mailing list archives
Re: Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:30:19 -0400
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:33:56 BST, Cal Leeming said:
Like with most laws, the key point is "intent". If your intention was
clearly not malicious, then you are safe.
Ask Randall Schwartz how that worked out for him. "intent" doesn't
enter into it as much as a defendant may like.
Intent is not mentioned at all. You exceed the authorized access, you're
guilty under 18 USC 1030. 1030 (a)(2)(C) is the really expansive one, as
"protected computer" is defined down in (e)(2)(B) to include anything used in
interstate commerce (and yes, DA's *HAVE* argued "The computer has a web
browser and thus could get to amazon.com, so it's interstate commerce time").
Doesn't matter if you were trying to save the world at the time (as Gary
McKinnon found out).
A better approach is to argue the definition of "authorized access" as it applies
to an Internet-facing server...
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com Thor (Hammer of God) (Mar 30)
Re: Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com Ryan Sears (Mar 30)
Re: Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com Cal Leeming (Mar 31)
- Re: Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com, (continued)