Around 03:49pm on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 (UK time), Jay Daniels scrawled: > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:05:09AM -0400, jludwig wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 07:40, Steve Searle wrote: > > > Around 05:14am on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 (UK time), Rodolfo J. Paiz scrawled: > > > > > > > and origin. This is, for example, how "Denial of Service" (DoS) attacks are > > > > performed... hack 1,000 innocent bystanders, then use their machines to > > > > attack your target while *never* showing your face directly. And, of > > > > course, the innocent bystanders get blacklisted, banned, and sometimes > > > > prosecuted. As if that weren't enough, some hackers use networks to spread > > > > > > Have you a cite for the prosecution of someone who was hacked into? > > > While I agree with you that protection is very important regardless of > > > the value of any data on the PC, and that unprotected PCs have often > > > been used for DoS attacks, I would have thought that claiming people > > > have been prosecuted is scaremongering. As ever, I could well be wrong > > > 'though. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve > > In any case it's not worth some law enforcement officials showing up at > > your door and "borrowing" your hard drive(s) for several months. > > I think they take everything you own and it's up to you to prove your > innocence. Even if you are innocent, how do you get compensated for > such actions. This could go on for months or years and you may never > get your property or your life back. I suspect in this heavy handed law enforcement scenario, having a properly configure firewall is not going to be much use. I still would like to see some evidence of people being prosecuted because they have allowed their computer to be hacked. Steve -- (o< www.stevesearle.com //\ Powered by Fedora Core V_/_ No MS products were used in the creation of this message 3:54pm up 53 days, 18 min, 3 users, load average: 0.11, 0.13, 0.10
Attachment:
pgpUSq8OURrjP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
