full-disclosure - Benign Worms

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]

Message-ID: <051420050411.19653.42857A7B0003717C00004CC521587667550A9D0B0E039A9B979A9B@att.net>
Date: Sat May 14 11:31:38 2005
From: tuytumadre at att.net (tuytumadre@....net)
Subject: Benign Worms



-------------- Original message from "Eric Paynter" <eric@...ticbears.com>: -------------- 


> On Fri, May 13, 2005 3:49 pm, Benjamin Franz said: 
> > There are a many laws that turn on facts rather than intent. 
> > 
> > "Lack of criminal intent does not shield a citizen from the BATF. In 
> > United States v. Thomas, the defendant found a 16- inch-long gun while 
> > horseback riding. Taking it to be an antique pistol, he pawned it. But it 
> > turned out to be short-barreled rifle, which should have been registered 
> > before selling. Although the prosecutor conceded that Thomas lacked 
> > criminal intent, he was convicted of a felony anyway.[64] The Supreme 
> > Court's decision in United States v. Freed declared that criminal intent 
> > was not necessary for a conviction of violation of the Gun Control Act of 
> > 1968.[65]" 
> > David Kopel, in "Trust The People: The Case Against Gun Control" 
> 
> I think we're getting a little into an argument of semantics. The 
> defendant did in fact *intend* to sell the weapon, which was against the 
> law to do. He just wasn't aware of the law. Ignorance of the law does not 
> protect you. 
> 
> Try these two scenarios out: 
> 
> 1. I kill somebody with the intent to kill, and then I claim I didn't know 
> killing was illegal. Most courts would still say murder. 
> 
> 2. I kill somebody because they are attacking me with a lethal weapon. I 
> know killing is illegal, but my intent is not to kill the other person, 
> but rather to save myself, and the only way to save myself is to use 
> lethal force. If I can *prove* my intent was to save myself, then it is 
> not murder. 
> 
> Back to the original argument, if the intent is to patch PCs for which I 
> have the authority to patch, then I'm not doing anything illegal, no 
> matter what kind of software I create to do it. Even if the worm that I 
> create somehow gets out, but I can *prove* my intent was for it to not get 
> out, then even though releasing a worm is illegal, the worst I might get 
> is criminal negligence for not taking the proper precautions. 
> 
> Anyhow, I think we all agree that writing a worm to do patch management is 
> generally a bad idea. 
> 
> -Eric 
> 
> -- 
> arctic bears - email and dns services 
> http://www.arcticbears.com 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. 
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html 
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20050514/0502b764/attachment.html