[Full-Disclosure] Counter-Attacking hackers? Is this really a good idea?
dan_20407 at msn.com
Mon Mar 8 16:45:41 GMT 2004
It is interesting that this has come up.
Currently there are a number of folks considering an idea called "active
defense" which is basically hacking the hackers. There have been a number of
legal viewpoints on this from basically no, to a "tresspass" issue where in
tresspass it is ok to then do what you need to do. There is interest from my
knowledge only in this from the city/state/federal level because of critical
infrastructure. IE If the hacker is owning your 911 system, then you have to
take them out to get control of the 911 system back.
Admitted, keeping up to date on patches (regardless of OS), keeping in the
loop in general is a good thing. But there are interesting papers on "active
defense", and this has been circulating for more than a year that I am aware
of. I was not aware that someone had made any progress on a technology other
Thanks for the info, liked this thread.
>From: Joe Stewart <jstewart at lurhq.com>
>To: full-disclosure at lists.netsys.com
>Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Counter-Attacking hackers? Is this really a
>Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:05:35 -0500
>On Monday 08 March 2004 9:06 am, Harlan Carvey wrote:
> > Oddly enough, this *has* been discussed...at length.
> > That doesn't mean that it's not worth discussing
> > more...
>Here's one of the better papers I have seen on the ethics of the
>counter-hack. And I'm not just saying that because a friend wrote it :)
>Joe Stewart, GCIH
>Senior Security Researcher
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Frustrated with dial-up? Lightning-fast Internet access for as low as
Full-Disclosure is hosted and sponsored by Secunia.