Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: scanning
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 01:38:31 -0400
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:34:35 EDT, Simon Smith said:
who ran nessus against you but never penetrated your systems. From expereince, the FBI only takes interest in crimes that cause roughly $50,000.00 in damage or more. If you are below that mark or if they are too busy... you won't get jack unless you pay for it.
Note however that there is case-law precedent in the US where the costs of investigation and clean-up can be counted toward the $5,000 requirement in 18 USC 1030(a)5(B)(i). The big gotchas there are the phrases "would have caused" and "aggregated". http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html What's this mean? It means that if you scan some lame-ass system and it crashes as a result, you might be in deep shit. And "it shouldn't have crashed from a portscan" does *not* hold up in court.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- scanning Nightfall Nightfall (Jun 01)
- RE: scanning Dixon, Wayne (Jun 01)
- Re: scanning Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 01)
- Re: scanning Ducki3 (Jun 02)
- Re: scanning Steve Kudlak (Jun 02)
- Re: scanning Alice Bryson (Jun 06)
- Re: scanning Neil Davis (Jun 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: scanning David Alanis (Jun 01)
- Re: scanning Simon Smith (Jun 01)
- Re: scanning Nightfall Nightfall (Jun 01)
- Re: scanning Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 01)
- Re: scanning c0redump (Jun 02)
- Re: scanning GroundZero Security (Jun 02)
- Re: scanning ad () heapoverflow com (Jun 02)
- Re: scanning Marcos Agüero (Jun 02)
- Re: scanning Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 02)
- Re: scanning Simon Smith (Jun 01)
- Re: Fw: scanning Drew Masters (Jun 02)
- Re: Fw: scanning Lawrence Tang (Jun 02)