[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[OT] Re: intrusion via ssh



...victims of negligence...

if only that were the case.  M$ would be held responsible as well... for negligence to write code that has less holes
than a collander.  maybe we should hold the ISPs involved, responsible as well for not disconnecting the user(s)?

while were on the topic of negligence [Ignorance?] ... let's start talking about SUV's and their spewing of unnecessary
junk into the atmosphere...

...in a perfect world.... but if we had a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about it to begin with, now would we?

anyways, I could go on, but this thread is clearly getting OT for this list...

-doug


> On Friday 01 April 2005 22:05, John Hasler wrote:
> >Gene Heskett writes:
> >> With all due respect John, they really should be pressing charges
> >> against the perp who owned the box in the first place AND their
> >> network admin who probably wasn't keeping the systems fully
> >> patched.
> >
> >"Should" is not a player here.  Besides, they can do all that _and_
> >prosecute you.  You "should" have a claim against them for allowing
> > their machine to be used to attack yours, but you'll get nowhere
> > with it.
>
> And there is definitely something wrong with that picture John, after
> all, we are also victims of their negligent actions.




Reply to: