Re: [Full-Disclosure] If Lycos can attack spammer sites, can we all start doing it?
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:00:13 -0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not to mention this discusses US LAW, not EU.
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:19:02 -0800 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 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
>> among other things, ``knowingly cause the transmission of a
>> 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.
>> would appear to apply to the Lycos software as well, given that
>> ``causes damage without authorization to a protected computer.''
>> is the key point, one that has not, to my knowledge, been tested
>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
>Damage to the bandwidth bill from your provider - that's something
>sure that's a criminal offense, but I'd not be at all surprised if
>left holding the bag for the unpail bill (what - you think the
>actually pay for the bandwidth? ;) might go after Lycos on the
>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
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.