I know that you can't transfer ethics from one person to another (in other words, ones person's right may be another person's wrong) but what are your opinions of finding out what websites have been compromised, and then not telling the owner that it's been compromised, to see whether they find out themselves? This is research done by Victoria University do basically see whether the sites owners realise that their site has been affected, or not. Read about it here.
There've been lots of cases of people finding out how secure a site or company network is, and then telling the company/site about it if it's found to be insecure - then the person gets prosecuted for hacking, etc. So if it were me I probably wouldn't tell anyone unless I had a vested interest in it. Maybe i'd do it anonymously, I dunno really.
gehenna: There've been lots of cases of people finding out how secure a site or company network is, and then telling the company/site about it if it's found to be insecure - then the person gets prosecuted for hacking, etc. So if it were me I probably wouldn't tell anyone unless I had a vested interest in it. Maybe i'd do it anonymously, I dunno really.
True, but this research isn't actually about finding out about how secure a site is, it's about finding out which site has been already compromised, which then tries to compromise the browser (IE6)/PC running in a virtual machine. Plus, it's probably really hard to 'hack' into a website using an automated script. Judging from the article, they are just browsing websites and waiting to see what happens to the VM.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
