"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48cbc7b9@news.povray.org...
> Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> >
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=25110a8f-a73a-43a0-a2a5-1daa08d147d1

> > Can't make my mind up on this; is the university right in prosecuting or
> > are they overreacting to cover their own insecure *ssh*les?
> > Right now I'm leaning in the direction of overreacting but I'm willing
> > to be convinced otherwise

>   No good deed goes unpunished. (Although this is certainly not the worst
> case of someone reporting security weaknesses to some company and getting
> sued for it.)

So it would be a good deed for me to break into neighbourhood houses (which
would be trivial, as practically all have unprotected ground level glass
windows) when the owner is away and place a note on the coffee table to tell
them their house is insecure.

Or, maybe it's a good deed worth a good samaritan medal to rob someone at
gunpoint, and when you get the money, to hand it back to them, saying that
you were demonstrating the point that they should not be walking alone at
that time of the day in that place.

*Reporting* a security weakness is a good deed. *Exploiting* a security
weaknes is a bad deed, even if followed by reporting.

Post a reply to this message