🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun7.164102.672@progress.com>, matth@progress.COM (Matthew J. Harper) writes...
>Ron Newman <rnewman@bbn.com> writes:
>>In article <2D.-_.N@cs.widener.edu> brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes:
>>> Here's a question: how do other people deal with users that they *think*
>>>are doing no-nos around the net?  One of our users had the habit of
>>>occasionally going net-surfing and doing the hit-and-run type of
>>>attempts (trying 'guest' usually), but I didn't have any real proof--only

>>This is a no-no?  This is how many people I know first became

>This is indeed a no-no. Not a whole lot is being done about it legally at the
>moment, but a few cases have come to trial and the accused have been found
>guilty of actions such as this.  (Randomly banging on machines to try and
>gain access.)

>Just because a guest account exists does not mean that it is there for all in
>the world to log in and look around!  Perhaps if we looked at a different 
>situation from the same outlook:

>  If you leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, does this give
>anyone who walks by the right to take it for a spin?  Even if they return it
>where they found it, nobody saw them do it, and there is really no proof that
>they were there?

Mostly I'd be thinking how stupid I was to leave it that way.  If you leave 
your systems unlocked; you deserve to have people access them.