On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Ron DuFresne wrote:
> Wasn't randal schwartz<?> recently fired, charged, had his equipment
> confiscated and then raked through the courts for something similair to
> this?
(A) Not recently.
(B) Not fired, he was a contractor at Intel not an employee.
(C) Raked through an Oregon statute that's been modified since then.
(D) I'm not sure if anything was confiscated, but the important issues
in the Intel vs. Schwartz case to me were (a) Both sides admitted no
harm was intended, and (b) for the password-cracking part he only
provided the results to Intel. I'm sympathetic with Randall on that
part of the issue- to me the great evil done was reverse tunneling in
to the internal network through the firewall. His running crack was
an honest attempt to help overall security, the tunnel was to subvert
remote access policy- that's a decision that I don't think he had a
right to make. His per^H^Hrosecution was a poor decision though, no
actual harm occured and my recollection is that both sides admitted
that no malicious activity was attempted or seen as possible.
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
