Michael Krymson wrote:
I just wanted to let you know I know a tiny bit how the American system
works (I live here). Beyond reasonable doubt is typically a murder trial
thing.
That is incorrect. You, again, appear to misunderstand what beyond
reasonable doubt means.
Beyond reasonable doubt is
Sorry, I fail at email and at first didn't send it to FD, and when I thought
I had, I munged the address. Go me! I'll see how badly I can bungle this up
further by pulling this back to FD. Is it ok if I leave the post intact at
the bottom? :)
I just wanted to let you know I know a tiny bit how
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:23:34 EDT, Eliah Kagan said:
Has anyone ever been prosecuted for using unsecured wireless for legal
purposes?
Not to my knowledge - mostly because all the white hats are too damned busy
dealing with bigger
you're not getting our gary!!! leave our gary alone!!! he's not coming
to your stupid u.s, so GTFO.
you're not getting our gary!!! leave our gary alone!!! he's not coming
to your stupid u.s, so GTFO.
you're not getting our gary!!! leave our gary alone!!! he's not coming
to your stupid u.s, so
mcwidget wrote:
This has happened in the UK a few years back -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm. A guy was fined £500,
given a 12 months conditional discharge and had his laptop and wireless card
confiscated for repeatedly using someone's unsecured wireless with his
laptop
curiosity!
Then again... I'm stupid.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of quispiam
lepidus
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:25 PM
To: Exibar
Cc: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] [inbox] Re: Supporters urge halt
I don't agree.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nobody could be so stupid to leave their car door unlocked, ::blush::
Bullshit. Walk throughout a parking lot and try a couple door handles,
you'd most likely find more than you thought.
the u.s military did,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Noel Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 09:42, n3td3v wrote:
nobody could be so stupid to leave their car door unlocked, ::blush::
the u.s military did, then gary mckinnon left a note on their wind
screen wiper to say, look guys, you left
I couldn't agree more. The man committed a crime, in either country. He
should be held accountable. I've also seen plenty of people claim the law
was changed to prosecute him, that's simply not true either.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/brits-us-passed.html
Enough with the 60
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:55 PM, nzerozero p [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't agree.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nobody could be so stupid to leave their car door unlocked, ::blush::
Bullshit. Walk throughout a parking lot and try a couple door handles,
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:24 AM
To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk; n3td3v; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-disclosure] Supporters urge halt to,
hacker's,extradition to US
I just think someone from the military should be in the dock as
well!!! This wasn't a one sided
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Exibar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Look, Mckinnon broke into the computer systems.
He never broke in, the door was open, he walked in.
Under his own admission he ran scripts to help him do this. Some of those
scripts crashed systems. He
possibly deleted
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:07 PM, offbitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:48 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The systems were 'public domain' because the door was open.
Proof or GTFO.
No passwords were set = public domain.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:48 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The systems were 'public domain' because the door was open.
Proof or GTFO.
___
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:48:51 BST, n3td3v said:
The systems were 'public domain' because the door was open.
Does your house become 'public domain' because the door failed to properly
latch when you left, and a subsequent gust of wind blows it open? Under
those conditions, do you care if all and
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:48:51 BST, n3td3v said:
The systems were 'public domain' because the door was open.
Does your house become 'public domain' because the door failed to properly
latch when you left, and a subsequent gust of wind
Wow, this whole discussion with a troll has gone on far longer than it ever
should have.
Remind me next time you accidentally leave your car door or house door
unlocked that it is public domain. Even if I go in, accidentally knock over
a plant, use your loo, and have a cookie from your cookie
Here's a question, relating to the PUBLIC DOMAIN issue. I don't know
the answer, but it seems relevant.
When a http indexing bot (like those used by Google, for instance)
comes upon a hyperlink into a page that is http authenticated, does it
follow the link and try a blank password, or does it
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Michael Krymson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remind me next time you accidentally leave your car door or house door
unlocked that it is public domain.
We're not talking about cars and houses, we're talking about the internet.
If you say something loud enough and long enough, that Does Not make it
true.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:39 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:48:51 BST, n3td3v said:
The systems were 'public domain' because
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,
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:30:09 EDT, Eliah Kagan said:
When a http indexing bot (like those used by Google, for instance)
comes upon a hyperlink into a page that is http authenticated, does it
follow the link and try a blank password, or does it not follow the
link? Is there some accepted
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:03:07 EDT, Eliah Kagan said:
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
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Eliah Kagan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a question, relating to the PUBLIC DOMAIN issue. I don't know
the answer, but it seems relevant.
When a http indexing bot (like those used by Google, for instance)
comes upon a hyperlink into a page that is http
I wrote:
When a http indexing bot (like those used by Google, for instance)
comes upon a hyperlink into a page that is http authenticated, does it
follow the link and try a blank password, or does it not follow the
link? Is there some accepted standard for that?
If it is considered
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 00:03, Exibar wrote:
Look, Mckinnon broke into the computer systems. Under his own admission he
ran scripts to help him do this. Some of those scripts crashed systems. He
possibly deleted files and what-not in his travels, either willfully or not,
doesn't really
Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:28 PM
To: Exibar
Cc: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] [inbox] Re: Supporters urge halt to,hacker's,
extradition to US
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 00:03, Exibar wrote:
Look, Mckinnon
Wrong...dead wrong.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:10 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:07 PM, offbitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:48 PM, n3td3v [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The systems were 'public domain' because the door was open.
Dead right, you got your systems accessed by 'the public', because the
systems were 'public domain'.
Your systems were public domain, get over yourselves and stop arguing about it.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Miller Grey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wrong...dead wrong.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at
Legally, is there any precedence that private systems owned by the
government are public domain? Furthermore, has there ever been any legal
precedent that any private system, if left unsecured, is in the public
domain?
Either way, I hark back to:
Let's hope this Jacqui Smith chick stops him going... hopefully her
cyber security advisors are reading the mailing lists.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Miller Grey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion...c'est tout
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:47:42 CDT, Miller Grey said:
Legally, is there any precedence that private systems owned by the
government are public domain?
At least in the US, systems owned by the federal government are considered
protected under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (18 USC 1030
Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
In the US, there have been a number of successful prosecutions in cases where
people used an unsecured wireless access point to launch attacks. You'd
probably need to show *all* of the following:
1) That it was unsecured.
2) That it was *intentionally* unsecured.
3)
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 09:21, Exibar wrote:
excuse me? You're attempt at insults are pointed wrongly.
I've read the legal brief on his case, the UK documents on his case
too, he's ADMITTED guilt. In my book that's enough to call him a
criminal, he should be arrested and tried in a court
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:23:34 EDT, Eliah Kagan said:
Has anyone ever been prosecuted for using unsecured wireless for legal
purposes?
Not to my knowledge - mostly because all the white hats are too damned busy
dealing with bigger issues. I doubt that we, as a society, can ever get to
the point
I wouldn't waste my time locking up a script kid for 60 years, Gary
Mckinnon is a small fish in a big ocean, there are bigger fish to fry.
Its the military's fault he got in, because they hadn't set any
passwords for the systems.
All the best,
n3td3v
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Exibar
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n3td3v
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:24 AM
To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk; n3td3v; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-disclosure] Supporters urge halt to,
hacker's,extradition to US
I just think someone from the military should
-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk; n3td3v; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-disclosure] Supporters urge halt to,
hacker's,extradition to US
I just think someone from the military should be in the dock as
well!!! This wasn't a one sided security incident, sloppy admins were
involved
be treated as such...
Exibar
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n3td3v
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:24 AM
To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk; n3td3v; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-disclosure] Supporters urge halt
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kyrian
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 7:31 AM
To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-disclosure] Supporters urge halt to
hacker's,extradition to US
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
American officials involved in this case have
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kyrian
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 7:31 AM
To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-disclosure] Supporters urge halt to
hacker's,extradition to US
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
American officials involved in this case have stated
-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-disclosure] Supporters urge halt to
hacker's,extradition to US
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
American officials involved in this case have stated that they
want
to see him 'fry'.-- BBC
@lists.grok.org.uk
Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-disclosure] Supporters urge halt to
hacker's,extradition to US
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
American officials involved in this case have stated that they
want
to see him 'fry'.-- BBC
43 matches
Mail list logo
