Re: consequences for student hacking

[Schley Andrew Kutz <a.kutz () ITS UTEXAS EDU>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm just musing, but what about technologies such as ZeroConf? Has
anyone gone so far to disable/prohibit network technologies such as
these?

- --
- -a

"condensing fact from the vapor of nuance"

gpg pubkey:  https://webspace.utexas.edu/akutz/akutz.gpg

On Feb 20, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Doug Markiewicz wrote:

> > What do your institutions do when you catch a student sniffing the
> > wired or wireless network for userID's and passwords?
>
> Our appropriate use policy does not prohibit the use of scanners.
> It does say such activities should not significantly impact system/
> network performance.  In practice, if we detect someone scanning
> administrative systems, their machine is suspended unless they've
> requested approval for such scanning in advance.  Also if someone
> exceeds their monthly bandwidth allocation, they'll be suspended.
> WRT to sniffers, our policy does not prohibit their use.  Like
> Valdis said, you can't detect a true passive scanner.  You can
> analyze the behavior of not-quite-passive scanners but I would
> imagine thats pretty difficult and impractical.
> Also, though this goes without saying, we prohibit anything
> illegal.  So if your activities go that far, appropriate action will
> be taken.
>
> Scanning and sniffing are not synonymous with "hacking" and we're a
> learning/research institution so we try to stay true to that as much
> as possible.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHvDqR5mu3wOuMWPURAgASAJ9QKV7Z/VmJOapDJ4XPtQ7N3MrlwACgk5mz
9CpT3Px6nxp1ixOeZNQ63Gg=
=OigP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----