Re: rules of engagement scope
- From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:36:29 -0700
Ivan Arce wrote:
Frankly I don't see what kind of logical reasoning leads from
defining the scope for a penetration test ex-ante to committing fraud,
maybe I need some rest to ponder about these things more seriously.
In some states in the US there is a cause for civil action
known as "fraud by exceeding the scope of consent".
As an individual consultant in this litigious society,
I want more than an affirmative defense, which may
bankrupt me even if I am found not at fault.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
Concerned about Web Application Security? Why not go with the #1 solution - Cenzic, the only one to win the Analyst's Choice Award from eWeek. As attacks through web applications continue to rise, you need to proactively protect your applications from hackers. Cenzic has the most comprehensive solutions to meet your application security penetration testing and vulnerability management needs. You have an option to go with a managed service (Cenzic ClickToSecure) or an enterprise software (Cenzic Hailstorm). Download FREE whitepaper on how a managed service can help you: http://www.cenzic.com/news_events/wpappsec.php And, now for a limited time we can do a FREE audit for you to confirm your results from other product. Contact us at request@xxxxxxxxxx for details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: rules of engagement scope
- From: Ivan Arce
- Re: rules of engagement scope
- References:
- Re: rules of engagement scope
- From: mr . nasty
- Re: rules of engagement scope
- From: Ivan Arce
- Re: rules of engagement scope
- Prev by Date: Re: RE: how an hacker can bypass a chrooted environement ?
- Next by Date: How to pentest Skype?
- Previous by thread: Re: rules of engagement scope
- Next by thread: Re: rules of engagement scope
- Index(es):