full-disclosure - If Lycos can attack spammer sites, can we all start doing it?

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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: var at deny-all.com (Vincent Archer)
Subject: If Lycos can attack spammer sites, can we all start doing it?

On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:54:57PM +0000, Jason Coombs wrote:
> Even without explicit language in the EULA, Lycos is just a software maker in this case. It is the end user who is guilty of an abusive attack -- if anyone is. The rate limit per client is set to prevent a single client from crossing the attack threshold, so this could be the first test of product liability for the intentional creation of zombie armies.

Not the first test. This is already underway in court.

The current pitched battle in Kazaa vs. the RIAA is that Kazaa is just
making software, and thus, is not liable for unlawful usage by the users.
The RIAA happens to "strongly disagree".

-- 
Vincent ARCHER
varcher@...yall.com

Tel : +33 (0)1 40 07 47 14
Fax : +33 (0)1 40 07 47 27
Deny All - 5, rue Scribe - 75009 Paris - France
www.denyall.com