bugtraq - Re: Does VeriSign's SiteFinder service violate the ECPA?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:43:20 -0400
From: N407ER <n407er@...ealbox.com>
To: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@...puterbytesman.com>
Cc: "BUGTRAQ@...URITYFOCUS. COM" <BUGTRAQ@...URITYFOCUS.COM>
Subject: Re: Does VeriSign's SiteFinder service violate the ECPA?

Richard M. Smith wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Here's a question for the lawyers.  In certain situations, does the
> VeriSign SiteFinder service violate the Electronic Communications
> Privacy Act (AKA, ECPA)?
> 
> Here's the actual text of the ECPA:
> 	
>    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch119.html
> 
> With my packet sniffer, I noticed that the VeriSign SiteFinder Web
> server happily accepts POST form data which is intended for another Web
> server.  This situation will occur if the domain name is misspelled in
> the action URL of a form.
> 
> Without SiteFinder in the picture, the HTTP POST operation is never done
> since the DNS lookup fails.

By this logic, all webservers which unintentionally accept traffic 
without somehow verifying that a typo did not take place violate the 
ECPA. Thats ridiculous. Do you really want a precedent where, if someone 
  accidentally POSTs bank information to your site instead of the URL 
they meant to type, you are somehow liable? If I accidentally call you 
instead of my friend and tell you all sorts of juicy gossip, is it 
really your fault?

I'm bothered by the VeriSign thing, too. But you've been posting a lot 
of stuff about how it breaks certain services, breaks certain mail 
clients, and may be illegal. What it does to mail clients and services 
is annoying, though easily fixed. But you should hardly wish for it to 
be deemed illegal. That's not the sort of precedent I want to worry about.

Ta for now.