Re: [Full-disclosure] Re: Help put a stop to incompetent computerforensics

["Jason Coombs" <jasonc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

J.A. Terranson wrote:
> The simple fact of the matter is that
> "what matters" *IS* the definition,
> and you full well know it.  What
> happened here is you slipped and
> fell, and rather than admitting it
> you're crying foul - shame on you!

I didn't disagree that the broader definition of Trojan was completely unknown 
to me. How did I miss it? Was it me who slipped and fell, because I was being 
careless, or is there more to the story... This was and is a good question.

In my entire life I have not encountered a real-world use of the term Trojan 
where the software at issue did not grant remote access to an attacker after 
the Trojan infection occurred.

Now we use other terms like spyware to classify what I have recently learned 
used to be called Trojans.

My conclusion is that I slipped and fell because the definition has changed and 
computer dictionaries haven't caught up yet.

As for whether or not you'd roast me in front of the judge,

'Your honor, the evidence shows that the term Trojan hasn't been used in 
practice since before public dial-up access to the Internet first became 
possible. The parties clearly have adopted other language to describe the 
software in question in this case and they have formalized this language in 
contract. I believe that there was no definition of Trojan set forth in the 
contract because, your honor, neither party believed that the term Trojan 
needed a definition, because it's obvious to anyone with a high school 
education what the word Trojan means. Its only meaning to this contract (or in 
this patent) is the common sense meaning, regardless of the computer dictionary 
definitions and computer expert testimony dating back to the 1960s that the 
opposing counsel and opposing experts would have this court believe was in the 
mind of the parties (or the inventor) when they drafted this contract (or 
patent claim).

We're all familiar with, and have experienced, the broadening of the meaning of 
familiar terminology. However, the narrowing of the meaning of familiar 
terminology can and does also occur. I conclude, and it is my opinion, that 
just such a narrowing has occurred and is occurring with respect to Trojan as 
the term is applied and used in computing.

Who roasts who at trial? It depends on the evidence, and so far I haven't seen 
anything other than dictionaries that disagree with my argument above. You 
probably know that dictionaries are written by people, and even with peer 
review that often leaves room for mistakes.

Of course my argument was born out of the pain caused by my fall. But that 
doesn't make the argument invalid. So many people share my definition of Trojan 
that those of you who think you can dismiss it as wrong simply have to think 
twice.

Cheers,

Jason Coombs
jasonc@xxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/