11–20 of 120 posts
Admitting everything in police custody is NOT responsible disclosure
This is the kind of thing that makes my blood boil.
Usually "white hat" have some kind of responsible disclosure. It seems that this "white hat" did not disclose anything to facebook, then got caught and only then, pretended to be acting for everyone's good. Admitting everything in police custody is NOT responsible disclosure
This sounds like someone who was accessing Facebook for profit and made up an excuse when he got caught.
How small does a company have to be, where it's ok for someone to "fiddle about" in their business records?
"You accessed the very heart of the system of an international business of massive size, so this was not just fiddling about in the business records of some tiny business of no great importance," he said. This is the kind of thing that makes my blood boil.
"You accessed the very heart of the system of an international business of massive size, so this was not just fiddling about in the business records of some tiny business of no great importance," he said. This is the kind of thing that makes my blood boil.
I'm not sure what the "creation of that risk" part is supposed to mean. If it refers to the security weakness the hacker uncovered, well as I said the hacker did not "create" it, he merely "found" it.
If the risk is the potential disclosure, then what is "the cost of putting it right"? Fixing the security weakness? Well since it was not "created" by the hacker, they are just fixing something that they should have, or would have fixed anyway..
Now I'm not saying that the poor hacker should not go to jail. The article doesn't give much details so I'm not sure he should be called a "white hat". However, I'm not convinced by the argument given by the judge..