abhorrent1: Goatse Security? LMAO
HindiDiscoMonster: FTA: Auernheimer' lawyer disagreed with the "prosecutors' interpretation of what constitutes unauthorized access to a computer under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act"Ummm yeah... unless AT&T hired him to do it....unauthorized; adj. 1> not having any authority 2> without official authorization/Perhaps the attorney needs to go back to school
NutWrench: accessed the Internet through AT&T's network.
NutWrench: Any halfway competent server should eject you and log the IP after a half-dozen or so unsuccessful attempts
wallywam1: You're not a genius, subby.
sonofslacker: How well did that work out for Kevin Mitnick?
NutWrench: US government explained that the accused used an "account slurper" that was designed to match email addresses with "integrated circuit card identifiers" for iPad users, and which conducted a "brute force" attack to extract information about those users, who accessed the Internet through AT&T's network.Bullshiat. Any halfway competent server should eject you and log the IP after a half-dozen or so unsuccessful attempts. If they're talking about locally decrypting a short password, then that's something else./waits for AT&T joke.
ChicagoKev: Proving the exploit works by grabbing a half dozen records is defensible. Publishing the exploit mechanism so anybody who is so inclined can try it for themselves is a jerky thing to do, but not unlawful.Enumerating the entire database was unnecessary and uncalled for, as was redistribution to Gawker.
FingerlessMittens: The data base should have just gone to ATT to prove that the exploit worked.
LarryDan43: Jukt Micronics is hiring.
Fark.com MobileCopyright © 1999 - 2014 Fark, Inc Last updated: Oct 31 2014 11:42:17
Contact | Report error | TOS/legal/privacyFull site