nanog mailing list archives
RE: Compromised machines liable for damage?
From: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan () verisign com>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:07:20 -0500
If you want to choke off freeware(gnu, et. Al), sure, go after them. I doubt the licensing agreement allows it though. (IANAL). I think all you'd do is encourage people to write more music about 'freeing the software'. I'd rather not be stricken in that fashion. I think that angle is DOA. Martin -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Jackson [mailto:jjackson () aninetworks com] Sent: Mon Dec 26 03:13:02 2005 To: Hannigan, Martin Cc: NANOG Subject: RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? What about the coders that write the buggy software in the first place? Don't they hold some of the responsibility also? IE I am running some webserver software that a bug is found in it. Attackers use that bug in the software to generate a DOS attack against you from my machines. No update has been released for the software I am running and/or no warning as been released. You sue me I sue the coders. What a wonderful world. (I'm not for this but its another side of the issue.) _____ From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 9:22 PM To: Steven M. Bellovin Cc: Dave Pooser; NANOG Subject: Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Yes, I agree. As usual, I too am 'IANAL'. Marty -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb () cs columbia edu <mailto:smb () cs columbia edu> ] Sent: Sun Dec 25 23:52:27 2005 To: Hannigan, Martin Cc: Dave Pooser; NANOG Subject: Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? In message <80632326218FE74899BDD48BB836421A033001 () Dul1wnexmb04 vcorp ad vrsn.c om>, "Hannigan, Martin" writes:
Dave, RIAA wins almost 100pct vs p2p'ers ir sues. Its an interesting = dichotomy.
"Wins" is too strong a word, since I don't think any have gone to court -- see http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Music-Download-Suit.html <http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Music-Download-Suit.html> as my source. Besides, it's a very different situation. For my take on liability issues -- note that I'm not a lawyer, and note that this is from 1994 -- see http://www.wilyhacker.com/1e/chap12.pdf <http://www.wilyhacker.com/1e/chap12.pdf> --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb <http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb>
Current thread:
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Hannigan, Martin (Dec 25)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Steven M. Bellovin (Dec 25)
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Barry Shein (Dec 26)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Paul Vixie (Dec 26)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Florian Weimer (Dec 27)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Matthew Sullivan (Dec 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Hannigan, Martin (Dec 25)
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Hannigan, Martin (Dec 26)
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Owen DeLong (Dec 26)
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Hannigan, Martin (Dec 26)
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Owen DeLong (Dec 26)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Steven M. Bellovin (Dec 27)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Owen DeLong (Dec 27)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Marshall Eubanks (Dec 27)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Jason Frisvold (Dec 27)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? JC Dill (Dec 27)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Jason Frisvold (Dec 27)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? JC Dill (Dec 27)