

About Obfuscator-LLVM, Dual-Use Tools and Academic Ethics - cdman
http://crypto.junod.info/2013/12/24/about-obfuscator-llvm-dual-use-tools-and-academic-ethics/

======
goldenkey
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.

~~~
eonil
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."

~~~
fleitz
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?

------
pmiller2
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.

------
yalogin
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?

~~~
belorn
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.

~~~
yalogin
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.

------
mehrdada
So DRM is considered ethical, as opposed to malware?

That's a low ethical standard to adhere to.

~~~
belorn
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?

~~~
oakwhiz
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.

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

~~~
derleth
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.

~~~
NAFV_P
> _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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir)

~~~
belorn
> 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.

~~~
NAFV_P
>> _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.

