🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Hubbard wrote:

> I'm damned tired of fighting with these *ware scum.  So, why don't we
> fight back?
> 
> It seems simple enough....when *ware is found in the wild simply attack
> the servers that are pushing it out until the admins clean them up....or,
> if the servers are hosted, attack the DNS servers of the hosting company
> until it is taken care of...if the *ware is coming from a dynamic
> IP.....hit the ISP hosting the address.

The problem is that alot are being hosted by dual purpose servers. So, if
you attack the *ware server you are also attacking many other legitimate
people as well. Attacking DNS has the same problem. Hitting the ISP is
really dangerous as they usually have a lot of lawyers and you will be
slowing down all their legitimate customers. Really when you think about
it. To take down one *ware server you could take out thousands of people
and businesses or more.
 
> It seems to me that we are at a distinct disadvantage in not being able to
> directly attack the assholes that put this crap out, so the next logical
> step is to make those that are capable of stopping this flood of shit do
> so.

I agree that something must be done. The problem is the ISPs say "we are
simply the transport" the web hosting companies say "we don't have the
staff to monitor everything." So it becomes a finger point event where the
*ware people win.

I have been reporting all of those "Washing State Mutual Bank emails" and
the "Paypal: you must change you account info" phising emails. When I get
them I trace the server down and report them to both the real company and
the server's ISP. I have had some luck (I think because EBay contacts them
also) shutting down these scam servers

> ISPs and hosting companies MUST be held accountable for providing the
> means to attack and damage private computer systems.

Honestly, I want my ISP to be a transport only. I want my ISP to give me a
good stable and fast link Internet and back-the-hell-off. The web hosting
companies should be responsible as well as Microsoft. Yes, I said it,
Microsoft. There are way too many holes in IE and they make these problems
way too easy to take advantage of. Microsoft also should step up to the
plate and correct them.

> Yes...I hear some of you whining about bandwidth.  So, what would you do?
> More legislation?  That's worked out great with the whole CAN-SPAM act,
> hasn't it?  Sue the ISPs and hosting companies?  Most infected consumers
> don't have the means or time to do that.
> 
> Who cares if there is no bandwidth when you can't use the internet because
> of spyware, adware and other shit anyway?

I am a UNIX (FreeBSD/linux) user. I do not have these sort of problems.

> This solution is free for everybody and it gets the attention of the ISPs
> and hosts who should be responsible enough to stop it.

However, DOS attacking is very illegal. Not to meantion you will hurt
innocent people along the way. You may say "so what" but, in court you my
be able to win the lawsuit by saying this host was a *ware server but, what
about the guy who says you took out his site (which is a small business)
and cost him 200,000 dollars. Do you really think you will win that
lawsuit?

> Lycos EU tried it, but lacked the balls to see it through.

They saw the lawsuits coming and backed off.

> I am open to other suggestions.....

Honestly, the best defense is just not to use the crappy products. Honestly,
you know IE is a piece of crap, everybody knows IE is a piece of crap so
why are you still using it????

I do not have problem with *ware anymore. You know why? I use FreeBSD
(more-or-less linux)...I surf the web without any worries, none at all.

> I call it electronic self defense.  To me, there is no difference in
> someone walking into your living room and painting their logo on your wall
> and someone breaking into your PC to paste their crap on your screen.
> 
> Well, let's hear it......

I agree with that statement. It should be made illegal.

Let's be honest on another front. MS is nothing more than a money pit. There
are better solutions out there. Be brave try some. Attacking people and
ISPs is not the answer.

-- Michael

Jim Hubbard wrote:

> I'm damned tired of fighting with these *ware scum.  So, why don't we
> fight back?
> 

<snip>

As I said before, I do not use Microsoft products at home but, I am also
forced to help people out (family, friends, etc) when they get into
problems. Simply saying "Learn how to protect yourself" is not as simple as
it should be. After all, most of the people here are very technical.
Fortifying a system is not that hard but what about the helpless people?
Come on, we all know many...

Honestly, their are things that can be done:

1) Hold MS accountable
2) Instruct people on "safe computing"
3) Class action lawsuits against companies that profit or participate by
these activities. That includes the companies that use this for
"advertising" After all, look what look what ISPs are doing against some of
the biggest spammers, law suits. When you make it so it is NOT profitable,
they will not do it anymore (well, except for mal-ware)
4) Switch to more safer systems (Mac or linux maybe)

-- Michael
-- Michael

Jim Hubbard wrote:

> I call it electronic self defense.  To me, there is no difference in someone 
> walking into your living room and painting their logo on your wall and 
> someone breaking into your PC to paste their crap on your screen.
> 
> Well, let's hear it...... 
> 
> 

Yes, there is a difference. When I break into your home, you can 
consider that a personal attack. I've chose to fuck with you, not 
someone else. There is a distinct choice of target made, no matter how 
random the criteria may have been.

Malware is spread in the wild. That means there is nothing personal 
about who gets targeted. The criteria for whom to attack is not random, 
but the targets themselves are.

Besides all that, your idea is a bad one. It makes the problem worse 
instead of better. And it's not "self defense". Quit listening to George 
Bush ;).

"Jim Hubbard" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message
news:1-mdnWwvE-ItTo_fRVn-vQ@giganews.com...
> I'm damned tired of fighting with these *ware scum.  So, why don't we
fight
> back?
>
> It seems simple enough....when *ware is found in the wild simply
attack the
> servers that are pushing it out until the admins clean them up....or,
if the
> servers are hosted, attack the DNS servers of the hosting company
until it
> is taken care of...if the *ware is coming from a dynamic IP.....hit
the ISP
> hosting the address.

I hate violence too - so lets beat up everyone who's being violent.
Crush them under our heels - - Grrrrr.

Jim Hubbard wrote:

> I'm damned tired of fighting with these *ware scum.  So, why don't we fight 
> back?

here's a thought - *because it's illegal!*...

-- 
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"

"optikl" <optikl@cominvalidcast.net> wrote in message 
news:O6idnSkBzoRW247fRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
> Jim Hubbard wrote:
>
>> I call it electronic self defense.  To me, there is no difference in 
>> someone walking into your living room and painting their logo on your 
>> wall and someone breaking into your PC to paste their crap on your 
>> screen.
>>
>> Well, let's hear it......
>
> Yes, there is a difference. When I break into your home, you can consider 
> that a personal attack. I've chose to fuck with you, not someone else. 
> There is a distinct choice of target made, no matter how random the 
> criteria may have been.
>
> Malware is spread in the wild. That means there is nothing personal about 
> who gets targeted. The criteria for whom to attack is not random, but the 
> targets themselves are.

Nothing personal?  Of course it's personal!  You distributed *ware designed 
to attack systems that are not your own.  You have targeted everyone. 
Everyone needs to kick your ass.

>
> Besides all that, your idea is a bad one. It makes the problem worse 
> instead of better. And it's not "self defense". Quit listening to George 
> Bush ;).

I have addressed the known issues of this idea (not my own).  And, I suspect 
George would remain silent on this on weigh in against it.  But, unless he 
can protect us online.....

"Bart Bailey" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:4216b036.2467218@bart.spawar.mil...
> In Message-ID:<1-mdnWwvE-ItTo_fRVn-vQ@giganews.com> posted on Wed, 16
> Feb 2005 00:01:29 -0500, Jim Hubbard wrote: Begin
>
>>I'm damned tired of fighting with these *ware scum.  So, why don't we 
>>fight
>>back?
>
> Good question, but your suggestion is a bit too simplistic for the
> situation, and way too optimistic to be practical.

Please explain.  I am open to altering the idea to be less problematic if it 
can be done while keeping the effectiveness high.

>
>>It seems simple enough....when *ware is found in the wild simply attack 
>>the
>>servers that are pushing it out until the admins clean them up....or, if 
>>the
>>servers are hosted, attack the DNS servers of the hosting company until it
>>is taken care of...if the *ware is coming from a dynamic IP.....hit the 
>>ISP
>>hosting the address.
>
> So, you want to exacerbate the problem
> by becoming an active contributor to it?

That, too, is simplistic.  But, the short answer is "Yes".  While this 
answer would have a negative impact on bandwidth, it would raise the topic 
to the level of attntion that it deserves.  That is the only choice we have 
at this point.

>>It seems to me that we are at a distinct disadvantage in not being able to
>>directly attack the assholes that put this crap out, so the next logical
>>step is to make those that are capable of stopping this flood of shit do 
>>so.
>
> If you want to pay someone to screen and censor your internet feed,
> you should be willing to pay for this additional service, are you?

Yes.

>>ISPs and hosting companies MUST be held accountable for providing the 
>>means
>>to attack and damage private computer systems.
>
> Like holding the streets department and highway administration
> responsible for drunk drivers, yep, like I said, too simplistic.

I see your point.  Unfortunately, it does not apply.  You don't have to go 
through a checkpoint (login) every time you use the roads and your 
activities are not traceable in real-time like every website/user's 
activities are (because their traffic must pass through an ISPs servers).

>>Yes...I hear some of you whining about bandwidth.  So, what would you do?
>
> I've created an environment that's practically immune to the efforts of
> those who would seek to exploit it, such that they determine that any
> attacks against me are futile and therefore redirect their activities
> elsewhere.

Share....

>
>>More legislation?  That's worked out great with the whole CAN-SPAM act,
>>hasn't it?  Sue the ISPs and hosting companies?  Most infected consumers
>>don't have the means or time to do that.
>
> More childish whining.
> Stop it!
> Grow up,
> take some responsibility for your online circumstance,
> or log off.

Running away is acceptable, while fighting back is not?  You must've had a 
rough childhood.  I believe that fighting back IS taking responsibility for 
my (and others') online circumstance.  Beats running away.

>
>>Who cares if there is no bandwidth when you can't use the internet because
>>of spyware, adware and other shit anyway?
>
> Bandwidth is a commercial commodity that will be sold to whomever sees a
> viable return for their investment, like poking around your leaky system
> for exploitable opportunities.

Working on that.....every single day.......unfortunately the attackers are 
also working on new attacks every day.

>>This solution is free for everybody and it gets the attention of the ISPs
>>and hosts who should be responsible enough to stop it.
>
> The attention it generates will likely be to terminate your access, or
> increase the charges for your increased demand on the ISP's load.

This will be a distributed system.  Good luck killing the millions of 
accounts that would use it.

>>Lycos EU tried it, but lacked the balls to see it through.
>
> Testicular challenge might not have been the sole reason, probably
> involved more resources than were justified under their circumstances.

Perhaps....but it doesn't seem that way.  This software uses the down-time 
of users PCs (as a screensaver) to attack the sites that distribute *ware. 
This software uses the same DDOS principle that the *ware people use against 
us - only it does so with the permission of the end user.

>>I am open to other suggestions.....
>
> see mine above
>
>>I call it electronic self defense.
>
> Your version of defense seems to be to leave the door wide open
> and then bawl your infantile head off when a stray entrant behaves
> inappropriately.

No.  All server hosts and ISPs ahould be given a legitimate time to handle 
the problem themselves.  If we can give them the IP of the offending site, 
times of the attacks and other specifics, they should be able to identify 
and stop the offending account without needing to result to these drastic 
measures.

If they do not handle the problem, then we'll help them until they get 
around to it.  It just needs to be a priority of web hosting companies and 
ISPs.

>
>> To me, there is no difference in someone
>>walking into your living room and painting their logo on your wall and
>>someone breaking into your PC to paste their crap on your screen.
>
> If you leave the door wide open, in either case,
> the result is nobody's fault but yours

Ahhhhh.....here is where we differ.  I believe that your home is your home 
to do with as you please.  Even if I leave all of the doors and windows open 
and go on vacation for 2 weeks, that does NOT give you the right to enter or 
alter my premises.  If you do, I have the right to defend my home and 
property.  You evidentally disagree.

>
>>Well, let's hear it......
>
> I'll bet you will.

Thanks for your response.  I believe that you (I) can learn something from 
everyone.

"kurt wismer" <kurtw@sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
news:K6RQd.7635$dZ.472014@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Jim Hubbard wrote:
>
>> I'm damned tired of fighting with these *ware scum.  So, why don't we 
>> fight back?
>
> here's a thought - *because it's illegal!*...

No it is not.  Protecting oneself is acceptable.  The only legal 
responsibility in protecting oneself is use of the appropriate force.  You 
should use the minimum force neccessary to protect yourself.

Having used anti*ware from every vendor I can find (paid and free) and 
fought this battle for years, I can tell you that nothing less than a 
defence like the one I (and others) have suggested is effective.

Therefore, it is legal. 

Its gonna be free for Windows users and it looks good so far.....

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx

Jim Hubbard wrote:
> "kurt wismer" <kurtw@sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
>>Jim Hubbard wrote:
>>
>>>I'm damned tired of fighting with these *ware scum.  So, why don't we 
>>>fight back?
>>
>>here's a thought - *because it's illegal!*...
> 
> No it is not.  

are you a lawyer?

> Protecting oneself is acceptable. 

certainly... but that's a lot different than fighting back...

[snip]
> Having used anti*ware from every vendor I can find (paid and free) and 
> fought this battle for years, I can tell you that nothing less than a 
> defence like the one I (and others) have suggested is effective.
> 
> Therefore, it is legal. 

uh huh... obviously not a lawyer, nor a logician...

the fact that *you* think your way is the only way does not make your 
way legal... i know for a fact that the methods you originally 
suggested are against the law in my country and are punishable by up to 
10 years in prison... i suspect you'll probably find there are 
similarly obstructive laws in your region as well...

fighting back against the malware purveyors is essentially vigilante 
justice - go consult a real lawyer about the legality of being a 
vigilante...

-- 
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"

optikl <optikl@cominvalidcast.net> wrote:

>Jim Hubbard wrote:
>
>> I call it electronic self defense.  To me, there is no difference in someone 
>> walking into your living room and painting their logo on your wall and 
>> someone breaking into your PC to paste their crap on your screen.
>> 
>> Well, let's hear it...... 
>> 
>> 
>
>Yes, there is a difference. When I break into your home, you can 
>consider that a personal attack. I've chose to fuck with you, not 
>someone else. There is a distinct choice of target made, no matter how 
>random the criteria may have been.
>
>Malware is spread in the wild. 

"The wild"? Is that what they call civilization these days?

>That means there is nothing personal 
>about who gets targeted.

How can it not be personal when each victim is an individual person
and the person doing the targeting is an individual person.


> The criteria for whom to attack is not random, 
>but the targets themselves are.

But each person who is attacked is attacked as a direct
result of a decision made by someone who knew that his action
would result in people being victimized by him.

In a just society, whoever made such decisions would be equally
victimized by each of those individual victims. Someone who
deliberately costs a million people a minute each deserves to lose a
million minutes.

>Besides all that, your idea is a bad one. It makes the problem worse 
>instead of better.

What makes the problem worse is treating the deliberate abuse of
millions of people by a few sociopaths as if it were an accident
instead of a crime.



joemooreaterolsdotcom

"Bart Bailey" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:42163615.1996999@bart.spawar.mil...
> In Message-ID:<OJGdnc03N5duk4nfRVn-iQ@giganews.com> posted on Wed, 16
> Feb 2005 22:26:33 -0500, Jim Hubbard wrote: Begin
>
>
> <~~~>
>
>>> I've created an environment that's practically immune to the efforts of
>>> those who would seek to exploit it, such that they determine that any
>>> attacks against me are futile and therefore redirect their activities
>>> elsewhere.
>>
>>Share....
>
> I don't have the number one host application to malware entry installed
> on my system for starters, that being OE/IE, and have hardened up my
> choice of alternatives, Opera/Agent, to the point of impenetrability.

....be careful what you say.....

Are you up to date on this one?

"4. Opera contains several vulnerabilities: * fails to properly validate 
Content-Type and filename. * fails to properly validate date: URIs. * uses 
kfmclient exec as the Default Application to handle downloaded files when 
integrated with KDE. * fails to properly control frames. * uses Sun Java 
packages insecurely. * searches an insecure path for plugins. "  - 
http://www.niscc.gov.uk/niscc/docs/br-20050215-00139.html?lang=en

>
> <~~~>
>
>>> take some responsibility for your online circumstance,
>>> or log off.
>>
>>Running away is acceptable, while fighting back is not?
>
> I don't run "away" from anything, in fact I'm almost irresistibly drawn
> by the mere suggestion that some site harbors danger, and never hesitate
> to go click around it to see what's the fuss.

Good for you!  I do too.  I use a special PC to do it, so that I can allow 
the infection and find out how to remove it.

>
>>You must've had a
>>rough childhood.
>
> non sequitur - whatever happened to me,
> lo those many years ago (before computers)
> is totally inapplicable to today's environment.

You are correct.  I apologize.  My comment was out of line with this 
discussion.

>
>> I believe that fighting back IS taking responsibility for
>>my (and others') online circumstance.  Beats running away.
>
> What if you didn't have to "fight" at all, but could just enjoy the
> sundry of eclectic offerings the net holds?

That'd be nice.  That's what I do.  But, my customers are another story.

I can lock down a Windows system so that no viruses or *ware of any kind can 
infect it.  Unfortunately that doesn't allow the customers free range to 
install applications on their systems.  So, they balk at this solution.

For business and government we are finishing our software for a virus-proof 
PC.  That's how pissed I am at the whole situation....I started a company to 
eliminate it.  No.....I won't mention its name here.  This thread is not an 
advertisement for anything.  Suffice it to say that if you get a virus or 
*ware within 3 years of the purchase of one of these PCs, we'll clean it for 
free.

That still doesn't allow home users free use of their PCs (as they should 
have).  Home users should be able to use thier PCs in any manner they see 
fit that doesn't involve actively targeting and attacking private systems 
with *ware and viruses.

I have long thought that another method to end the madness would be to 
update the systems that route traffic on the internet with the capability to 
blacklist IP addresses.  A body similar to ICANN could be "Keeper of the 
List" and add new offending systems' IP addresses every 24 hours.

This would stop the offensive servers and not suck up bandwidth.  In fact, 
it would lighten the current bandwidth load.

I am open to other solutions.

"kurt wismer" <kurtw@sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
news:8KUQd.7752$dZ.513047@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Jim Hubbard wrote:
>> "kurt wismer" <kurtw@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>Jim Hubbard wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm damned tired of fighting with these *ware scum.  So, why don't we 
>>>>fight back?
>>>
>>>here's a thought - *because it's illegal!*...
>>
>> No it is not.
>
> are you a lawyer?

No.  I have one on retainer.  He backs me up on this.

>
>> Protecting oneself is acceptable.
>
> certainly... but that's a lot different than fighting back...

No it isn't.  Fighting back is sometimes the only way you can protect 
yourself.  (This isn't France.)

>
> [snip]
>> Having used anti*ware from every vendor I can find (paid and free) and 
>> fought this battle for years, I can tell you that nothing less than a 
>> defence like the one I (and others) have suggested is effective.
>>
>> Therefore, it is legal.
>
> uh huh... obviously not a lawyer, nor a logician...

Never claimed either title.  And your credentials are?

>
> the fact that *you* think your way is the only way does not make your way 
> legal... i know for a fact that the methods you originally suggested are 
> against the law in my country and are punishable by up to 10 years in 
> prison...

Perhaps.  I live in the US.  It is permissable to defend yourself here.

> i suspect you'll probably find there are similarly obstructive laws in 
> your region as well...

Let's have a look, shall we?

Specifically, let's look at the worst case scenario - causing the death of 
an individual while defending yourself or another.....(Georgia State Law - 
USA)

16-3-21.
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when 
and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or 
force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against 
such other�s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in 
Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended 
or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably 
believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily 
injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission 
of a forcible felony.
(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances 
specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to 
use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or 
attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he 
withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other 
person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or 
threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any 
ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, 
municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in 
conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and 
effect.
(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a 
defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the 
defendant, in order to establish the defendant�s reasonable belief that the 
use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to 
offer:
(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of 
family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are 
described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and
(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the 
defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and 
circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the 
bases of the expert�s opinion.

Since section 16-3-23 is mentioned above...let's have a look at that too, 
shall we?....

16-3-23.
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and 
to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force 
is necessary to prevent or terminate such other�s unlawful entry into or 
attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of 
force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only 
if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he 
or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the 
purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling 
or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or 
offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the 
family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully 
and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or 
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made 
or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such 
force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

It is my contention that my customers' PCs are a part of their home and are 
being invaded unlawfully.  As far as I  know, the *ware on mys system is 
being placed there to commit a felony.  So, according to GA Law (16-3-23 
(3) ), I am within my rights to use deadly force to prevent the commision of 
a felony by the intruder.

Now, I am not advocating killing these individuals (not yet anyway).  I am 
simply advocating a vigorous electronic means of self-defense.  Well within 
the law of the state of Georgia (USA) where I live.

I can hear you now...."the quoted sections only deal with people possibly 
attacking people".....well, let's look a little farther......

16-3-24.
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when 
and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is 
necessary to prevent or terminate such other�s trespass on or other tortious 
or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or 
personal property:
(1) Lawfully in his possession;
(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or
(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.
(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great 
bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal 
interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property 
is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that 
it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I have a legal responsibility to protect my customers, their PCs and data 
per our agreement to that effect.  Unknown *ware is commonly used to 
perpetuate DDOS attacks and are considered felonies under federal law in the 
United States.

It is my legal right to protect my customers according to my state's law.

Let's even get a little more to the point......How about some 
computer-specific codes for you?

16-9-93.
...
(b) Computer Trespass. Any person who uses a computer or computer network 
with knowledge that such use is without authority and with the intention of:
(1) Deleting or in any way removing, either temporarily or permanently, any 
computer program or data from a computer or computer network;
(2) Obstructing, interrupting, or in any way interfering with the use of a 
computer program or data; or
(3) Altering, damaging, or in any way causing the malfunction of a computer, 
computer network, or computer program, regardless of how long the 
alteration, damage, or malfunction persists
shall be guilty of the crime of computer trespass.
(c) Computer Invasion of Privacy. Any person who uses a computer or computer 
network with the intention of examining any employment, medical, salary, 
credit, or any other financial or personal data relating to any other person 
with knowledge that such examination is without authority shall be guilty of 
the crime of computer invasion of privacy.
(d) Computer Forgery. Any person who creates, alters, or deletes any data 
contained in any computer or computer network, who, if such person had 
created, altered, or deleted a tangible document or instrument would have 
committed forgery under Article 1 of this chapter, shall be guilty of the 
crime of computer forgery. The absence of a tangible writing directly 
created or altered by the offender shall not be a defense to the crime of 
computer forgery if a creation, alteration, or deletion of data was involved 
in lieu of a tangible document or instrument.
(e) Computer Password Disclosure. Any person who discloses a number, code, 
password, or other means of access to a computer or computer network knowing 
that such disclosure is without authority and which results in damages 
(including the fair market value of any services used and victim 
expenditure) to the owner of the computer or computer network in excess of 
$500.00 shall be guilty of the crime of computer password disclosure.
(f) Article not Exclusive. The provisions of this article shall not be 
construed to preclude the applicability of any other law which presently 
applies or may in the future apply to any transaction or course of conduct 
which violates this article.
(g) Civil Relief; Damages.
(1) Any person whose property or person is injured by reason of a violation 
of any provision of this article may sue therefor and recover for any 
damages sustained and the costs of suit. Without limiting the generality of 
the term, 'damages' shall include loss of profits and victim expenditure.
(2) At the request of any party to an action brought pursuant to this Code 
section, the court shall by reasonable means conduct all legal proceedings 
in such a way as to protect the secrecy and security of any computer, 
computer network, data, or computer program involved in order to prevent 
possible recurrence of the same or a similar act by another person and to 
protect any trade secrets of any party.
(3) The provisions of this article shall not be construed to limit any 
person�s right to pursue any additional civil remedy otherwise allowed by 
law.
(4) A civil action under this Code section must be brought within four years 
after the violation is discovered or by exercise of reasonable diligence 
should have been discovered. For purposes of this article, a continuing 
violation of any one subsection of this Code section by any person 
constitutes a single violation by such person.
(h) Criminal Penalties.
(1) Any person convicted of the crime of computer theft, computer trespass, 
computer invasion of privacy, or computer forgery shall be fined not more 
than $50,000.00 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. (2) Any 
person convicted of computer password disclosure shall be fined not more 
than $5,000.00 or incarcerated for a period not to exceed one year, or both.

Perhaps you are concerned about the attacks on home user PCs from other 
countries and the legality of protecting ourselves against them?  Ok......

16-9-94.
For the purpose of venue under this article, any violation of this article 
shall be considered to have been committed:
(1) In the county of the principal place of business in this state of the 
owner of a computer, computer network, or any part thereof;
(2) In any county in which any person alleged to have violated any provision 
of this article had control or possession of any proceeds of the violation 
or of any books, records, documents, or property which were used in 
furtherance of the violation;
(3) In any county in which any act was performed in furtherance of any 
transaction which violated this article; and
(4) In any county from which, to which, or through which any use of a 
computer or computer network was made, whether by wires, electromagnetic 
waves, microwaves, or any other means of communication.

Any more questions on the legality of protecting yourself against felonious 
PC usage by *ware and virus creators?

After all, I'm here to help.

>
> fighting back against the malware purveyors is essentially vigilante 
> justice - go consult a real lawyer about the legality of being a 
> vigilante...

I have.  Ask questions before you make assumptions.

Looking at your tagline, we definitely differ in our beliefs.  Permit me to 
interject my thoughts....

> -- 
> "we are the revenants
> and we will rise up from the dead

I'll fight and continue live, thank you.

> we become the living

I remain the living.

> we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"

You will not steal my breath.

"Bart Bailey" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:4214315b.786641@bart.spawar.mil...
> In Message-ID:<xJednTX1goomkonfRVn-rw@giganews.com> posted on Wed, 16
> Feb 2005 22:29:53 -0500, Jim Hubbard wrote: Begin
>
>>Having used anti*ware from every vendor I can find (paid and free) and
>>fought this battle for years,
>
> How revealing that statement is!
> Funny thing is that I don't have to fight that battle, just took a few
> prudent measures, long ago, and haven't had any spyware, malware, spam,
> or other annoyance issues since.
> Oh, and I don't have to use any anti*ware either,
> other than a couple AV appz that run on demand,
> but they hardly ever catch anything.
>

I must remember to constantly remind you folks that I am speaking more of 
customers home/work PCs than my own.

I stay pretty clean - even running IE.

"Bart Bailey" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:42144a96.7246145@bart.spawar.mil...
> In Message-ID:<l7mdnS5THLNf2onfRVn-2w@giganews.com> posted on Thu, 17
> Feb 2005 02:28:55 -0500, Jim Hubbard wrote: Begin
>
>>
>>"Bart Bailey" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:4214315b.786641@bart.spawar.mil...
>>> In Message-ID:<xJednTX1goomkonfRVn-rw@giganews.com> posted on Wed, 16
>>> Feb 2005 22:29:53 -0500, Jim Hubbard wrote: Begin
>>>
>>>>Having used anti*ware from every vendor I can find (paid and free) and
>>>>fought this battle for years,
>>>
>>> How revealing that statement is!
>>> Funny thing is that I don't have to fight that battle, just took a few
>>> prudent measures, long ago, and haven't had any spyware, malware, spam,
>>> or other annoyance issues since.
>>> Oh, and I don't have to use any anti*ware either,
>>> other than a couple AV appz that run on demand,
>>> but they hardly ever catch anything.
>>>
>>
>>I must remember to constantly remind you folks that I am speaking more of
>>customers home/work PCs than my own.
>>
>>I stay pretty clean - even running IE.
>>
>>
>
> Then set their boxes up like yours.

Pretty clean.....not spotless.  And, I remain that way because I don't DL 
and install every "free" piece of software I see on the internet.  I also 
stay clear of P2P for the most part.  I warn them about those 
things......but they seem to value their freedom more than their safety. 
Then they scream for me to save them.

It keeps my bills paid, but that's not the point.  The point is that they 
*should* be able to play in the park without being raped. 

Jim Hubbard wrote:

> I have long thought that another method to end the madness would be to 
> update the systems that route traffic on the internet with the capability to 
> blacklist IP addresses.  A body similar to ICANN could be "Keeper of the 
> List" and add new offending systems' IP addresses every 24 hours.

There are folks who maintain hosts files that block sites with popups 
and other pests. Try http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm for 
starters. I even wrote a small utility based on this idea.

Unfortunately, it's a lot of work to maintain such a list and keep it up 
to date and comprehensive. Also, what is a pest and what is not is, to a 
certain extent, subjective. You need to allow the user to override the 
blocking, which means that it can't be implemented at the ISP as you 
seem to advocate.

Such an idea would be useless at blocking viruses, because these are 
spread from user's PCs that mostly use dial-up and have a different IP 
each time they log on.

Just suppose, for a minute, that you were successful in blocking the 
dirtibution of *ware from sites. You would just make the scum that 
create them resort to viral methods of distribution instead.

Blocking this stuff at the client end is the only practical method, and 
there already exists tools to do this.

-- 
Julian Moss
Tech-Pro Limited
http://www.tech-pro.net

Jim Hubbard wrote:

>>Yes, there is a difference. When I break into your home, you can consider 
>>that a personal attack. I've chose to fuck with you, not someone else. 
>>There is a distinct choice of target made, no matter how random the 
>>criteria may have been.
>>
>>Malware is spread in the wild. That means there is nothing personal about 
>>who gets targeted. The criteria for whom to attack is not random, but the 
>>targets themselves are.
> 
> 
> Nothing personal?  Of course it's personal!  You distributed *ware designed 
> to attack systems that are not your own.  You have targeted everyone. 
> Everyone needs to kick your ass.
> 
> 
You confusing personal with random. Anyway, you keep pushin' your idea. 
It's going nowhere.

Jim Hubbard wrote:
> "kurt wismer" <kurtw@sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
>>Jim Hubbard wrote:
>>>"kurt wismer" <kurtw@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>>Jim Hubbard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm damned tired of fighting with these *ware scum.  So, why don't we 
>>>>>fight back?
>>>>
>>>>here's a thought - *because it's illegal!*...
>>>
>>>No it is not.
>>
>>are you a lawyer?
> 
> No.  I have one on retainer.  He backs me up on this.

then the story you're telling him is different than the one you're
telling us..

>>>Protecting oneself is acceptable.
>>
>>certainly... but that's a lot different than fighting back...
> 
> No it isn't.  Fighting back is sometimes the only way you can protect 
> yourself.  (This isn't France.)

sometimes, but not this time...

>>[snip]
>>
>>>Having used anti*ware from every vendor I can find (paid and free) and 
>>>fought this battle for years, I can tell you that nothing less than a 
>>>defence like the one I (and others) have suggested is effective.
>>>
>>>Therefore, it is legal.
>>
>>uh huh... obviously not a lawyer, nor a logician...
> 
> Never claimed either title.  And your credentials are?

i gave them once... i don't intend to give them again... google is your
friend if you're really that interested...

>>the fact that *you* think your way is the only way does not make your way 
>>legal... i know for a fact that the methods you originally suggested are 
>>against the law in my country and are punishable by up to 10 years in 
>>prison...
> 
> Perhaps.  I live in the US.  It is permissable to defend yourself here.

defending yourself and fighting back are 2 different things...

furthermore, to "defend yourself" is far too vague a description for
any lawyer to offer an opinion on legality - so if yours has, you're
paying him too much...

>>i suspect you'll probably find there are similarly obstructive laws in 
>>your region as well...

> Let's have a look, shall we?
> 
> Specifically, let's look at the worst case scenario - causing the death of 
> an individual while defending yourself or another.....(Georgia State Law - 
> USA)

causing death is a non-sequitur - your original message described
DDoSing servers that have malware on them... that's not legal...

[snip irrelevant crap]
> It is my contention that my customers' PCs are a part of their home and are 
> being invaded unlawfully.  As far as I  know, the *ware on mys system is 
> being placed there to commit a felony.  So, according to GA Law (16-3-23 
> (3) ), I am within my rights to use deadly force to prevent the commision of 
> a felony by the intruder.

right, deadly force against the intruder - which in this case happens
to be software... feel free to kill the software...

[snip]
> I have a legal responsibility to protect my customers, their PCs and data 
> per our agreement to that effect.  Unknown *ware is commonly used to 
> perpetuate DDOS attacks and are considered felonies under federal law in the 
> United States.

indeed, and perpetrating a DDoS back is what you originally describe
and now admit is considered a felony...

[snip]
> Let's even get a little more to the point......How about some 
> computer-specific codes for you?
> 
> 16-9-93.
> ...
> (b) Computer Trespass. Any person who uses a computer or computer network 
> with knowledge that such use is without authority and with the intention of:
> (1) Deleting or in any way removing, either temporarily or permanently, any 
> computer program or data from a computer or computer network;
> (2) Obstructing, interrupting, or in any way interfering with the use of a 
> computer program or data; or
> (3) Altering, damaging, or in any way causing the malfunction of a computer, 
> computer network, or computer program, regardless of how long the 
> alteration, damage, or malfunction persists
> shall be guilty of the crime of computer trespass.

imagine that... you found precisely the laws i said you would... your
suggestion to "attack the servers that are pushing it out until the
admins clean them up" apparently falls under this computer trespass law...

[snip]
> (h) Criminal Penalties.
> (1) Any person convicted of the crime of computer theft, computer trespass, 
> computer invasion of privacy, or computer forgery shall be fined not more 
> than $50,000.00 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. 

ok, so if you're going to try to DoS someone, you're better off doing
so in canada since the max is 10 years, rather than 15...

[snip]
> Any more questions on the legality of protecting yourself against felonious 
> PC usage by *ware and virus creators?
> 
> After all, I'm here to help.

yeah, did you actually read everything you cut-n-pasted in here for
content?

[snip]
> Looking at your tagline, we definitely differ in our beliefs.  Permit me to 
> interject my thoughts....

different beliefs? sure i guess i believe the distillers make good
music and i guess you've never heard of them... too bad for you...

-- 
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"

>> Specifically, let's look at the worst case scenario - causing the death 
>> of an individual while defending yourself or another.....(Georgia State 
>> Law - USA)
>
> causing death is a non-sequitur - your original message described
> DDoSing servers that have malware on them... that's not legal...
>
> [snip irrelevant crap]

The laws relevant to this discussion are "irrelevant crap"?  That's all (and 
the last thing) I needed to see from you.

Jim Hubbard wrote:

>>>Specifically, let's look at the worst case scenario - causing the death 
>>>of an individual while defending yourself or another.....(Georgia State 
>>>Law - USA)
>>
>>causing death is a non-sequitur - your original message described
>>DDoSing servers that have malware on them... that's not legal...
>>
>>[snip irrelevant crap]
> 
> The laws relevant to this discussion are "irrelevant crap"?  That's all (and 
> the last thing) I needed to see from you.

the laws about killing people are not relevant to a discussion about 
the legality of DDoSing servers that carry malware...

but your right - since i won't fall for your strawman, you should take 
your bat and your ball and go home...

-- 
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"

"Bart Bailey" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:42154b29.7394321@bart.spawar.mil...
> In Message-ID:<Zu6dnSJHmcGGoonfRVn-sQ@giganews.com> posted on Thu, 17
> Feb 2005 01:52:01 -0500, Jim Hubbard wrote: Begin
>
>>....be careful what you say.....
>>
>>Are you up to date on this one?
>>
>>"4. Opera contains several vulnerabilities: * fails to properly validate
>>Content-Type and filename. * fails to properly validate date: URIs. * uses
>>kfmclient exec as the Default Application to handle downloaded files when
>>integrated with KDE. * fails to properly control frames. * uses Sun Java
>>packages insecurely. * searches an insecure path for plugins. "  -
>>http://www.niscc.gov.uk/niscc/docs/br-20050215-00139.html?lang=en
>
> I think that refers to Opera v7.x, and is amongst the reasons I've
> remained with v6.06.
> Now if you can direct me to a valid exploit for my config, without
> having to enable js, I'd be more than glad to click on over there.

So you don't enable js?  Shouldn't you be able to without worrying about 
being attacked?

I think you should. 

For business and government we are finishing our software for a
virus-proof
PC.  That's how pissed I am at the whole situation....I started a
company to
eliminate it.  No.....I won't mention its name here.  This thread is
not an
advertisement for anything.  Suffice it to say that if you get a virus
or
*ware within 3 years of the purchase of one of these PCs, we'll clean
it for
free.

---

After reading this post, I had to bother an associate again for his
take on it. He strongly recommended that I just ignore you from here on
out; as you've given up your ace card. As he put it, your full of shit.

If you actually knew how to virus proof (no such thing) a PC, you
wouldn't be suggesting that anyone DDoS a suspected spammer, malware
person, etc. And you wouldn't have clients who are still infected with
no forseeable way to prevent it. My friend was kind enough to suggest
this to educate you; although he feels you don't deserve any help.

1. Have your customers stop using internet explorer; today, right now!
2. Have them instead use Mozilla firefox.
3. Have them install a program known as spyware blaster, Update it, and
enable protection for all things.
4. Have them keep antivirus software present and up to date; Expired
software does no good. Customers who click ignore, or remind me later
should be flogged. It's not acceptable.
5. do not download every single "cute" screen saver or icon pack your
grandchild can find. Read the license agreements before you click I
agree (your not a monkey right?)

Using those 5 points should make you a much safer computer person.
Although, I still wouldn't have you work for me. A high school kid
knows more.

Sammy wrote:
>
> 1. Have your customers stop using internet explorer; today, right now!
> 2. Have them instead use Mozilla firefox.
> 3. Have them install a program known as spyware blaster, Update it,
> and enable protection for all things.
>
An odd choice, since Spywareblaster's main purpose is to prevent the 
installation of ActiveX-based malware and Firefox doesn't use ActiveX.  I 
suppose it could block cookies for them but there are lots of ways to do 
that.