About Obfuscator-LLVM, Dual-Use Tools and Academic Ethics | Hacker News Reader

About Obfuscator-LLVM, Dual-Use Tools and Academic Ethics

crypto.junod.info

38 pointscdman16 comments

All it's going to do is increase the arms race in terms of unobfuscating code. This happened with Flash quite a few years back. The war has a null sum. I don't think there's any stake to the claim that an obfuscater could be a net gain.

You talk like an arm dealer. "The restriction only increases cost to get forbidden stuffs, and they will eventually take it. Sum's zero, so nothing beneficial."

Yes, those horrible arms dealers, so morally bankrupt as to sully the noble and honourable tradition of killing for oligarchs with that of common trade.

Who would want money when you could have your name read at a Cenotaph?

So, maybe providing code to a group called "the evad3rs" was a mistake. But I think the mistake was minimal. They would have had the code a week later anyway, and I don't think that's an argument against creating these types of tools. Even if we argue that academics shouldn't create tools like obfuscaters and such, that just means someone else will write them... and we won't have access to the source then.

Reverse engineering software and jailbreaking was done for freedom, the argument being there should not be any restrictions on the software/hardware we buy. Ironically we have come to a point where the jailbreaking code comes obfuscated. The whole community laps it up purely for their technical prowess rather than the political statement. Do the jailbreakers have a claim to the moral high ground any more?

Everyone lives in a free country, everything is done for freedom and everyone fighting for freedom has the moral high ground.

The only real question is what freedom actually means.

Do people who own bought a device have a legit claim of moral high ground to remove third-parties attempt to bypass property laws and take control over devices they do no longer own?

That's an easy question. Yes, yes they do. Its the exact same right that allows a administrator to remove malware that illegally takes control over web servers and send out spam.

Property laws says that owners should be in total control. DRM is designed to bypass said law by the use of technical means. Jailbreakers counters said technical means and returns control back to the owner.

What ever technical means jailbreakers has to use on their devices should not effect the moral high ground claim.

I am not so sure. I have an issue with them obfuscating their code. They are using technologies to keep other people out just like the people they are going against. Its jarring to me.

I am all for jailbreaking though but I don't like the trend. The point being jailbreaking moved is no longer a political statement thing, its more to make money and a name for oneself.

So DRM is considered ethical, as opposed to malware?

That's a low ethical standard to adhere to.

DRM and malware use the same technology, same counter measures and share the same goal in having a thrid-party taking control over devices that they themselves do not have any legal right to. Both is commonly made in a for-profit motive.

I would not even know how to distinguish them from each other, beyond what the third-party intend to do once they have taken control over the device. Its the difference between a home intruder who only want to look while you are sleeping, and a home intruder who just want to loot the drawers. Is either home intruder more ethical than the other?

The third party's motive could also change over time. You might agree to let them take over your device at one point in time, but in the future, you may want to go back, but find that you cannot.

I don't think I have ever heard RMS talk about this issue.

RMS doesn't care about reverse-engineering binaries from disassembly dumps as far as I know; he'd be more apt to promote a complete re-write based on observed behavior.

The GPL does mandate that the source code must be in the preferred form for making modifications to the software, which forecloses on people releasing obfuscated source code and claiming to be in compliance with the GPL.

> The GPL does mandate that the source code must be in the preferred form for making modifications to the software, which forecloses on people releasing obfuscated source code and claiming to be in compliance with the GPL.

Would you be referring specifically to source code generated from an "obfuscating program"? And how would "preferred form for making modifications" be defined? I thought it would have meant, among other things, separation of source into several files, modular structure, etc.

Talking about modular structure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir

> And how would "preferred form for making modifications" be defined?

In the same way that you define source code, or what modifications means. One argue a case in front of a judge, and if both parties agree, then that will be that. If the two sides disagree, the judge (or jury) makes a decision.

However, I think any programer would have a hard time arguing that the preferred form for modifications on binary file is not the source code. In the same way, they would have a hard time arguing that the preferred form to add modifications on source code that's been obfuscated is not on the non-obfuscated code. Judges and juries are not complete without common sense.

>> And how would "preferred form for making modifications" be defined? > In the same way that you define source code, or what modifications means.

That is obvious, why are you telling me this?

> However, I think any programer would have a hard time arguing that the preferred form for modifications on binary file is not the source code.

I wasn't talking about binary files, of course I am referring to the source code.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com