Jeff, the point being here that the patented technologies are used by every
(webapp) pentester in the world (hence the relevance to this list).
Give the moderators some credit, they did not approve this post for no
reason.
If you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion please do, else
don't.
To get back at the real discussion; As said before, it seems a silly patent.
Can Sanctum really enforce it?
What would be their goal? Force every pentester to buy their products, knock
out (future) competition?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Levenglick, Jeff" <JLevenglick_at_fhlbatl.com>
To: <mark_at_curphey.com>; "Levenglick, Jeff" <JLevenglick_at_fhlbatl.com>;
<webtester_at_hushmail.com>; <webappsec_at_securityfocus.com>;
<pen-test_at_securityfocus.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:25 PM
Subject: RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent
"If the interpretation of the patent is true (IANAL), then using much of the
discussion that has taken place on this list for services and many of the
tool that are used to proove those concepts (like SPIKE, PAROS etc) over the
past few years looks like they are in violation. "
I see..
1) So what you are saying is that your list is/could be illegal. (hmm you
really thought that anything based
on pen-testing would be legal?)
2) People should not use this list because there is a chance that they can
be sued based on their
opinions.
As I stated, this should have been sent to a legal list.
-----------------------------------------
This e-mail message is private and may contain confidential or privileged
information.
Received on Jan 16 2004
Intro
