Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | RE: Vulnerabilites in new laws on computer hacking |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:16:48 +1100 |
In response to "But if there really *was* a hole that allowed an actual break-in they would have to do that anyway, because they wouldn't know if anyone had broken in before and just wiped his tracks, would they?" There is a world of difference to knowing that you have a vulnerability and knowing you have been attacked and worse compromised. Each time that a vulnerability is patched you do not rebuild the host. You can not think deteministically that a vulnerability equals a rebuild. At the same time when a systems is compromised you need to start again. There are always tracks. The best attacker who can cover their tracks using all the best known techniques still leaves tracks - the difference is how effectively they may be tracked back after the event. A drive with files wiped crypographically and with no slack space is still covered with tracks - more so than the simple hacker who does not clear a log file. None of the above will be generally completed, as I have stated in prior posts - the skills are not widely available. Again I will also state that this is a probabilistic risk function we are talking about. Having a vulnerability equates to a low risk that you have actually been compomised. Being compromised is determinsitic. Regards Craig Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists. DISCLAIMER The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disclose the information. If you have received this email in error, please inform us promptly by reply email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please delete the email and destroy any printed copy. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. You may not rely on this message as advice unless it has been electronically signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter or fax signed by a Partner of BDO. BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unauthorised access.
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: DarkStarlings.com XSS Vulnerability, webmaster |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: PHP as a secure language? PHP worms? [was: Re: new linux malware], Thomas M. Payerle |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Vulnerabilites in new laws on computer hacking, dave |
| Next by Thread: | CYBSEC - Security Pre-Advisory: Phishing Vector in SAP BC, Leandro Meiners |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |