ZDNet UK


Skip to Main Content

ZDNet.co.uk - Winner of Best Business Website 2007
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. Blogs
  4. Reviews
  5. Prices
  6. Resources
  7. Community
  8. My ZDNet

 

ZDNet UK RSS Feeds


IT Jobs

Security threats Toolkit

Cybercrime laws 'will harm security research'

Tom Espiner ZDNet.co.uk

Published: 17 Nov 2006 13:47 GMT

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly
  • Post Comment

Updated cybercrime laws could have a "chilling effect" on anti-malware research, security experts warned this week.

The Police and Justice Bill 2006, which received Royal Assent last Wednesday, contains amendments to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 that alter the law surrounding the creation and distribution of 'dual use' software tools. These are tools such as nmap — a security scanner — which are primarily used by legitimate users and security researchers, but can also be used by hackers to scan networks for vulnerabilities.

The amendments to the law could potentially prohibit the downloading of such security tools, according to Malcolm Hutty, head of public affairs at the London Internet Exchange (LINX).

"We do have to have responsible software supply. However, [under these amendments] any form of download tool could be prohibited," said Hutty earlier this week. "The Government is inadvertently throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Part 37 of the Police and Justice Bill amends section 3A, clause 2 of the CMA, and states: "A person is guilty of an offence if he supplies or offers to supply any article believing that it is likely to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence."

This will place serious constraints on the distribution of security tools, as the prosecution must only prove that the distributor believed it was likely that the tool will be used for hacking, even if this was not his intention, said Richard Clayton, a Cambridge University security expert. This would include malware researchers, ISPs and universities that host download tools, Clayton claimed.

Malware researchers could also be severely constrained by the new law because of the definition of "article", according to Clayton and Hutty. Clause 4 of section 3A states: "In this section 'article' includes any program or data held in electronic form."

The law is supposed to cover virus writing and hacking tools, but the wording of the law also covers the disclosure of software flaws, according to Hutty.

"In theory this covers the announcement of software flaws. The fear in the security world is that the legislation makes it possible for a vendor to come along and say that if security researchers are making [software-flaw] information available to the public, they must know it will be used to exploit software, as well as used for beneficial purposes," said Hutty. "The chilling effects on security research is a concern."

Clayton added: "If you approach a company and say you've found a problem, they can issue a writ to silence you. HSBC threatened to sue the Guardian [over reports of research by Cardiff University into HSBC's online banking authentication procedure]. This shows people are starting to think about going to the law to deal with bad news about security."

Several experts raised concerns about the amendments in the Police and Justice Bill earlier this year, which prompted the Government to make some changes.

LINX has expressed its concerns to the Home Office, and has asked the Government to clarify the law. The director of public prosecutions will issue guidelines on how the law is used.

As well as security researchers, Linux distributions could also be affected, as they often bundle dual-use systems administration tools, such as TCP dump and nmap, said Hutty.

"TCP dump gives a raw view of what's passed over your network. It's clearly in the public interest that the tool is available — but it could also be used for bad purposes," Hutty explained.

Clayton and Hutty were speaking at an event hosted by anti-spam appliance vendor Barracuda Networks.

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly Print with HP

Did you find this article useful?
356 out of 418 people found this useful


Full Talkback thread

0 comments


Company/Topic Alerts

Create a new alert from the list below:



Related Jobs

Security Consultant Ethical Hacking / Penetration Testing - London

Job Title: Security Consultant Ethical Hacking / Penetration Testing Location: London (City) Salary: Competitive Job Type: Permenant NET2S is an ...

Junior VB.Net / ASP.Net Developer required for client in Bristol

You will be working on a range of software applications including a number of systems for the police. This does mean that you will go through a basic ...

Oracle 10g DBA -Northampton -40-50K+bens

The Senior Oracle 10g DBA/ Database Administrator will work within a team of system and Oracle DBA/ database administrators to oversee and support a ...

Sentry Posts Blog

Mobile Linux Better For Mobile Busines...

Mobile Linux Better For Mobile Business Apps? Author: Eric Everson, MyMobiSafe.com As mobile Linux is carving it’s footprint on the future of mobile application development, the... More

Post a comment

DWP downplays security breach

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted that some of its staff have been forwarding passwords with password protected material. An email that was leaked on the 'Dizzy... More

Post a comment

How many headshots does one chairperso...

We got a strange request last week from the head of PR from Russian security experts Kaspersky. It seems although the company was very happy with the interview we recently carried with... More

Post a comment

Featured Talkback

On the contrary, if vendors were forced to stand behind their products it should increase innovation. It would force more, and better , testing before hitting the sales floor, resulting in fewer updates and less downtime for the consumer. At present the EULA removes responsibility from the vendor, and moves it to the user, which is a step backward. Make the vendor responsibility for their code.

By: ator1940

Read full story:
RSA: Vendor liability may stifle innovation