Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: Wireless Security (Part 2)
From: Ian Scott <ian () pairowoodies com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 06:48:27 -0400
On May 24, 2006 05:12 am, Craig Wright wrote:
Ian, Cases where you can detain a person who is there are not analogous to remotely attacking a server.
But I'm not talking about "remotely" attacking a server. I'm talking about anything on MY network, and that is using IP addresses I've asssigned as far as the public IP's that I have control over, or the private IP's that I have control over.
Next, the rights of LE are not those of the general public.
Have no clue what you mean. What is LE? AS well, the "general public" have no righs. Invidividuals have rights.
In case where there is a system on your network you do not have the relivant rights in possession. You may be lucky and not be charged. This happens. Often LE will turn a blind eye for the "greater good". This does not make the action warranted.
There is no such thing as "greater good." What action are you referring to, with regard to being "warranted?' Any action I do, that is justified under law, which includes, using as much as necesarry, is completely warranted.
"then doing whatever is necessary to stop the trespass from continuing." block access. On a network when you already know of the attack this is not as difficult as many of the analogies that fly about.
Don't have clue to what you mean, in regard to what I've stated In your world, "blocking access" could also be a "trespass," no? In my world, that might be one of the first things I'd do. My activity however, might also increase to where I could discover what exactly is going on, and I might take whatever actions I wish, on MY network, against ANY device, on MY network.
What happens if you attack the wrong system?
The owner complains to me. If he don't like my explanation, he goes and finds another network to join with. But in reality, I can never attack the "wrong" system, for i have every right to know at all times, everything that is on my network. Therefore, there is no "attack." Best, Ian
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2), (continued)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick (May 23)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Lloydm (May 23)
- Re: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (May 24)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick (May 23)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Murad Talukdar (May 23)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 23)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 24)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 24)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 24)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 24)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 24)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 24)