Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure 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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html

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...

Attachment: _bin
Description:

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]