full-disclosure - Re: Support the Sasser-author fund started

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: charlie at peopleandplanet.org (Charlie Harvey)
Subject: Re: Support the Sasser-author fund started

| I don't really see any question of ethics, morals, or legality here.  The
| burgaler is at fault.  Said intruder may not be guilty of theft, and may
| have had "pure" motives, but they're still plainly guilty of Tresspass and
| Breaking and Entering. 

But trespass is only a civil offence and not a criminal one (in the UK 
anyhow) and breaking and entering is not in itself a crime, only a 
constituent part of burglary - you'd also have to prove intent to 
steal. So you could sue him/her, but strictly speaking no criminal act 
has occured...  

Sorry to be a pedantiscist.

Charlie