UK gov sets rules for hacker tool ban

["Richard M. Smith" <rms () computerbytesman com>]

UK gov sets rules for hacker tool ban

Consultants in frame? Definitely Maybe

By
<http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2008/01/02/hacker_to
ll_ban_guidance/> John Leyden → More by this
<http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=John%20Leyden> author
Published Wednesday 2nd January 2008 15:54 GMT
 <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/02/hacker_toll_ban_guidance/>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/02/hacker_toll_ban_guidance/

The UK government has published guidelines for the application of a law that
makes it illegal to create or distribute so-called "hacking tools".

The controversial measure
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/26/uk_computer_crime_revamp>  is among
amendments to the Computer Misuse Act included in the Police and Justice Act
2006. However, the ban along with measures to increase the maximum penalty
for hacking offences to ten years and make denial of service offences
clearly illegal, are still not in force
<http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/06/19/hacking-tools-are-legal-for-a
-little-longer>  and probably won't be until May 2008 in order not to create
overlap with the Serious Crime Bill, currently making its way through the
House of Commons.

A revamp of the UK's outdated computer crime laws is long overdue. However,
provisions to ban the development, ownership and distribution of so-called
"hacker tools" draw sharp criticism from industry. Critics point out that
many of these tools are used by system administrators and security
consultants quite legitimately to probe for vulnerabilities in corporate
systems.

The distinctions between, for example, a password cracker and a password
recovery tool, or a utility designed to run denial of service attacks and
one designed to stress-test a network, are subtle. The problem is that
anything from nmap through wireshark to perl can be used for both legitimate
and illicit purposes, in much the same way that a hammer can be used for
putting up shelving or breaking into a car.

Following industry lobbying the government has come through with guidelines
that address some, but not all, of these concerns about "dual-use" tools.
The guidelines establish that to successfully prosecute the author of a tool
it needs to be shown that they intended it to be used to commit computer
crime. But the Home Office, despite lobbying, refused to withdraw the
distribution offence. This leaves the door open to prosecute people who
distribute a tool, such as nmap, that's subsequently abused by hackers.

The Crown Prosecution Service guidance
<http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_s.html> , published after a
long delay on Monday, also asks prosecutors to consider if an article is
"available on a wide scale commercial basis and sold through legitimate
channels". Critics argue this test fails to factor in the widespread use of
open source tools or rapid product innovation.

IT and the law are never easy bedfellows. While the guidelines probably make
it less likely the security consultants will be prosecuted by over-zealous
lawyers for actions they don't understand are legitimate, they are still a
bit of a mess.

Richard Clayton, a security researcher at Cambridge University and long-time
contributor to UK security policy working groups, has a useful analysis of
the proposals here
<http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/12/31/hacking-tool-guidance-finally
-appears> .

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.