From: security curmudgeon (jericho[at]
Cc: staff[at]
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 16:23:13 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: A Warning! (fwd)

This is most amusing. While you did not address any of the previous mail
challenging your claims of being a lawyer, you certainly try your best to
be like one. Only thing is, you lack five+ years of legal training and a
healthy dose of common sense.

Might I suggest something.. if you are going to try to debate or argue
with us, get a better feel for who we are. We're much better at this
'debating' thing than you, I can assure you.

: I'm trying my best to not spend much time here and don't wish to ramble
: over words . . . I do recall though that your site dispensed advice to
: hackers or others reporting hacks to you. The advise centered around

Amusing how you don't quote where it is posted, or what it says exactly.
This is typical of people approaching us with extremely weak points (or no
point at all) as they fumble to back their absurd claims. So, let me do
your job for you this time. In the future, if you are going to mail us
with this type of argument, at least back what you say.

"Credit is given based on what the defaced page says. Do not mail us
saying you defaced the domain. Not only are you admitting to a felony, we
will only go by what the page says."

It would be easy to argue that this is not giving advice to hackers. This
is a reminder and healthy dose of common sense. This is doubly amusing
since you failed to cite the line right above it:

"Do not tell the staff about hacks in advance. We are obligated by law to
share that information with the appropriate agency. We don't want or need
to know in advance."

We simply make it known how the law works, and that we are law abiding
citizens. Trying to spin doctor this into some kind of blame on our part
is very much a 'lawyer trick'.

: advising the hacker to not take responsibility in the e-mails sent to
: you. It is in my opinion that this act of yours would implicate you as a
: co-conspirator.Perhaps your correct in thinking that your not in direct

Oh, since you are a lawyer you can certainly back this with a bit of case
law I'm sure. Right? Oh wait, you didn't do that...

If you actually look at the conspiracy laws, you will see that it requires
us to have knowledge of a crime in advance, willingly conceal the identity
of someone who engaged in criminal acts, etc. Since we state on our page
(that you failed to read and quote) that we will share this information
with law enforcement through appropriate channels, the notion that we are
conspiring with the people defacing is absurd. I think this would be
thrown out of a first year law class, let alone a real court.

: violation of criminal law; however, I'm certain that I can assert a
: dozen or so civil and busines & proffessions codes violated.It's my

.. so which are they? Come on, you are a lawyer, quote to us exactly where
we are breaking the law. Then we MIGHT take you seriously. But I wouldn't
hold my breath on the serious part.

: preference that you simply remove my name from your listing and hence
: resolving my issues.  This is my last e-mail to you . . . please do not
: respond, I examine the list over the next few days.. 

What part of "no" is unclear here?

First you accuse us of violating a copyright/trademark/whatever. That was
simply false. Now you claim we are conspirators in a crime. That is also
false. Are you just running down every little token phrase you heard while
watching L.A. Law? Please, quit wasting our time.

Further, since you read our page, I fail to understand why you chose to
ignore the material directly relevant to this request. Let me give you the
short answer, then quote the long answer for you.


Will you remove a site from the mirror?

On several occasions, Attrition has been asked if we will remove a
mirrored defacement. In many cases, a site's administrator feels that
since the defacement has been removed from the original site and the
security hole has been patched, it's only appropriate that the mirror of
the site come down as well. 

While this is certainly understandable, Attrition will not remove mirrors
of legitimately defaced web pages. There are several reasons for this --
primarily, Attrition's mirror is a service to the security community, just
as a news outlet is.  We report on defaced sites. As part of our
reporting, we gather statistics, serve as a record, and even act as


Now once again, to be positively clear, we don't take you seriously. You
have lied to us and threatened us, which are illegal in some states.

Run along and secure your server now. The mirror will not be taken down
short of a valid court order being placed into my hands.

main page ATTRITION feedback