WebApp Sec mailing list archives
Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent
From: "A.D. Douma" <addouma () home nl>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:47:16 +0100
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 () fhlbatl com> To: <mark () curphey com>; "Levenglick, Jeff" <JLevenglick () fhlbatl com>; <webtester () hushmail com>; <webappsec () securityfocus com>; <pen-test () 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.
Current thread:
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent, (continued)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Martin Mačok (Jan 17)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Pete Herzog (Jan 17)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent A.D. Douma (Jan 17)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Pete Herzog (Jan 17)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Levenglick, Jeff (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Mark Curphey (Jan 16)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent dreamwvr () dreamwvr com (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Matthew Wagenknecht (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Richard M. Smith (Jan 16)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent cdowns (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Levenglick, Jeff (Jan 16)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent A.D. Douma (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Matthew Wagenknecht (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Levenglick, Jeff (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Thermos, Panayiotis A. [RA] (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent sullo (Jan 16)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent A.D. Douma (Jan 16)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent sullo (Jan 17)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Matt Kenigson (Jan 17)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent sullo (Jan 16)
- Re: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent Martin Mačok (Jan 17)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent sullo (Jan 16)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent pentester2189114 (Jan 20)
- RE: Web Application Penetration Testing Methodology Patent sullo (Jan 20)