North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: prosecuted a DoS (smurf) ?

  • From: Tim Gibson
  • Date: Wed May 27 11:10:31 1998 
You'd probably do alittle better down there, but here in Canada it's 
considered common mischief and doesn't qualify the CCC's section 342 
theft of services clause. Likely a better option though since you can 
easily prove some kind of damages, but it's hard to convince a judge you 
lost 1000s when nothing physical was taken.

Tim Gibson


On Tue, 26 May 1998, Tom Perrine wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> If you have started a prosecution in any jurisdiction for a DENIAL OF
> SERVICE attack on any of your resources, please contact me directly.
> 
> We've identified the individual (inDUHvidual?) and we're exploring our
> options.  We've been involved in prosecuting intrusions :-), but not a
> DoS (yet).
> 
> 
> - -- 
> Tom E. Perrine ([email protected]) | San Diego Supercomputer Center 
> http://www.sdsc.edu/~tep/     | Voice: +1.619.534.5000
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
> 
> iQCVAwUBNWr5cxTSxpWcaAFRAQFsWQQAslh8lo93jBpiHlVzcGC3bt7WnVFaXtsl
> dkJ+jQEYbhygUw1n22BY6O1U8/9QaovkqC4zPIonA98juglhl7I+UY1jrpVYnMRd
> chKEIHil7mN4eqUxa6uSTsXeQvIpsScXH4ZzV5n3jUQf+8mGU67IDnW7u/I9w7Gn
> ChJL1B4k8Oc=
> =rLh8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>