, SecurityFocus 2000-12-18
Federal court finds that scanning a network doesn't cause damage, or threaten public health and safety.
Expand all |
Post comment
Your headline is misleading
2000-12-19
EJ (4 replies)
EJ (4 replies)
re: Your headline is misleading
2000-12-19
ThwartedEfforts (2 replies)
ThwartedEfforts (2 replies)
Your headline is misleading
2000-12-19
merk_man (1 replies)
merk_man (1 replies)
So if some one knocks on my door...
2000-12-19
garak (at) fastvcd (dot) com [email concealed] (1 replies)
garak (at) fastvcd (dot) com [email concealed] (1 replies)

1) We filed suit ONLY because we were being sued - i.e. it was just a legal tactic to try and get the lawsuit against us dropped (not an attempt to set legal precedent). The way our legal system works if someone sues you for what you believe is an unfounded reason you are not allowed to counter sue based on the fact that you think the original lawsuit is frivolous. There has to be some legal grounds for the counter suit. We knew we were stretching on this but, again, all we were hoping to do was make the original lawsuit go away.
2) Our logs detected other activity besides just a port scan so both cases weren't only about a port scan.
3) All we did was report the information to the customer who reported the case to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). The GBI requested our logs and we handed the logs to them. Evidently the GBI saw something in the logs that compelled them to press charges. They did not consult us on this so I really have no idea what grounds they found for the criminal charges.
4) Evidently the judge agreed with us that the original lawsuit against us was unfounded since it was dismissed before going to trial (something that generally doesn't happen unless a lawsuit is clearly frivolous). Our lawsuit was dismissed as well which was fine with us - we just wanted the whole thing to go away so that we could get back to business.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/126/4097#4097