Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to rosco35
Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then? said by rosco35: I have to point out that it is not a security bypass. There was NO security in place. obscurity != security You are absolutely correct, technically. There is no question their "security" is technically an easily-bypassed joke. I think they are now realizing this.
You are wrong, legally. It is a security bypass. |
|
|
|
 dot_nullPremium
join:2004-06-28
Kennesaw, GA | How could it be a security bypass if MobiTV has no security?
Their webserver will serve up that text file to anyone who asks for it, even if the referrer is listed as HowardForums. No one had to crack, hack or do anything else to receive these streams. If you look at how web servers work, this is akin to asking a building with a doorman permission to enter the premises and he blindly grants it, without stopping to ask whether you had legitimate business in the building. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by dot_null:How could it be a security bypass if MobiTV has no security? Their webserver will serve up that text file to anyone who asks for it, even if the referrer is listed as HowardForums. No one had to crack, hack or do anything else to receive these streams. If you look at how web servers work, this is akin to asking a building with a doorman permission to enter the premises and he blindly grants it, without stopping to ask whether you had legitimate business in the building. Again, you are confusing the technical means of securing a website with the legalities involved. In DMCA terms, there was a circumvention of protection.
Here's a summary of RealNetworks vs. Streambox that I found. In this case, RealNetworks sued Streambox for bypassing their (weak) security and accessing their servers and streaming content to a VCR-like piece of software, that would record video for later playback. RealNetworks won the lawsuit, brought under DMCA.
quote:
Court rejected defendant's argument that its product did not constitute a violation of the DMCA because Plaintiff's effort to stop copying did not "effectively protect" against unauthorized infringement. The only question the court considered was whether there was a technological protection, not whether it was effective.
|
|
dot_nullPremium
join:2004-06-28
Kennesaw, GA | MobiTV themselves facilitated such infringement, because their server still, as I'm typing this, serves up that list of video links. I think it's a wee bit draconian to serve HoFo a takedown notice because they posted a URL that, in point of fact, is located on MobiTV's servers. Thus, the onus is on MobiTV to correct their glaring security hole. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:said by dot_null:How could it be a security bypass if MobiTV has no security? Their webserver will serve up that text file to anyone who asks for it, even if the referrer is listed as HowardForums. No one had to crack, hack or do anything else to receive these streams. If you look at how web servers work, this is akin to asking a building with a doorman permission to enter the premises and he blindly grants it, without stopping to ask whether you had legitimate business in the building. Again, you are confusing the technical means of securing a website with the legalities involved. In DMCA terms, there was a circumvention of protection. Here's a summary of RealNetworks vs. Streambox that I found. In this case, RealNetworks sued Streambox for bypassing their (weak) security and accessing their servers and streaming content to a VCR-like piece of software, that would record video for later playback. RealNetworks won the lawsuit, brought under DMCA. quote:
Court rejected defendant's argument that its product did not constitute a violation of the DMCA because Plaintiff's effort to stop copying did not "effectively protect" against unauthorized infringement. The only question the court considered was whether there was a technological protection, not whether it was effective.
In this case there is no technological protection whatsoever.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
