← Back to context

Comment by voodooEntity

9 hours ago

The following rant is not against the owner/project - but...

What an irony. I cant publish a attack surface mapping / pentesting tool i wrote which runs fully deterministic and really controlable due to "dual use" legal problems - but llm driven tools hit public space......

sorry for the rant....

This is really regrettable. I think the biggest issue is that once such laws or case law are in place, it is really really impossible to repeal them, or to replace them with something more modern. So we're still applying horse laws to cars 100 years later.

Are you referring to GitHub policies? I haven’t seen issues like that from people publishing security tools before.

Metasploit is one example: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework

  • No im referring to the legal terms of germany, the country im residing at. Our laws regarding "hacking" are arguable the strictest and worst.

    The problem is that they are formulated in a way that it is super easy to have your software being possible "dual use" and that a judge has to decide if its fine or not. Making it worse it also states your "intention" which well is impossible to proof - if the judge says he doesn't believe your intentions are only good, you can literally get massively sued.

    So ye i could move to another country and than publish it - apart from that i can let it rot on my hdd (which is prolly what will happen).

    Edit: Additionally mentioned, it is not just the publishing in germany, even the facilitating already which is why i don't even have an article about it (any more).

    • So would it be fair to say this is less about deterministic vs. LLM-driven tools, and more about software published out of New York vs. software published out of Germany?

      1 reply →

    • If getting it out there in the world is more important to you than stamping your name on it, pass it out to a friend who can publish it. Continue any related development in private. They can't stop you from distributing something they don't know you're developing.

      1 reply →

    • Really? Have there been any cases yet?

      I'm asking cuz I started devloping a c2+agent+BOF kind of thing with custom bytecode vm for the lulz (to learn how stuff works nowadays) and it's on tangled and github :/

      2 replies →

    • Intentions are very often a factor when it comes to law, and rightfully so. The problems come when you classify some category of software as "dangerous" by default. Software is special in that it can't be a "controlled substance". So everyone needs to have the tools to increase their security. That includes access to "offensive tools" to study what they do. A recent example was the Huggingface attack.

      1 reply →

Completely understand, the legal landscape has really shifted around AI/LLM tools. I see tools drop everyday that spit in the face of DMCA/Copyright law but they skirt by mainly because they leverage AI

  • That has nothing to do with LLMs or not. If they were to "code" the same tool with an LLM, or build a LLM version of it, in Germany (where rthey are residing) they would face the same consequences.

    Our legal system in that regard is total BS, when it comes to the so called "Hacker Paragraph". This comes with a sentence tht can range from a fine to up to one year prison time, just for producing such a tool. So if the police would actually - even if they had not published it - computer... well. They could be potentially "f**ed" (depending on how a judge would decide).