So in response to my post: British hacker acquitted in Port of Houston case I received this comment.
First off all, many computer networks who are administrated by very qualified profressionals, get cracked into very easily due to unpatched vulnerabilities in software (and sometimes hardware).
Aaron was not given a copy of his computer to search for any trojans or signs of exploitation.
In september 2001, there were known and unpatched vulnerabilities in both Microsoft Windows and other software.
Knock knock, who is there? When someone is found ‘not guilty’ it means, by law, that they are actually not guilty. You seem to be claiming that your intelligence outwits that of an 11 member jury.
Reporters are not exactly the best source for information, perhaps you should have sat in the trial to gather data before coming to misconcepted conclusions?
It’s amazing how vocal people are when they think they are anonymous.
I never said that it wasn’t possible for a competent computer administrator to have a computer exploited by some system flaw. I merly pointed out the “irony” of an individual who admitted to belonging to an Internet Hacker group (but he only hacked into systems with the permission of the owner to test security), who testified as a “Computer Security Expert” that his machine was hacked.
So after establishing himself as an “Expert”, not just a knowledgeable computer person, but an “Expert” mind you, he wasn’t able to prevent his personal computer from being exploited, and then launching an attack on another computer system. How do you claim that you will be employable as a “Computer Security Consultant”. Why would anyone hire you, you obviously aren’t any good?
It sounds like just another script kiddie making excuses for another script kiddie that thinks he is l33t.