Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

2005-12-28 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 11:17:11PM -0500, Barry Shein wrote: > > To beat a dead horse just a little harder the problem I have is when a > certain company kept distributing software with security flaws > specifically because they're profiting from those flaws. > > For example, graphics libraries

Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

2005-12-28 Thread Hannigan, Martin
Title: Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? I demand to immediately know who. But, I don't know why. Money talks on the Internet and I keep bathing in SBA quarters (note to Gadi: you won't get it, don't ask - North AMERICAN Net..). Damnit. Where's Kibo!??  I want my lava lamp bac

Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

2005-12-28 Thread Barry Shein
To beat a dead horse just a little harder the problem I have is when a certain company kept distributing software with security flaws specifically because they're profiting from those flaws. For example, graphics libraries which accept binary code chunks to be executed in kernel mode without lim

Re: Ebay Verification?

2005-12-28 Thread Will Hargrave
Mehgan Laveck wrote: [Ebay woes] There seem to be some thoughts as to akamai being the possible culprit, specifically as it interacts with Linux. I'm hoping a few of you Linux users out there will give it a shot, telnetting to port 80 on these IPs several times to see if you can get a failure

RE: Compromised machines liable for damage?

2005-12-28 Thread David Schwartz
> There have been successful cases for pedestrians that used a train > trestle as a walk-way, where warnings were clearly displayed, and a > fence had been put in place, but the railroad failed to ensure repair > of the fence. The warning sign was not considered adequate. Would > this relate to

Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

2005-12-28 Thread Owen DeLong
--On December 28, 2005 11:09:31 AM -0800 Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 27, 2005, at 5:03 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > >> >> In message >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> om>, "Hannigan, Martin" writes: >> >>> >>> In the general sense, possibly, but where there are lawyers

Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

2005-12-28 Thread Owen DeLong
--On December 28, 2005 9:38:11 AM -0500 Jason Frisvold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/27/05, Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Look at it another way... If the software is open source, then, there >> is no requirement for the author to maintain it as any end user has >> all the to

Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

2005-12-28 Thread Owen DeLong
--On December 28, 2005 9:38:11 AM -0500 Jason Frisvold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/27/05, Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Look at it another way... If the software is open source, then, there >> is no requirement for the author to maintain it as any end user has >> all the tools

Ebay Verification?

2005-12-28 Thread Mehgan Laveck
Hello all - I am hoping to enlist some help in verifying a problem that has affected several users on my network. Here's the deal. Over the course of the last month, we have noticed random timeouts in trying to reach certain IPs on Ebay's web farm. The following IPs seem to crop up repeatedly:

Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

2005-12-28 Thread Joseph S D Yao
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 09:38:11AM -0500, Jason Frisvold wrote: ... > So what if Microsoft put a warning label on all copies of Windows that > said something to the tune of "Not intended for use without firewall > and anti-virus software installed" ? :) Isn't the consumer at least > partially re

Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

2005-12-28 Thread Douglas Otis
On Dec 27, 2005, at 5:03 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED] om>, "Hannigan, Martin" writes: In the general sense, possibly, but where there are lawyers there is = always discoragement. Suing people with no money is easy, but it does stop them from = contribu

Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

2005-12-28 Thread Jason Frisvold
On 12/27/05, Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Look at it another way... If the software is open source, then, there > is no requirement for the author to maintain it as any end user has > all the tools necessary to develop and deploy a fix. In the case of > closed software, liability may

Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

2005-12-28 Thread Per Heldal
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:06:20 -0800, "Owen DeLong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip] > I agree it would be nice to set some standards. I think what is needed > is a consortium of software security experts to set some minimum "safety > standards" that can be used as a legal basis. You're barking up the w

update on the DA list and botnet reporting by AS

2005-12-28 Thread Gadi Evron
Hi! This is an update to all nanogers who have been waiting. 1. My apologies to all those waiting for reply on subscription. We have just re-opened additions to the list after a very long time. That aided by an Inbox loss on my side caused things to be a bit slow. Please email me again if y