RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiement -Unix and Norton

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

The signature in the file might be the result of
a proprietary signature-generating scheme.  Suppose
the 5th byte of a given virus is always "A" and
the 17th is always "c" ... that knowledge may be
fact but it is also the result of research on the
part of the virus company.  A different company
might rely on the fact that the CRC of the virus
is always 0xDEADBEEF.  



-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 12:36 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiement -Unix and Norton
> 
> 
> On 5 Jul 2003 at 21:03, juergen + barbara wrote:
> 
> From:           	"juergen + barbara" <jmhoraze@compuserve.com>
> To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiement 
> -Unix and Norton
> Date sent:      	Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:03:07 -0700
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > 
> > well do you use your own format of the AV definition file 
> or are you using
> > MacAfee's or Norton's?  For the later they could get you -- 
> DMCA seems to
> > prohibit reverse-engineering...
> > 
> 
> Well that's the question. What is copyrightable in their NAV 
> definition file? 
> The signature of the virus? That's a fact. The definitions 
> file is no more than 
> a listing of virus and signatures for them-a listing of facts 
> this is no more 
> copyrightable than the telephone book. So how can their file 
> be copyrighted?  
> If it is not copyrighted how can the DMCA be involved. 
> 
> OK now consider if I wrote a translation program of the 
> definitions to an open 
> file format. Does that program violate the DMCA? It should 
> not because the 
> material is not copyrighted and so circumvention is not an 
> issue...or should 
> be. The exemptions the LOC recommends to congress might be 
> interesting. 
> 
> NOw I will admit given that, using encryption on the file is 
> an ideal way for 
> Norton or Macaffee to protect their facts from being able to 
> be used by others 
> but also allowing them to claim DMCA protection on something 
> that is not 
> copyrighted should also not be allowed.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of
> > microlenz@earthlink.net
> > Sent: Freitag, 04. Juli 2003 10:57
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiement -Unix and Norton
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In view of the recent discussions on the w32.klem.h consider this...
> > 
> > Suppose someone writes a virus scanner for Unix that uses 
> Norton Anti-Virus
> > definition files rather than their code. Is that copyright 
> infringement? Theft
> > of trade secret? Or DMCA violation? Now I'd bet money that 
> Symantec would haul
> > anybody who did that into court and try arguing all three.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>