protection.
- lsiebert 12y ago
  I am not a lawyer or legal expert, and to my knowledge rot13 hasn't been tested in the courts. DeCSS has though, and the code is 434 bytes, or you can brute force a key in seconds on a modern system (per Wikipedia). That was litigated, interestingly, and some people may remember 2600 got sued over it.