full-disclosure - Re: VPN providers and any providers in general...

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E8BE5CF.8040108@oneechan.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:06:23 -0700
From: Laurelai <laurelai@...echan.org>
To: adam <adam@...sy.net>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: VPN providers and any providers in general...

On 10/4/2011 7:52 PM, adam wrote:
> >>Its frightening how much power judges have, and how poorly they 
> are overseen.
>
> Definitely agree there. Some of the civil cases are disgustingly bad, 
> due to there being no media attention and no real oversight. The civil 
> case mentioned above is a good example, and all of the excessive child 
> support orders even further that.
>
> On topic: I haven't read every single reply here, but from what I've 
> seen: no one has mentioned the VPN provider being held personally 
> responsible. Being that the attacks originated from machines they own, 
> if they failed to turn over user information, could it really be that 
> difficult to pin the attacks on them and convince a judge that they 
> were responsible?
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com 
> <mailto:noloader@...il.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:32 PM, adam <adam@...sy.net
>     <mailto:adam@...sy.net>> wrote:
>     >>>http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00754.htm
>     > Did you actually read the link you pasted?
>     > [...] and "criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who
>     has not been
>     > afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such
>     criminal
>     > proceedings [...] protections include the right [..]
>     > Then take a look at the actual rights being referenced. Most of
>     which would
>     > be violated as a result.
>     > In response to 0x41 "This is ONCE you are actually in front, of the
>     > judge...remember, it may take some breaking of civil liberty,
>     for this to
>     > happen... "
>     > No, you're absolutely right. That's the point here. Contempt is
>     attached to
>     > the previous court order, there wouldn't be a new judge/new case
>     for the
>     > contempt charge alone. All of it is circumstantial anyway,
>     especially due to
>     > how much power judges actually have (in both criminal AND civil
>     > proceedings).
>     Its frightening how much power judges have, and how poorly they are
>     overseen. Confer: Judge James Ware, US 9th Circuit Court (this is not
>     a local judge in a hillbilly town).
>
>     Jeff
>
>
Also a good point.

On the flip side would it be that hard for a malicious person who works 
at a VPN provider to blame it on a customer? I don't think that's what 
has happened in this case, but hypothetically what is to stop a rouge 
employee from abusing the trust that a LE official might have and 
doctoring logs sent to them?

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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