Ron DuFresne wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2000, Paul D. Robertson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > I would assume it means, "DO NOT contact the suspected perpetrator,"
> > > because in criminal
> > > type cases, the suspect can start deleting files and/or destroying
> > > equipment when they
> > > find out someone is on to them.
> >
> > Ah, but that's part of the point. If it's a remote attack, how do you
> > know who the suspected perp. is? Do we *really* need to make everything
> > into a criminal case?
With online voting, banking, and stock trades involved not to mention
industrial secrets, academic research, and plain old service
availability, do we have much choice when we're talking about a
series of compromised systems?
> Is the next step a waiting training week before an ISP account is
> established? To the point perhaps that the machines and chips and
> technoloogies in question are 'safetied' like a 'smartgun' so as to
> prevent someone shooting themself in the foot and or antoher up the block
> at the same time?
Something like that :) - http://falcon.jmu.edu/~flynngn/whatnext.htm
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
