On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 08:58:54PM -0400, der Mouse wrote: > > You've got a point, if the botnet is truly third party, but if it is > > my honeypots, or those of subscribers who are managed by my service > > and give consent? > > Then that objection goes away, yes, and it's just a question of to what > extent your being attacked gives you a right to interfere with the > operation of someone else's machines. Personally, I find this > questionable, even if you do correctly target your attacker's machines > (something you will sooner or later make a mistake at, if you do this > more than a few times).
I recognize, and largely agree with the ethical argument being made here, as well as the fallibility argument. Let me add another one: hubris. Presuming that a known-compromised system will actually do what you tell it to, or worse, presuming that a known-compromised system IS doing what you just told it to do, may be an excellent way to inform the opponent of your intentions...but not much else. ---Rsk _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
