Jimi Thompson wrote: >> <SNIP> >> >> At last year's Blackhat conference in Las Vegas, Tim Mullen presented >> what >> turned out to be a very controversial proposal. Briefly, he questioned >> why >> it would be inappropriate to strike back and disable (if not remove) a >> worm from hosts that are clearly not being adequately managed. > > </SNIP> > > I have isolate the item above since it contains the gist of your > question. My personal feeling is that sooner or later the owners of the > mis-managed devices in question will be held to the legal definition of > negligence which covers the "failure to take safe guards used by a > reasonable and prudent individual". I don't think that this is the case. Not that it couldn't be the case, but if we say, Use "spammer" in place of worm host,,, Many of us feel that spamming as it is practiced (just about every way possible) is not proper network use, and is in fact willful mismanagement. No one is actually being taken to task, so many folks have adopted a somewhat passive strike back by using black hole lists to disallow access to their sections of the network. Isn't this sort of the same thing? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Wireless LAN Policies for Security & Management - NEW White Paper *** Just like wired networks, wireless LANs require network security policies that are enforced to protect WLANs from known vulnerabilities and threats. Learn to design, implement and enforce WLAN security policies to lockdown enterprise WLANs. To get your FREE white paper visit us at: http://www.securityfocus.com/AirDefense-incidents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 26 2003 - 09:08:13 PDT