Around 03:49pm on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 (UK time), Jay Daniels scrawled:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:05:09AM -0400, jludwig wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 07:40, Steve Searle wrote:
> > Around 05:14am on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 (UK time), Rodolfo J. Paiz
scrawled:
> >
> > > and origin. This is, for example, how "Denial of Service" (DoS)
attacks are
> > > performed... hack 1,000 innocent bystanders, then use their machines to
> > > attack your target while *never* showing your face directly. And, of
> > > course, the innocent bystanders get blacklisted, banned, and sometimes
> > > prosecuted. As if that weren't enough, some hackers use networks to
spread
> >
> > Have you a cite for the prosecution of someone who was hacked into?
> > While I agree with you that protection is very important regardless of
> > the value of any data on the PC, and that unprotected PCs have often
> > been used for DoS attacks, I would have thought that claiming people
> > have been prosecuted is scaremongering. As ever, I could well be wrong
> > 'though.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Steve
> In any case it's not worth some law enforcement officials showing up at
> your door and "borrowing" your hard drive(s) for several months.
I think they take everything you own and it's up to you to prove your
innocence. Even if you are innocent, how do you get compensated for
such actions. This could go on for months or years and you may never
get your property or your life back.
I suspect in this heavy handed law enforcement scenario, having a
properly configure firewall is not going to be much use. I still would
like to see some evidence of people being prosecuted because they have
allowed their computer to be hacked.
Steve
--
(o<
www.stevesearle.com
//\ Powered by Fedora Core
V_/_ No MS products were used in the creation of this message
3:54pm up 53 days, 18 min, 3 users, load average: 0.11, 0.13, 0.10