Nexus

Kernel 3.14.4 Landed in Current

Read

Read More Add comment

Uninstall/ Remove ImproveSpeedPC Fake Antivirus and Protect the PC

Read

Read More Add comment

Cuckoo Sandbox v1.1 - Automated Malware Analysis

Read

Cuckoo Sandbox is a malware analysis system. It simply means that you can throw any suspicious file at it and in a matter of seconds Cuckoo will provide you back some detailed results outlining what such file did when executed inside an isolated environment.

Cuckoo generates a handful of different raw data which include:

Native functions and Windows API calls traces
Copies of files created and deleted from the filesystem
Dump of the memory of the selected process
Full memory dump of the analysis machine
Screenshots of the desktop during the execution of the malware analysis
Network dump generated by the machine used for the analysis

In order to make such results more consumable to the end users, Cuckoo is able to process them and generate different type of reports, which could include:

JSON report
HTML report
MAEC report
MongoDB interface
HPFeeds interface

Even more interestingly, thanks to Cuckoo’s extensive modular design, you are able to customize both the processing and the reporting stages. Cuckoo provides you all the requirements to easily integrate the sandbox into your existing frameworks and storages with the data you want, in the way you want, with the format you want.

Changelog v1.1

Added imphash to static PE analysis
Added search for URLs in the web interface
Added search for PE Imphash in the web interface
Added possibility in web interface to queue to all machines
Added filtering by behavior category in Django web interface
Added analyzer log to Django web interface
Added REST API to retrieve screenshots associated with a task
Added REST API to retrieve the PCAP associated with a task
Added database migration utility
Added remote submission to submit.py utility
Added small stats utility (utils/stats.py)
Added analysis package for PowerShell scripts
Added overlay configuration for signatures (data/signatures_overlay.json)
Fixed bug in MAEC report
Fixed package selection for Office documents and CPL scripts
Fixed issue with tcpdump filters
Fixed unhandled exception when uploading files to the analysis machines
Fixed issues in CuckooMon that resulted in Internet Explorer crashes
Fixed bug in CuckooMon that caused mutexes to be resolved as file paths
Fixed bug in behavior processing module that resulted in a trailing backslash in summary’s registry keys

Download Cuckoo Sandbox v1.1

Read More Add comment

Get Rid of SafeUpdate.technology Pop-ups and Speed up the PC

Read

Read More Add comment

Unzip Gzip

Read

Read More Add comment

Online JavaScript Beautifier - Beautify, unpack or deobfuscate JavaScript and HTML

Read

Read More Add comment

FREE SPEECH FOR ME...

Read

Read More Add comment

Italian courts and torpedo actions in a recent Genoa decision

Read

BREAKING: may not be
the only Thorpedo

This Kat is so familiar with patent law and related procedural issues that for a very long time, when hearing of torpedos, the only possible connection coming to her mind was that with legendary Australian swimmer Ian Thorpe, aka as the Thorpedo.

When she found out that there was no need to think as far as Australia and that torpedos - like many other things - are also very Italian, she was shocked and relieved at the same time.

Anyhow, Katfriend Evelina Marchesoni (Bird&Bird) rescued her and produced this engaging update on recent developments in Italian case law on torpedo actions.

Here's what Evelina says:

"The Tribunal di Genova (Genoa District Court) has recently issued an interesting decision on the so-called Italian torpedo actions, these being proceedings filed before Italian courts for a declaration of non-infringement ("DNI") in respect of, not only of the Italian designation, but also the foreign designations of a European patent.

Essentially, by filing torpedo proceedings the alleged infringer takes advantage of the usual slowness of Italian proceedings on the merits. This is because, as long as the Italian court is seized to ascertain the non-infringement of the foreign designations of a European patent and/or the foreign national patents, foreign courts (this is particularly the case of German courts) could decide to stay the infringement proceedings successively filed by the patent holder.

Italian courts have been generally inclined to deny their jurisdiction on the foreign designations of a European patent or foreign national patents, in particular where the alleged infringer contends, either by claim or defence, that the foreign exclusive rights are invalid.

Evelina Marchesoni

As a matter of fact, in these cases Italian court have consistently stated that claims for DNIs of foreign designations could not be heard in Italy, in compliance with Article 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (BrusselsI), as interpreted also by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-4/03 GAT v LUK.

In relation to the corresponding provision (Article 16(4)) in the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, the CJEU held that this "is to be interpreted as meaning that the rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down therein concerns all proceedings relating to the registration or validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection".

It is interesting to note that the same interpretation was provided with regard to Article 24(4) of Regulation (EU) No 125/2012: regardless of the domicile of the parties, the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of an instrument of the Union or an international convention deemed to have taken place have the exclusive jurisdiction to hear “proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence".

However, in a 2013 decision, the Corte di Cassazione (Italian Supreme Court) held that in DNI proceedings Italian courts have jurisdiction not only over the Italian designation, but also the foreign designations of a European patent, being Italy “the place where the harmful event may occur, also in respect of the German designation of the European Patent", pursuant to Article 5(3) Brussels I.

The Corte di Cassazione relied on CJEU decision in Case C-133/11 Folien Fisher v Ritrama (a case concerning unfair competition, not patent infringement) in which it was held that "paragraph (3) of Article 5 of Regulation No. 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for a negative declaration seeking to establish the absence of liability in tort, delict, or quasi-delict falls within the scope of that provision".

The Katpedo is already swimming
in the lane next to yours.
And he's pretty competitive.

Overall, this decision of the Corte di Cassazione could have re-opened the door to torpedo actions in Italy.

Nevertheless the Court of Genoa seems now to have clarified the actual breadth of this Corte di Cassazione decision, which was exclusively grounded on Article 5(3) Brussels I. It did so also by taking into consideration Article 22(4) Brussels I.

In the case decided by the Genoa District Court, an Italian and two German companies sued an Italian, a German and a Swiss company, requesting the Court of Genoa, inter alia, to issue a DNI with respect to all (Italian and foreign) designations of a European patent, a German national patent and even a German utility model. They claimed that Italian courts were competent to hear those claims, in compliance with Article 5(3) Brussels I.

The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Genoa court over the foreign designations of the European patent as well as of the German patent and utility model, pursuant to Article 22(4) Brussels I, pointing out that the plaintiffs contended the invalidity of the foreign exclusive rights, even if by way of a plea in objection.

Merpel with her daily portion
of Brussels I sprouts

The Tribunale di Genova found that, since the plaintiffs were objecting the validity of the German patents, Article 22(4) Brussels I was to be applied to this case. This led the Court to declare that it lacked jurisdiction with respect to the non-Italian designations of the European patent, the German patent and the German utility model.

With reference to Article 5(3) Brussels I, the Court clarified that this "may concern the different cases of negative declaration actions aimed at establishing the absence of liability of tort but only when the alleged tort does not regard issues related to the validity of the patents and when this is not contested by the parties, as is the case of infringement action sin which the validity of the patent allegedly infringed is not objected."

All this is compliant with the GAT and Folien decisions and the Corte di Cassazione ruling, as well the UK decision in Joined cases Actavis Group hf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) and Medis ehf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) [here]. Here Arnold J stated that proceedings requesting a DNI in relation to both a UK and foreign designations of a European patent could be brought before English courts also considering that the plaintiffs undertook not to challenge validity of the patent at issue.

According to the Court of Genoa, Italian (and more at large: European) courts may hear DNI claims only when the issue of validity of the patent is not raised by way of an action or as a defence. What remains uncertain, however, is whether the questions of validity are required to be taken into consideration when determining the scope of the claims in order to assess the infringement …”

Read More Add comment

How to Move Kali Linux Taskbar

Read

Read More Add comment