[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Schwartz conviction
In article <3v60k3$29p@qiclab.scn.rain.com>,
Andrew Burke <aburke@qiclab.scn.rain.com> wrote:
>
>Do people really think Randal deserves this conviction?
>
Honestly ... I do not think that Randal is the one worth worrying about.
But .. here is my $.02.
I do not feel that a consultant has the right to run Crack, Tiger, Satan
of other canned security packages for the client that he works for. And,
to tell you the truth, it's *not* a great hacking/cracking feat to do so.
(There are much better ways to demonstrate your technical UNIX Security
spazness).
The hackers to fear are the ones you never see. The ones who will IP spoof
past your firewall, gain root, gather data, modify shared object libs, leave
no utmp/wtmp/syslog tracks, and steal away in the night and sell your data
to a competetor without you ever, ever having knowledge that it has happened.
Poor, curious, Perly Randal was not to fear. The true hacker, the uncaught
ones, are to truely fear.
Intel used him as a scapegoat. I would have warned him and then followed
on with a termination. I do not, however, condone his guilty verdict
and the punishment levied.
--
Frank 'Scruff' Miller | Internet: Frank.Miller@nike.com
UNIX Systems Programmer | "I went into her cave and returned without
Nike Inc. | the ears of a rabbit."
References: