To report a botnet PRIVATELY please email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- ah now that brings up the banner issue. we have to spell it out that by proceeding you consent to monitoring and ...... legaleze removed for shortness. Not to many bot channels with a banner now is there?
foot >>>"J. Oquendo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/28/07 11:30 am >>> Dave Ellingsberg wrote: >To report a botnet PRIVATELY please email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >---------- >Intent! this is always the opinion I am given. Depends on your intentions. >of course i am not a member of the scrouge of the earth called lawyers so this >is just what I have been told. YMMV. > >foot Lawyers have been given such a bad rap... Anyhow comments (obviously) inlined: > >Unfortunately, it was the legal opinion that just jumping into a C&C IRC >channel could be construed as illegal, much less controlling them. It's >not *your* channel, and they aren't *your* bots. This issue seems to be >completely divorced from what kind of activity the bots are doing. Construed as illegal by whom. I can see if say federal agents are monitoring them where you wouldn't want to jump on a channel lest you have the finger pointed towards you (guilty by association... ign'ance is no excuse) so I'd like to know who proposed/announced/advocated/decided it was illegal. WHO exactly stated the so called legalities of this? >I actually countered the point by stating that IRC is a public >communication medium, but it didn't really matter much. After thinking >about this further, I have come to the personal conclusion that if I was >seen to have "reverse-engineered" the channel password, then I can see >how a case would be made against me. If there was no channel password, >then I think (IANAL) I can jump in the channel, but not do anything. After bothering to search +"USC" +"internet relay chat" I found zero laws which mention anything about IRC and the legalities of joining a channel public or private. So please have someone provide USC codes else its all hearsay. > >IMHO, there's no clear legislation that defines what you can't do in an >IRC channel. If put to the test, you will probably be held to an >outdated and imprecise premise that boils down to this: > Yes there is something that pseudo/broadly defines what you "Can't do" in an IRC channel and it applies to not USC code, but that server's AUP (acceptable use policy). Now you have to remember, the umbrella of the governments broad terms... So anything can be construed by the government as illegal in the sense that you are participating in "Unauthorized Interception" to a certain degree if the IRC SERVER admins bitched about you, but not a bot operator. On the same token by NOT reporting what you've seen dealt with you could fall under another umbrella of knowing about the crime and not reporting it... Pick your poison. >If it isn't yours, then you shouldn't be there. If you actually DO >anything while there, that's even worse than being there. A channel does not belong to a channel operator. They are an agent on someone else's resource. Now if the company/person bitched and moaned, then yes its likely you could construe a case against a possible intrusion. Now in the event say I ran my own IRC server and you logged in without prior consent, you've access my servers in an unauthorized fashion. However, the botnet owner of said server would have to be a complete cluetard to complain. cluetard: "Hello FBI" FBI goon: "Yes agent Mulder here" cluetard: "Well I set up a DDoS botnet for spam..." cluetard: "someone joined my channel without permission." > >Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just relaying what I heard. If anyone >has strong legal support for an opposing view, then, believe me, I'm all >for it. > > There is no strong legal support. Its all mired and mashed in what I call reDumbdant broad laws. Now what happens if say I'm in Scandinavia somewhere, join an IRC server in Japan which is linked and join that channel. I never traversed through US networks, nor do US laws apply there. Then what. Too many variables yet none will make sense because... You ready... Take out the magnifying glass and read this in much larger print: "There is not one law on the legalities of an IRC channel" (shh don't tell). -- ==================================================== J. Oquendo http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743 echo infiltrated.net|sed 's/^/sil@/g' "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." -- Plato _______________________________________________ To report a botnet PRIVATELY please email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] All list and server information are public and available to law enforcement upon request. http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/botnets
