Honeypots mailing list archives
Re: what to do with a script kiddie
From: MrDemeanour <mrdemeanour () jackpot uk net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:19:36 +0100
Dave Dittrich wrote:
You can't say there is no harm in engaging in coversation with someone who obviously doesn't care about breaking the law through computer intrusion. They may try to retaliate against you, in any of a number of ways (DDoS comes to mind, for some strange reason... ;)
I appreciate that; but that is a matter of self-protection, not of ethics.
They may chose to destroy evidence on all systems they control by deleting everything, causing significantly more damage than they otherwise would consider if they didn't know they had been discovered.
THAT is a legitimate point, and could be said to be an ethical issue.
There are many reasons why it is a Bad Idea to engage with an attacker, to try to take over their systems, disable them, etc. Thisis a complex area of ethics and the law that is not well understood by the general public, and can cause great harm if not done by peoplewho are well versed in the risks and perceived benefits.
But we were discussing the legitimacy or otherwise of just joining an IRC channel. Do I understand that US wiretap legislation could render joining an IRC channel unlawful?
The default should be "don't do anything that lets the attacker know about the fact you have discovered their actions," and "don't do anything that affects (alters, disables, etc.) other computers you donot own."
"Don't let the attacker know" - point already taken. "Don't interfere with computers that you have no right to access" - that's hacking, and it's illegal (and trivially unethical).
Perhaps "ethics" is the wrong term; aren't we really talking about how to snoop on snoopers without putting onself in peril of legal action?Snooping on snoopers *itself* puts one in peril of legal action.
I don't live in the USA; here in the UK, the only laws about wiretapping apply to tapping phone lines - not to snooping around on the internet. There are laws against hacking here, but they are couched in terms that refer to unauthorised access to computers; using an IRC server doesn't seem to be an example of hacking.
From a truly ethical POV, it seems to me that passive observation of potentially criminal acts is more unethical than intervention.This is a matter of both laws and ethics. Those are not exclusive (regardless of lawyer jokes to the contrary. ;)"Passive observation" for no purpose other than watching someone commit crimes can be a violation of electronic communication privacy laws (i.e., "wiretapping").
But I think not in the UK. However I appreciate these explanations of the thinking behind these "ethical" principles. -- Jack.
Current thread:
- what to do with a script kiddie carnack (Jun 04)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie David Jiménez Domínguez (Jun 04)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie carnack (Jun 04)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie Sebastian Garcia (Jun 06)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie carnack (Jun 04)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie Damian Menscher (Jun 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: what to do with a script kiddie Stejerean, Cosmin (Jun 04)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie ilaiy (Jun 04)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie Lance Spitzner (Jun 04)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie MrDemeanour (Jun 05)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie Dave Dittrich (Jun 06)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie MrDemeanour (Jun 06)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie Dave Dittrich (Jun 06)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie Andre Ludwig (Jun 06)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie David Jiménez Domínguez (Jun 04)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie David Jiménez Domínguez (Jun 06)
- Re: what to do with a script kiddie Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 06)
- RE: what to do with a script kiddie Hamish Stanaway (Jun 07)