Michael Krymson wrote: > Wow, this whole discussion with a troll has gone on far longer than it ever > should have.
So basically what you're saying is that we should all shut up and not talk about an actual issue, and that trolls should be trolls and stay away from discussion of actual issues? Oh, I'm sorry, was that a straw man characterization? Were you saying something subtly different? A lot of that going around. n3td3v thinks that a server with passwords not set is fundamentally different from an unlocked door. ("Can we get over houses, and cars, this is the internet, the systems were PUBLIC DOMAIN.") I'd like to see him defend that position. But just in case you can't bring yourself to *believe* that it's a defensible position, here's some food for thought: SYN = May I come in. SYN ACK = Sure. ACK = OK, I'm coming in, in accordance with your wishes. FIN (when server to client) = Time for you to leave. FIN ACK (when client to server) = OK, I'm leaving. RST (when server to client) = If you're in here then GTFO! Once the three-way handshake is complete, the client is in the server's house, and may go into any room (this is application-layer now) not forbidden by a security mechanism or law of the land. One would be hard pressed to argue that an authentication system without a password set is a security mechanism. Going through an open door into the bedroom may be impolite, and it may incite bad feeling in the house's owner. But one would be hard-pressed to say it would be illegal. Is that a totally wrong analogy? Maybe. If it is, are we be sure it is a wrong analogy, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? Again though, once you start leaving notes under the pillow in the bedroom or opening a window to get in later, you've said GTFO to the legal defensibility of your actions. -Eliah _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/