tunable honeynets and entrapment

["Randy" <randy.bachman () west-point org>]

Has anyone worked with tunable honeynets or written about them?

I am working a variant honeynet that actually catches the bad guys, not
necessarily prosecutes them.
Specifically I'm working on how to lure someone into a honeynet once he's
gotten into your network...and looking for a term to call it..since it is
way beyond high interactive...


A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government
inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to
engage in the criminal conduct

One way I'm looking at getting them into my honeynet is to use previously
compromised boxes or images of boxes, backups of all my primary servers,...
others thoughts?
Also looking at how to get someone to want to break into a fully patches
honeynet, but that's next week
Randy


http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00645.htm
648 Entrapment -- Outrageous Government Conduct
While the essence of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of
predisposition to commit the offense, the "defense" of outrageous government
conduct presupposes predisposition but seeks dismissal of the indictment on
the ground that the conduct of law enforcement agents was "so outrageous
that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from
invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction." United States v. Russell,
411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Thus, the outrageous government conduct defense
is not really a defense at all. Rather, it is a claim that the institution
of the prosecution suffers from a purely legal defect; as such, the claim is
waived unless raised prior to trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1) and
(b)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 973 & n.
5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993); United States v. Duncan,
896 F.2d 271, 274 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Nunez-Rios, 622 F.2d
1093, 1099 (2d Cir. 1980).
The Supreme Court has never held that the government's mere use of
undercover agents or informants, or the use of deception by them, gives rise
to a due process violation, although in Russell it left open that
possibility. The requisite level of outrageousness could be reached only
where government conduct is so fundamentally unfair as to be "shocking to
the universal sense of justice." Id. at 432. No court of appeals has held
that a predisposed defendant may establish a due process violation simply
because he purportedly was induced to commit the crime by an undercover
agent or informant. See, e.g., United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521
(10th Cir.) (not outrageous for government "to infiltrate an ongoing
criminal enterprise, or to induce a defendant to repeat, continue, or even
expand criminal activity."), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 347 (1994).