If you get hacked... you need an approach to hit back to stop further intrusion
(or in certain cases penetration).
Is that seriously what you say? No way!
Hackers are like 6 year olds - if you punish them for what they did they'll do
it again and probably worse. These kids will always do the opposite of what you
want.
So the right approach is to just ignore them and let them do what they like
until your toys are no fun for them anymore.
Note: This was an excerpt from the psychologist cookbook - none of this was
serious and I go back into my cage.
Everybody have a nice weekend.
Cheers
Boris Pavalec [QPB]
Network / System Engineer [MCSE]
Highend Computing Systems AG
Switzerland - Zuerich
http://www.nt-admin.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: FKnobbe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Samstag, 24. Juli 1999 18:10
To: dmartin; FKnobbe
Cc: FKnobbe; firewalls
Subject: UNAUTHENTICATED: RE: Response to hack attempt?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 10:29 AM
> To: Frank Knobbe
> Cc: 'Lars Kronf�lt'; firewalls
> Subject: RE: Response to hack attempt?
>
> [...]
> No, the problem really is that even among us "educated
professionals"
> there's a difference of opinion as to what should or
> shouldn't constitute
> a computer crime. This is demonstrated beautifully by this thread.
If
> *we* can't decide what a computer crime is, how do we expect our
> non-techno savvy lawmakers, who don't really understand the
> issues, to get
> it right.
Good point. So what can we do to address this? Are there lobby groups
of security professionals in an active dialog with lawmakers?
> [...]
> This just seems silly to me. It's like saying "I think we need
> murderers." If we had no crackers, we wouldn't need to worry about
> security. I dunno, call me idealistic...
Reading what I wrote days ago, it sounds silly to me too :) I agree
that it would be better not to have crime and hackers in the first
place. What I was trying to say, though, is that we can not create
laws for crimes that *may* be committed. The crime is always first
before the law. So, we need a hacker to commit cyber crime in order
for us to analyze it and create countermeasures, and for the legal
system to set examples, precedent cases, and shape the law so that
future crime can be prevented through deterrence, or dealt with
swiftly through punishment.
Regards,
Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
Comment: PGP or S/MIME (X.509) encrypted email preferred
iQA/AwUBN5nlYSlma9DCzQQeEQLubwCg2DO4PTuzE/2PcbhwyY0EaPkaM4kAoO00
qvphG4QFgNlK12UMMKYT+QJ0
=Naaq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
WINMAIL.DAT
