full-disclosure - Re: Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:42:13 +0000
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>
To: "Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>, Cal Leeming
	<cal@...whisper.co.uk>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com

I should clarify my use of "intent" in previous replies - 

The "intent" part of the process would be from the judges point of view even in the absence of "concrete" evidence.   As you know, actual court cases are not what we see on TV, and the judge has far more power than one may think.  Even if the defense argues that the actions by the defendant were acceptable, if the judge thinks that the intent of the individual was to exceed access, then they are hosed.

It wasn't meant to imply that saying "I didn't intend to bring their network down" would be of any benefit to a defendant. 

t

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 3:30 PM
To: Cal Leeming
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:33:56 BST, Cal Leeming said:
> Like with most laws, the key point is "intent". If your intention was 
> clearly not malicious, then you are safe.

Ask Randall Schwartz how that worked out for him. "intent" doesn't enter into it as much as a defendant may like.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html

Intent is not mentioned at all.  You exceed the authorized access, you're guilty under 18 USC 1030.  1030 (a)(2)(C) is the really expansive one, as "protected computer" is defined down in (e)(2)(B) to include anything used in interstate commerce (and yes, DA's *HAVE* argued "The computer has a web browser and thus could get to amazon.com, so it's interstate commerce time").

Doesn't matter if you were trying to save the world at the time (as Gary McKinnon found out).

A better approach is to argue the definition of "authorized access" as it applies to an Internet-facing server...

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