Re: [Full-disclosure] Fwd: HBGary Mirrors?

["Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It would ultimately come down to "intent."  Technically of course, the 
encrypted file is not the original file.  Never will be.  Can't be.  They keys 
are not either.   Used together they can reproduce the copyright data.   So 
legally, there would certainly be an interesting argument about what is and 
what isn't legal.   But there would be plenty of cause for an injunction which 
would put the kibosh on distribution until that legal decision was made.  It 
doesn't have to make sense, and it doesn't have to be strictly "legal" but it 
is up to a judge.  Recall that 9th circuit judge Kermit (I believe) ruled 
against emails on an ISPs server being in scope for wiretap laws since, at the 
time the ISP was reading them, they were not "in transit."  Go figure.

If a judge ruled that you were purposely encrypting data and distributing keys 
to get around copyright laws, he could easily rule against you anyway.

t



From: full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of decoder
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:56 AM
To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Fwd: HBGary Mirrors?

I can't answer the question but it would be even more interesting to answer 
this if you're using a One-Time-Pad (i.e. two files of equal size on two 
different servers, both XORed give you the data). There exists a mathematical 
proof that none of the two files leak a single bit of information of the 
original data :)


Chris


On 02/18/2011 07:50 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] wrote:
Sorry, when I say eligible, I mean "which server would they be allowed to take 
down by law?".

I'm not too hot on the laws of encryption, but I'm sure there is something 
which states that hosting encrypted files are not illegal, it's distributing 
the key which allows you to gain access to those fails, which is actually 
illegal.

*DISCLAIMER: I don't know if the above is true or not, so apologies if I got 
this wrong*


On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:46 PM, ck 
<c.kernstock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:c.kernstock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I go with the server hosting the files since the key should be
significant smaller than the files and therefor much easier to mirror.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]
<cal.leeming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cal.leeming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
 wrote:
> So here's a thought.
> If illegally distributed files (such as this one) were encrypted and hosted
> on one server, and the key hosted on another, which server would
> be eligible for take down?
>








_______________________________________________

Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.

Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html

Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

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