|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > full-disclosure-uk archives|
Arian J. Evans wrote:
> On 5/22/07, *Amit Klein* <email@example.com
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> Fair enough. Still, I expect at least the websecurity mailing list to
> give credit where credit is due...
> Hmm, good point, No argument, but...as we see more of this
> character encoding set awareness I wonder:
> 1. Where do you draw the line on what is "new"?
The way I see it, and I think it addresses the rest of your points (in your original email) is that the researcher should attempt to find the most similar/relevant prior art, and then discuss how (if at all...) his/her findings differ. This provides the public with: - Acknowledgment (and credit) of prior art - Explanation of what is "really" new
So if say the web-app-sec researcher applies techniques from the AV world to the web-app-sec world, he/she should credit the AV prior-art, and explain that those techniques are applied in the paper to the web-app-sec world, with the twists X, Y and Z. Or you can say something like: In this research I combine evasion techniques A (credit to...), B (credit to...) and C (credit to...) to bypass system X.
By subscribing to this scheme, the author makes it much easier to evaluate his/her paper. The author does most of the work (finding prior art, comparing their findings to prior art), and the readers judge whether this is new enough/interesting.
As for research in non-English languages - that's where *I* draw the line. I assume that everyone can (and should) read English nowadays, and I do not expect anyone to be aware of non-English prior art. However, if such prior art becomes known to the author, it's his/her duty to credit the authors of such text, of course.