[NOTE: Not intended to flame this poster, or anyone else for that matter. Just stopping this before it starts again.]
This has nothing to do with responsibility, legality, etc. The original post requested information about IDS active/intrusive response. In response, several of us outlined products with these types of capabilities, as well as outlining some of the reasoning behind the support (or lack thereof )for active and/or intrusive response. Period. No one cares who we all *think* should be held responsible. We all *know* who should be held responsible, but it is irrelevant to this discussion. Please take these arguments offline. Many thanks, Keith -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; McCammon, Keith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IDS that retaliates. I see your point. However, that is like saying the innocent is not innocent until proven guilty. Do we not have to abide by our constitution when it comes to these matters as well? -----Original Message----- From: Royer, Cedric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IDS that retaliates. Is a network which doesn't protect itself to be a platform for for example DDoS not at fault? We all know the solutions exist. I think it is lack of taking responsibility. C�dric
