On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:55:46AM -0700, Christiansen, John (SEA) wrote: > legal matter the "innocence defense" - or "inattentive and clueless defense" > - at some point turns into the *negligence liability* which might justify > intervention. There are far too many "0-day" exploits for me to take this seriously. http://news.com.com/2100-1002-995834.html?tag=lh http://www.alw.nih.gov/Support/Security_Notices/Oct30.sshcrc32.html Yeah, there are a lot of folks who don't patch their systems right away, but frequently, they've learned -not- to! http://lwn.net/Articles/15497/ http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/5953698.htm http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg171866.html > defendant's systems to be taken over to attack plaintiff's network). The > question then is, if I could get a court order to stop harmful activity, can > I stop it myself without one? Wouldn't it be far easier to just contact the abuse@ contact for the ISP and the technical contact for the netblock in question, and have them fix the problem legitimately on their end, once for all? -- "[Attorney General] Ashcroft went to the University of Chicago Law School -- a very good law school -- but the Bill of Rights never quite reached him." -- Nat Hentoff
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jun 19 2003 - 11:17:20 PDT