RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeme A Brelin [mailto:jeme@brelin.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 11:46 AM
> To: Openlaw DMCA Forum
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Ballowe, Charles wrote:
> > What is considered granting access? Does the fact that the machine
> > allows me to access the content mean that I was granted 
> access to that
> > content? My personal thought is that the machine grants access based
> > on the policies that it is aware of. If those policies 
> don't match the
> > intent of the operator, then it wouldn't be the "intruder" who is at
> > fault for accessing information not intended for them.
> 
> And a computer doesn't know when it's being exploited.
> 
> If you overflow some buffer and get some arbitrary code to 
> execute, you've
> gained access.  Running a service that allows for buffer 
> overflow is, in
> essence, just like an open port.  

Not quite, Jeme.  Up until now we've been talking about
running a standard service on a standard port and accessing
via the protocol standards.  

What you are talking about is exploitation of a bug.  It is
not how the service is _intended_ to run, therefore we are
talking a violation here.


> 
> Personally, I think private information shouldn't be kept on publicly
> accessible machines.  


Granted.  Some government agencies are finally figuring that
out.  The only real secure machine is one that is not connected
to the network.


>And that's the end of that story.  If 
> you think you
> can build a perfectly secure box, go for it.  But don't go 
> crying to me
> when someone gets hold of your data without your permission.

But again, we weren't talking about people violating the
protections.   We were talking about, setting the server up
wide-open and then attempting to say that any (normal) access
is a violation because you only intended that data for your
own remote use.


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!