From: Javier Fernandez-Sanguino (jfernandez@germinus.com)
Date: Thu May 06 2004 - 04:31:33 EDT
Rob Shein wrote:
> I think you're confusing code with output. The licenses you cite with
> regard to both SARA and MBSA have restrictions upon redistribution of the
> product, not the output of the product.
I'm confusing them because output might _include_ significant
information that is in the code. The license covers both the software
and the reports they generate, it does not explicitly exclude the
later (so under copyright laws it _is_ included).
Again, notice that the output of the product is based on (sometimes
lengthy) information that is included in the code of the product. So,
all the suggestions on how to fix a vulnerability that a report might
include are like a "knowledge base" of sorts, which is copyrighted.
This includes also detailed information on a vulnerabilities (what
does it do, how does it affect a system). Without the original
author's permission you can't translate that at will, you cannot
provide that report as a commercial offering (inside a report or
standalone) and you cannot (taking it to the extreme) include the
information from that report into your new brand vulnerability
assesment tool with different code to assess the vulnerabilities but
similar output.
Notice that, if that was permitted under copyright law, there would be
nothing preventing Nessus, Internet Scanner, Cybercop, Retina,
you_name_it from using the same vulnerability database. If you
consider the output in the public domain you could run a test against
a host that turns out vulnerable to everything that is in the database
(maybe faking the answers) and then copy the information from the
report to your propietary or free vulnerability assesment system.
That's obviously illegal.
> With regard to SAINT, however, you
> may have a point.
>
> Nessus is another example; the GPL has the same restrictions on distribution
> in either binary or source code format for money, but it's very clear that
> using Nessus in the course of one's work and including its output in the
> deliverable is entirely acceptable within the license terms.
That's because Reanud, as well as other Nessus developers (me
included) wanted to make a distinction in that side. Notice that the
output of Nessus is still copyrighted (it's part of the NASL script)
and you cannot do whatever you like (such as including it in a closed
source scanner)
Please read the thread in the Nessus plugins writers that started at
http://list.nessus.org/plugins-writers/0312/1001.html
And also read the GPL FAQ:
"In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?"
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatCaseIsOutputGPL)
and
"Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my
program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware
designs, can I require that these designs must be free?"
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLOutput)
Regards
Javier
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethical Hacking at the InfoSec Institute. Mention this ad and get $545 off
any course! All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 10 students or less
to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors.
Attend a course taught by an expert instructor with years of in-the-field
pen testing experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Master the skills
of an Ethical Hacker to better assess the security of your organization.
Visit us at:
http://www.infosecinstitute.com/courses/ethical_hacking_training.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:53:53 EDT