Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: Rate Stratfor's Incident Response
From: "Giles Coochey" <giles () coochey net>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:17:57 +0100

+1 to the below.

The days where you could hood-wink a judge and say you were just playing
on the computer are over. Get with it.

On Fri, January 13, 2012 11:57, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Benjamin Kreuter
<ben.kreuter () gmail com>wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:06:53 -0500
Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:16:19 EST, Benjamin Kreuter said:

Really, calling it "breaking in" is a stretch.  You connected a
computer to a publicly accessible computer network, where anyone can
send anything to your computer.  If hacking such a system is
"breaking in," you might as well claim that shouting across your
neighbor's yard is "breaking in."

Bad analogy.  Closer would be if you have a house that's got a
driveway on a public street, and you claim it's not breaking and
entering if you walk up the driveway, try the doorknob, find it
unlocked, and let yourself in without the permission of the
residents.  Saying that "anybody could walk up and let themselves in
the door" doesn't make it legal.

Would you say that we should arrest the person who walks into the
house, takes a picture of themselves standing next to an expensive
television and leaves the picture next to a note that says "your door
was unlocked?"


yeah, it would still be an offence in most country.


Really though, it is still a terrible analogy.  You can disconnect a
computer from the Internet; you cannot disconnect a building from a
street.  A hacker in a foreign country might be attacking your computer
system from that country, and could be outside the jurisdiction of any
relevant law enforcement agency; a person who breaks into a building is
committing a crime in whatever jurisdiction the building is in.


the crime would still be a crime in the country where the
building/computer
is located, you just can't get the offender prosecuted, just like if he
would flee the country after trespassing into your house.



Analogies are nice and they help non-technical folks understand what
is going on, but let's not get carried away with them. Someone who
attacks a computer system over the Internet (or any other network) is
sending unwanted/malicious messages.  This is not the same as physically
breaking into a building, locker, or computer. It may be illegal, but
it is still very different from other crimes.


why is it different? the only difference imo is that the whole
IT/networking stuff is relatively new, and the law was lagging behind, and
some people still that it is, when it isn't really anymore.
you can get the same amount of fine/years in prison whether you stole the
money/confidential info through physical or electronical means.


 If anything, the closest
type of criminal would be a con man, which seems fitting given how many
of today's attacks have an element of social engineering.


nope.
of course social engineering can be compared to Confidence trick, because
it is a Confidence trick.
but social engineering is only one vulnerability from the many, and
usually
it is used together with other methods (you get the credentials using
that,
then you proceed and access the system using those credentials, which is
the gaining unauthorized access to the system.

--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/


_______________________________________________
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 ]