Re: [Full-Disclosure] InfoSec sleuths beware, Microsoft's attorneys may be knocking at your door

[Blue Boar <BlueBoar@thievco.com>]

Cael Abal wrote:

> | There are clear, admitted cases of reverse engineering by vulnerabiity
> | researchers, which are prohibited by EULA, and which MS has so far
> | declined to pursue.  Why should this be different?  MS afraid the EULA
> | restrictions wouldn't hold up?
>
> Unless the individual who downloaded the leaked source clicked an 'I
> agree not to do anything naughty with this source' button, EULAs have
> nothing to do with this particular issue.  

The "EULA" reference is in regards to reverse engineering, as shown in 
the bit of text you have quoted.  No one is trying to claim that there 
is a EULA on the stolen source.  I have to wonder if you are being 
intentionally obtuse in trying to make it look like that is what is 
being discussed.

The point is, in case you really did miss it, is that Microsoft already 
has a basis for going after the vulnerability researchers if they choose 
to.  All the exploit writers I know have a habit of disassembling MS 
binaries that explicity forbid that in the EULA.  Therefore, I doubt 
that they will go after vuln researchers who use the source code 
instead/in addition to reverse engineering.

The original poster made a decent case that perhaps MS has a stronger 
legal stance with regard to the source, so maybe I'm wrong.

						BB

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html