Re: RE:[fw-wiz] Vulnerability Scanners ( was: concerning ~el8 / project mayhem )

From: R. DuFresne (
Date: 08/26/02

From: "R. DuFresne" <>
To: "B. Scott Harroff" <>
Date: Mon Aug 26 12:06:20 2002

I think Paul might be refering to the old court cases iinvolving the likes
of Prodgy and such, whence they were seen to be 'content' providers, and
sued cause folks' kids could bypass their filtering and access materials
they deemd innapropriate <e.g. pron>. Those ISP's suffered greatly in the
courts and paid a hefty sum, and not just to their lawyers.


Ron DuFresne

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, B. Scott Harroff wrote:

> > Actually, I think it's not necessarily good to stop "folks like Jim-" the
> > "bad apple" defense means you *must* stop Jim once he's reported.
> > However, if you put in a mechanism and it has flaws, you could be more
> > liable for the things that get through than you are if you don't try.
> > Suddenly you've placed yourself in the position of an editor, and legally,
> > not trying and not failing is different than trying and failing.
> Your opinion is its better to do nothing and let 100% get though then though
> a combination of technology / process / policy that stops 95%?
> I think one would be better of showing "intent to protect and missing one
> instance or two" than "doing nothing about a known problem".
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list

        admin & senior security consultant:
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
                -- Johnny Hart
testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!