Will "Knowingly allowing a computer under your control to remain in an exploitable state" become a crime? (if it isn't already...)
I am in two minds on whether it should or should not :( > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Paul Tinsley > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/10/10/hijacked.hacker.re > ut/index.html > > "Caffrey is accused of triggering the paralyzing data blast > on a vital > computer server used to coordinate ship movements in the > Houston port -- > the sixth biggest shipping port in the world" > > Ok, so somebody explain to me why in the world this "vital computer > server" is on a public network? > > "He said his machine may have been taken over by another > individual or > group who then set the digital onslaught in motion. 'My computer was > completely and utterly vulnerable to many exploits'" > > If anybody needed more ammo to convince people that patching is > important this might be a good one to add to the stack, whether he is > lying or not I sure wouldn't want to try and defend that position... _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
