Re: Two Articles about What Brits Know (or Don't)...

Brett Paul Dunbar <brett@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> He claimed in court that he had made a donation and then became
> concerned that he'd fallen victim to a phi****ng scam.  To check, he
> added ../../../ to the URL in an attempt to access the site's higher
> directories ...

Was that the sum total of his "offense"?  I've done the same many
times myself.  Haven't you?

My signature says to please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html
before emailing me.  If someone were to navigate from there to
http://keithlynch.net/,
are they guilty of a crime?  Does it matter
whether they got there by use of "../" or not?

I notice that RFC 3986 mentions ../ and ../../ as being valid.

I also notice lots of hits on my website such as
/MSOffice/cltreq.asp?UL=1&ACT=4&BUILD=6551&STRMVER=4&CAPREQ=0
including over a thousand so far this year that mention "phpMyAdmin."
I've never had any SQL on my website, so I'm sure the vast majority of
these are attempts to break in.
-- 
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html
before emailing me.