WebApp Sec mailing list archives
RE: Security training of developers and company liability
From: "Harley David" <David.Harley () cfh nhs uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:43:11 -0000
Intent to secure access is only one element of a section 1 offence. You also have to be aware at the time that your intended access is unauthorised. The CMA has its shortcomings, but penalizing legitimate access isn't one of them. -- David Harley This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you for your co-operation.
Current thread:
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability, (continued)
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability Clement Dupuis (Dec 08)
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability Lyal Collins (Dec 08)
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability Clement Dupuis (Dec 08)
- Re: Security training of developers and company liability Daniel (Dec 08)
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability Griffiths, Ian (Dec 08)
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability Brokken, Allen P. (Dec 08)
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability Jason Gregson (Dec 08)
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability James Strassburg (Dec 08)
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability Jeff Robertson (Dec 08)
- Re: Security training of developers and company liability Daniel (Dec 09)
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability Harley David (Dec 12)
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability James Strassburg (Dec 12)
- RE: Security training of developers and company liability Wall, Kevin (Dec 13)