, SecurityFocus 2006-04-26
Security researchers and legal experts have voiced concern this week over the prosecution of an information-technology professional for computer intrusion after he allegedly breached a university's online application system while researching a flaw without the school's permission.
Expand all |
Post comment
In other words, shoot the messenger
2006-04-26
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Re: In other words, shoot the messenger
2006-04-26
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
Breach case could curtail Web flaw finders
2006-04-26
Anonymous (7 replies)
Anonymous (7 replies)
If it was anyone else, I would sympathize
2006-07-21
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
1. House owner has a party and invites everyone to his/her home.
2. House owner asks everyone to leave their valuables in a "secure safe".
3. One particular "concerned guest" is skeptical of the "secure safe" and decides to check and see if his/her valuables will really be safe before trusting the "secure safe".
4. "Concerned guest" was shocked to find out that the "secure safe" was not secure AT ALL!
5. "Concerned guest" then proceeded to inform the house owner of the insecurity of the purpotedly "secure safe". To prove his/her point, "concerned guest" took 2 wallets and showed it to the house owner. House owner was rather irked and told "concerned guest" that since only 2 wallets could be taken out from "secure safe", it is still relatively secure.
6. "Concerned guest" knows that anyone can take more than 2 wallets from the "secure safe". Heck, you can even empty the entire "secure safe" if he/she wants to. Out of concern for the other guests, and also the house owner's reputation, "concerned guest" then took out 7 wallets to prove his/her point to the house owner.
7. This time, the house owner got really pissed. The house owner called the police and pressed charges against "concerned guest" for "stealing" from the house owner's "secure safe". House owner also accused "concerned guest" for causing him/her to spend extra money to fix the insecurities in the "secure safe".
8. "Concerned guest" is then prosecuted by the police for the above accusations.
9. House owner indirectly warns future guests to fully trust his/her "secure safe" and never to try and prove it otherwise.
10. And so, the house owners "secure safe" will always remain "safe" only in the eyes of the house owner himself/herself.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11389/33764#33764