mailing list archives
RE: Pentester convicted..
From: "Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:33:09 +1000
First - Get a clue.
The "I was doing it for their good defence" is beyond lame. Responsible
professionals do NOT go around testing web sites without authority.
Next the conviction is not for reporting a vulnerability but for sending
email through the companies server *** WITHOUT PERMISSION ***. With all
the free email systems about these days... (need I go on here?)
Mr McCarty did NOT tell the University of the issues. He informed
journalists. He was seeking publicity. He did not tell the Uni of the
issue and leave it at that, he used the violation to send emails and
account details from the server. In fact he stole the application
details of several University applicants - again *** without permission
Stating AFTER the event - WHEN you are caught that this was for the
common good is not a defence!
Bret McDanel The other mentioned 1030 case also broke the law - Plain
and simple. You have no right to scan sites for the hell of it. This is
illegal, unprofessional and plain stupid!
From: William Hancock [mailto:bill.hancock () isthmusgroup com]
Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2006 12:20 AM
To: pen-test () securityfocus com
Subject: Pentester convicted..
Hey there pen-testers, take this with a grain of salt, it just got me
excited. I am really interested in everyones opinion on the matter or
corporate responsibility and ownership.
In an article posted to slashdot today
(http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/10/112259&from=rss) a man
has been convicted of hacking when he casually and helpfully reported a
security vulnerability to the owners of a web site, in this case The
University of Southern California. It reads like it was some sort of
simple SQL injection and upon gleaning the information he reported it.
What are we to do as a community I ask? We should we, the good guys,
who are paid for our knowledge and ability to exploit mistakes,
oversights, and weaknesses then professionally report them to aid in the
securing of information capital (or anyone who reports the flaw for that
matter) worry about prosecution. It lends itself to a forcing the
technical community to sit on their laurels and wait for the people who
don't report issues to exploit them. Further it sounds very clear that
had he not notified them, they would have never known.
A security pro notices a flaw, checks to make sure he is not on crack by
'flipping a bit', deems the threat viable and is likely to be exploited,
notifies the owners, then get arrested and charged with unauthorized
access. We, as a or even The security community, should push
corporations, governments, and organized body's to take responsibility
and ownership of their problems. If they publish a site that is flawed
or exposing information then they are authorizing the retrieval of that
information. I'm not advocating that they laws should allow any jerk to
try and brute his or her way in to a public or private web site, but
If someone leaves their wallet in the park with no guard or protection,
I pick it up and bring it back to the owner, the owner didn't want me to
have it but I brought it back to him. Why in the hell should I have to
go to jail for returning it to him, why should I/we be punished for
doing the right thing?
I acknowledge this to be a rant but there must but some way to insist
that when people make something available to the public that it is their
responsibility to safeguard it and appreciate not persecute someone who
let's them know (for free I might add) that a weakness exists. This is
simple scapegoating, the University did something not advisable as a
good practice and instead of owning up to it they villafied a
professional pen-tester for offering valid advice.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within
those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists.
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not use or disclose the information. If you have received this email in error, please inform us promptly by reply
email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please delete the email and destroy any printed copy.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. You may not rely on this message as advice
unless it has been electronically signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter or fax signed by
a Partner of BDO.
BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference,
interception, corruption or unauthorised access.
This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
Concerned about Web Application Security?
Why not go with the #1 solution - Cenzic, the only one to win the Analyst's
Choice Award from eWeek. As attacks through web applications continue to rise,
you need to proactively protect your applications from hackers. Cenzic has the
most comprehensive solutions to meet your application security penetration
testing and vulnerability management needs. You have an option to go with a
managed service (Cenzic ClickToSecure) or an enterprise software
(Cenzic Hailstorm). Download FREE whitepaper on how a managed service can
help you: http://www.cenzic.com/news_events/wpappsec.php
And, now for a limited time we can do a FREE audit for you to confirm your
results from other product. Contact us at request () cenzic com for details.
Re: Pentester convicted.. bofn (May 11)
Re: Pentester convicted.. Christine Kronberg (May 11)
Re: Pentester convicted.. mike (May 11)
Re: Pentester convicted.. David J Blackburn (May 11)
RE: Pentester convicted.. Craig Wright (May 11)
RE: Pentester convicted.. Shenk, Jerry A (May 11)
RE: Pentester convicted.. Pachulski, Keith (May 11)
Re: Pentester convicted.. nimus396 (May 11)
RE: Pentester convicted.. Shenk, Jerry A (May 11)
RE: Pentester convicted.. Levenglick, Jeff (May 11)
RE: Pentester convicted.. Craig Wright (May 12)
Re: Pentester convicted.. bofn (May 12)