| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <401324AD.9030909@immunix.com> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:06:37 -0800 From: Crispin Cowan <crispin@...unix.com> To: Kirk Spencer <kspencer@...l.org> Cc: "BUGTRAQ@...URITYFOCUS.COM" <BUGTRAQ@...URITYFOCUS.COM> Subject: Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Kirk Spencer wrote: >Agreed this was not a "hack attack" as usually considered. However, I would >raise two points. The first is simple - If someone starts reading files on a >computer to which they are not supposed to have access, do we not consider >this an attack? Even if the reason they got in is configuration errors? > That would depend on the configuration error. In particular, if your "configuration error" was to publish a page to a web server where you didn't want people to read it, and the "attack" was just surfing URLs, or even manually editing the URLs, then I think you'd have a hard time making the case for "intrusion". In particular, you effectively offered the page for public viewing, so it breaks the notion of "not supposed to have access". The problem is that the barrier of what an anonymous visitor is "supposed" to have access to is fuzzy. Then again, if it was not fuzzy, it would be relatively easy to secure, too. Caveat: IANAL, so my opinion that the courts will decide this fuzzy issue in favor of whoever has the most money holds to weight :) Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://immunix.com/~crispin/ CTO, Immunix http://immunix.com Immunix 7.3 http://www.immunix.com/shop/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists