Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

DDoS (distributed denial of service) legal aspects

2»

Comments

  • #32
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    folan wrote: »
    would actually be my understanding of it.

    However, I am not a solicitor. So at this point I will leave the arguement to those of you who know more.

    One thing that this has shown me though is that the Data Laws in the ROI are very loose and as stand dont really cover a whole lot

    It doesn't specify temporary or permanent but I suppose it could fall under that category. But the storage medium is not affected though. It is still operating, just at full capacity.


  • #33
    sirgzu
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭sirgzu


    Isn't that contradictory with the three strikes thing? I mean the ISPs have right to cut down your internet I think? Am I right?

    Also under the hypothesis that a ddos is an unlawful act; are zombie computer owners liable? What if they willingly joined the ddos? What about normal web-browsing? And ultimately how do you differentiate between these in practice?


  • #34
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    sirgzu wrote: »
    Isn't that contradictory with the three strikes thing? I mean the ISPs have right to cut down your internet I think? Am I right?

    Also under the hypothesis that a ddos is an unlawful act; are zombie computer owners liable? What if they willingly joined the ddos? What about normal web-browsing? And ultimately how do you differentiate between these in practice?

    This is where everything becomes very grey

    I think the 3 strikes you're referring to is for uploading copyrighted material.

    Proving the above is not always going to be easy and in some cases down right impossible.


  • #35
    900913
    Registered Users Posts: 367 ✭✭900913


    On the flipside are there any rules/laws in place to ensure that website owners take reasonable care in protecting public users data that is stored on there servers and databases?


    ie. Is there any specific laws against someone setting up a legit e-commerce site that stores credit card details or other info that could be used in identity theft and then renting out space with root access on the same server to someone.

    *edit
    Probably covered in the Data Protection Act.


  • #36
    Maxpv
    Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭Maxpv


    DDoS attacks don't just use up the server's CPU time and RAM, they use up HUGE amounts of bandwidth, and can cost the owner's of the site loads in bandwidth costs. They can cause servers to overheat, and do serious damage to them and even start a fire.

    Amazon cloud users pay something like €0.20/GB of data transfer. This can get extremely expensive when you have loads of people DDoS attacking.

    Not only that they are also taking down websites that are completely unrelated to the target but are hosted on the same server, in the same datacenter or even on the same bandwidth provider.

    Its also worth noting that most of the traffic from the DDoS attacks are coming from botnets and hacked internet connections, so these guys launching the DDoS attacks are breaking many laws and IMO it isn't a moral way to have a protest when you are effecting much more people than just the target and are wasting loads of expensive bandwidth etc etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Maxpv
    Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭Maxpv


    sirgzu wrote: »
    are zombie computer owners liable?

    As far as I know, zombie computer owners can be held responsible if it is thought they did not do enough to secure their computer. Its like leaving your car door wide open with keys in the ignition parked right outside a bank which happens to be in the process of being robbed. If a court thinks you didn't sufficiently secure your PC/car, you could be held somewhat liable.


  • #38
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Blazr wrote: »
    As far as I know, zombie computer owners can be held responsible if it is thought they did not do enough to secure their computer. Its like leaving your car door wide open with keys in the ignition parked right outside a bank which happens to be in the process of being robbed. If a court thinks you didn't sufficiently secure your PC/car, you could be held somewhat liable.

    Be interesting to test this theory with a 70yr old yahoo bingo player who's bingo client brought down some website in the Bahama's because she didn't know what do with the windows update button.


  • #39
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    ntlbell wrote: »
    Be interesting to test this theory with a 70yr old yahoo bingo player who's bingo client brought down some website in the Bahama's because she didn't know what do with the windows update button.

    Doesn't Windows, by default, have automatic updates enabled?


  • #40
    Sempai
    Registered Users Posts: 124 ✭✭Sempai


    MagicSean wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0031/print.html#sec1

    to damage” includes—


    (b) in relation to data—


    (i) to add to, alter, corrupt, erase or move to another storage medium or to a different location in the storage medium in which they are kept (whether or not property other than data is damaged thereby), or


    (ii) to do any act that contributes towards causing such addition, alteration, corruption, erasure or movement,

    I don't see how a Ddos attack would fall under this definition


    A DDoS may be covered in the Theft and Fraud Offences Act. But I doubt the Government suffered any loss. It's more common in commercial websites.

    Unlawful use of computer.

    9.—(1) A person who dishonestly, whether within or outside the State, operates or causes to be operated a computer within the State with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, is guilty of an offence.

    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.


  • #41
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Paulw wrote: »
    Doesn't Windows, by default, have automatic updates enabled?

    To be honest I'm not sure I don't know much about windows.

    But I think if you're installing during the setup you may have an option of what to do.

    e.g. download updates. download and install updates etc.

    But I'm very open to be corrected.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    AnonCypher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭AnonCypher


    ntlbell wrote: »
    I wasn't suggesting they be arrested for making software, but for hacking.

    That's what they do, they solve problems. Which is in essence what it is.

    It may very well be now a term used by the general public because so many idiots used the term in the wrong way or were too ignorant to know otherwise.

    white hat hacking and black hat cracking are two very very different things.
    Cracking is very illegal in this sense where as white hat protective hacking is done everyday by companies to monitor and check their own security for backdoors and faults you are of course right ntlbell some people do need to learn their terminology in this case as a lot of people get bad reputations by how people use their wording.


Advertisement