Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:54:17 -0600
From: "Jon Gucinski" <Jgucinski@...westbank.com>
To: <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: Vulnerabilites in new laws on computer hacking


Wow...this is definitely a big can of worms to open...

I both agree and disagree with your stance.  Hopefully I'm caffeinated
enough to express my reasoning clearly.

While I don't feel like elaborating too much, my drive to become an
InfoSec professional was driven mostly by the hacker
scene/culture/experience of the late 80's and early 90's...when
everything was insanely active and not yet highly legislated.  

While (and I'm using this term in a very broad way) attacking live
systems not run by you is arguably one of the better way to learn how to
pen-test, crack, etc, it is not the only way.  Especially with things
like VMWare, it is quite easy and feasible to create an extensive test
network on a private LAN and not break any laws while trying out
exploits and methods; this is something that wasn't available 5 years
ago, much less 15.  

I disagree in your statement that teenagers and other newbies to the
area will be scared of online exploration.  You underestimate the
adolescent feeling of invulnerability.  I know that in my start I never
thought I could be tracked, though hindsight shows that I was likely
wrong.

You state that judges cannot tell the difference between malicious and
non-malicious ( I have a hard time calling any attempted intrusion
innocent) attacks.  Quite simply, that type of wish is impossible.  Laws
are designed to be black and white....either you do something or not. 
Reason and motive behind doing something can't be taken into
consideration unless life (and property in some locales) is threatened. 
Also, it would provide a giant loophole that anyone could use; all of
the sudden you have black-hat's claiming that they were just exploring
and didn't MEAN to cause any harm.  How could you prove otherwise?  In a
nutshell, laws can't be based on an implicit trust of people; they must
be written for the lowest-common denominator of person, one that cannot
be trusted. 

That being said, I think our current computer crime laws in the United
States are utterly ridiculous.  It makes me sad to see rapists,
murderers, and other violent criminals receive 5 years, while a virus
writer or hacker gets at least 20.  Like the PATRIOT Act, too many of
our computer crime laws were knee-jerk reactions implemented without any
reasoned look at the situation.  

>>> <self-destruction@...best.com> 2/11/2006 10:35 am >>>
It'd be interesting to see if this post gets approved by the moderators
of bugtraq.

As all of you know, this forum (bugtraq) is constantly monitored not
only by crackers and infosec professionals, but also by government and
law-enforcement agencies.

The reason why I'm posting this message is because I'd like to bring
attention to the new laws on hacking.

As everyone knows, laws on computer hacking are going tougher. There
are however, some negative consequences.

"Advanced societies" are updating computer crime laws faster than the
rest of the world. This means that new generations of these more
"advanced societies" will have no clue about how remote computer attacks
are carried out. Future generations of security "experts" will be among
the most ignorant in the history of computer security.

New generations of teenagers will be scared of doing online
exploration. I'm not talking about damaging other companies' computer
systems. I'm talking about accessing them illegally *without* revealing
private information to the public or harming any data that has been
accessed. To me, there is a big difference between these two types of
attacks but I don't think that judges feel the same way. Furthermore, I
don't even think that judges understand the difference.

Now, I'm not saying that I support accessing computer systems
illegally. All I'm saying is that by implementing very strict laws on
"hacking", we will create a generation of ignorant security
professionals. I think to myself, how the hell will these "more advanced
societies" protect themselves against cyber attacks in the future?

These new tougher computer laws will, in my opinion, have a tremendous
negative impact in the defense of these "advanced societies". It almost
feels to me like we're destroying ourselves.

I know what you're thinking. You can learn about security attacks by
setting up you're own controlled environment and attacking it yourself.
Well, what I say is that this approach *does* certainly make you a
better attacker, but nothing can be compared to attacking systems in
real world scenarios.

Now, I personally know many pentesters and I can say that most of them
*do* cross the line sometimes when doing online exploration in their own
free time. However, these guys would *never* harm anything or leak any
sensitive information to the public. That's because they love what they
do, and have very strong ethical values when it comes to privacy. 

I would say that most pentesters are "grey hats", rather than "white
hats". In fact, I believe that the terms white and black hat are
completely artificial because we all have different sides. The human
mind is not binary, like black or white, it's something fuzzy instead,
with many layers. The terms white and black hat were, in my opinion,
created by business people to point out who the "good guys" and "bad
buys" are.

If I was the technical director of a computer security testing company
I would try to find pentesters that are not malicious, but that do cross
the line sometimes but at the same time, know when it's a good time to
stop exploring. 

If you hire someone that has never broken into a system, this guy will
not be able to produce valuable reports for customers because he will
not be able to find vulnerabilities that can't be found running a
scanner.

In summary, I'd like governments of the world to rethink their strategy
when fighting computer crime. Extremism never worked and never will.

Remember, many of today's script kiddies will be the infosec
professionals of tomorrow.

NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with 
it are intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it 
is addressed. The message, together with any attachment, may contain 
confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, 
use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or distribution is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all 
copies.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists