Analytics
11/1/2012
07:45 AM
Tim Wilson
Tim Wilson
Quick Hits
50%
50%

Companies Should Think About Hacking Back Legally, Attorney Says

Fighting back against cybercriminals can be risky, but there are legal ways to do it, says Hacker Halted speaker

MIAMI -- Hacker Halted 2012 -- If you're so frustrated with hackers that you're thinking about hitting them back, then be careful -- but it can be done.

That was the message delivered Tuesday by David Willson, an attorney from Titan Info Security Group, here at the Hacker Halted conference.

While many companies have the technical tools and knowledge they need to inflict damage on their online opponents, most of them do not pursue the idea because of concerns that the law will regard them as hackers themselves, Willson says.

"The bad news is that [corporations'] security sucks," he says. "The good news is that the bad guys' security sucks, too. There are tools, techniques, and intelligence that you can use to anticipate attacks as well as effectively stop them -- and potentially identify attackers once discovered in your network."

For example, a corporation could place code on a bot that has infected its network, Willson says. Eventually, that code might be transferred back to the attacker's command-and-control server, and could be programmed to block the attacker's communications path.

The trick, Willson says, is how to hack back legally. U.S. firms are governed by the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which essentially states that any unauthorized access of another organization's computers could be considered a crime. Some states have computer trespass laws, and other countries have laws that might get a company into legal trouble for cracking others' computers if those others are cybercriminals, he notes.

In the above example, where code is attached to a bot, an automated tool might be seen by the courts as being similar to cookies or adware, which are not illegal, Willson says.

Companies could also use honeypots, which allow users to legally collect intelligence about their attackers, or beacons, which legally illuminate an attacker's trail, Willson says.

Hacking back should never be a company's first response, but in the case of a persistent attacker, it might be the only answer. "You might be spending $50,000 to $100,000 a week to battle a persistent threat" he says. "You've tried all of the traditional approaches. Calling law enforcement doesn't help -- they are simply overwhelmed with other cases. What do you do?"

The key is to stay within criminal law while taking your chances with civil law, Willson says. "Obviously, you don't want law enforcement turning around and coming after you," he says. "But if a hacker wants to sue you for unauthorized access, that might be a chance you're willing to take."

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add a Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message. Tim Wilson is Editor in Chief and co-founder of Dark Reading.com, UBM Tech's online community for information security professionals. He is responsible for managing the site, assigning and editing content, and writing breaking news stories. Wilson has been recognized as one ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Threat Intel Today
Threat Intel Today
The 397 respondents to our new survey buy into using intel to stay ahead of attackers: 85% say threat intelligence plays some role in their IT security strategies, and many of them subscribe to two or more third-party feeds; 10% leverage five or more.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-4692
Published: 2015-07-27
The kvm_apic_has_events function in arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h in the Linux kernel through 4.1.3 allows local users to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and system crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging /dev/kvm access for an ioctl call.

CVE-2015-1840
Published: 2015-07-26
jquery_ujs.js in jquery-rails before 3.1.3 and 4.x before 4.0.4 and rails.js in jquery-ujs before 1.0.4, as used with Ruby on Rails 3.x and 4.x, allow remote attackers to bypass the Same Origin Policy, and trigger transmission of a CSRF token to a different-domain web server, via a leading space cha...

CVE-2015-1872
Published: 2015-07-26
The ff_mjpeg_decode_sof function in libavcodec/mjpegdec.c in FFmpeg before 2.5.4 does not validate the number of components in a JPEG-LS Start Of Frame segment, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds array access) or possibly have unspecified other impact via craft...

CVE-2015-2847
Published: 2015-07-26
Honeywell Tuxedo Touch before 5.2.19.0_VA relies on client-side authentication involving JavaScript, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions by removing USERACCT requests from the client-server data stream.

CVE-2015-2848
Published: 2015-07-26
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Honeywell Tuxedo Touch before 5.2.19.0_VA allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests associated with home-automation commands, as demonstrated by a door-unlock command.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
What’s the future of the venerable firewall? We’ve invited two security industry leaders to make their case: Join us and bring your questions and opinions!