Re: [Full-Disclosure] If Lycos can attack spammer sites, can we all start doing it?

[<auto184605@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Not to mention this discusses US LAW, not EU.

j

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:19:02 -0800 Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 22:22:30 EST, KrispyKringle said:
>
>> The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
>> (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new.html) forbids

>one to,
>> among other things, ``knowingly cause the transmission of a
>program,
>> information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct,
>> intentionally cause damage without authorization, to a protected
>> computer,'' which pretty much covers viruses and other malware.
>This
>> would appear to apply to the Lycos software as well, given that
>it
>> ``causes damage without authorization to a protected computer.''

>So that
>> is the key point, one that has not, to my knowledge, been tested

>in court.
>
>The point that Lycos is probably betting on is the "causes
>damage".  If their
>rate-limiting works, they're *NOT* actually causing a DDoS - if
>the site is
>still responding, claiming "damage to the computer" is quite the
>reach.
>
>Damage to the bandwidth bill from your provider - that's something

>else.  Not
>sure that's a criminal offense, but I'd not be at all surprised if

>the ISP
>left holding the bag for the unpail bill (what - you think the
>spammer will
>actually pay for the bandwidth? ;) might go after Lycos on the
>"your actions
>cost me money" theory of civil tort.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.4

wkYEARECAAYFAkGvglkACgkQEW4lHHBvoLePFwCfcjOkZVhrzlYSLSktNZYLA5XYOdEA
n3S6DQKTnh7BysTEyI1qqhHzDDQI
=3iAT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html