nanog mailing list archives
Re: Huge smurf attack
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () scfn thpl lib fl us>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:57:02 -0500
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 12:54:23PM -0800, Dalvenjah FoxFire wrote:
Right; that stuff applies to *directly causing* the attack though (e.g. hacking root on a colocated linux box and typing ./smurf victimhost.com). I'm talking about filing some sort of legal action against the intermediaries (smurf relays) who get used by the cracker during the smurf; IANAL, but I would presume if you could show negligence in not being vigilant about security, and then do something showing that they indirectly caused you damage, you could get some sort of action taken against the relays.
The (direct) analogy is landlords who are sued after their tenants notify them about dangerous conditions, which they fail to fix in a workmanlike and expeditious fashion. There's _endless_ case law on this, and even though IANAL, I have some cites available somewhere. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra () baylink com Member of the Technical Staff Buy copies of The New Hackers Dictionary. The Suncoast Freenet Give them to all your friends. Tampa Bay, Florida http://www.ccil.org/jargon/ +1 813 790 7592
Current thread:
- Re: Solution: Re: Huge smurf attack, (continued)
- Re: Solution: Re: Huge smurf attack Alex P. Rudnev (Jan 12)
- Re: Huge smurf attack Phil Howard (Jan 11)
- Re: Huge smurf attack Michael Dillon (Jan 12)
- Re: Huge smurf attack Steven J. Sobol (Jan 12)
- Message not available
- Re: Huge smurf attack Dalvenjah FoxFire (Jan 12)
- Re: Huge smurf attack Ray Everett-Church (Jan 12)
- Re: Huge smurf attack Brandon Ross (Jan 11)
- Re: Huge smurf attack Dalvenjah FoxFire (Jan 12)
- Message not available
- Re: Huge smurf attack Jay R. Ashworth (Jan 13)