[JumpCrisscross]

> Hang on.. proof of concept exploit creation and distribution for zero days is “criminal activity” now?

Publicly publishing an exploit is so obviously First Amendment-protected activity that it’s almost tempting to want a test case.

[avaer]

It's also quite the blame gymnastics. The code that enables the bad actors was written, published, and distributed at massive scale by Microsoft. The "crime" they are accusing the researcher of is telling the world about it.

It would be an interesting case if the defendant had good representation.

[rurban]

The interesting case seen to be that the researcher apparently got laid off recently by this MS team, and thus has a 6 month NDA. Apparently he still tried to get bug bounties from inside knowledge of these criminal backdoors. That's what is being talked about behind.

A true popcorn case if this would go to court. Would cause lot of governments to think about their backend choices.

[bigfatkitten]

I’d love to see Microsoft try it on. The defence witnesses in any such trial are going to show up holding all kinds of receipts that Microsoft would prefer didn’t see the light of day.

[1970-01-01]

Straight to jail for you, citizen. Distribution of 0day for lulz has been criminal since 2022. You're free to try and get away with it under any and all amendments. IANAL!

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/06/what-counts-as-good-fait...

[JumpCrisscross]

> Distribution of 0day for lulz has been criminal since 2022

Skimmed the article. Not seeing it support your claim.

[1970-01-01]

Responsible disclosure is a normalized process in the courts. Skipping it opens you to, at very minimum, a plethora of civil lawsuits, including any and all the damages that resulted from skipping it. The odds are very much not great that you'll be OK.

[JumpCrisscross]

Civil, sure. The dispute is over criminal jurisdiction.

[dghlsakjg]

Is there actually a civil duty of care here?

Responsible disclosure is an industry norm, but I don't really see how an independent researcher has a legal obligation to play by industry norms. If I discover that any product has a defect, I am free to blab about it all I want as long as it is truthful. There may be considerations beyond this if you are disclosing something discovered by breaking terms of service or by fucking with a computer that isn't yours, but discovering that your copy of windows on your machine has a flaw and telling people about it is protected.

[1970-01-01]

Yes. Simply publishing on GitHub makes it's a TOS violation. You're free to blab all you want. Just host it on your own server and maybe even your own ISP. The code will be protected, but the publishing is not!

[1970-01-01]

The dispute is whether or not it is perfectly legal free speech. By simply publishing it on GitHub, it was a violation of a TOS and that right there opens it up to lawsuits from MS. You are free to go down this path and prove me wrong.

[bigfatkitten]

I’d be interested to read some case law involving judgements against researchers in these circumstances, if you have any references handy.

[1970-01-01]

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=weev

[bigfatkitten]

Not comparable at all. He was convicted one count of identity fraud and one count of conspiracy to access a computer without authorization — AT&T’s computer, not his computer.

[gremlinunderway]

Re-read the beginning of the First Amendment, because it's such a common mistake that I'm surprised people still make it:

"Congress shall make no laws ... "

The first amendment bars the *government* from infringing on your free speech. It has zero standing or bearing on private citizens or corporations.

Which is why people crowing about it on social media or universities are completely oblivious to the fact that these organizations have absolutely zero responsibility to enable your free speech.

[avaer]

Microsoft's blog is calling this criminal activity. They are threatening to bring in the government to go after this speech.

This is a first amendment issue.