Salut,
On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 16:15 -0400, John Sprocket wrote:
i imagine a forensics person looks and sees a tor ip and thinks "okay.
i just deadended. there's nothing i can do because this is a tor exit
node." with a botnet, most bots can be traced back to their meeting
point which is a little bit more useful.
The question is also whether one should actually waste one's time trying
to figure out who actually conducted the intrusion. When one of our
systems gets broken into, I spend my time figuring out what happened,
which data got corrupted, and then I fix the hole the intruder used and
rebuild the system.
There isn't much use in trying to find someone to punish for the fact
that one was running insecure software. The only legitimate thing to do
in this situation is to fix the hole and to carry on working.
If it was so easy to sue away all intruders, why would anyone ever hire
a pentester?
Anyway, I'm not sure whether this non-technical implication of a
specific technical product should really be discussed here. It's not
exactly a vulnerability after all, while of course the vulnerability the
attacker used to bite Jason surely was one.
Wrong end, people...
Tonnerre
--
SyGroup GmbH
Tonnerre Lombard
Loesungen mit System
Tel:+41 61 333 80 33 Roeschenzerstrasse 9
Fax:+41 61 383 14 67 4153 Reinach
Web:www.sygroup.ch tonnerre.lombard@sygroup.ch
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
