...the expert witnesses shall have a ball with this one...
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations derfloh on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Novel defense or not...
- Thread starter carrr
- Start date
- Status
Oh yes, I can just hear the various defenses :
- using MS, which is hopelessly vulnerable despite endless patches
- uses Outlook, 'nuff said
- firewall absent or incorrectly configured
- bla bla bla
This could actually be an interesting case study, if the "experts" are up to snuff, that is.
Indeed, a forensic analysis can no doubt reveal many things, and this might be an excellent chance to find out just what can be found.
I hope this is not settled out of court, I'd like to follow it and see where it goes.
- using MS, which is hopelessly vulnerable despite endless patches
- uses Outlook, 'nuff said
- firewall absent or incorrectly configured
- bla bla bla
This could actually be an interesting case study, if the "experts" are up to snuff, that is.
Indeed, a forensic analysis can no doubt reveal many things, and this might be an excellent chance to find out just what can be found.
I hope this is not settled out of court, I'd like to follow it and see where it goes.
I guess if he is so smart to testify on what makes a PC vulnerable why didn't he close those exploits on his own PC? But being that he was his own "lone expert witness" sounds to me as if he is tring to bedazzel, confuse and bu11-$h!t his way out of trouble.
SF18C
CCNA, MCSE, A+, N+ & HPCC
"Tis better to die on your feet than live on your knees!"
SF18C
CCNA, MCSE, A+, N+ & HPCC
"Tis better to die on your feet than live on your knees!"
EricDraven
Programmer
Just so that I am getting this straight,
The accused says that hackers, hacked into his PC and casued all of the trouble. He goes on to prove this by giving a detailed description of how this could be done. Knowing how this could all be so easily done, we are also expected to believe that he didnt take the necessary precautions to stop this happening on his pc in the first place, thus landing him in his current predicament!
I can feel an anurism coming on...
When your feeling down and your resistance is low, light another cigarette and let yourself go![[rockband]](/data/assets/smilies/rockband.gif "[rockband] [rockband]")
The accused says that hackers, hacked into his PC and casued all of the trouble. He goes on to prove this by giving a detailed description of how this could be done. Knowing how this could all be so easily done, we are also expected to believe that he didnt take the necessary precautions to stop this happening on his pc in the first place, thus landing him in his current predicament!
I can feel an anurism coming on...
When your feeling down and your resistance is low, light another cigarette and let yourself go
CajunCenturion
Programmer
What would be justice in this case is for the accused to prove that it could be done and so on, and then have the charges dropped against him.
Then turn around and convict him for contributory negligence.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Then turn around and convict him for contributory negligence.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
I can't believe that a jury will ever be involved. The prosecution doesn't dare let this go that path. I believe in the probable not guilty because it is going to be difficult to get a jury that can understand the problem.
Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.
Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.
mattKnight
Programmer
hmmm
in the UK, "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal truism.
It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did the hacking.
All the defence has to do is show reasonable doubt....
It seems to me, on this limited info that we have, he must be aquitted!
Ok, thats a little simplistic, balance of probabilty is a factor. But ultimately, does this case raise the issue of criminal liability for DDOS attacks for commercial (and other) organisations? It would have been interesting to see how this case might have turned out in a UK civil case, where the level of proof is less rigorous!
Take Care
Matt
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
in the UK, "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal truism.
It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did the hacking.
All the defence has to do is show reasonable doubt....
It seems to me, on this limited info that we have, he must be aquitted!
Ok, thats a little simplistic, balance of probabilty is a factor. But ultimately, does this case raise the issue of criminal liability for DDOS attacks for commercial (and other) organisations? It would have been interesting to see how this case might have turned out in a UK civil case, where the level of proof is less rigorous!
Take Care
Matt
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Well, it'll be for the people in court to hear all the evidence and decide. What may happen is for reasonable doubt to lead to an aquittal, but for Houston to start a civil case for damages that relies on balance of probabilites. You may remember a chap called OJ Simpson that ran into that situation...
Seems likely that he's guilty (from the information we have) but consider this: I'm an IT professional. I bet my PC has some loopholes in it, I bet a lot of yours do too. If I got stung like this kid (allegedly), I'd read up all around the subject to see how it happened. That could make me enough of an expert (after the event) to testify. Why doesn't the kid call a "proper" expert? Maybe he can't afford it - he's already got lawyer's fees to worry about after all.
To be safe, the prosecution have to demonstrate that he had the knowledge to do this kind of thing at the time it happened, not that he knows about it now. Of course, a problem the boy has is that the public at large assume that if you are interested in (or work with) computers, you know everything about every possible field in IT (as I'm sure we all know, having to field upaid support calls from friends and relatives with any kind of computer problem!)
-- Chris Hunt
Seems likely that he's guilty (from the information we have) but consider this: I'm an IT professional. I bet my PC has some loopholes in it, I bet a lot of yours do too. If I got stung like this kid (allegedly), I'd read up all around the subject to see how it happened. That could make me enough of an expert (after the event) to testify. Why doesn't the kid call a "proper" expert? Maybe he can't afford it - he's already got lawyer's fees to worry about after all.
To be safe, the prosecution have to demonstrate that he had the knowledge to do this kind of thing at the time it happened, not that he knows about it now. Of course, a problem the boy has is that the public at large assume that if you are interested in (or work with) computers, you know everything about every possible field in IT (as I'm sure we all know, having to field upaid support calls from friends and relatives with any kind of computer problem!)
-- Chris Hunt
A tad off topic, but this sort of thing reminds me of the Inquisition: "Prove that you are not a witch" Always the best way of proving someone wrong!
Andy
"Logic is invincible because in order to combat logic it is necessary to use logic." -- Pierre Boutroux
"Why does my program keep showing error messages every time something goes wrong?"
Andy
"Logic is invincible because in order to combat logic it is necessary to use logic." -- Pierre Boutroux
"Why does my program keep showing error messages every time something goes wrong?"
Looks like the jury found some reasonable doubt in this case:
-- Chris Hunt
-- Chris Hunt
- Status