[1932] in linux-security and linux-alert archive
[linux-security] Re: Re: WARNING: Break-in attempts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jacob A. Langford)
Tue Jun 23 03:09:33 1998
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:40:10 -0500
From: langford@karman.tam.uiuc.edu (Jacob A. Langford)
To: Jon Lewis <jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net>,
"Paul D. Robertson" <proberts@clark.net>
Cc: linux-security@redhat.com, Shaun Hedges <shedges@shaw.wave.ca>,
Rogier Wolff <R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl>
Resent-From: linux-security@redhat.com
Resent-Reply-To: linux-security@redhat.com
All the discussion of legal issues reminds me of a comment in the
O'Reilly book on security:
Prosecution may actually jeopardize the security of your system,
as equipment that has been seized as evidence won't be very useful.
I would guess that conflicts of jurisdiction and misunderstanding
of the law (all apparent from this thread) would only enhance the
bureaucratic hoops that must be jumped through to regain seized
equipment.
Has anyone here had experience with seizure or other negative impacts
of investigation/prosecution?
Jacob (langford@uiuc.edu)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please refer to the information about this list as well as general
information about Linux security at http://www.aoy.com/Linux/Security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe linux-security-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
