Readers Say It's OK To Strike Back At Hacker Attacks
I just love a good controversy.
Quote:
Security Pipeline readers came out in force to defend the notion that the victim of a hacker attack has a right to strike back against his attackers.
Quote:
- Yes, the best defense is a good offense.
68% - 1155 votes out of 1697
- No, vigilante justice is wrong.
32% - 542 votes.
Pro's
Quote:
"Attacking someone while they are in the act of attacking you in an attempt to stop the attack is not vigilantism. Its just plain self-defense."
"Don't shoot at me and I won't shoot at you. A person has a right to self-defense, especially when there is no one else to protect you."
"The fact is, victims should be able to see justice in the form of convicted attackers or monetary retribution. But, who is out there working for victims? Vigilante justice is always wrong, and in this case, worse because the true attackers are difficult to find. There needs to be more co-ordinated and legally defined methods of finding and prosecuting malicious hackers."
Con's
Quote:
"The problem is that no self-respecting cracker uses their own system to stage an attack. Normally they bounce their packets though an unsuspecting party's misconfigured proxy server or through a box they've already rooted. Obviously, striking the system of such an unsuspecting party thinking they are the attacker would cause serious problems. It's akin to shooting at a suspected intruder in the dark and hitting a family member."
"1. Many attackers will route their exploit through a different IP than their own. Good luck finding them. 2. Given the nature of cyberspace, someone will figure out how to redirect the attack. 3. Resources would be better spent protecting systems and educating users 4. The same attack will be re-engineered and replayed on everyone else. 6. Vigilante justice, in this case, is just plain stupid.'
There is more comments at the Source
