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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:29:50 -0500
From: "Justin C. Klein Keane" <justin@...irish.net>
To: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: ACM.ORG data leak still there 4 days after
 announcing to CEO John White

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

  as I stated previously, the intent is critical in determining
criminality based on the statue.  Each sentence that includes
"unauthorized access" also include "with intent."  For instance:

"knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer
without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of
such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value"

If you do accidentally mistype a URL it clearly is not a violation of
the statue.  If you utilize SQL injection to retrieve financial
information in order to support a carding ring you clearly violate the
statue.  If you expose a vulnerability in order to report it to the
responsible parties and to raise awareness, well, that falls into a gray
area where "intent" is probably the crux of the decision.  You can read
the statute online in many places
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html), it's worth checking out.

One more time for emphasis - I'm not a lawyer ;)

- --
Justin C. Klein Keane
http://www.MadIrish.net

The digital signature on this message can be confirmed
using the public key at http://www.madirish.net/gpgkey

On 02/22/2010 03:19 PM, Benji wrote:
> "Title 18 Section 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986,
> pretty much limits crimes to those intent on committing fraud or
> disclosing national secrets."
> 
> Does that just cover fraud? Surely a database injection counts as
> unauthorised access?
> 
> Does this mean that now anyone can start injecting websites and
> extracting data, and aslong as they dont use the data to 'commit fraud
> or dislose national secrets', or albeit, it cant be proved, that person
> is safe?
> 
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Justin C. Klein Keane
> <justin@...irish.net <mailto:justin@...irish.net>> wrote:
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, and I assume Benji isn't either, but it's worth noting
> that Title 18 Section 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986,
> pretty much limits crimes to those intent on committing fraud or
> disclosing national secrets.  Exposing personal information doesn't seem
> to fit under any of the statutory definitions of crime unless you use
> that information to commit identity theft.  The word "intent" figures
> prominently in that statute, so I'd surmise full-disclosure actually
> argues against this access being a crime.
> 
> Justin C. Klein Keane
> http://www.MadIrish.net
> 
> The digital signature on this message can be confirmed
> using the public key at http://www.madirish.net/gpgkey
> 
> On 02/22/2010 02:52 PM, Benji wrote:
>> Not to be a dick or anything, but whether it should be or not is
>> irrelevant, it is a crime. As you seem to be a "security expert"
>  doing
>> "penetration testing and security audits" I'm sure you'd
> understand that
>> for example, a remote file include is literally just a case of
>> 'modifying one parameter of an url'.
> 
>> You didnt enumerate passwords, well, I guess that makes the crime
>> slightly less serious. Personal info isnt worth that much I've heard.
> 
>> Infact, by publishing data and the fact there is a hole, you could
> argue
>> that infact you couldve made the situation worse for ACM.
>> Hypothetically, now you've displayed that a hole is there, someone
> could
>> go and dump the database saving them the time of even looking for a
>> vulnerable site.
> 
>> I'm just wondering what makes you so sure they wont do anything
> like that?
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 7:46 PM, the hacker <info@...-hacker.info
> <mailto:info@...-hacker.info>
>> <mailto:info@...-hacker.info <mailto:info@...-hacker.info>>> wrote:
> 
>>     Hello Benji
> 
>>     I did not crack/enumerate any passwords, use buffer overflow with
>>     metasploit or whatever other tools...
> 
>>     I dont think that by just modifying one parameter of an url you
>>     already break a law (or all people that have spelling problems
> when
>>     entering an url would be in jail).
> 
>>     Also I have contacted ACM with my REAL name, address, phone number
>>     etc. via email.
> 
>>     I've even called the CEO twice!
> 
>>     So they know my identity because I just wanted to let them know
>>     about the problem on their website - but when they did not
> react for
>>     4 days I extracted some sample data (I could have got much more)
>>     from the site to mail it to them. I've extracted enought to show
>>     them that its not just 10 addresses, but its far from everything.
> 
>>     So I wonder why I should be in trouble for wanting to help them?
> 
>>     Do you other guys on the list also think that this is already
> a crime?
> 
>>     By the way, I've sent the mail with the data 2 hours ago but no
>>     reaction.
> 
>>     Greetings
> 
>>     th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.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/




> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iPwEAQECAAYFAkuC6T4ACgkQkSlsbLsN1gB2BAb/VQeBpzAm14nu1MhU3zihzQKk
QReXp/DAWUGigUDqP/xd4+oui6Up3TfEBhroW0p9MN4ICIKP0et+BcnfhbI+sNZf
SHDl9erFNelzpMn2nc8A0Q+TZ9bTKP+XFKaqdeq2+luv/mOZXF3EFxc4jBy9Zqnc
hxd5nDItcTBz5lAGV1j8ALWA9Tp967f+6rVUrGkwff0e0IljchdFrE19eSV8yyFA
xpuhH87WDgwwtCySpY8MbkuEnps8brVV0rE4vEggDpo3MH8Qor4EcvUMlRifpNNZ
KASp3E3mf5QtHdAZsKo=
=0wcM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ