Stuxnet/Flame/Duqu Uses GPL Code 221
David Gerard writes "It seems the authors of Stuxnet/Duqu/Flame used the LZO library, which is straight-up GPL. And so, someone has asked the U.S. government to release the code under the GPL. (Other code uses various permissive licenses. As works of the U.S. federal government, the rest is of course public domain.) Perhaps the author could enlist the SFLC to send a copyright notice to the U.S. government..."
Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't take long for such attitudes to spread throughout society.
But hey, Obama said he would have, like, the totally most open presidency ever. Surely the new boss will prove himself different from the old boss in SOME way. Surely!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
The information was leaked because the malware got out. Nobody "leaked" Stuxnet, other than Stuxnet itself.
Re: (Score:3)
There's been plenty of proof of them hiding something. If they are merely developing a power plant, why would they be working so hard to cover their tracks?
(via intelsat we can see them doing extensive demolitions and earthwork prior to inspectors coming in, meanwhile they are executing stalling tactics. just for example.)
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if 'hiding something' is a significant concern for you, perhaps you should discuss this with your congressman/senator. For example, your own gov't refuses to disclose it's own interpretation of the Patriot act.
Re: (Score:3)
How many Iranian inspectors do we share our nuclear operations with?
They MIGHT have just figured it wasn't any of our damned business.
Re: (Score:3)
I was talking about intelligence satellites, and not some company or organization called intelsat. This should have been obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. I'm supposed to know the name of every company, so when one of them happens to have the same name as something totally unrelated I can clarify that I'm NOT talking about them. Sure, that's how it works. Yep.
Re: (Score:3)
Tsk-tsk. That was so not NPOV.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would imply that the government is ruled by law rather than the arbitrary decisions of a few "top men".
But since we know that to be true, I guess we can all sing like the Who: Won't Get Fooled Again (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Won%27t-Get-Fooled-Again-lyrics-The-Who/761EF79AAB42FA9C48256977002E72F9)
I'm just wondering when the revolution begins. I don't think that the younger generation realize how dire the situation really is since most of them have less than a zero's interest in history. If they'd even take the time read music lyrics that were being sung 50 years ago, they'd easily see that thin
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly we should take our cue to start a bloody revolution from music lyrics written by people 50 years ago.
Speaking as someone who does actually read history, I know what happens to people while they are in the midst of their glorious revolutions. That is to say, privation, disorder and mass slaughter. That wonderful period is then most of the time followed by dictatorship or other forms of tyranny. The good times come decades later when someone has managed to restore order.
You'll excuse me if I hope that no one gets around to it for another 50 years or so.
Re:Implications (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet somewhere in the middle lies the answer.
It is of use to note that we celebrate a war every year. On the 4th of July we light off fireworks to celebrate going to war with the British and winning (technically we celebrate our declaration to be independent, but we all know damn well that had we lost or had there been no contest, there likely wouldn't be fireworks every year).
Our country does need a revolution. It needs a real tea party, a mass of people who simply refuse to follow governments orders.
The challenge, of course is critical mass. I would wager that in 1776 well over 50% of the population of the nascent United States of America was willing to outright defy the ruling government, while somewhere north of 90% of the remainder at least supported said dissidents. With the combination of the Democrats buying votes from the poor/uneducated/minority/grafters/etc with entitlement programs and the Republicans selling government support to corporations, I believe a civil revolution is impossible.
thk1 is right, an armed revolution is bad, but I'm not sure no revolution is better...
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
It is of use to note that we celebrate a war every year. On the 4th of July we light off fireworks to celebrate going to war with the British and winning (technically we celebrate our declaration to be independent, but we all know damn well that had we lost or had there been no contest, there likely wouldn't be fireworks every year).
Oh, I dunno. It probably wouldn't be on 4 July. But the Brits have fireworks on Guy Fawkes day (remember, remember, the fifth of November) to celebrate the capture and execution of terrorist plotters in 1605. There would probably be another annual celebration to commemorate the capture and execution of the colonial terrorists (or is that "militants"? it's so hard to remember the correct terminology) of 1776. So there would be fireworks twice a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
The government, while it makes the laws, is subject to the rule of law. The government can be replaced and the laws changed. But by agreeing on a set of laws that apply to everyone is how we keep our noses out of the aforementioned violent chaos.
Revolution is not the answer. Civic engagement is. If we take notice, if we talk about and we insist on accountability and seek to elect politicians that act in our interest. A mature and educated electorate is the required cultural change and I'm optimistic we're heading in that direction. The current shenanigans are not irreperable and are serving a purpose in getting people to take notice.
Re:Implications (Score:5, Informative)
I would wager that in 1776 well over 50% of the population of the nascent United States of America was willing to outright defy the ruling government, while somewhere north of 90% of the remainder at least supported said dissidents.
And you'd be wrong. It's widely accepted that only 1/5 of population were rebels. Another 1/5 were loyalists. The remaining 3/5 were neutral (with a number joining one army or the other for purely economic reasons without actually believing in one side or another). We only won because England was at war with everyone else at the same time.
Re:Implications (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, 1/5, 3/5, 1/5 or 1/3,1/3,1/3 I will stand corrected, as by either numbers I was wrong. Do you think even 1/5 of our current population would be willing to push back? I think not.
-nB
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But what sort of revolution would it be?
I mean if it where up to me, it would be an anarchist revolution with a resolutely syndicalist-socialist economy. But the libertarians probably wouldn't have a bar of that. And all the democracy people (most folks) would probably rather have some sort of government. And then amongst those, half would want a liberal revolution and the other half a conservative one (wheeee chile death squads).
And thats the problem. America isn't having a revolution because despite all t
Re:Implications (Score:4, Informative)
And what happens when people don't have that revolution?
Mass slaughters still happen, just elsewhere. Instead of having it here, we have a judicial system run amok that has filled the prisons far past any sane levels with non-violent "offender" after non-violent "offender", where often offences are often nothing more than smoking the wrong plant.
I say we have the revolution now while the people who brought us all this are old and can suffer for lack of their public benefits that they intended to rely on.
Re:Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the fault of the judicial system. That's largely the fault of the legislative branch, who enacts laws mandating certain levels of sentencing. And that blame can largely be brought back to the people who voted for those representatives, who demanded that people be "tough on crime."
Re:Implications (Score:4, Insightful)
"If they'd even take the time read music lyrics that were being sung 50 years ago, they'd easily see that things are even worse now than they were before."
Worse for who and in what ways and please be SPECIFIC.
There is no draft so everyone who goes to war is an eager volunteer with no illusions. (I served as an eager volunteer with no illusions, BTW, and would cheerfully do so again.) The Iraq war is over, A-stan will be shortly.
The economy is recovering (it's just another Recession, we've had MANY Recessions, they are NORMAL parts of the economic cycle!) and there are no serious civil rights problems _compared_to_fifty_years_ago_.
Fifty years ago was 1962. Civil rights workers were in routine danger of being SHOT. Things got worse before they got better:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/price&bowers.htm [umkc.edu]
Have some school bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing [wikipedia.org]
Now we have a (b)lack President, vastly more civil rights for LGBT folks, legal cannabis in a few areas, greater social mobility, and a much higher standard of living.
Re: (Score:2)
If they'd even take the time read music lyrics that were being sung 50 years ago, they'd easily see that things are even worse now than they were before.
Citation needed, pal. I'm sure 50 years ago people were moaning that young people then didn't have any interest in history, and that things were "worse than they were before."
Re: (Score:2)
Twice, actually. But I ran away and no one knew.
Re: (Score:3)
You are being rather harsh on Obush, but fear not!
Robama or Omney will win in November and things....won't be different.
Re: (Score:2)
Not gonna happen (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are already breaking laws left and right why would you bother to acknowledge copyright?
The people who released this have no respect for the law, and see themselves as above it they will not comply.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
/ end rant
Re: (Score:3)
Right they want copyright to touch every part of 'our lives' and when 'you' by blank media 'you' should pay a tax. When 'they' want to manufacture something and use GPL code 'they' think they ought be allowed to do so. When 'they' appropriate a photo or tune to use in 'their' works and sell it its just fine, but if 'you' even make a copy of 'their' stuff for you own viewing; 'you' should pay. The law if for 'you' not for 'them'.
Re: (Score:2)
O_o
Seems a non sequitor in this context along the lines of the $699 SCO license fee trolls.
I see the tie in, but ...
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. If really are concerned about "intrusive government" then copyright is about as intrusive as it gets. It's starting to govern aspects of your life from the time you wake up until the time you go to sleep.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously copyright is the most important issue of our time. Look at how much went into ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/CISPA and how little is going into fixing our education, healthcare, research and poverty issues.
Re: (Score:2)
You act like people can't do more than one thing at a time. And that we should ignore ACTA/SOPA/PIPA stuff until the other things are fixed, at which time it will be far too late.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Funny)
Dammit, people, that was meant to be Funny, not Insightful!
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously copyright is the most important issue of our time. Look at how much went into ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/CISPA and how little is going into fixing our education, healthcare, research and poverty issues.
I think you're mistaken. You, I, and most of the world population, finds education, health care, research, and decent living conditions to be the most important issue of our time -- or any time, for that matter. However, wealth is power and wealth has become highly concentrated amongst, perhaps, a few thousand people in this country -- they have all the say about what that wealth does. It can be used to help the impoverished... or it can be used to further restrict our lives and further impoverish us for th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not...it depends on how the library is used. See Prelinking [gnu.org] and Aggregation [gnu.org].
Re: (Score:3)
The key word here is "library" ; aggregation typically only covers programs running in separate processes. Communication via sockets and pipes is permissible.
If the summary had said "The lzo utility", fair enough. But if it's linking the library, that's linking. Pre-linking is just linking.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are rather unusual cases - under normal use (direct linking or use as a shared library), a GPL library imposes GPL on the entire application that uses it. Yes, it may be possible to use a GPL library without imposing GPL terms on the application, but it takes a good deal of effort to try and do so, like running the library in a separate process space and highly constraining communications with it...
See FAQ entry: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins [gnu.org]
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Informative)
The FAQ section you linked to is specific to the LGPL. The LZO library is licensed under the GPL, which means any application that uses it, and is distributed publicly, must be released with full source licensed under the GPL. This is an important distinction between the LGPL and GPL...
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Informative)
LGPL provides a "just linking" exception and is used 99:1 instead of GPL for libraries because the GPL makes no exception for linking. If your code uses GPL code, your code must be GPL.
Generally the only people who write GPL libraries is the GNU Foundation itself, and even then they only do it when they think they have something so awesome people will adopt the GPL license to use it (like libreadline, which is).
Re: (Score:2)
The library is GPL, not LGPL. There may be an argument against mere linking being a violation with standard libraries, but when the library is being distributed as part of the application, that argument falls a little flat.
Who gets to request code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the GPL, only people that the executable was distributed to are allowed to request the code - and since it's a weapon, the US government isn't alliowed to send it to Iran.
Problem solved.
Re:Who gets to request code? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, you'll have to prove in a court of law that the Government did, in fact, distribute the software; that the recipient requested and was denied the source code; and that the owners of the Copyright have standing to sue. That's even before Sovereign issues. I'm not optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they distributed it -- by accident, sure, but they did -- to folks other than Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the legal implications of GPL software that 'distributes' itself? Assuming that Flame is self-propagating, of course. Because distributing GPL software obviously implies some responsibilities taken care of (like offering the source code). Now who gets the blame when the receiving party didn't get the offer? Can you argue in court that the originator of the software is responsible instead of just the previous link in the infection path?
"anyone who possesses the object code" (Score:4, Informative)
Under the GPL, only people that the executable was distributed to are allowed to request the code
As I understand the GPL, this offer must be extended to "anyone who possesses the object code" (GPLv3) or "any third party" (GPLv2). Anyone who has ever had a PC infected with any of these viruses "possesses the object code".
Re:Who gets to request code? (Score:5, Informative)
Under the GPL, only people that the executable was distributed to are allowed to request the code
It's perhaps a little more nuanced than this, to my mind.
Under GNU GPL 2.0 [gnu.org], a distributor of a binary of the Program has two main options for distributing the source code:
b.) Accompany it with a written offer ... to give any third party ... a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code...
If the source code does not accompany the binary, the binary must be accompanied by a written offer to give the source to "any third party" — it does not say "to give any third party who possesses the object code" or similar.
However, the GPL FAQs [gnu.org] (which I'd treat as one interpretation of the licence), comment that:
The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy of the binary that it accompanies. This is why the GPL says your friend must give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the binary—so you can take advantage of it.
However, this is not what the wording says — that the offer must be open to "any third party." If I get the binary directly from you, the status is clear, as is the situation in which I get the binary from my friend, who got it from you — but it's unclear, to my mind, what happens when I do not have the binary. I'd probably leave it that you have an obligation to provide the source code to me — an obligation to provide the source code to "any third party" — but that, without a copy of the offer myself, I'd likely have a very difficult time enforcing the obligation.
GNU GPL 3.0 clears this up, with clause 6(b) providing that a non-source distribution on a physical medium can take place if
accompanied by a written offer ... to give anyone who possesses the object code [the source or access to the source]
However, the fact the words are *not* in GNU GPL 2.0 but *are* in GNU GPL 3.0 does not necessarily mean that they should be read in...
YVMV, of course :)
Re: (Score:2)
Antivirus vendors around the global would disagree with you statement that it was never distributed.
Re: (Score:3)
And how exactly do you claim that this software was never distributed? It was clearly distributed, in fact, it distributed itself to new machines without the owners actual approval. The one claim that the authors most certainly not make is that they did not intend for the binary to be distributed.
Good luck with that... (Score:2)
State sovereign immunity. Game over.
Re: (Score:2)
State sovereign immunity. Game over.
"Laws? We don't need no steenkin laws!"
You can ask ... (Score:2)
This involves the Mossad, CIA, and national security. You can ask, but you might not survive the attempt.
Gerald Bull [wikipedia.org] and the drone [wikipedia.org] attacks come to mind. Of course, this assumes that they even listen, and don't simply claim National Security! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's all over slashdot now, they can't "contain" it much longer. All they can do is deny, deny, deny. Deny doing it, deny access, deny the whole thing.
It'd be a hell of an interesting test for the GPL in court, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they care about slashdot?
It would not be a test for the GPL at all, nor would it be a test of any other license. They would just invoke sovereign immunity and be done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to do with slashdot, more that thousands and thousands of people have already seen it. If whoever asks the question suddenly disappears, there's plenty of other people that will line up and ask two questions. Plenty of people on slashdot aren't afraid of the government - any government.
Like I said, it would be an interesting test in court. I highly doubt it'll ever get to that stage.
Re: (Score:2)
ha ha ha /. that have not had a real encounter with the government then. I suspect the Venn diagram is actually two concentric circles of the same diameter...
Plenty of people on
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
I think you underestimate the number of people that visit slashdot. Law of averages and all that.
There'll always be another Assange or Manning waiting to stand up and shout loudly, be it for legitimate or self-gratifying reasons (admittedly mostly self-gratifying). People like (the frankly idiotic) Anonymous will make enough of a fuss that it'll get news coverage all over the place and by that point, you can't contain it without making it worse. All they can (and probably will) do is hunker down and deny it
Re: (Score:2)
All over Slashdot? Oh man, they're quaking in their boots!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that they'd be scared, all I said was that they couldn't contain it by "removing" a few people.
Yeah, they'll get right on that (Score:3)
LOLOLOL
What a stupid idea it was to go down that path. Now that the idiots in the us gov't have opened pandora's box, I'm sure we'll all soon have the opportunity to see the code up close and personal.
Re: (Score:2)
LOLOLOL
What a stupid idea it was to go down that path. Now that the idiots in the us gov't have opened pandora's box, I'm sure we'll all soon have the opportunity to see the code up close and personal.
The decompiled version appears to already be on the net, if you want it you can find it and so can everyone else.
Hopefully this will teach people not to control important things with windows machines but somehow I doubt that will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Windows: "Kevorkian Approved©" for critical life support applications.
Worms with source? (Score:2)
So if this worm deploys itself onto a machine, it should deploy the source as well? Or, could it just deploy a link to the source, and since the software itself by its very nature tries to hide itself, could it hide the link?
Clever idea, actually. (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone with gigantic balls of steel should file a FOIA on this basis.
It would be interesting to see if the request would even be acknowledged.
What makes the idea clever is that it's a public request (and publicise the hell out of it!) and it's powered by copyright. This is why the GPL is so effective...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the government can ignore it since they control the copyright laws. You actually think the government is constrained by the GPL? ROFL.
Re:Clever idea, actually. (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know they didn't buy a commercial license?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The laws on classified information trump copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone with gigantic balls of steel should file a FOIA on this basis.
It doesn't require any courage to file a FOIA request, only information.
It would be interesting to see if the request would even be acknowledged.
Doubtful. There's zero incentive to do so.
What makes the idea clever is that it's a public request (and publicise the hell out of it!) and it's powered by copyright. This is why the GPL is so effective...
Yes, watch how effective the GPL is as exactly nothing happens.
Ask away (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, no one knows who wrote it. Sure, there is speculation that the U.S. and/or Israel did, but no one knows for sure. The simplest thing for the government to do is say "We can't because we didn't write it." Then, it falls on the asker to prove they did.
Re:Ask away (Score:4, Informative)
This.
I mean, I'm seeing a leap of logic where we look for a piece of GPL code to throw a legality at the US government, but of course, neglect the little detail that no one knows who wrote it, and that the US government certainly hasn't admitted it.
This just sounds like a strange mixture of anti-government outrage mixed with GPL advocacy which is nothing more than an attention whoring exercise in wankery.
Re: (Score:2)
True, though the summary is wrong. Yeah, I know I RTFA'd I must be new here, but the actual post said "whoever wrote it please comply with the GPL",
It never actually said it was the US or any other Government.
That claim was made on slashdot alone.
Re: (Score:2)
The simplest thing for the government to do is say "We can't because we didn't write it." Then, it falls on the asker to prove they did.
Whether the Government wrote it doesn't matter. What matters is whether the Government distributed the binaries (not that I expect our Government to comply, but that's an entirely different issue).
Are we sure it's the GPL version? (Score:2)
Markus Oberhumer, author of LZO, also offers LZO Professional, a commercial version not subject to the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
AARGH should have used preview. LZO Professional [oberhumer.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Markus Oberhumer, author of LZO, also offers LZO Professional, a commercial version not subject to the GPL.
Which would make it perfectly legal. But honestly, what do you think the odds are that the TLAs would bother doing what's right?
Re: (Score:2)
Markus Oberhumer, author of LZO, also offers LZO Professional, a commercial version not subject to the GPL.
Does he also offer an 'acts of war against a sovereign nation' license?
LZO Licensing (Score:5, Informative)
From http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/lzodoc.php:
"Special licenses for commercial and other applications which are not willing to accept the GNU General Public License are available by contacting the author."
RTFA. (Score:4, Informative)
So our questions is: Please, Dear Authors of Duqu (whoever they are), hand over the source code of Duqu (or Beacon/NYT), as it contains GPL code.
Disclaimer: This post is for fun, don’t take it too seriously, but the questions are still valid.
OT - GPL violation doesn't necessarily open code (Score:5, Informative)
Just as an aside, whenever some commercial entity finds itself in violation of the GPL, people start talking like they expect the code to magically be revealed and gifted to the community. This perpetuates the lie that the GPL is viral and can "infect" closed-source code. The reality is far different. If a company is found to be in violation of the GPL, they find themselves in a copyright violation situation. This means that they must a) stop further distribution and b) potentially be held liable for monetary damages resulting from the distribution. They absolutely don't have to release their code. However if they want to continue to distribute and sell their product they will have to do one of three things: 1) remove infringing code, 2) license the infringing code under acceptable terms, possibly by paying a licensing fee to the copyright holder, or 3) release their derivative code under the GPL.
We'll settle if you release the code (Score:3)
and b) potentially be held liable for monetary damages resulting from the distribution. They absolutely don't have to release their code.
Unless the copyright owner of the GPL code offers to drop the claim for monetary damages in exchange for publishing the infringing code. As I understand it, this offer is routine for copyright infringement cases that involve the GPL.
It should be possible to sue (Score:2)
The Federal Government has specifically disclaimed sovereign immunity in copyright cases under 28 USC 1498(b).
There may be other concerns, like national security that make it difficult though.
It's a joke (Score:5, Informative)
Quoting the article because so far no one actually followed the link and read it (as usual).
Plenty of (truely) free alternatives (Score:2)
Not entirely GPLed (Score:2)
If/Then: US Classifies a Work/Condemnation of Work (Score:2)
Assuming for a moment that Flame is a work by or created under contract for the USG:
Based on my laymen understanding of how a classified work is handled by the USG, if it marks a work with a security classification, said work is therefore condemned and solely owned by the USG, making all previous contracts and copyrights moot.
That's not to say that they would claim sole ownership and copyright of Lua and the other works used to create the final product, but rather just the final product. Therefore, no code
Re:is the CIA selling these viruses? (Score:5, Informative)
No, selling or not selling is irrelevant. "Distributing" is the key.
Re:is the CIA selling these viruses? (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole thing is irrelevant due to state sovereign immunity. Good luck suing the government when they have to permit themselves to being sued.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, distributing is the key.
But that means we have to figure out who it was distributed to, and by whom. I think we can agree that the owners of the targeted Iranian computers were recipients of the distribution, so they get to request the source, right? (Ha!)
But what about anyone else? If the distribution to other people was not authorized the the original distributor (e.g. an Iranian infects Internet-connected computers after his air-gapped nuclear equipment controlling system was infected), I'm not su
Re: (Score:3)
Re:is the CIA selling these viruses? (Score:5, Interesting)
Distribute, not sell. (Though you absolutely have the right to sell GPL code as well, as long as you abide by the rest of the license and release your source.)
In any case, I'm guessing that one of the following things will happen:
- Some sort of secrecy / national security provision is given as a reason source cannot be released (1% probability)
- Changes to the GPL portions are released (0.01% probability)
- Stone-cold silence (98.99% probability)
Remember, the US Government hasn't even acknowledged that they created these worms. We're still firmly in the "plausible deniability" phase.
Re:is the CIA selling these viruses? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:is the CIA selling these viruses? (Score:5, Informative)
5.56x45mm is the specifications for the NATO-standard small-arms ammunition, used by pretty much every modern military assault rifle that isn't a Kalashnikov derivative (and some that are), as well as some police sniper rifles and various civilian rifles.
And now I've explained the joke.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it really is viral licensing now