|
|
BugTraq
Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Jan 22 2004 05:25PM Richard M. Smith (rms computerbytesman com) (2 replies) Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Jan 23 2004 03:28PM Brian C. Lane (bcl brianlane com) (2 replies) Re: [work] Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Jan 24 2004 06:46PM opticfiber (opticfiber topsight net) (1 replies) Re: [work] Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Jan 24 2004 08:27PM Jonathan A. Zdziarski (jonathan nuclearelephant com) Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Jan 23 2004 08:59PM Kevin Reardon (Kevin Reardon oracle com) Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Jan 23 2004 03:29AM ~Kevin Davis³ (computerguy cfl rr com) (3 replies) Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Jan 23 2004 07:58PM Kirk Spencer (kspencer ngrl org) (1 replies) Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Jan 23 2004 06:48PM Daniel Capo tco net br (2 replies) Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Jan 29 2004 04:09PM Mariusz Woloszyn (emsi ipartners pl) (3 replies) Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Feb 03 2004 02:56PM Christian Vogel (chris obelix hedonism cx) (2 replies) Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Feb 03 2004 04:13PM Daniel Capo tco net br (1 replies) Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Feb 04 2004 04:39PM Thomas M. Payerle (payerle physics umd edu) Re: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate Jan 24 2004 07:11PM Dinesh Nair (dinesh alphaque com) (1 replies) |
|
Privacy Statement |
>On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 Daniel.Capo (at) tco.net (dot) br [email concealed] wrote:
>
>> > Which means the Democrats screwed up setting up their own share point and
>> > allowed public access to it. There was no "computer glitch" which was
>> > "exploited". This was completely a human screw-up. And there was no
>> > hacking ("exploitation of a computer glitch") done by the Republicans.
>> > Unless you wish to call clicking on a share point configured with public
>> > access and opening it up "hacking".
>>
>> AFAIK, "hacking" is legally defined in the USA as being unauthorized
>> access to computer resources. It doesn't matter if the resource was
>> adequately protected (or protected at all) in first place or not. If you
>> were not given permission to make use of that resource, you are
>> criminally liable.
>>
>Do you have an explicit permission to read the content of a www.cnn.com?
>What is the difference between opening a web URL and a network share?
In a word, Intent. If a CNN intends you to read the news on their web
site and gets advertising revenue when you do, you are not hacking when
you go there. If the Senate does NOT intend you to read their files and
leaves open a network share in error or through ignorance, you are
hacking when you go there. As silly as it seems, that is the way the
laws were designed to work.
We have a similar silly law in Canada re digital scanners. Before they
existed the government was afraid someone could listen in on their
digital cell phones so they set up a regulation that you need a license
to buy a digital scanner. This was in 1994, before these scanners even
existed. Now they exist and the cell phones use encryption that the
scanners cannot decrypt, but the 'regulation' is enforced because it is
on the books. Does it mean anything? No, we simply buy the scanners in
the US! It is not illegal to own a digital scanner without a license,
after all... just to BUY it without one. Incidently, they have not yet
set up any routine to issue a license, and I doubt they ever will!
rsh
=====================================================
R.S.H. Toronto, ON, Canada
Copyright retained.
My opinions - no one elses...
If this is illegal where you are, do not read it!
[ reply ]