News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Websmart, Inc. and 100,000 Vulnerable Websites.

Re:Websmart, Inc. and 100,000 Vulnerable Websites by notlisted on Tuesday December 03, 2013 @10:55PM (#6844946)
Sam is in dangerous territory here. IANAL, but I think he may be close to being accused of Tortious Interference[1]

I noticed this in the initial response of websmart's owner that I've seen before in legal docs.

"I do not appreciate you taking the liberty of contacting my clients directly [...] you have no right or authority here. You could very well damage my business with this. If that happens you will be hearing from our lawyer."

This line in Sam's last email is especially dangerous (stating things he doesn't know and something which can be perceived as "soliciting for business"):

"This is a serious security defect. It is easy to fix, but Websmart has made it clear that they have no intention of fixing it. [...] If you have questions, or would like help fixing your website, feel free to contact me."

isn't very smart to say the least.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Websmart, Inc. and 100,000 Vulnerable Websites by nknighthb on Wednesday December 04, 2013 @12:12AM (#6845156)
Truthful warnings to people who are in danger is not tortious interference.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Websmart, Inc. and 100,000 Vulnerable Websites by throwaway2048 on Wednesday December 04, 2013 @12:15AM (#6845168)
being 100% correct and legally in the right is no defense against years of lawsuits
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Websmart, Inc. and 100,000 Vulnerable Websites by nknighthb on Wednesday December 04, 2013 @12:19AM (#6845179)
If the law doesn't matter, then don't bring it up. Under your logic, you can replace "tortious interference" with "turnip testicles" and this discussion is equally meaningful.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Websmart, Inc. and 100,000 Vulnerable Websites by tedunangst on Wednesday December 04, 2013 @12:45AM (#6845240)
Unlike a complaint naming turnip testicles, one that says tortious interference is less likely to get kicked by the judge in four seconds. Skating ->this<- close to the legal edge is definitely something worth bringing up.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Websmart, Inc. and 100,000 Vulnerable Websites by nknighthb on Wednesday December 04, 2013 @01:12AM (#6845320)
And I could sue you for libel and have it last more than four seconds, too. You're skating awfully close to the legal edge!

No, actually, you're not, any more than Sam is. This isn't a close call.

[ Parent | on HN ]