From: Levenglick, Jeff (JLevenglick@fhlbatl.com)
Date: Thu May 11 2006 - 13:28:09 EDT
The law is mostly based on interpretation. One 'expert' says one thing and someone else says another.
Based on your text, you may have broken in or a good defense would prove you did not.
BUT.. Based on the text from the link:
Posted by Hemos on Wednesday May 10, @09:08AM
gsch writes "'In 2004, Bret McDanel was convicted of violating section 1030 when he e-mailed truthful information about a security problem to the customers of his former employer. The prosecution argued that McDanel had accessed the company e-mail server by sending the messages, and that the access was unauthorized within the meaning of the law because the company didn't want this information distributed. They even claimed the integrity of the system was impaired because a lot more people (customers) now knew that the system was insecure.
I would agree that he was in the wrong.
Why..
1) Based only on the above text, it says that he sent the mail from the company server. He could have sent it from his own email account. He instead used
Someone else's server and he was not authorized to do so.
2) He could have let the company know of the problem first and given them time to fix the problem. Instead he emailed the customers first. That could destroy a company. Funny how it was a company he worked for?
Using your example:
Your walking along main street and stop in front of a store that you used to work for. Because you used to work there, you have more knowledge of the business then the average person. You push the front door and notice that it opens if you hit the lock a certain way. So you enter the store, get a
Pen and paper from the store and write a large sign that says: This store is not very secure. Just hit the lock a few times on the left side and the door will open. You then sign it, tape the sign to the window and leave.
If there is a breaking are you just as guilty? Yes.
If they loose customers are you at fault? Yes.
Did you tell the truth on the sign? Yes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Scott [mailto:ian@pairowoodies.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:11 AM
To: pen-test@securityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Pentester convicted..
So, one night, I'm taking a stroll along main street in my town. I stop for a rest, and happen to lean up against the front door of a store.
I notice the door gives a little bit - and out of curiousity and concern, push a little harder.
The door opens.
I immediately stop what I am doing, and notify the owners and the authorities that the premises are insecure.
By the absolute legal definition, I have indeed "broke and entered" the premises.
Where the hell is motive in all of this? I think that unless there was motive to do some harm, this conviction is utterly ridiculous.
That's my quickie opinion on the matter.
Best,
Ian Scott
On May 10, 2006 10:20 am, William Hancock wrote:
> Hey there pen-testers, take this with a grain of salt, it just got me
> excited. I am really interested in everyones opinion on the matter or
> corporate responsibility and ownership.
>
> <RANT>
> In an article posted to slashdot today
> (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/10/112259&from=rss) a man
> has been convicted of hacking when he casually and helpfully reported
> a security vulnerability to the owners of a web site, in this case The
> University of Southern California. It reads like it was some sort of
> simple SQL injection and upon gleaning the information he reported it.
>
> What are we to do as a community I ask? We should we, the good guys,
> who are paid for our knowledge and ability to exploit mistakes,
> oversights, and weaknesses then professionally report them to aid in
> the securing of information capital (or anyone who reports the flaw
> for that
> matter) worry about prosecution. It lends itself to a forcing the
> technical community to sit on their laurels and wait for the people
> who don't report issues to exploit them. Further it sounds very clear
> that had he not notified them, they would have never known.
>
> A security pro notices a flaw, checks to make sure he is not on crack
> by 'flipping a bit', deems the threat viable and is likely to be
> exploited, notifies the owners, then get arrested and charged with
> unauthorized access. We, as a or even The security community, should
> push corporations, governments, and organized body's to take
> responsibility and ownership of their problems. If they publish a
> site that is flawed or exposing information then they are authorizing
> the retrieval of that information. I'm not advocating that they laws
> should allow any jerk to try and brute his or her way in to a public
> or private web site, but come on.
>
> If someone leaves their wallet in the park with no guard or
> protection, I pick it up and bring it back to the owner, the owner
> didn't want me to have it but I brought it back to him. Why in the
> hell should I have to go to jail for returning it to him, why should
> I/we be punished for doing the right thing?
>
> I acknowledge this to be a rant but there must but some way to insist
> that when people make something available to the public that it is
> their responsibility to safeguard it and appreciate not persecute
> someone who let's them know (for free I might add) that a weakness
> exists. This is simple scapegoating, the University did something not
> advisable as a good practice and instead of owning up to it they
> villafied a professional pen-tester for offering valid advice.
>
> </RANT>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>--- This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
>
> Concerned about Web Application Security?
> Why not go with the #1 solution - Cenzic, the only one to win the
>Analyst's Choice Award from eWeek. As attacks through web applications
>continue to rise, you need to proactively protect your applications from hackers.
> Cenzic has the most comprehensive solutions to meet your application
>security penetration testing and vulnerability management needs. You
>have an option to go with a managed service (Cenzic ClickToSecure) or
>an enterprise software (Cenzic Hailstorm). Download FREE whitepaper
>on how a managed service can help you:
>http://www.cenzic.com/news_events/wpappsec.php
> And, now for a limited time we can do a FREE audit for you to confirm
>your results from other product. Contact us at request@cenzic.com for details.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>---
-----------------------------------------
This e-mail message is private and may contain confidential or
privileged information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
Concerned about Web Application Security?
Why not go with the #1 solution - Cenzic, the only one to win the Analyst's
Choice Award from eWeek. As attacks through web applications continue to rise,
you need to proactively protect your applications from hackers. Cenzic has the
most comprehensive solutions to meet your application security penetration
testing and vulnerability management needs. You have an option to go with a
managed service (Cenzic ClickToSecure) or an enterprise software
(Cenzic Hailstorm). Download FREE whitepaper on how a managed service can
help you: http://www.cenzic.com/news_events/wpappsec.php
And, now for a limited time we can do a FREE audit for you to confirm your
results from other product. Contact us at request@cenzic.com for details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:55:56 EDT