Kind of makes a case for an IDS that is capable of logging when, who, and
where they went and what they did, what was accessed, downloaded etc...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret McDanel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 1:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Does Ruling Give Hackers Free Rein?
>
> ---Reply on mail from Bill Hinton about Does Ruling Give Hackers Free
> Rein?
>
> > Actually that's the case in the USA as well. Although a port scan or
> > attempted hack to be considered a violation of Common Law 1030 the DOJ
> will
> > not prosecute unless the system is actually penetrated.
> >
> If you read 18 USC 1030 (http://law.house.gov then goto 'search the US
> code' then title 18 section 1030.. It was down when I wrote this so I
> cant get an exact url)..
>
> it states many things that define unauthorized access.
> Basically 'damage' has to occur for it to be a crime (or if its access to
> a lifesupport system, or a government computer, or a few other things that
> most people's systems dont qualify for). Damage is defined in this statue
> as $5,000 or more. That means that the port scan that may have taken an
> hour or at most 2 to figure out what was going on and who was behind it
> etc, wouldnt qualify. The 'damage' wasnt great enough for it to be a
> federal crime (although state laws may come into play)..
>
> There are a few other silly things that the US has as part of case law..
> If the only copy of illegal material (violations of 18 USC 1029 - access
> devices ie password files etc) is on a online system (I dont know the
> exact definition of this, but I think that anything that is up 24/7 and
> allows people to login from remote qualifies) then it isnt admissable in
> court.. Which means that if someone does break into your system, and it
> is known who it was, as long as they dont have anything on their personal
> system they cant be convicted (based on that evidence, and call detail
> logs are circumstantial becuase they dont show what occured during the
> session, nor do they show who was at the keyboard)...
>
>
> --
> Bret McDanel http://www.rehost.com
> Realistic Technologies, Inc. 973-514-1144
>
> These opinions are mine, and may not be the same as my employer
>
>
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
