Timeline for How do researchers "gain control of an attacking PC" and not themselves be considered attackers / criminals?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9, 2011 at 13:45 | comment | added | blunders | @Rory Alsop: They "work" but were not written to address this question directly, which in my opinion is gaming the system, especially if the top answer on this question was already ahead when the were merged. In fact, I can't recall having seen a question get merged ever on SE, and think it's a bad idea in general. Anyway, I got the feedback I need and do agree that it is the admin's choice about what to do. I have no further comments on the matter. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 13:34 | comment | added | Rory Alsop♦ | @blunders - why? Their answers work just fine here. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 13:27 | comment | added | blunders | @Graham Lee: That sentence is confusing... what are you replying to, and what is your response. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 13:15 | comment | added | user185 | @blunders I would indicate that if you want to know whether what someone did was legal, you need to know what they did, making the latter question a part of the former. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 13:04 | comment | added | blunders | @Rory Alsop: If it was too localized it should have been closed as such, and gowenfawr and zedman9991 should have been invited to edit and repost their answers to this question; since neither were written to directly address this question in my opinion. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 13:02 | comment | added | blunders | @Graham Lee: My reading of WesleyDavid's question is that it's asking for a green light based on what might have happened in the in the McAfee case, my question has to do with what happened in the McAfee case. Meaning they're not the same question. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 12:57 | comment | added | Rory Alsop♦ | @blunders - we had a thorough discussion, and while both questions were valid, yours was very localised and Wesley's was more likely to remain useful to visitors to the site over a longer term. Answers on both were good, so a merge was considered the best option. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 12:53 | comment | added | user185 | I agree with AviD, in that the question asked here is more general, and more likely to be of continued interest to the community. Merging @blunders's question as a near-duplicate of this question (indeed as the example used by WesleyDavid above) makes sense. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 12:47 | comment | added | blunders | @AviD: My feedback is it would have been nice to have been provided the context when that choice was made, since my reply would been the following: Please close the question as "too localized" since my interest was purely related McAfee, not a generalization of what a research group would be able to do based on what McAfee might or might not have done; and in my opinion, it would be very dangerous to make generalizations on what one was able to do based on McAfee. Also, I'm pretty sure McAfee was operating on a different level than the average research group; meaning FBI, DoD, etc. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 12:21 | comment | added | AviD♦ | @blunders, there was some discussion on this in Information Security Chat... the consensus was that since both questions were asked within a couple days of each other, the merge would be to this one, since this question was phrased much better. Particularly, as Wesley said, this is a generic question - the McAfee question was in danger of being closed as Too Localized, anyway... | |
| Aug 8, 2011 at 18:09 | comment | added | Wesley | Also, as a result of the merge, there was a bit of comment confusion. I thought gowenfawr and zedman9091's answers were directly made to mine - which they're not. My question is generic in nature and not specific to the McAfee incident. I was interested in a general sense how security professionals can gain access to an attacking machine. | |
| Aug 8, 2011 at 18:02 | comment | added | Wesley | @Augusto My questions aren't specific to McAfee. They're generic. I just used the McAfee scenario as a real life example to kick the generic questions off. | |
| Aug 8, 2011 at 17:39 | comment | added | blunders | @AviD: That's BS that you took answers from my question and closed my question. This is the question that should have been closed... Care to comment on your logic? Link to my question which resulted in 2 of the three answers below: security.stackexchange.com/questions/5905/… | |
| Aug 8, 2011 at 14:58 | history | edited | AviD♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 8, 2011 at 14:56 | history | post merged (destination) | |||
| Aug 8, 2011 at 14:31 | history | edited | AviD♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 8, 2011 at 11:00 | comment | added | Augusto | From one of the comments in Dmitri's blog I speculate that they did a 'white hat' hacking, in which a Judge/Police/FBI/whatever gave them permission to hack the server. This would be pretty much the same as a warrant to search someone's home. | |
| Aug 7, 2011 at 0:21 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSecurity/status/99998468273213440 | ||
| Aug 6, 2011 at 23:48 | vote | accept | Wesley | ||
| Aug 6, 2011 at 22:14 | history | edited | Hendrik Brummermann |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 6, 2011 at 22:12 | answer | added | Hendrik Brummermann | timeline score: 11 | |
| Aug 6, 2011 at 21:31 | history | asked | Wesley | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| Aug 3, 2011 at 21:19 | answer | added | gowenfawr | timeline score: 5 | |
| Aug 3, 2011 at 18:49 | comment | added | this.josh | Unless there is a site user here with strong ties to McAfee, I suspect we can only speculate. | |
| Aug 3, 2011 at 17:46 | answer | added | zedman9991 | timeline score: 4 |