152 lines
7.4 KiB
Plaintext
152 lines
7.4 KiB
Plaintext
**TROJAN ALERT** >>> SUG.ARC / SUG.COM <<<
|
|
|
|
The following has been posted on GEnie, "General Electric Network for
|
|
Information Exchange," IBM Roundtable BBD special alert notice. Seems
|
|
SOFTGUARD may be distributing a TROJAN "unprotect" program to erase disks
|
|
and bolster their "shrinking" copy protection business.
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
|
|
|
|
| Category 3, Topic 3
|
|
| Message 77 Wed Sep 24, 1986
|
|
| R.DHESI [Rahul Dhesi] at 23:48 EDT
|
|
|
|
|
| I found the following message on the Morningstar Keep node of the
|
|
| Citadel BBS system (call it at 609/268-9597). What makes this
|
|
| message especially alarming is the fact that, as far as I can
|
|
| ascertain, so-called "shrink-wrap" license agreements have never been
|
|
| shown to be enforcible in a court of law. Thus, not only is it
|
|
| probably legal for you to make a backup copy of so-called "licensed
|
|
| software", but if the publisher omits to register the work with the
|
|
| Copyright Office and submit two copies of the software to the Library
|
|
| of Congress, he may not even be entitled to attorney's fees and
|
|
| punitive damages even if he sues you for real dishonest copyright
|
|
| infringement. (If the publisher does register the work with the
|
|
| copyright office, it becomes a published work and it becomes
|
|
| impossible for the publisher to get any kind of trade secret
|
|
| protection, or enforce a prohibition against reverse-engineering.
|
|
| There goes the software protection scheme!!--A delightful dilemma for
|
|
| the software publisher.) Consult your attorney for specific legal
|
|
| advice, but make sure he doesn't consult for a software company.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------Begin Message----------------------------
|
|
| 86Sep19 02:15pm from Andy Meyer
|
|
|
|
|
| 86Sep18 02:46pm from Ted Mozer @ Brick
|
|
| **** DANGER !!!! Data Destroying Program !!!
|
|
|
|
|
| The File called SUG.ARC (or SUG.COM) is purported to be an unprotect
|
|
| for Softgard. It is, in reality, a real Worm of the worst magnitude!
|
|
| This little Gem will ask you to put your ORIGINAL Softgard protected
|
|
| disk in the drive, and then BAM!! it displays this message:
|
|
|
|
|
| "You have violated the license agreement under which you received
|
|
| the software. All your data has been destroyed. This destruct-
|
|
| ion constitutes prima facia evidence of your criminal violation.
|
|
| If you attempt to challenge Softguard Systems, Inc. or the soft-
|
|
| ware vendor in court, you will be vigorously counter-sued for
|
|
| infringement and theft of services; we believe that our case will
|
|
| have more merit to it than yours. If you have any questions con-
|
|
| cerning this matter, you are invited to contact our lawyers at
|
|
| the following address:
|
|
|
|
|
| Softguard Systems Incorporated
|
|
| [address and telephone number given].
|
|
|
|
|
| We'll be happy to explain to you the precarious legal position
|
|
| you're in. We wish you good luck in restoring your software
|
|
| from backups and we hope that in the future you'll act more
|
|
| like an honest user and less like a thief.
|
|
|
|
|
| Happy Computing."
|
|
|
|
|
| ... AND IT IS SERIOUS!!
|
|
|
|
|
| It will look for drives A: & B: and, get this, a Drive C: or better!!
|
|
| In other words, it will wipe out the FAT on your hard disk too, just to
|
|
| "teach you a lesson". Attorneys are presently looking into what can be
|
|
| done to stick this up the lower abdominal region of the person or per-
|
|
| sons responsible for its existence.
|
|
|
|
|
| .. IF YOU HAVE IT, GET RID OF IT !!! //
|
|
-------------------------------End Message----------------------------
|
|
|
|
Interesting? Here's one from the the Atlanta PC User's Group BBS,
|
|
home of the Lone Victor:
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------Begin Message--------------------------
|
|
|Date: 09-03-86 (17:14) Number: 3265
|
|
| To: LONE VICTOR Refer#: NONE
|
|
|From: BILL MOSS Recv'd: YES
|
|
|Subj: SUG.ARC Sec'ty: PUBLIC MESSAGE
|
|
|
|
|
|Please take a look at SUG.ARC which purports to unprotect Softguard,
|
|
|but destroys the diskette by erasing all files but not the FAT. It
|
|
|appears to be in retaliation for your work. More than ever we need
|
|
|your help with SOFTGUARD 3.00. The lecture that goes along with SUG.ARC
|
|
|is too much!!!
|
|
-------------------------------End Message----------------------------
|
|
|
|
Assuming that Sofguard really did create this file, I have the
|
|
following comments.
|
|
|
|
First, Softguard's battle (battle? you might prefer to call it
|
|
terrorism) against protection busters is almost moot, for most major
|
|
software publishers have dropped the idea of copy-protection
|
|
altogether. Perhaps this very fact has put Softguard's management in
|
|
a mood bad enough to lash out thus.
|
|
|
|
Second, Softguard's legal position seems quite shaky to me. Last year
|
|
Vault corporation announced a software protection scheme that would,
|
|
if it detected a fradulent effort to copy the software, make "Vietnam
|
|
look like a birthday party" (or some such thing) by planting a worm
|
|
that would slowly but surely destroy the user's files. When Vault
|
|
announced its worm-based copy-protection scheme, many knowledgeable
|
|
people expressed the opinion that Vault was likely to be liable for
|
|
damages if people lost valuable data because of the scheme. What
|
|
Softguard seems to be doing is definitely more vicious. Add together
|
|
a probably unenforcible license agreement (to which Softguard isn't
|
|
even a party as far as the user is concerned) and clear evidence of a
|
|
vicious attempt to destroy the user's data, and you have a pretty good
|
|
case against SUG.ARC's creator. In fact, you could very easily
|
|
create a test case by (a) taking a legally-purchased copy of
|
|
Softguard-protected software; (b) unpacking it without ever reading
|
|
the "license agreement" in a state other than the handful (such as
|
|
Lousiana and Illinois) that attempt to make such agreements
|
|
enforcible; (c) having some valuable software on your hard disk,
|
|
(d) "accidentally" destroying any backup copy already provided, and
|
|
(e) trying to make a backup copy of the original with the help of
|
|
SUG.ARC. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you
|
|
then sued Softguard for damages. Interesting, but not very
|
|
surprising.
|
|
|
|
I think therefore that the Softguard folks (if SUG.ARC did indeed
|
|
originate from them) are relying on the individual not having the
|
|
financial resources to sue them or to withstand a long legal battle
|
|
if they sue him. It's therefore a strategy of intimidation.
|
|
|
|
(As an aside: That such a strategy of intimidation could be a viable
|
|
one demonstrates a major flaw in this legal system. Justice costs a
|
|
lot, sometimes so much that one can't afford it. There are several
|
|
reasons for this, all avoidable, but none appropriate for discussion
|
|
in this RT or under this topic.)
|
|
|
|
How do users fight back?
|
|
|
|
Perhaps we won't have to. It may be enough that the presence of this
|
|
dangerous file be made widely known.
|
|
|
|
Possibly as a result of the public outcry that followed its
|
|
announcement of the worm scheme, Vault went into Chapter 11
|
|
bankruptcy -- poetic justice, I think. This left Softguard with a
|
|
near-monopoly on the software protection business in the IBM PC
|
|
world.
|
|
|
|
If the SUG.ARC file is indeed Softguard's creation, then it seems to
|
|
me they are following Vault down the Yellow Brick Road (or is it the
|
|
garden path?) -- and I look forward to more poetic justice when the
|
|
public outcry occurs again.
|
|
|
|
We are Paul Revere. Pass it on!
|
|
|
|
-- |