This is in the code of ettercap... (ec_main.c)
268 static void time_check(void) 269 { 270 /* 271 * a nice easter egg... 272 * just to waste some time of code reviewers... ;) 273 * 274 * and no, you can't simply remove this code, you'll break the license... 275 * 276 * trust me, it's not evil ;) only a boring afternoon, and nothing to do... 277 */ 278 time_t K9=time(NULL);char G5P[1<<6],*o=G5P,*O;uint U4M, _,__=0; char dMG[]= 279 "\n*\n^1U4Mm\x04wW#K\x2e\x0e+X\x7f\f,N'U!I-L5?";struct{char X5T[7];int dMG; 280 int U4M;} X5T[]={{"N!WwFr", 0x414c6f52,0},{"S6FfUe", 0x4e614741,0}};sprintf 281 (G5P,"%s",ctime(&K9));o+=4;O=strchr(o+4,' ');*O=0; for(U4M=(1<<5)-(1<<2)+1; 282 U4M>0;U4M--)dMG[U4M]=dMG[U4M]^dMG[U4M-1];for(U4M=0;U4M<sizeof(X5T)/sizeof(* 283 X5T);U4M++){for(_=(1<<2)+1; _>0;_--)X5T[U4M].X5T[_]=X5T[U4M].X5T[_]^X5T[U4M 284 ].X5T[_-1];if(!strcmp(X5T[U4M].X5T,o)){char T0Q[]="\n\0O!M4\x14r\x1doO;T0Q" 285 "(\bm\x19m\bz\x19x\b(A2\x12s\x1d=X5T=Q&G5Pp\x03l\n~\th\x1a\x7f_dMG\x06hH-@" 286 "!H$\x04s\x1av\x1a:X=\x1d|\f|\x0ek\ba\0t\x11u[u[{^-m\fb\x16\x7f\x19v\x04oA" 287 "\x2e\;1;K9\/\|9w#f4\x1a\x34\x1a\x1a";for(_=(1<<7)-(1<<3)-(1<<2)+1;_>0;_ 288 --)T0Q[_]=T0Q[_]^T0Q[_-1];write(1,dMG,1);while(__++<1<<5)printf("%c",(1<<5) 289 +(1<<3)+(1<<1));X5T[U4M].dMG=ntohl(X5T[U4M].dMG);printf(dMG,&X5T[U4M].dMG); 290 while(--__) printf("%c",(1<<6)-(1<<4)-(1<<3)+(1<<1)); printf(T0Q,&X5T[U4M]. 291 dMG);getchar();break;}} 292 }
The comment strikes me as a GPL incompatibility. (License is GPLv2+)
Should anything be done about this ?
(The obfuscated code seems to check a date, and print a message asking you to send birthday wishes to the author. Cute, but annoying to come across such things when auditting for security issues).
Dave
On 02/08/2011 12:40 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
The comment strikes me as a GPL incompatibility. (License is GPLv2+)
Should anything be done about this ?
(The obfuscated code seems to check a date, and print a message asking you to send birthday wishes to the author. Cute, but annoying to come across such things when auditting for security issues).
Just to follow up on this issue:
A) Yes, the comment is a GPL incompatibility, and it makes the whole licensing of ettercap non-free. B) I emailed the authors of ettercap and they quickly responded, giving Fedora written permission to remove the comment. C) I've committed a copy of their email, and a patch to remove the comment from ettercap to Fedora GIT, and rebuilt the package in rawhide.
~tom
== Fedora Project