In October, 2002 Julian Green was arrested in Devon, England after police searched his home PC and found examples of child pornography. ISP had logs identified Green as the person responsible for the downloads, and the existence of the child porn on his PC seemed to be all the corroboration the constable would have needed to obtain a conviction. However, a defense forensic expert also found evidence that there were Trojans planted on Green's computer that were designed to piggyback his browser, and log into porn sites. The Trojans probably were downloaded as e-mail attachments -- made all the more likely by the fact that Green had a teenage son. Unable to definitively prove that Green knowingly and intentionally downloaded the files, the prosecution dismissed the charges. . . .. According to Greek mythology, the seer Laocoon, a priest of Apollo, warned the residents of Troy against accepting into their city the giant wooden horse designed by Odysseus and created by the architect Epeius. His famous warning, "Trojans, trust not the horse. Whatever it be, I fear the Greeks, even when bringing gifts," applies equally today to importing unknown files as it did to the Trojans 4,000 years ago. We think we know all about the dangers of Trojan horses, but there is a new and more dangerous legal wrinkle to consider. In the past few months, a couple of people in England were acquitted based upon the so-called "Trojan defense" -- what we criminal lawyers used to call the "SODDI" defense: Some Other Dude Did It. The Trojan defense presents two equally frightening problems: the possibilities of acquitting the guilty, or convicting the innocent. In the first case, given the nature of electronic evidence, virtually all computer crime prosecutions rely on "circumstantial" evidence. To prove that John Doe, for example hacked into ABC company, you collect IP history logs and other corroborating data, maybe engage in an IRC chat with John Doe, get a warrant or subpoena for his ISP information, show a pattern of activity consistentwith the hacking, and then (if you are a law enforcement agent) get a warrant to kick in Mr. Doe's door and seize his computer. If the forensic examination of the computer shows hacking files, access to hacking sites, relevant e-mail, and even versions of the malicious code, it's a slam-dunk case for conviction. Right? But what if, in addition to all of this "evidence," you also find the existence of a Trojan horse server -- say, a version of Optix Pro or another remote access program. Does the mere existence of such a program provide a Get Out of Jail Free card? Probably not. However, given the ephemeral nature of electronic evidence, and the fact that it can always be altered, how confident would you be that Doe was in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The higher the hacker's profile, the more attractive a target he or she may make for other hackers. And after all, if you were a hacker, would you want to store your contraband files on your own machine, or, like the cuckoo, would you keep your eggs in another bird's nest? Such "file parking" strategies have been used by hackers for years. The link for this article located at SecurityFocus is no longer available. . The Trojan defense in electronic crime cases challenges the validity of circumstantial evidence, revealing how malware can mislead on culpability in legal settings. Trojan Defense, Digital Security, Forensic Evidence, Computer Crime, Cybersecurity. . LinuxSecurity.com Team
It's the next big Linux controversy: Who should be liable if customers wind up using software that was created from misappropriated intellectual property? Linux resellers are not especially eager to tackle the question, but they know it lurks just over . . . . It's the next big Linux controversy: Who should be liable if customers wind up using software that was created from misappropriated intellectual property? Linux resellers are not especially eager to tackle the question, but they know it lurks just over the horizon, thanks to the filing of the SCO-IBM lawsuit earlier this year. Ever since then, chief information officers have been reading that they could be vulnerable to future litigation for using open-source software. None of this has escaped the attention of Microsoft and other like-minded suppliers of proprietary software. They are making sure customers know all about the protection plans they offer in the event that a company winds up in this sort of legal bind. . The growing dependence on software across industries has ignited a debate over accountability, especially when algorithms use unlawfully obtained intellectual property. Software Liability, Open Source Risks, Intellectual Property. . LinuxSecurity.com Team
Companies are risking legal action by failing to protect data held on personal digital assistants (PDAs) and smartphones, according to a survey. While there are no official statistics about the number of these devices that have been stolen, as many as . . . . Companies are risking legal action by failing to protect data held on personal digital assistants (PDAs) and smartphones, according to a survey. While there are no official statistics about the number of these devices that have been stolen, as many as a quarter of staff surveyed on PDA usage by mobile security firm Pointsec Mobile Technologies claimed to have either lost or had their PDA stolen. Two in five users have lost a mobile phone, with the most frequent places being taxis and restaurants. But what was seen as merely irritating in the past now has more serious consequences, as 85 per cent of users say that they use their PDA as a business tool. The link for this article located at VNUNet is no longer available. . Safeguarding information on mobile devices and tablets is essential; organizations might encounter regulatory challenges.. Data Privacy, Mobile Devices, Digital Assistant Risks. . LinuxSecurity.com Team
Two well-known computer security experts pulled down their works from the Internet this week for fear of being prosecuted under 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Along with the threatened lawsuit of Princeton computer-science professor Edward Felten, and the arrest of Russian . . . . Two well-known computer security experts pulled down their works from the Internet this week for fear of being prosecuted under 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Along with the threatened lawsuit of Princeton computer-science professor Edward Felten, and the arrest of Russian encryption expert Dmitry Sklyarov, the incidents are the latest to point at what is quickly becoming a touchy environment for security experts. "When they started to arrest people and threaten researchers, I decided the legal risk was not worth it," said Fred Cohen, a well-known security consultant and a professor of digital forensics, who took his evidence-gathering tool--dubbed Forensix--off his Web site earlier this week. See our local announcement of this story. The link for this article located at ZDNet is no longer available. . A pair of data security professionals removed their online resources amid concerns about potential legal repercussions from changing intellectual property regulations.. Digital Copyright Act, Legal Risks, Security Experts, Online Privacy, Research Freedom. . Anthony Pell
Companies should be wary of carrying our counter attacks against hackers, even despite the fact that they still cannot rely on police for help. Companies cannot rely on the police to protect them from computer crime, but . . . . Companies should be wary of carrying our counter attacks against hackers, even despite the fact that they still cannot rely on police for help. Companies cannot rely on the police to protect them from computer crime, but they should be wary of carrying out counter attacks against hackers because this could raise legal problems, say experts. Speaking at the recent Infosecurity Europe conference, Peter Sommer, a lawyer specialising in Internet law, said the police do not have enough resources to tackle Internet crimes, with little prospect of much improvement in the next few years. The link for this article located at ZDNet is no longer available. . Organizations must approach retaliatory measures against cybercriminals with caution, considering potential legal consequences and the scarcity of law enforcement assistance.. Cyber Countermeasures, Legal Risks, Internet Law, Hacker Response. . LinuxSecurity.com Team
The next step is the virtual private network, which is essentially an encryption code for a specific law firm or litigation group. Data is encrypted as it is being sent on the Internet's public lines to isolate it from . . . . The next step is the virtual private network, which is essentially an encryption code for a specific law firm or litigation group. Data is encrypted as it is being sent on the Internet's public lines to isolate it from adjacent traffic. But this type of network is indeed "virtual" because it is still using the same public telephone lines as all other Internet users. This is not a separate physical network at all. Still, many litigators feel that a virtual private network affords complete security and trust the complexity and sophistication of the encryption makes them secure when using the Web for the transfer of confidential data. But, like Olivier in the Marathon Man, I ask once again: "Is it safe?" I think not. The link for this article located at NY Law.com is no longer available. . The next step is the virtual private network, which is essentially an encryption code for a specific. virtual, private, network, which, essentially, encryption, specific. . LinuxSecurity.com Team
Get the latest Linux and open source security news straight to your inbox.