, 2003-01-13
Why I should have the right to kill a malicious process on your machine.
Expand all |
Post comment
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-13
Chris Caydes (2 replies)
Chris Caydes (2 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-13
Stealthbadger (2 replies)
Stealthbadger (2 replies)
The Self-Defense Argument is flawed... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-14
Shawn Duffy (5 replies)
Shawn Duffy (5 replies)
Give me a break... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-13
Shawn Duffy (7 replies)
Shawn Duffy (7 replies)
Give me a break... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-14
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
Give me a break... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-14
Shawn Duffy (3 replies)
Shawn Duffy (3 replies)
Isn't this like smacking the neighbor's kid for mouthing off?
2003-01-14
Anonymous (7 replies)
Anonymous (7 replies)
No, it's like shooting your neighbor's dog who ruthlessly attacking someone.
2003-01-15
P. Hofmeister (1 replies)
P. Hofmeister (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-21
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)

Like Lamo, who is notorious for obtaining access to systems, then hoarding information, and month's later reporting it, is he a good guy? IMO, no. But why isn't he held accountable for his so called "white hat" hacks?
He done the company a service, sure. But only after he got information he shouldn't have had. If it was just a "Oh, you have a problem with this, this, and this, immidiatly after he found the vulns, then his actions are still questionable, but at least he's in clearer waters.
I think it'd be to hard to distinguish between real "white hat vigilantes" and those with other things on their agenda. Who should they prosecute?
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/134/17586#17586