Here is something about the application procedure:
--------
Requirements for 'newness, inventiveness and industrial applicability' are
applicable to the patent but will not be assessed. One can apply for a six
or twenty year patent. A 'newness' investigation (with national or
international) scope is optional. The twenty year patent does however
require a 'newness' investigation and if this is not requested within 13
months of the application the patent term will automatically be only six
years.
Thus, with a twenty year patent one has to request a 'newness'
investigation. This investigation is made within six to nine months. One
then has the possibility to adept the patent request according to the
investigation results. Registration of the patent is made automatically 18
months after the application, irrespective of the investigation or the
changing of the description of the application based on the investigation
findings.
A six year patent will be registered in the public patent register 18 months
after application. At that point the patent is granted and the patent holder
has exclusive rights.
--------
Would appear we all are a bit to late. And besides, there is always the
hacker and open source community we can rely on to publish the tools needed.
Sanctum will not spend $$ on civil suits unless they feel threatened.
----- Original Message -----
From: <sullo_at_cirt.net>
To: <webappsec_at_securityfocus.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 7:50 PM
Subject: RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent
Well, this is not really *new* (filed in 2001), and it was raised on this
list
or bugtraq once before--however, it should be of great concern to all of us,
and
every product that tests a web server for security issues. I have not heard
of
any place Sanctum has tried to enforce this... anyone?
I just don't see how this could be valid...but I am not an expert or even
claim
to have a good understanding of patents.
There are many commercial and open source products that are doing this, have
been doing it for a while, and some that were probably doing it before
Sanctum
was even founded...
I would love for OWASP--as being an established force in webappsec and with
a
budget (?)--take the lead and get some legal advice, or request advice from
EFF,
on how this patent *actually* effects "the industry".
-Sullo
--
http://www.cirt.net/
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: webtester_at_hushmail.com [mailto:webtester_at_hushmail.com]
> >>Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:38 AM
> >>To: webappsec_at_securityfocus.com; pen-test_at_securityfocus.com
> >>Subject: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent
> >>
> >>
> >>===========================
> >>
> >>As many of you know, Sanctum, Inc. has a been granted a
> >>patent (United States Patent No. 6,584,569) describing a
> >>process for automatically detecting potential
> >>application-level vulnerabilities or security flaws in a web
> >>application. What you may not know is that this patent is a
> >>"method" patent which means that it describes the way
> >>something works rather than a "product" patent which
> >>describes an actual product. A method patent is the broadest
> >>form of a patent which covers not just products but also the
> >>process or way people work.
> >>
> >>The Sanctum patent is very broad and virtually everyone who
> >>is involved with web application security is in violation of
> >>this patent. This is because the patent basically describes
> >>the process of penetration testing. The patent can be broken
> >>down into four elements. They are:
> >>
> >>1. The process to traverse a web application in order to
> >>discover and actuate the links therein. This is also called
> >>a web crawler. Something that explores the entire code for a
> >>website and discovers all the links, or URLs, contained on
> >>the website. The process then actuates each link found on
> >>the website to generate HTTP requests for transmission to the
> >>web server (i.e., exercises the links). If the discovered
> >>link requires user input, such as when the discovered link
> >>includes a form, the process also provides fictitious values
> >>as input based on the field or data type.
> >>
> >>2. The process to analyze messages that flow or would flow
> >>between an authorized client and a web server in order to
> >>discover elements of the web application's interface with
> >>external clients and attributes of these elements (e.g.,
> >>links, forms, fixed fields, hidden fields, menu options,
> >>etc.). Here, the process sends the HTTP requests generated
> >>above for each of the discovered links and receives the
> >>associated responses from the web server. The responses are
> >>then analyzed, in the same manner in which the original
> >>website was analyzed, to discover all of the links contained
> >>therein. The responses are also scanned for other
> >>application interface elements, such as data parameters, and
> >>their attributes (such as links, fill-in forms, fixed fields,
> >>hidden fields, menu options, etc.). Up to this point, the
> >>process essentially explores and exercises all of the links
> >>on a website by sending authorized requests, then analyzes
> >>the responses for more links and interface elements (explores
> >>multiple layers of the web application).
> >>
> >>3. The process then generates unauthorized client requests in
> >>which these elements are mutated, sends the mutated client
> >>requests to the web server, receives server responses to the
> >>unauthorized client requests. The process creates and sends
> >>unauthorized or mutated requests (also called
> >>"exploits") to the server. The process creates a mutated
> >>request for each interface element discovered above. The
> >>mutated request created by the process depends on the type of
> >>interface element at issue. For example, if the interface
> >>element is a numeric field, the scanner will create a mutated
> >>request that contains text as input, or if the interface
> >>element is a link, the scanner will create a mutated request
> >>that appends ".bak" to the link's path.
> >>
> >>4. The process evaluates the results of the mutated requests.
> >> Finally, the process evaluates the response to the mutated
> >>request to ensure that the web server did not accept the
> >>unauthorized input value. One example of such an evaluation
> >>would be to look for responses containing keywords, such as
> >>"error," "sorry" or "not found." If such words are not
> >>returned, the process would conclude that the mutated request
> >>was accepted and that the web application is vulnerable to
> >>attack (i.e., that the website contains a security flaw).
> >>
> >>As you can see, this patent is very broad and covers
> >>everything from security products to penetration testing.
> >>Unless someone can develop a way to perform web application
> >>security without violating one of the four points mentioned
> >>above everyone is in violation of this patent. Obviously,
> >>such a patent gives Sanctum an unfair competitive advantage
> >>within our market. However, there is a way to challenge this
> >>patent. First and foremost is to find something that
> >>addresses all the above points 1 year prior to when Sanctum
> >>submitted the patent. Sanctum submitted for the patent on
> >>March 3, 2000 so the material must be dated on or before
> >>March 2, 1999. If you know of something that has been made
> >>public (e.g., article, posting, product, etc.) that contains
> >>all of the above elements post your findings to the list. A
> >>critical aspect is that is must contain all 4 elements from
> >>above. Anything less will not suffice.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
> >>FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2
> >>
> >>Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
> >>https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?>>subloc=messenger&l=434
> >>
> >>
> >>Promote security and make money with
> >>the Hushmail Affiliate Program:
> >>https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427
> >>
>
Received on Jan 17 2004
Intro
