Yes, What about bandwidth that is consumed by the download/uploading of data from the victim computer? What about the disk space it consumes? Good questions, but let's look at this more detailed.

Sure, if they leave the door open enough for public shares is one thing, but to cripple their bandwidth and disk space from upload/download of data by attackers using this tool I see as a misunderstood issue. One could have potentially every port accessable on their machine and open for the access of everyone on the Internet, but the second one has been accessed for the means of cartelling illegal information from one user to another will be the key deciding factor.

I compare this with a home owner that never leaves his garage door locked or closed and meanwhile his garage is filling up with tons of stolen items. It should come that any item placed in this garage even if not stolen has been placed by trespassing into the persons domain. This doesn't even bring into light all the issues about two attacking parties traded information through his machine, meanwhile the victim was caught with mp3s/other illeagal data on his machine and prosecuted.

The issues with napster and now ShareSniffer are all realitive to their predessors only in past lives. These issues are simply virtual redundancies of real life actions and therefore should be sought after as such. Maybe it is a government who gives birth to 4 new lawyers for each law enacted, that could be the reason these are long battles of whats "right" and what is "wrong." But it could also be that it is the fuzzy gray line between old law and new law. Whichever it may be of the latter, let the user who has left his information accessable to virtually anyone be exposed but let the user who accesses these shares be exposed to proper authorities as well. We need to have devices into place which will stamp out this fuzzy gray line that has been drawn with the dawn of this new tehno-driven era. With this all said, I digress. Comments?

Respectfully,

deggi3

deggi3 (at) hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/159/4763#4763