RE: Does VeriSign's SiteFinder service violate the ECPA?
"By this logic, all webservers which unintentionally accept
traffic
without somehow verifying that a typo did not take place
violate the
ECPA. Thats ridiculous. Do you really want a precedent where,
if someone
accidentally POSTs bank information to your site instead of
the URL
they meant to type, you are somehow liable? If I accidentally
call you
instead of my friend and tell you all sorts of juicy gossip, is
it
really your fault?"
They aren't unintentionally accepting traffic, they are
willfully redirecting traffic specifically not intended for them. If someone
"accidentally" POSTed information to my site due to a typo then I wouldn't
expect to be held accountable. But if rather I set up a domain similar to the
banks so that all typos ended up being redirected to my site enabling me to
collect data not intended for my use, then it would become intentional, as is
the case with VeriSign. All accidents lead to VeriSign.
-----Original Message-----
From: N407ER [mailto:n407er@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 23 September, 2003 10:43 AM
To: Richard M. Smith
Cc: BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS. COM
Subject: Re: Does VeriSign's SiteFinder service violate
the ECPA?
Richard M. Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a question for the lawyers. In certain situations,
does the
> VeriSign SiteFinder service violate the Electronic
Communications
> Privacy Act (AKA, ECPA)?
>
> Here's the actual text of the ECPA:
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch119.html
>
> With my packet sniffer, I noticed that the VeriSign
SiteFinder Web
> server happily accepts POST form data which is intended for
another Web
> server. This situation will occur if the domain name is
misspelled in
> the action URL of a form.
>
> Without SiteFinder in the picture, the HTTP POST operation is
never done
> since the DNS lookup fails.
I'm bothered by the VeriSign thing, too. But you've been
posting a lot
of stuff about how it breaks certain services, breaks certain
mail
clients, and may be illegal. What it does to mail clients and
services
is annoying, though easily fixed. But you should hardly wish
for it to
be deemed illegal. That's not the sort of precedent I want to
worry about.
Ta for now.