再保险:网络犯罪公约

国际海事组织,我们应该只准备一个演示情况我们(或更多)是被告。1。“未经许可”的意思,对我来说,如果我使用演示程序来攻击自己的系统,我授予(或其他组织)的权限来执行这样的攻击。因此,我不做任何“未经许可”。同样也适用于攻击源自扫描程序时,也允许这样做。它可能意味着一个声明需要附加到任何程序警告用户,必须完成其执行许可。认为别人不能创造一些,因为其潜在的恶意使用,我必须相信,杀了无数次在过去。如果不是,肥料将是非法的在同一拟议中的条约的基础。此外,任何软件公司试图确定一个问题的程度与他们自己的软件通过使用或开发问答测试软件同样会创建代码的唯一目的获得进入系统。因此,问答将成为非法如果是安全(如果我们扩展措辞不合逻辑的结论)。 2. There is no better way to kill something than to defeat it. Lobbying ahead of implementation, IMO, only leads to mutated laws that usually don't fulfill their original promise and step on someone's toes somewhere. Striking down a law with precedents has a much better effect, although the interim may be "chilling". WIPO specifically excluded "research", and in doing so made itself largely ineffective against a larger portion of potential attackers (e.g. students). The line between research and malicious attack is a fine one at best (those guys in Wales attempted to claim their work was research, then awareness). We, in the industry, need a way to delineate what we do from what any "student" *might* claim to be doing. I certainly don't want to lose the assets that the brilliant student minds bring to the business, but there must be some limits. If we shot this down what will come afterwards? If we're listened to, what would prefer it to say? Simply saying we're against it, or part of it, is insufficient in my mind and better served by a prepared defense. Cheers, Russ - NTBugtraq Editor "dot-age" (as in "we're in the dot-age") = senility (source Webster's)