I wrote a small piece on this that really is me pretending to be a lawyer, but the meaning of a zone transfer really hands on what constitutes authorized access.

http://securityretentive.blogspot.com/2008/01/armchair-legal-analysis-of-sierra-v.html

I omitted 24 from the list above.

Findings 6, 8, 9, 10, 21, and 22 are arguable. Unfortunately, there was “available literature” describing unauthorized the use of Zone Transfers. (Even my very dusty old copy of “DNS and BIND” refers to “Unauthorized Zone Transfers” - lesson careful what you write).

Also, according to other findings he lied about his activities in addition to ignoring the injunctions. Others have speculated that this could have led the judge to take much of the defense evidence as suspect.

I don’t blame you. I saw the Reg headline and thought something went off the rails.

For me to actually read a legal finding of fact is unusual (actualy parts of it are almost funny).

The whole Zone Transfer thing is just overblown. The case almost obsesses over it. And as others have pointed out the interpretation of who has legitimate uses for dns queries is very narrow. Consequently, the people portraying this as just a zone transfer are spinning it.

The list of other activities the judge found Ritz engaged in included: portscanning, email bombing, canceling usenet posts, using other systems as (unauthorized) proxies for this activity.

It’s findings 13, 14, 15, 16, and 23 that are troubling and for which he could be criminally convicted.

http://www.spamsuite.com/webfm_send/258

Thanks for filling in the blank spaces. When I wrote that I was somewhat hot under the collar.

1. Civil suits can’t set precedent. (A criminal case is pending).
2. I read the findings, according to the judge there’s a lot more Ritz did than a few zone transfers.
3. Hopefully, the other activities and not the Zone Transfer get focus in the criminal case.

And what the heck is up with people ignoring judges orders! Has there been a rash of stupid-stick beatings?

Fair enough. It was the point specific to the DNS ruling that could have potentially damaging effects in the judicial system as a new precedent. That’s the part that concerns me.

Thanks for the comment.