Kind of sad
Joshua_Sholes at cable.comcast.com
Wed Nov 12 15:27:13 UTC 2014
On 11/11/14, 9:25 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <larrysheldon at cox.net> wrote:
>On 11/11/2014 15:37, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:43:09 -0500, Joe <jbfixurpc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Generally speaking its best you do what your good at and this is not
>>> Exposing there is a window open to a gov agency is not hacking, trust
>>> me. I would say go back to fathering children and once you have a few
>>> more years under your belt feel free to join in.
>> And you, sir, should consult a lawyer before publicly slinging insults.
>> I'm not a lawyer, but I have worked with one in this area. What you have
>> post *is* evidence of a crime under the Computer and Fraud Abuse Act.
>> The wording of that law is horrible, but it is what it is; the bar for
>> of "unauthorized access" is *very* low. How you found it is irrelevant.
>> You connected it to it -- knowing full well you are not authorized --
>> and proceeded to attempt to login, even if in jest.
>> (Government agencies have zero sense of humor. And judges have next to
>> no understanding of technology. Merely being charged can be a career
>As an ex-admin I completely--we took action for such things.
I concur. I was recently an admin/ITSO for a defense contractor, and
from a network logging standpoint it is VERY difficult to tell the
difference between what you posted and a really subtle
social-engineering-enabled attack--and EVERY attacker these days has to be
assumed to be subtle.
More information about the NANOG