| 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: <1150104231.1824074169.21426.sendItem@bloglines.com> Date: Mon Jun 12 10:23:58 2006 From: schanulleke.29172787 at bloglines.com (schanulleke.29172787@...glines.com) Subject: scanning --- Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote: > What's this mean? It means that if you scan some lame-ass system and it > crashes as a result, you might be in deep shit. And "it shouldn't have > crashed from a portscan" does *not* hold up in court. Having done pen-testing in the past I have disabled (dos-ed) systems and entire networks with a portscan. My employer would never let me do any work withaout a prior written agreement. However, law is highly fluctuate over time and from country to country. Dutch law recently changed. In the past you had to have broken a security barrier in order to be accused of hacking, now it has changed to "with the intent to do harm". Is it illegal? Not enough data to compute / that is one for the lawers... Is it unwise? Probably... Will you get cought/sued? Unlikely... Would I bother to sue you? No... Schanulleke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists