Department of Software Engineering

Submitted By: Abdullah Malik

Registration No: FUI/FURC/F-23-BSSE-115
BSSE 2C
Professional Practices
Assignment 2
 Question 1

Who actually had hacked Democratic National Committee in Ex-President Donald Trump’s
Era? What were the consequences of this hacking incident technically and socially? What
efforts DNC provided to fix this attack.

Answer:

Hacking of DNC

Two groups of Russian hackers hacked the computer networks of Democratic National
Committee (DNC) during the period of 2015 and 2016. The purpose of this cybersecurity
attack was to breach data from the DNC computer networks. The U.S. government, along
with other cybersecurity experts attribute Russian intelligence agencies for this
cyberespionage.

Few cybersecurity firms such as Fidelis, Mandiant, and CrowdStrike made Russian
intelligence agencies responsible for this infiltration to DNC computer networks after
forensic analysis. CrowdStrike assigned the names as Cozy Bear and the Fancy Bear to the
two Russian hackers groups. It was told to U.S. legislators that Russia conducted these
cyberattacks to help the Donald Trump for winning as President in 2016 U.S elections.

Technical and Social consequences of Hacking

The faults in the DNC system became apparent after the Fancy Bear attack in 2016, while the
Cozy Bear attacked in 2015. The two hacking groups have been involved in stealing
opposition research about the Donald Trump, communication spying, and reading all chats
and emails. Both groups were eradicated from the system after hours of detection by the
CrowdStrike.

The technical losses reported during this attack a large amount of stolen electronic documents
of DNC and sent to WikiLeaks. This was done by the acting alone entity " Guccifer 2.0".
There are contrary views on the hacking by the Guccifer 2.0 or the two groups (Cozy Bear
and Fancy Bear). The U.S intelligence agencies had the full confidence in involvement of
Russian government in breaches of data and interference in the election process of the United
States. The social consequences faced by this Russian hacking was the facing of
embarrassment and damage to the repute of Democratic Party. The allegations of collusion
were posed between the Russia and the Trump campaign. Also, there was an increase in the
tension between the U.S and the Russia.

Efforts Made by DNC

The DNC immediately moved towards strict actions after indication of this hacking. They
isolated the affected computer networks. Cybersecurity firms and law enforcement agencies
were involved to help in this situation. Implementation of new security measures were taken
such as encryption of systems and two-factor authentication process. The affected bodies
from this hacking were notified. Legal action was also taken by DNC as filing a lawsuit
against the Trump campaign and the Russia.

Question 2
Briefly discuss how the courts and USPTO have changed their opinions and attitudes toward
the patenting of software over the years. Do you believe that software patents inhibit new
software development? Why or why not?

Answer:

Opinions and Attitudes Toward the Patenting of Software

The stance of the courts and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have
greatly changed on software patenting over the years. At initial stages, the unpatentability of
the software’s was due to their abstract nature. The first step in this revolution was the
Diamond v. Diehr (1981) case, in which the decision was held by the United States Supreme
Court of controlling the physical process execution. It could be done by running such a
program on the computer by which patentability of the invention could not be precluded as a
whole. This decision was further expanded by the case of State Street Bank and Trust
Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc (1998). This was related to the business methods
patentability. The principle was established for a time that the claimed invention could have
eligibility for protection by a US patent if there are some practical applications involved in it.
It should produce concrete and useful results.

The case of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014) incorporated inventive concept that is beyond
abstract ideas tightening the software patent eligibility. The book "Computer Ethics" by
Deborah G. Johnson (2009) highlights that this change reflected emerging concerns about the
software patents impact on public interest and the innovation. In summary, the change of
attitude toward the intellectual property role in software development has been reflected by
the evolving stance of the courts and USPTO on software patenting over the years.

Belief in Software Patents

Referring to whether software patents inhibit new software development, it can have both
positive and negative effects. At one end, the use of software patents can enhance the
development and investment in research, intellectual property, protection of innovators, and
promotion of new ideas disclosure. Similarly, at the other end, too much broad patents can
oppress innovation of fundamental concepts by limiting access. The extraction of licensing
fees from developers also have negative impacts. Additionally, the favor of patent system to
only established companies make it struggling for new entrants to innovate. There should be
a balance between protection of intellectual property and promotion of healthy and useful
software development.
 References

1. Wikipedia - Democratic National Committee cyber attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks

2. CSIS analysis - Russia and DNC hacks

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russia-and-dnc-hacks

3. "Cybersecurity and the Russian Cyber Threat" by Michael Sulmeyer and Ben
Buchanan

https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.usc.edu/dist/a/54/files/2018/01/Siegel-
Suchenek-as-pubished-in-the-NAI-Journal-7-2018-2m0n5is.pdf

4. Wikipedia - State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Street_Bank_
%26_Trust_Co._v._Signature_Financial_Group,_Inc

5. USPTO document on Bilski v. Kappos

https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/comments/bilski/
bilski_i_citbresearch22010sep.pdf