G0tr00t, you hit the nail on the head. There's going to be thousands spent now only because someone actually exposed a vulnerability, or did he? What he actually did to "hack" the network is going to have to be determined. Nonetheless he did have previous working experience at the location and this could've made his attack a heck of alot easier.
Quote:
The article quoted Bacarisse as saying his staff was alerted when someone tried to access the system March 8. He also characterized Puffer's demonstration as a "low-level intrusion" that did no permanent damage.
As for Puffer's March 18 demonstration, Bacarisse said Wednesday, "Normally you secure a contract with an entity before you hack into a system, if that's what you're saying your expertise is."
|
Sorry to say but this Bacarisse guy is right. Anyone attempting to take a reporter along and show him how to "hack" into a WLAN better be prepared for repurcusions after the hacked company is all over the TV. Simply using NetStumbler or Kismet as means to "identify" WLANS is another story (as fungus did recently).
Maybe the article should've been titled "ethical hacker faces charges after exposing an exploit of a wireless LAN". As opposed to the war driving title?
Time will tell