Honeypots, Part 4
Liability and ethics of honeypots
Security Strategies Alert
By M. E. Kabay
,
Network World
, 05/22/2003
Sign up for this newsletter now!
Mich Kabay takes a high-level view of security issues and provides resources to help safeguard your corporate and personal security.
- Share/Email
- Tweet This
- Print
Norwich University student Bob Pelletier concludes his review of the role of honeypots in intrusion detection work. In this
article he looks at liability and ethical issues surrounding honeypot usage. I (Kabay) have condensed his text (with Bob’s
approval) to fit the format of this newsletter.
* * *
Liability
A legal issue involving the use of honeypots is called downstream liability. Who is liable for attacks launched from a honeypot
- the attacker or the owner of the system? No court rulings have been published yet that directly address this issue.
A difficulty about downstream liability is that it is decided at the state level, not the federal. This can make things difficult
because downstream attacks can occur almost anywhere.
Deciding if a honeypot owner will be liable for the attack is hard to predict. For the time being, it is best to properly
secure a honeypot’s outgoing traffic to prevent downstream attacks. This can be accomplished through such mechanisms as a
firewall that properly filters outgoing traffic. Lance Spitzner’s book, “Honeypots: Tracking Hackers,” is an excellent resource
to research proper data control mechanisms and practices.
It is not uncommon for an attacker to compromise a computer system and run an FTP warez server on the machine. Who is liable
for the contraband on the computer system? Once again, it is best to properly secure a honeypot’s outgoing traffic to safeguard
against copyright violation issues.
Ethics
Laws provide guidance but may not suffice in determining whether we ought to do certain things. For example, is it ethically
correct to pose a computer system as something it is not? A honeypot poses as just another vulnerable computer system, when
in actuality it is a research and monitoring tool. Is this fair to the attacker, or do they deserve it?
As for entrapment, although this is not a legal problem, this does not mean that the way a honeypot entices attackers is not
unethical. Creating a vulnerable computer system on purpose is similar to baiting an animal. The question becomes, do honeypots
provoke illegal actions such as hacking? If so, are they not unethical by most standards? It is understood that recording
somebody’s conversations without his or her permission is usually unethical. Even if it’s legal, is recording keystrokes from
an IRC session taking place on a honeypot ethical? Is it ethical to create a vulnerable system that could potentially be used
to harm other computer systems?
M. E. Kabay, PhD, CISSP-ISSMP, is Program Director of the Master of Science in Information Assurance program at Norwich University.
Comments (1)
redneck arroganceBy Anonymous on September 20, 2009, 5:23 pmhow is defending one's self redneck arrogance? and how is wanting to prevent further security compromises an invasion of privacy? I think that anyone who has had...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments