4 ms·
You've missed the point. Making a typo and accessing the page once with the wrong SSN using the submit buttons on the web page provided has absolutely no intent
by mattmanser 13y ago
You've missed the point. Making a typo and accessing the page once with the wrong SSN using the submit buttons on the web page provided has absolutely no intent.
Using an automated script bypassing the webform to cycle through as many as possible clearly shows intent to access something you're not supposed to.
People don't just access urls at random, they will never type a url with query strings into the browser.
They click links or submit forms.
Someone pen testing a website will be deliberately circumventing those methods.
It's like running wireshark on a public unsecured network, there's likely no good reason for you to be doing it and you know what you're doing if you're running that tool.
That's intent.
Note: I'm personally very pleased that they're fighting this. Just wanted to clarify what they mean by intent.
- angersock 13y ago"It's like running wireshark on a public unsecured network, there's likely no good reason for you to be doing it and you know what you're doing if you're running that tool." I for one don't really see what the issue with that is. If you plug into an internet gloryhole whose infrastructure you don't control or trust, well, that's on you.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- grey-area 13y agoI agree intent is important. I disagree visiting a link, or links, is enough to give you intent, it's just not enough information, is too similar to normal web activity and would mean the potential criminalisation of all sorts of innocent activity.
- tptacek 13y agoThe prosecution is required to prove intent, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury. It's not something you get mechanically.
- talmand 13y agoWhat kind of intent do they have to prove? That he intended use this method to see if could access the information or that he intended to gather the information for other purposes?
- tptacek 13y agoThey have to prove the criminal intent behind the CFAA. They have to prove that you knew you shouldn't have access to the data; that you in effect deliberately lied to the computer. They have to make their case on both mens rea and actus reus. Not every criminal statute works that way (there are "strict liability crimes", like statury rape), but most do.
- sp332 13y agoRunning wireshark only shows packets that are delivered to your network interfaces. If people didn't want you to have that data, why did they route it directly into your computer's network port?
- morpher 13y agoUsing tcpdump after setting your wireless card into promiscuous mode will store all packets going over the air nearby. So, wireshark can easily be used to view tye contents of traffic that was not routed to your machine.
- sp332 13y agoPeople set up radios and broadcast data completely indiscriminately? I would argue that is like yelling a conversation and then being shocked that people might overhear you. (Also it only gets certain packets depending on what network you're joined to, what channel you're listening on, etc.)
- morpher 13y agoI agree about the yelling part. But, to clarify, you don't have to join a network, and you can always scan channels. Although chances are that most people around (e.g., at a coffe shop or airport) are broadcasting on a specific channel.