[31719] in bugtraq
Re: Does VeriSign's SiteFinder service violate the ECPA?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (N407ER)
Tue Sep 23 14:13:33 2003
Message-ID: <3F705C08.2060702@myrealbox.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:43:20 -0400
From: N407ER <n407er@myrealbox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@computerbytesman.com>
Cc: "BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS. COM" <BUGTRAQ@securityfocus.com>
In-Reply-To: <000401c37f96$d7c61210$550ffea9@rms>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Richard M. Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a question for the lawyers. In certain situations, does the
> VeriSign SiteFinder service violate the Electronic Communications
> Privacy Act (AKA, ECPA)?
>
> Here's the actual text of the ECPA:
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch119.html
>
> With my packet sniffer, I noticed that the VeriSign SiteFinder Web
> server happily accepts POST form data which is intended for another Web
> server. This situation will occur if the domain name is misspelled in
> the action URL of a form.
>
> Without SiteFinder in the picture, the HTTP POST operation is never done
> since the DNS lookup fails.
By this logic, all webservers which unintentionally accept traffic
without somehow verifying that a typo did not take place violate the
ECPA. Thats ridiculous. Do you really want a precedent where, if someone
accidentally POSTs bank information to your site instead of the URL
they meant to type, you are somehow liable? If I accidentally call you
instead of my friend and tell you all sorts of juicy gossip, is it
really your fault?
I'm bothered by the VeriSign thing, too. But you've been posting a lot
of stuff about how it breaks certain services, breaks certain mail
clients, and may be illegal. What it does to mail clients and services
is annoying, though easily fixed. But you should hardly wish for it to
be deemed illegal. That's not the sort of precedent I want to worry about.
Ta for now.
