>accept defeat

Get a life phil. Maybe you should invite me to your home and I assault you. Accept defeat? Maybe you should. After all, you're vulnerable.

> being embarresed

Fair comment, except there's more at stake than embarrassment. Corporations are entitled to take the risk in not protecting their systems. They are entitled to someone not attacking their vulnerabilities. It's one thing to exploit their vulnerabilities - it's another to offer them help. Wouldn't it be better if someone as enterprising as Lamo did things above board like other security companies? Maybe some personal security company should send a hit man to rough Lamo up, and then phone him and say, "Man... you got problems. Want a security guard to protect your testicles?"

> the next guy is going to most likely find another vulnerability

The next guy is a criminal. Maybe there should be a mafioso outfit to "protect" you against that criminal. Hmmm. Sounds like it would work.

> secret service agent shoots someone for trying to kill a president or something, we should go ahead and put him on trial for murder right?

Fortuately, the secret service agent who does that is acting within the law. Lamo is like a vigilanti. So arrogant that he thinks he should, of his own volition, exploit/fix/inform people they are vulnerable by exploiting their vulnerabilities.

I vote we all go to Lamo's house - try to break in. Take photographs of him doing personal stuff. Get his boyfriend's phone number and address and go there too. Maybe hide some stolen computers in the ceiling of his house. Then... we ring up NBC and show them the vulnerabilities and ask them to report on it. WHAT A STORY. Afterward, we think.. "ah. We can make money here". We ring him up and tell him that we have this new security system that keeps people like US out. "Got some $$$ Lamo?"

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/595/16343#16343