29 Dec
2006
29 Dec
'06
5:53 a.m.
I would like to lodge a strong protest with the admins of ILUG-BOM
over this member's behaviour :
<http://db.ilug-bom.org.in/wiki/index.php/Talk:Broadband_Pacenet>.
He (she?) has deleted all traces of matter pertaining to decryption of
Pacenet's password and inserted standard sales talk in its place. I
have not undone this as I want to know whether doing so is "illegal"
as the user 'Pacenetrules' claims.
Perhaps we need to get a LUG meet arranged with these fanboys and ISP heads.
Why should users of non-windows opeating systems bend over backwards
to rightfully get what they have paid for?
--
Rohit V. Bhute
http://blog.rvbhute.org/
29 Dec
29 Dec
6:08 a.m.
New subject: [OT] reverse-engineering pacenet password is unethical?
He (she?) has deleted all traces of matter pertaining
to decryption of
Pacenet's password and inserted standard sales talk in its place. I
have not undone this as I want to know whether doing so is "illegal"
as the user 'Pacenetrules' claims.
<rant>
I tried doing what he says. The lady said I have to enlist the help of my
local cable guy. He has to send an email to cs(a)pacenet-india.com with
my hardware MAC address and the linux support request. I'm in office,
and besides I'm NOT going to bend over to their demands. Triband, I'm
coming!!
</rant>
--
Rohit V. Bhute
http://blog.rvbhute.org/
6:18 a.m.
On 29-Dec-06, at 11:23 AM, rohit bhute wrote:
I would like to lodge a strong protest with the admins
of ILUG-BOM
over this member's behaviour :
<http://db.ilug-bom.org.in/wiki/index.php/Talk:Broadband_Pacenet>.
He (she?) has deleted all traces of matter pertaining to decryption of
Pacenet's password and inserted standard sales talk in its place. I
have not undone this as I want to know whether doing so is "illegal"
as the user 'Pacenetrules' claims.
no need to get het up about it. First revert the wiki page to what it
was when you last edited it. If Pacenetrules wants to edit he can
first put his proposed edits in the discussion page. If he persists
and keeps editing without permission, he is deactivated/prevented
from editing. This is the way wikipedia handles it. So first revert
to your last edit. Then lets see what happens.
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
lawgon(a)au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
6:38 a.m.
On 12/29/06, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
no need to get het up about it. First revert the wiki
page to what it
was when you last edited it. If Pacenetrules wants to edit he can
first put his proposed edits in the discussion page. If he persists
and keeps editing without permission, he is deactivated/prevented
from editing. This is the way wikipedia handles it. So first revert
Hmm, done. But going off on a tangent, is "reverse engineering the
password" illegal?
--
Rohit V. Bhute
http://blog.rvbhute.org/
6:55 a.m.
On 29-Dec-06, at 12:08 PM, rohit bhute wrote:
afaik not if you paid for it - only reverse engineering someone
else's password would be illegal
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
lawgon(a)au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
and keeps
editing without permission, he is deactivated/prevented
from editing. This is the way wikipedia handles it. So first revert
Hmm, done. But going off on a tangent, is "reverse engineering the
password" illegal? 
10:08 a.m.
On Friday 29 December 2006 12:25, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
No pure software patents in India. U arent copying code so no
copyright violation. U are not cracking someone else's password. so
no illegality there. U are just using whatever u paid for.
--
Rgds
JTD
Hmm, done.
But going off on a tangent, is "reverse engineering
the password" illegal?
afaik not if you paid for it - only reverse engineering someone
else's password would be illegal 
12:48 p.m.
On 12/29/06, jtd <jtd(a)mtnl.net.in> wrote:
No pure software patents in India. U arent copying
code so no
copyright violation. U are not cracking someone else's password. so
no illegality there. U are just using whatever u paid for.
So does that mean I can
buy a copy of Windows and reverse engineer it
despite the EULA?
Regards,
--
Siddhesh Poyarekar
http://siddhesh.tk
30 Dec
30 Dec
1:29 a.m.
On 29-Dec-06, at 6:18 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
no
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
lawgon(a)au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
No pure
software patents in India. U arent copying code so no
copyright violation. U are not cracking someone else's password. so
no illegality there. U are just using whatever u paid for.
So does that mean I can
buy a copy of Windows and reverse engineer it
despite the EULA? 
3:57 a.m.
On 12/30/06, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon(a)au-kbc.org> wrote:
On 29-Dec-06, at 6:18 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
no
Samba is what? Reverse engineering. Isnt it? Microsoft cant to anything
about it.
Amish.
No pure
software patents in India. U arent copying code so no
copyright violation. U are not cracking someone else's password. so
no illegality there. U are just using whatever u paid for.
So does that mean I can
buy a copy of Windows and reverse engineer it
despite the EULA? 
3:42 p.m.
Sometime Today, Amish Mehta assembled some asciibets to say:
Samba is what? Reverse engineering. Isnt it? Microsoft
cant to
anything about it.
You're confusing software and protocols. A software's licence can
prohibit reverse engineering the software itself. A protocol cannot be
protected by a licence.
If a company wants to protect their protocol, they need to document it
completely, and patent it, and then put restrictions on use of the
intellectual property within the patent. No one does that because no
one wants to document and publicise their protocols.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'll let our list's lawyers comment on
this from a legal point of view.
31 Dec
31 Dec
6:16 a.m.
On 30-Dec-06, at 9:12 PM, Philip Tellis wrote:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'll let our
list's lawyers comment
on this from a legal point of view.
incidently, never act on advice from a lawyer unless you get a
written opinion on his letterhead and signed by him.
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
lawgon(a)au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
1 Jan
1 Jan
3:42 a.m.
On 12/30/06, Philip Tellis <philip.tellis(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Sometime Today, Amish Mehta assembled some asciibets
to say:
As far as I know for knowing SMB protocol, MS Windows was
reverse engineered, probably to know exactly how passwords are
passed. Same is true for this Pacenet issue.
Wine, OpenOffice.org are also other examples of reverse engineering
certain softwares.
The issue is if you can reverse engineer a software or not, whatever it
is done for. Dont count on it but my opinion is as long as its not patented
and its for personal use and it does not harm anyone, it should be ok.
"In the United States and many other countries, even if an artifact or
process is protected by trade secrets, reverse-engineering the artifact or
process is often lawful as long as it is obtained legitimately."
I referred to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering
Only problem is, in India no one clearly knows what is legal and not legal
until the case is won.
I do not think decrypting password algorithm is such a big crime and
infact Pacenet should instead have used better algorithm if they were
much concerned about security.
Amish.
Samba is what? Reverse engineering. Isnt it?
Microsoft cant to
anything about it.
You're confusing software and protocols. A software's licence can
prohibit reverse engineering the software itself. A protocol cannot be
protected by a licence. 
5:10 a.m.
On 01/01/07 09:12 +0530, Amish Mehta wrote:
On 12/30/06, Philip Tellis
<philip.tellis(a)gmx.net> wrote:
No. They used a network sniffer to figure out the network protocol, but
they never touched the Windows code itself.
Sometime Today, Amish Mehta assembled some
asciibets to say:
As far as I know for knowing SMB protocol, MS Windows was
reverse engineered, probably to know exactly how passwords are
passed. Same is true for this Pacenet issue.
Samba is what? Reverse engineering. Isnt it?
Microsoft cant to
anything about it.
You're confusing software and protocols. A software's licence can
prohibit reverse engineering the software itself. A protocol cannot be
protected by a licence. Wine, OpenOffice.org are also other examples of
reverse engineering
certain softwares.
Wine is an implementation of the Win32 API. Pretty public information. OOo
uses filters for document formats, not code.
The issue is if you can reverse engineer a software or
not, whatever it
is done for. Dont count on it but my opinion is as long as its not patented
and its for personal use and it does not harm anyone, it should be ok.
Software reverse engineering was pretty clearcut in the US from 1984 till
the DMCA was passed. Properly done reverse engineering started the PC
revolution (yay for Compaq). Patents harm software development simply by
existing.
Any implementation of the same process would still result in infringement.
Devdas Bhagat
7:14 a.m.
On Monday 01 January 2007 09:12, Amish Mehta wrote:
The issue is if you can reverse engineer a software or not,
Depends on how you do it. If it is not patented u can as long as u are
not reading the source code and hence possibily creating a derived
work.
If it is patented u set up two teams. One to use the original package
and create a specification. And one to implement the specs. The
implementer should not ever see the original package.
However if the business method is patented u are in a still bigger
mess like RIM. U can use the above method to reverse engineer, but
cant use it in a similiar business model.
whatever it is done for. Dont count on it but my
opinion is as long
as its not patented and its for personal use and it does not harm
anyone, it should be ok.
In India and EU software patents as well as business methods are not
recognised, hence u can reverse engineer a software package using a
debugger / profiler.
Only problem is, in India no one clearly knows what is legal and
not legal until the case is won.
standalone software patents are NOT recognised in India. That is 100%
certain.
I do not think decrypting password algorithm is such a big crime
and infact Pacenet should instead have used better algorithm if
they were much concerned about security.
We do not have DRM / DMCA laws right now. So decrypting passwords or
algorithms when not used for illegal copying is certainly legal.
--
Rgds
JTD
10:43 a.m.
Sometime Today, Amish Mehta assembled some asciibets to say:
As far as I know for knowing SMB protocol, MS Windows
was
reverse engineered, probably to know exactly how passwords are
Nope, MS Windows was not reverse engineered. The protocol over the wire
was reverse engineered. Big difference.
The issue is if you can reverse engineer a software or
not, whatever it
No. No software was reverse engineered, so it's a moot point.
30 Dec
30 Dec
6:25 a.m.
On Saturday 30 December 2006 06:59, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 29-Dec-06, at 6:18 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
no
The EULA specifically prohibits you from reverse engineering (I havent
read their eula nor installed M$ in a long time for myself.).
But KG installs M$ and connects to my box. I can reverse engineer -
including patented stuff, in India and EU. I did not agree to
anything. In USA fair use allows me to reverse engineer and use for
myself with any other software / device - but no publishing or
disclosing because of patents. It would also be suicide, since i
would be a will full offender (penalties several orders of magnitude
higher) if something i wrote or invented later were to violate the
patent.
The ultimate idiocity is when i read the patent from the patent office
i am permanently tainted.
Copyright allows fair use (reverse engineering) and publishing (i am
not reading the code). But patents prevent publishing cause i have
learnt something about the tech by reverse engineering.
BIG FAT WARNING: CONSULT A LAWYER BEFORE MESSING ABOUT
--
Rgds
JTD
No pure
software patents in India. U arent copying code so no
copyright violation. U are not cracking someone else's password.
so no illegality there. U are just using whatever u paid for.
So does that mean I can buy a copy of Windows and reverse
engineer it despite the EULA? 
31 Dec
31 Dec
11:41 a.m.
On Friday 29 December 2006 11:23, rohit bhute wrote:
I would like to lodge a strong protest with the admins
of ILUG-BOM
over this member's behaviour :
<http://db.ilug-bom.org.in/wiki/index.php/Talk:Broadband_Pacenet>.
He (she?) has deleted all traces of matter pertaining to decryption
of Pacenet's password and inserted standard sales talk in its place.
I have not undone this as I want to know whether doing so is
"illegal" as the user 'Pacenetrules' claims.
Perhaps we need to get a LUG meet arranged with these fanboys and ISP
heads. Why should users of non-windows opeating systems bend over
backwards to rightfully get what they have paid for?
Maybe you should ask him nicely to talk to the management of Pacenet. We
can explain them the positive aspects making themselves more Linux
friendly. By now most companies know / atleast have heard of Linux and
know that is far superior than Windoze in most aspects and its users
are the 1337 crowd =P So they better support it or lose customers to
MTNL ;)
--
Regards,
Dinesh A. Joshi
1 Jan
1 Jan
3:21 a.m.
On 31-Dec-06, at 5:11 PM, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
whole issue was resolved long ago - see:
http://db.glug-bom.org/wiki/index.php/Talk:Broadband_Pacenet
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
lawgon(a)au-kbc.org
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
backwards to
rightfully get what they have paid for?
Maybe you should ask him nicely to talk to the management of
Pacenet. We
can explain them the positive aspects making themselves more Linux
friendly. By now most companies know / atleast have heard of Linux and
know that is far superior than Windoze in most aspects and its users
are the 1337 crowd =P So they better support it or lose customers to
MTNL ;)
5659
days inactive
5662
days old
17 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Amish Mehta -
Devdas Bhagat -
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Philip Tellis -
rohit bhute -
Siddhesh Poyarekar