Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: [security] Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate
From: rsh () idirect com
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 23:02:33 -0500
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:09:27 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 Daniel.Capo () tco net br wrote:Which means the Democrats screwed up setting up their own share point and allowed public access to it. There was no "computer glitch" which was "exploited". This was completely a human screw-up. And there was no hacking ("exploitation of a computer glitch") done by the Republicans. Unless you wish to call clicking on a share point configured with public access and opening it up "hacking".AFAIK, "hacking" is legally defined in the USA as being unauthorized access to computer resources. It doesn't matter if the resource was adequately protected (or protected at all) in first place or not. If you were not given permission to make use of that resource, you are criminally liable.Do you have an explicit permission to read the content of a www.cnn.com? What is the difference between opening a web URL and a network share?
In a word, Intent. If a CNN intends you to read the news on their web site and gets advertising revenue when you do, you are not hacking when you go there. If the Senate does NOT intend you to read their files and leaves open a network share in error or through ignorance, you are hacking when you go there. As silly as it seems, that is the way the laws were designed to work. We have a similar silly law in Canada re digital scanners. Before they existed the government was afraid someone could listen in on their digital cell phones so they set up a regulation that you need a license to buy a digital scanner. This was in 1994, before these scanners even existed. Now they exist and the cell phones use encryption that the scanners cannot decrypt, but the 'regulation' is enforced because it is on the books. Does it mean anything? No, we simply buy the scanners in the US! It is not illegal to own a digital scanner without a license, after all... just to BUY it without one. Incidently, they have not yet set up any routine to issue a license, and I doubt they ever will! rsh ===================================================== R.S.H. Toronto, ON, Canada Copyright retained. My opinions - no one elses... If this is illegal where you are, do not read it!
Current thread:
- Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Mariusz Woloszyn (Feb 02)
- Re: [security] Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate rsh (Feb 03)
- Re: [security] Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Bernie, CTA (Feb 04)
- RE: [security] Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Larry Seltzer (Feb 07)
- Re: [security] Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Bernie, CTA (Feb 04)
- Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Christian Vogel (Feb 03)
- Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Ron DuFresne (Feb 03)
- Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Daniel . Capo (Feb 03)
- Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Thomas M. Payerle (Feb 06)
- RE: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate David Schwartz (Feb 03)
- Re: [security] Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate rsh (Feb 03)