Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Parliament to ban DoS Attacks

CmdrTaco posted about 12 years ago | from the good-luck-enforcing-it dept.

The Internet 271

Ian Hill writes "It seems that the UK government is not as technologically withdrawn as you may think. This bill is an amendment to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 which bans Denial of Service attacks by name. It states that a person is guilty of an offence if they cause, or intend to cause, 'degradation, failure or other impairment of function of a computerised system.'"

cancel ×

271 comments

First post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770630)

This is of the first post, thank you to my friend [8k.com] for it allowing to happen. Goodbye now.
Yet another post by yet another Anonymous Coward! Thank you sirs!

Re:First post? (-1)

News For Turds (580751) | about 12 years ago | (#3770693)

Yup. It's a first post, alright. And it has just been claimed by the CLIT.

u r teh sux

Re:First post? (-1, Offtopic)

perl_god (578135) | about 12 years ago | (#3770716)

Excellent work.
If there's anything worse than an AC, it's an AC 'bot.
I salute your efforts.

CLIT == 5UX0R5 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770790)

You probably walk around the office writing your name on things in crayon, too.

Re:First post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770740)

What is this CLIT group thing?

Community of Logged In Trolls (-1)

News For Turds (580751) | about 12 years ago | (#3770830)

Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer Wizard
v 02.00

Table of Contents
1. Overview
2. DHCP
3. DNS
4. IP Address Support
5. Suggest IP Address (Autonet)
6. NetWare Support
a. Supported Versions
b. NDS Multiple Tree Support
c. NetWare 5 Support
d. No Novell Print Path
e. No NDS volumes
f. Support for NDS localities
7. Device Discovery
a. Gateway
b. Multi-homed Machines
c. 0.0.0.0 IP Addresses
d. Class A Subnet Masks
8. Driver Support
a. License Acceptance
b. Have Disk Support
c. HP Driver Updates
9. IPX Port Monitor and Data Corruption
10. Printer Names
11. Printer Share Name
12. Error Messages
13. Known Problems Installing HP Printer Drivers Under Windows 95/98
14. Known Problems Installing HP Printer Drivers Under Windows NT 4.0

1. Overview
This Read Me file contains last-minute product information for the Hewlett-Packard
Install Network Printer wizard for Windows 95/ 98 and Windows NT.

2. DHCP
If you try to change just the subnet mask on an HP JetDirect print server that has
been configured via DHCP, you will get an error message while using the Hewlett-Packard
Install Network Printer wizard. Once a JetDirect print server has been manually
configured, it will store the IP address, subnet mask and default gateway statically
instead of trying to obtain them dynamically. Allowing a static change only to the
subnet mask would cause DHCP-configured IP conflicts in the future. For more information
on this subject, see the HP JetDirect documentation.

3. DNS
In a DNS environment, the Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard will
automatically set up the port with the host name rather than the IP address. If you have
a DNS environment that allows Host lookup by IP, but not the reverse lookup, the printer
will never print a page. We consider this environment to be an invalid DNS environment.
To fix the port without changing the DNS environment, view Properties for the printer.
Select the ports tab. Select the port that is in use for that printer. Click Configure
Port. Change the host name to the correct IP address.

4. IP Address Support
Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer Wizard do not support class D IP address. Class D IP
addresses are those addresses with the form of 224.xx.yy.zz

All addresses of the form 127.xx.yy.zz are reserved for loopback testing. They are not valid IP
to be used to configure device on the network.

5. Suggest IP Address (Autonet)
The algorithm for obtaining the IP address for the "Suggest Settings..." button is
derived from the Internet Draft DHC-IPV4-AUTOCONFIG by R. Troll entitled "Automatically
Choosing an IP Address in an Ad-Hoc IPv4 Network". The algorithm for generating the IP
address is to randomly generate an address in the 169.254.x.x reserved address range,
then determine if it is in use on the network. If it is in use, generate another address
in the range. Repeat until an address is generated that is not in use. The resulting
address is not intended for use on the Internet. Microsoft uses a similar scheme for
determining an IP address on Windows 98 and Windows 2000 when the system is in an environment
that doesn't have a DHCP or bootp server, and the system is configured to dynamically
determine and IP address.

6. NetWare Support
a. Supported Versions
The supported versions of NetWare are: 3.11, 3.12, 3.2, 4.11, 4.2. For Novell
queue creation, you must be logged into a Novell bindery or NDS server using a Novell
supplied client requester. See www.novell.com for client updates.
b. NDS Multiple Tree Support
The Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard only provides support for the NDS
tree the user is currently logged into. If a different tree is desired you must quit
the application, change your login to the desired tree and rerun the application.
c. NetWare 5.0 Support
If NetWare 5 is configured for IPX, and an IPX connection is being used on the client,
the Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer Wizard can be used to create an NDS print
queue. If NetWare 5 is configured for TCP/IP and a TCP/IP connection is being used on
the client, the Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard can be used to create
an IP print path. If the client on which the application is being run has an IPX
connection to the NetWare 5 server, and the client is logged in, an NDS queue server
print path will be recommended. If IPX is not in use but TCP/IP is, a TCP/IP print
path will be recommended. In order to create NDS queues, an IPX connection with a
login must be present.
d. No Novell Print Path
The Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard relies upon several DLLs that ship
with the Novell Client for 95 and NT. The application will look for these DLLs and
the associated entry points within them. If any of the necessary DLLs are missing,
or if they do not have the needed entry points (perhaps an old version), a Novell
print path will not be available although other supported print paths will be. If a
Novell print path is not available when you think one should be, try upgrading your
Novell client software to a newer version.

e. No NDS volumes shown in NetWare 4.11
There is a known problem reading the list of available NDS volumes in NetWare 4.11 with
service pack prior to version 7. This problem has been seen in cases were the user
logs into an NDS context that is at a lower level than the available volumes. The solution
is to install the NetWare 4 Support Pack 7 or upgrade to NetWare 4.2.

f. Support for NDS localities
The Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer Wizard cannot recognize localities in the
NDS context.

7. Device Discovery
a. Gateway
Discovery performance will be very slow if your client PC does not have a gateway
configured. To configure a gateway, choose "Network" in the Control Panel, and then
look at Properties for the TCP/IP protocol. An input should appear for entering a
gateway address. See the online help for a more information on TCP/IP and gateways.
b. Multi-homed Machines
Multi-homed machines are not supported. In a multi-homed machine, it is not possible
to distinguish between multiple devices with the same IP address. A multi-homed
machine is a computer with more than one network connection. It is possible for two
or more devices on different networks to have the same IP address. A multi-homed
machine would see both devices and there would be no guarantee that you are
configuring the correct device. In this case, either disable all but the correct
network card, or configure the HP JetDirect print server from another PC that is on
the correct network and has only one network card. This problem may also occur on
PCs that contains both a network card and a dial-up adapter.
c. 0.0.0.0 IP Addresses
Assuming that an IP address is not assigned, a JetDirect-connected printer will have
an IP address of "0.0.0.0" for approximately 2 minutes after a factory reset. After
2 minutes the IP address will automatically be assigned "192.0.0.192". Attempts to
configure a "0.0.0.0" device through an IP print path will fail. You must wait until
the HP JetDirect device has a non-zero IP address before attempting to configure it.
d. Class A Subnet Masks
If the machine running the Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard has an IP
subnet mask of "255.0.0.0" (which is known as a "Class A" subnet mask), device
discovery will suffer a significant performance degradation. To improve discovery
performance you must change your subnet mask to a non-Class A subnet mask.

8. Driver Support
a. License Support
Some drivers require the acceptance of a license. When installing a driver, if a
dialog appears that requests acceptance of a license, you must approve the license
before the application will continue. Failure to approve the license will result in
the application hanging.
b. Have Disk Support
To support new printers or drivers, the "Have Disk" button can be utilized during
driver installation. For the "Have Disk" functionality to work, the media must
contain an "inf" file (e.g. filename.inf). Some driver updates available on the
World Wide Web are in the form of self-extracting archives and are not in a format
that "Have Disk" can utilize. In this case, install the driver before running the
Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard.
c. HP Driver Updates
Hewlett-Packard driver updates can be found on the World Wide Web at:
www.hp.com/go/support
NOTE: This URL is subject to change.

9. IPX Port Monitor and Data Corruption
Some printers may experience data corruption when used with the Hewlett-Packard IPX
Port monitor under Windows NT. These errors may be corrected either by installing an
appropriate hot fix for NT or by installing Service Pack 4 from Microsoft.

10. Printer Names
When naming a printer within the Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard you
must enter a name in English that conforms to the Microsoft Printer Naming rules
(i.e. what would be accepted in the Microsoft Add Printer wizard). If a localized name
is required, assign the printer name in English and finish the install. Then open the
printer folder from the Control Panel and select the desired printer. Select "Rename"
from the File menu and rename the printer with a localized name.

11. Printer Share Name
Spaces are not allowed for naming printer shared name.

12. Error Messages
Error writing to for : The system cannot write to the specified file.

This error message may appear when attempting to print a test page or during regular
use. It usually means the printer is out of paper or unavailable. Check the printer
and make sure it is plugged in, has paper, etc. If you were running the Hewlett-Packard
Install Network Printer wizard when this occurred, there is no need to rerun the
application. Simply locate the printer in the printer folder and right mouse click on
it. Choose "Properties" and select to print a test page. If you have corrected the
error condition, a test page should now print.

Driver cannot install. Must run printer's setup program.

When installing certain HP printers (see tables below under #11 and #12), the Hewlett-Packard
Install Network Printer wizard may not be able to install the driver. You will receive an
error message stating that you need to run the printer's setup program. The Hewlett-Packard
Install Network Printer wizard may create the printer in the printer's folder despite this error.
The installed printer will not function properly. After the wizard exits, run the setup
program that comes with the printer. You may have to identify the printer as existing on a
local port such as LPT1. Install the printer using this setup program. Now delete both
printers from the printer folder (the printer created by the HP wizard and the printer created
by the printer's setup program). Run the HP wizard a second time. This time choose existing
drivers. You will see two similar printer strings. One will be from the first HP wizard
install and one from the printer's setup install. Choose one. If the wizard exists
successfully you chose the proper driver. If the installation fails, rerun the wizard and
this time choose the other driver. Finally, check to make sure the printer created is the
default printer. This can be accomplished by right mouse clicking on the printer in the
printer's folder and seeing if "Set As Default" is checked.

13. Known Problems Installing HP Printer Drivers Under Windows 95/98
Some HP printer drivers do not install correctly using the printer .INF file and the
"Have Disk..." option. These drivers and the behaviors that they exhibit are listed
below, along with directions to install these drivers properly.

Printer Model: HP LaserJet 8100
Behavior: PCL 6 driver will not install. The user will receive a "Spool 32" error.
Solution:
1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the PCL 6 driver.

Printer Model: HP LaserJet 8000
Behavior: PCL 6 driver will not install. The user will receive a "Spool 32" error.
Solution:
1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the PCL 6 driver.

Printer Model: HP Mopier 320
Behavior: PCL 6 driver will not install. The user will receive an error message telling them
to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer
installer again.
Solution:
1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the PCL 6 driver.

Printer Model: HP LaserJet 4050
Behavior: PCL 5e driver will not install. The user will receive an error message telling them
to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer
installer again.
Solution:
1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the PCL 5e driver.

Printer Model: HP Color LaserJet 4500
Behavior: Postscript driver will not install. The user will receive an error message telling
them to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run the
printer installer again.
Solution:
1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the Postscript
driver.

Printer Model: HP DeskJet 2500C
Behavior: The DeskJet 2500C driver will not install. The user will receive an error message
telling them to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run
the printer installer again.
Solution:
1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

Printer Model: HP LaserJet 5M
Behavior: The following drivers will not install properly: PCL Standard, PCL Enhanced,
Postscript. The user will receive an error message telling them to run the setup
program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer installer again.
Solution:
The drivers for the HP LaserJet 5M can not be installed with the "Install Network
Printer Wizard." Please use JetAdmin or Web JetAdmin to install this printer and drivers.

Printer Model: HP Color LaserJet
Behavior: The following drivers will not install properly: HP Color LaserJet, HP Color LaserJet
5/5M (CLJ5FR), HP Color LaserJet 5/5M (HP). The user will receive an error message
telling them to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run
the printer installer again.
Solution:
1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

Printer Model: HP Color LaserJet 5
Behavior: The following drivers will not install properly: HP Color LaserJet, HP Color LaserJet
5/5M (CLJ5FR), HP Color LaserJet 5/5M (HP), HP Color LaserJet 5/5M Postscript. The
user will receive an error message telling them to run the setup program that came
with this printer, and then to run the printer installer again.
Solution:
1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

Printer Model: HP LaserJet 6P
Behavior: The following drivers will not install properly: PCL Standard, PCL Enhanced,
Postscript. The user will receive an error message telling them to run the setup
program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer installer again.
Solution:
1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

Printer Model: HP LaserJet 6L
Behavior: The PCL Standard will not install properly. The user will receive an error message
telling them to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run
the printer installer again.
Solution:
1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

Printer Model: HP OfficeJet Pro 1170C
Behavior: The OfficeJet Pro 1170C driver will not install properly. The user will receive an
error message telling them to run the setup program that came with this printer, and
then to run the printer installer again.
Solution:
1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

Printer Model: HP DeskJet 1120
Behavior: There is a port monitor error right after installing the printer. The printer supplied
driver is not supported
Solution:
1. Run the Setup.exe that came with the printer to install the driver.
2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

14. Known Problems Installing HP Printer Drivers Under Windows NT 4.0
Some HP printer drivers do not install correctly using the printer .INF file and the "Have Disk..." option. These drivers and the behaviors that they exhibit are listed below, along with directions to install these drivers properly.

Printer Model: HP LaserJet 8100
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 PCL 6 client driver.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually.

Printer Model: HP LaserJet 5000
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 PCL 5 client driver.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually

Printer Model: HP LaserJet 4050
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 PCL 5 and PCL 6
client drivers.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually

Printer Model: HP LaserJet 2100
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 PCL and Poscript
client drivers.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually

Printer Model: HP Laser Jet 6L
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 Postcript client
driver.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually

Printer Model: HP Laser Jet 5P
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 Postcript client
driver.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually

Printer Model: HP Laser Jet 5L
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 Postcript client
driver.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually

Printer Model: HP Laser Jet 5
Behavior: Driver will not install. The user will receive an error message telling them to run
the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer installer
again.
Solution:
1. Run the Setup.exe that came with the printer to install the driver.

Printer Model: HP LaserJet 5Si Mopier
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 client driver.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually

Printer Model: HP DeskJet 895C
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 client driver.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually

Printer Model: HP DeskJet 890
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 client driver.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually

Printer Model: HP DeskJet 870
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 client driver.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually

Printer Model: HP DeskJet 2000C
Behavior: Driver will not install. The user will receive an error message telling them
to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer
installer again.
Solution:
1. Run the Setup.exe that came with the printer to install the driver.

Printer Model: HP DeskJet 2500C
Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 client driver.
Solution:
1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
manually

Printer Model: HP OfficeJet Pro 1170C
Behavior: No inf file that describe printer drivers.
Solution:
1. Run the Setup.exe that came with the printer to install the driver.

Printer Model: HP CopyJet
Behavior: No inf file that describe printer drivers.
Solution:
1. Run the Setup.exe that came with the printer to install the driver.

Copyright 1999 Hewlett-Packard Co. All Rights Reserved.

Thank God (4, Funny)

Ashcrow (469400) | about 12 years ago | (#3770638)

Now no one will ever do it!

p2p sharing here I come (1, Funny)

azzy (86427) | about 12 years ago | (#3770642)

I can p2p share as much as I like.. breaching copyright.. and the American's can't get me!!! Yippee!!!!!

Re:p2p sharing here I come (-1, Offtopic)

azzy (86427) | about 12 years ago | (#3770746)

offtopic? That's funny... as only earlier today there was an article about DDOS becoming lawful v's p2p servers breaching copyright.

Do try to keep up!

First Criminals (4, Funny)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | about 12 years ago | (#3770653)

And the first two people charged will be:

Ian Hill and CmdrTaco for causing a slashdotting of the UK Parliament server!

Re:First Criminals (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | about 12 years ago | (#3770688)

+5 Funny!!!!!

hahahaha I Love This Place :) :) :) :) :) :D :D :D :D

Re:First Criminals (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770717)

if they cause, or intend to cause

You know, the parent poster might be more on par than you think. Since Slashdot has a tendency to push huge amounts of traffic to sites mentioned in articles, could that be taken as a DoS attack? Notice the line above says 'cause or intend to cause', meaning if you cause something like a Denial of Service attack, with or without intent, you could still be prosecuted. Hmmm. This might not be a good thing after all.

Re:First Criminals (2)

david duncan scott (206421) | about 12 years ago | (#3771018)

Maybe, but I think their intent is the reverse in "cause or intend to cause" -- not "caused without intent", but "intended to cause and were foiled". (Curses!)

Re:First Criminals (2, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | about 12 years ago | (#3770795)

It states that a person is guilty of an offence if they cause, or intend to cause, 'degradation, failure or other impairment of function of a computerised system.'"

So this means that Microsoft can be charged for upgrades that don't work properly, etc.!!!!

Works for me!

Ha anyone told Rep. Howard Berman ? (5, Interesting)

drew_kime (303965) | about 12 years ago | (#3770657)

I wonder if this will get passed before this [slashdot.org] .

Re:Ha anyone told Rep. Howard Berman ? (2, Insightful)

DeltaSigma (583342) | about 12 years ago | (#3770855)

One must wonder if this would make effective grounds for a citizen of the U.K. to sue any copyright holder's carrying out a DoS attack on them under the respective acts. Or would that stop short merely giving a P2P server based in the U.K. grounds to sue?

Man, we really need more lawyers on slashdot. People can complain about the slime they'd bring with them but we've already got so many trolls one would hardly notice the difference...

Criminal Law not Civil Law (4, Informative)

Martin Spamer (244245) | about 12 years ago | (#3770984)


The Computer Misuse act is criminal law not civil law anybody breaking goes to Prison.

Re:Ha anyone told Rep. Howard Berman ? (1)

evronm (530821) | about 12 years ago | (#3771034)

Great point! Actually, if both get passed it will make for a very interesting jurisdictional conflict. What if the an RIAA company Dos's a UK based p2p network?

irony (4, Funny)

s20451 (410424) | about 12 years ago | (#3770658)

So we slashdotted them with a link. How ironic. Can I rat out Taco for a reduced sentence?

Important! (-1)

perl_god (578135) | about 12 years ago | (#3770660)

first
LOBSTER LOBSTER LOBSTER
(pause to let the duckling set fire to my mustache)
DADA post

Slashdot Banned From posting Links to UK? (4, Interesting)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | about 12 years ago | (#3770662)

Wouldn't the slashdot effect be a way of degrading network performance?

Degridation, impairment.. (2, Funny)

AntiTuX (202333) | about 12 years ago | (#3770663)

Like installing windows?
(HA HA HA HA!! I Made a Funny!!!)

Re:Degridation, impairment.. (1)

High Jumbllama (412619) | about 12 years ago | (#3770826)

Yeah, it might have been flamebait, but it is still funny.

Re:Degridation, impairment.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3771022)

Well, I'm just surprised that I got modded *DOWN* on a pro-linux post. I swore that slashdot was a "L1nuX R0012" kinda mode today. I dunno, I'm not very good at this kharma whoring kinda thing..

Wait until the IFPI gets involved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770665)

If the RIAA has any success in the US, then the IFPI [ifpi.org] can try the same thing with some member of parliament.

they still use DOS in England? (0, Troll)

mr_gerbik (122036) | about 12 years ago | (#3770668)

I knew they were behind the times but man... I bet they still program in QBASIC too.

Re:they still use DOS in England? (-1)

YourMissionForToday (556292) | about 12 years ago | (#3770741)

Holy shit, you made a joke about the difference between DoS (denial of service) and DOS (disk operating system). I've never seen a joke like this on Slashdot! Keep up the creative and original work!

What if? (0, Redundant)

squarefish (561836) | about 12 years ago | (#3770671)

Their site gets /.'d?

Dos'ers should have (2)

Tri0de (182282) | about 12 years ago | (#3770672)

a hard drive tied to each testicle and tossed in the Thames. Or sat the very least a nice little midnoght visit from the SAS, and some 'questioning'.

In other news... (0)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | about 12 years ago | (#3770673)


Slashdot to ban trolling.

Yeah (-1, Troll)

SpanishInquisition (127269) | about 12 years ago | (#3770675)

and these people don't brush and still drive to the left, and they have a queen too, so they can make all the crazy laws they want, I won't be suprised.

Degredation of a computer system? (5, Insightful)

restauff (168301) | about 12 years ago | (#3770678)

Every time I download a big movie or file from a fast server, I cause degredation to my connection, and so my computer system. How does one define at what point it is intentional, and at what point serious damage is done to the system?

Re:Degredation of a computer system? (2, Insightful)

Boss, Pointy Haired (537010) | about 12 years ago | (#3770737)

In the same way that me bumping into you in a crowded street by accident does not constitute an assault, whereas me hitting you does.

How hard I hit you is kind of irrelevant, but is of course a factor in assigning punishment.

Re:Degredation of a computer system? (1)

Ooblek (544753) | about 12 years ago | (#3770859)

Doing so in the act of self-gratification probably doesn't apply.

Slashdot is in trouble... (0, Redundant)

dubiousmike (558126) | about 12 years ago | (#3770679)

...now that they have posted a link to the bill.

Watch as the Parliament's website chokes to a halt.

UK vs US? (4, Interesting)

dillon_rinker (17944) | about 12 years ago | (#3770683)

So when the RIAA kills a file-sharing server in Scotland because US law specifically permits it, and when they are indicted because UK law specifically outlaws it, whose national sovereignty will be degraded?

Re:UK vs US? (2, Funny)

huh_ (53063) | about 12 years ago | (#3770703)

So when the RIAA kills a file-sharing server in Scotland because US law specifically permits it, and when they are indicted because UK law specifically outlaws it, whose national sovereignty will be degraded?

Thats a stupid question. US law prevails over all others.

Re:UK vs US? (3)

Martin Spamer (244245) | about 12 years ago | (#3770853)

So when the RIAA kills a file-sharing server in Scotland because US law specifically permits it

Decriminalisation in not the same as specifically permiting something.

whose national sovereignty will be degraded?

Neither, since crime would be committed in the UK and the USA/UK have a extradiction treaty. The the Individual would be etradited, tried and imprisoned in the UK.

Though the idea of sticking one on the RIAA (or MPA) is appealing. This is not really a good idea. It would be the geek on trial not the people that gave the orders. I'm not so keen on my taxes being used to finance a nice break at some home counties open prison.

Re:UK vs US? (1)

Catroaster (176308) | about 12 years ago | (#3770862)

The case would be heard in a British court (probably the High Court for an offence of that magnitude), and the RIAA could not claim the US law as a defence. The person who committed the act would probably be extradited to Britain to face trial under the terms of the extradition treaty.

Catroaster.

Re:UK vs US? (0)

Thud457 (234763) | about 12 years ago | (#3770949)

Nah, Bush II would just send in the Marines [house.gov] for an extraction.
(That is, if the alledged DoS'er worked for the RIAA. He probably wouldn't bother for some anti WTO protester.)

So does this mean the RIAA can be nailed? (2)

PeterMiller (27216) | about 12 years ago | (#3770686)

It's ironic that this story [slashdot.org] was just posted earlier. Quick, move all your P2P servers to the UK, you'll be safe from the RIAA!

Re:So does this mean the RIAA can be nailed? (2)

Per Wigren (5315) | about 12 years ago | (#3771015)

...P2P servers...

Duh...

RIAA and MPAA exempted? (1, Redundant)

gmhowell (26755) | about 12 years ago | (#3770687)

Are the RIAA and MPAA exempted from this law?

Just curious.

(-1 Redundant) (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 12 years ago | (#3770709)

Yeah, yeah. Was too slow on the uptake.

Re:(-2) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770903)

We can see it's redundant, dumbass. By telling us so, you are being, well, redundant.

so.. (0, Redundant)

bo0push3r (456800) | about 12 years ago | (#3770690)

does this mean that RIAA and company will have to back off of this [slashdot.org] P2P-DoS madness?

Cool I can sue microsoft (1)

linzeal (197905) | about 12 years ago | (#3770699)

"'degradation, failure or other impairment of function of a computerised system"

Seriously when will software vendors and hardware vendors that sell thei products (not cue cat or linux) be responsible in part for system instabilities?

Re:Cool I can sue microsoft (0)

Thud457 (234763) | about 12 years ago | (#3770872)

I really liked the way you condemned by assoiation "::Que::Cat" and "Linux" as both giving away their products.
And in a totally irrelevant OT comment.

See children, there's how a refined adult trolls it.

What about Microsoft service packs? (0, Redundant)

geophile (16995) | about 12 years ago | (#3770705)

I have nothing else to say on this. Thank you.

rip - WorldCom (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770710)

I just heard the news on CNNFN - long distance/telephony company WorldCom was found dead yesterday, apparently from overdosing on imaginary revenue. No other details were available. Even if you they didn't switch you to MCI without your permission, they probably called you and asked if you'd like to switch. Good riddance.

Re:rip - WorldCom (-1)

Guns n' Roses Troll (207208) | about 12 years ago | (#3770981)

You forgot the "truly a ____ icon" part. Still kinda funny though.

slashdotted (2, Insightful)

Jacer (574383) | about 12 years ago | (#3770719)

I don't think that counts, because we don't have any malicious intent. We just want to read the news which they have chosen to make available, so what if a bunch of people want to do it at once, with or without slashdot's help. But if some vengeful geek were to post a my website hosted on my cable modem in an effort to kill my connection, then I might get pissy.

Re:slashdotted (2, Interesting)

jeffy124 (453342) | about 12 years ago | (#3770861)

prior to slashdot's existance, the phrase "flash crowd" was used.

It was the title of a sci-fi short story years ago, in an age where teleportation exists and some major event occurs, causing people from all over teleport themselves to the event, causing a large crowd to appear, only to disappear after the event was over.

In the computing sense, it referred to legit cases of denial-of-service. For example, a "flash crowd" occured on 9/11 when MSNBC.com, CNN.com, etc, were all overloaded with connections from people seeking info on what was going on.

Does the 'Slashdot Effect' count as a DDoS attack? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770722)

CmdrTaco should be thrown in the Tower of London and anally assaulted by Elton John and Gary Glitter.

Blast it all (2)

The_Shadows (255371) | about 12 years ago | (#3770727)

> It states that a person is guilty of an offence if they cause, or intend to cause, 'degradation, failure or other impairment of function of a computerised system.'"

If they changed the wording just a little bit it would make Spammers face charges.

Of course, the whole impairment bit would make Microsoft criminals too. You know, I mean more so. Actually, isn't Windows XP designed to impair system preformance, forcing a hardware upgrade? Hmmmm....

Later.

Re:Blast it all (3, Informative)

Martin Spamer (244245) | about 12 years ago | (#3770946)

If they changed the wording just a little bit it would make Spammers face charges.

Unsolicited Bulk Email is almost certainly illegal (though untested) under the Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 if sending or receipt of UCE is against your AUP/TOS. Any unauthorised access to a computer is illegal under the Computer Misuse Act Section 1.

The problem is enforcement, the Police seem to have neither the inclination nor ability to enforce it.

---
1.--(1) A person is guilty of an offence if--
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that is the case.
(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at--
(a) any particular program or data;
(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
---

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_19900 01 8_en_1.htm

English law (-1, Troll)

z_gringo (452163) | about 12 years ago | (#3770733)

While it is great to see this, I dont really think it changes anything as to whether or not the UK government is "technologically withdrawn". The UK government is, and always has been fairly primitive in matters such as this, and this is apparent in everything from their rail system to BT to the laws governing broadcast television. I suspect they are just jumping on the bandwagon here without having any understanding of what it really means.

Has anything technologically(sp?) come out of the UK since WWII? Perhaps so, but its difficult to recall.

However, I do have to say that the transformation in the culinary likes of the brits over the recent years is very impressive. The food there is actually quite spicy these days, with hot curry overtaking fish and chips as the national dish and all.. So that in itself is evidence that anything can change. Even in the UK.

Re:English law (0, Troll)

z_gringo (452163) | about 12 years ago | (#3770752)

Has anything technologically(sp?) come out of the UK since WWII? Perhaps so, but its difficult to recall.

Should read: Has anything technologically(sp?) signifcant come out of the UK since WWII? Perhaps so, but its difficult to recall.

Re:English law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770827)

*yawn* Yet another yank that thinks the US invented everything...

Re:English law (1)

cruachan (113813) | about 12 years ago | (#3770943)

What do you expect? That's what hollywood tells them to think.

Re:English law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770858)

I agree with you about BT and the railways, but the UK laws on broadcast television are excellent. Where else does the government harness the hordes of slack-jawed couch potatoes slumped in front of their televisions in order to fund the development and broadcast of freely available cutting edge radio programmes [bbc.co.uk] to entertain those who have things to do with their lives?

MS is in trouble (-1, Flamebait)

qslack (239825) | about 12 years ago | (#3770735)

It states that a person is guilty of an offence if they cause, or intend to cause, 'degradation, failure or other impairment of function of a computerised system.'"

Does this mean that they will sue MS for creating Windows? It impairs any computer it's installed onto. :)

Re:MS is in trouble (1)

tomhudson (43916) | about 12 years ago | (#3770816)

Yeah, their products manage to suck and blow at the same time.

Re:MS is in trouble (1)

Budgreen (561093) | about 12 years ago | (#3770993)

sure, but do they swallow?

And what about unwanted DoS? (1)

SavingPrivateNawak (563767) | about 12 years ago | (#3770759)

For instance, if I send an email with my beta 133t mailer program to a buggy server (let's say a Lotus server) that crashes upon receiving my mail, am I liable for the DoS that other users will perceive?

So by this... (0, Redundant)

MarvinMouse (323641) | about 12 years ago | (#3770767)

Will the slashdot effect be officially illegal in Britian.

I remember one person telling me that the Slashdot effect is the only legal DoS attack. :-) I guess that'll change.

So, which will it be? (2)

peterdaly (123554) | about 12 years ago | (#3770769)

All in one day, one county considering making DOS's legal (for P2P networks), one county trying to ban the practice.

Interesting.

-Pete

Re:So, which will it be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770883)

All in one day, one
county considering making DOS's legal (for P2P networks), one county trying to ban the practice.


I know US-izens keep thinking that there isn't much else in the world apart from the US, but the UK isn't yet a county of the US as far as I know...

(Score:-1, Flaimbait)

wtf?!?! (0, Flamebait)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | about 12 years ago | (#3770776)

now lemme get this straight... california wants to allow dos attacks, uk wants to ban dos attacks... where the hell is the damn consistency, damn it?! the fuckin' internet spans the whole fuckin' globe. so i think it shouldn't be governed at all!!!!!!111111 cuz no government agency could do the job, because everyone in government is stupid!!!!!!11111111 yeah, they can govern the sale of cabbage fine, but when it comes to cool things like internet, those jackasses in government are a bunch of boring old farts with gray hair and tires around their bellies and all they care about is fucking over every single person in the world in order to cater to the needs of huge fucking multinational corporations that want to implement the Mark of the Beast and turn us all to shit. because as the constitution says, "We the Corporations of the United States, in order to form a more perfect system of eternal perpetually increasing profits, hereby ordain and establish this Constitution..."

Ugly Site (1)

alta (1263) | about 12 years ago | (#3770783)

I think the house of Lords gets the prize for worlds ugliest govenment website. Maybe I should say that cause there are some other pretty ugly sites out there!

umm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770788)

: a person is guilty of an offence if they cause, or intend to cause, 'degradation, failure or other impairment of function of a computerised syste.'"

Does that include installing Windows?

The obvious solution (2)

peterdaly (123554) | about 12 years ago | (#3770796)

I guess the US p2p users will have to setup anonymous reflectors in the UK. Ya gotta love the global age we live in!

-Pete

English Law (4, Funny)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | about 12 years ago | (#3770798)

In other news, it is still legal in Chechire (Chester) England to shoot, with a crossbow, any Welsh person, as long as you do it inside the city walls after 11 PM.

(don't ask me for a reference, I found it on a 'Stupid Laws' page that has subsequently shut down)

silly (1)

tps12 (105590) | about 12 years ago | (#3770803)

DOSing is just another (admittedly mean) use for the computer. The fact that TCP/IP is built in a way that allows DOS attacks is no reason to try to control what free citizens do with their legally obtained computers.

Re:silly (2, Interesting)

DarkMan (32280) | about 12 years ago | (#3770983)

Apply your argument to fire arms.

Murder is just another admittedly mean) use for the computer. The fact that guns are ilt in a way that allows murder is no reason to try to control what free citizens do with their legally obtained firearms.

Your argument seems to be based on because it is possible, is should be legal - which is anarchy.

Microsoft would be guilty (1)

rickthewizkid (536429) | about 12 years ago | (#3770805)

I put Windows on my computer and it "impaired my performance" ... in more ways than one... :)

Seriously, would this law apply only to activities over the Internet, or would it also apply to software vendors as well?

-Rick

This is very good. (4, Funny)

tshak (173364) | about 12 years ago | (#3770808)

This is very good - I mean consider all of the damage that DOS could do to your machine. It's insecure, lacks multitasking, and requires users to configure EMM386 and HIMEM.SYS just to play Doom. Let's just hope that bin Laden doesn't have the technology available to perform a DOS install/attack on all of our machines.

Might have been better kept quiet (1)

andyh-london (444266) | about 12 years ago | (#3770814)

I noticed this draft a few weeks ago and thought about posting it here. Then I thought it might be better if Microsoft and the like did _not_ here about it until it became law.
As it is they'll try and get it amended so they don't get prosecuted for keeping on changing systems to keep Linux/Unix incompatability.

Andy

Responsibility (1)

plastic_heaven (579902) | about 12 years ago | (#3770823)

What happens if someone has 'hacked' your machine and used it to cause a DOS attack? Are you going to be held responsible as well?

fuck you all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770828)

i hate you all

What about accidental DOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770836)

What about software like Lotus Domino that can be caused to DOS itself if not properly configured? Should people testing for open relays be held accountable?

Re:What about accidental DOS? (1)

dunkerz (443211) | about 12 years ago | (#3770877)

The law says that you can be charged if you so much as *anticipate* that using a program will cause a DoS. If it's a total accident, you're fine.

Re:What about accidental DOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770909)

But if you know it's a Domino server and you test anyways? It seems like this law can be used by sysadmins to protect themselves from testing.

Fun with the law... (1)

rocjoe71 (545053) | about 12 years ago | (#3770842)

...by the way it sounds, you *could* apply this law against virus writers and maybe even spammers too.

Of course, there's still the "burden-of-proof", even in the case of spammers, but it would be nice to think there's a law that makes them vulnerable.

Just copyright it. (1)

High Jumbllama (412619) | about 12 years ago | (#3770844)

Just copyright denial of service attacks. Everyone knows copyright law is more powerful anyway.

No more benchmarking... (1)

legerde (583680) | about 12 years ago | (#3770857)

Many benchmarks try to a hammer a system to the point where it is unusable..

I guess this really means that the linux VM is performing great now! :)

Fair enough I suppose.. (1)

dunkerz (443211) | about 12 years ago | (#3770860)

.. but surely the House of Lords isn't becoming wise to modern technology? :D

Hmm, slashdot could be liable (1)

xA40D (180522) | about 12 years ago | (#3770876)

A person is guilty of the offence even if the act was not intended to cause such an effect, provided that a reasonable person could have anticipated that the act would have caused such an effect.


It's not just slashdot that needs to be woried


I work for an ISP. When The Queen Mum died we had so many people dialing in it caused what was, in essence, a denial of service attack. So someone better mention to ER that if she's thinking of snuffing it she'll have to give herself a pardon first.

Who'll do the policing? (2, Interesting)

lionchild (581331) | about 12 years ago | (#3770881)

How much bandwidth has to be taken up to determine that one is under a DoS? Who gets to decide? Are there going to be 'net-cops who police this sort of thing and rush out to arrest those? Is this a civial or criminal enactment of laws? Certainly you'd approach each differently.

Bets... any takers? (2)

sielwolf (246764) | about 12 years ago | (#3770891)

Anyone want to make a bet on how long it will be before these end users become technological neanderthals when they decide to use this law for Evil instead of Good forcing /. to post a thousand threads and subjecting us to at least three John Katz articles that bear no relevance to the topic?

Wrench? (1)

reconn (578681) | about 12 years ago | (#3770902)

I'd like to see them handle Wrench [www.tao.ca] , when somebody builds it.

P2P DoS w/o RIAA.

Could posting to slashdot be illegal? (1)

ZeroLogic (11697) | about 12 years ago | (#3770906)

Scenario:

I want to DOS someone so I post a story about them to slashdot, the users then overload the server and I have my desired affect. Is what I did illegal? I'm not saying the unwitting users of slashdot have performed any crime, I'm asking if my intent was enough to make it illegal.

Well they gotta find something to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770908)

Since the East India (or West) Company closed down, the pillagers dont have much to do. So why not pass time banning things. Hey you never know there might be some pillaging in it too.

The slashdot effect ! (1)

Joel Ironstone (161342) | about 12 years ago | (#3770911)

. . .if they cause, or intend to cause, 'degradation, failure or other impairment of function of a computerised system.'"

Everyday some random Joe Schmoe's sight is degraded and impaired by a barrage of requests from a slashdot article.

Re:The slashdot effect ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3770980)

I believe you mean "site," you god damn moron.

Will this create a similar catchnet as...... (1)

VirtualUK (121855) | about 12 years ago | (#3770915)

.....before the computer misuse act, the most common way to prosecute someone for something like that was under an law which related to stealing electricity. Could this law be used to prosecute hackers who it could be claimed have degraded the system's performance merely by logging in, or even portscanning by causing the target machine to do something it wasn't scheduled to do?

Pop-Ups? (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 12 years ago | (#3770935)


'degradation, failure or other impairment of function of a computerised system.'
Does this mean that action will be taken against sites which load unwanted pop-up windows, which I don't request, that sucks up my already limited dial-up bandwidth?
And when my computer resources are low, and a site launches a couple of pop-ups, and freezes my comp, will that be included in the definition, also?
I do hope so.

SPAM == DOS (2, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | about 12 years ago | (#3770960)

So will SPAM creators be targetable under the provisions? Massive amounts of email can easily be shown to take up CPU memory and processor time as well as all the messages consuming disk space. A small system can easily be overloaded by SPAM, so SPAM is clearly a source of degradation and impairment of function of the computer. Simply filling up an inbox on a system can prevent access to other mail and is demonstratable as denial of service.
SPAM is sent deliberatly with knowledge of the load affects.

Hang on (4, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 12 years ago | (#3770986)

Feel free to mod this as funny or troll, but I am perfectly serious. I like this bill: it's pithy, addresses a real problem, and is neither too narrow nor too broad. However, it occurs to me that the wording could be applied to writing a piece of buggy software.

"A person is guilty of an offence if without authorisation he does any act which causes directly or indirectly a degradation, failure, or other impairment or function of a computerised system or any part thereof. A person is guilty of the offence [...] even if the act was not intended to cause such an effect, provided that a reasonable person could have anticipated that the act would have caused such an effect. [...] the act is without authorisation if the person doing it does not have the permission of the owner [of the relevant computerised system or part thereof]."

So, I write a piece of code with a memory scribbler in it, say passing an unitialised pointer to memcpy(). The "act" is my typing of that specific line of code. Any reasonable person would anticipate that act would cause a degradation or failure on a system. Note: "a" system, not "my" system. I didn't intend it to cause failure, but I should (reasonably) have realised it would. And once I distribute the code, the damage is caused on many systems, none of which are owned by people who gave me permission (explicitely or even implicitely) to perform the "act", i.e. write that scribbler.

I'm certainly stretching a point, but my scenario satisfies the letter (if not the spirit) of the law. There's already a concept of criminal negligence; this would just be a specific case of it. The part that makes me pause is that the offence is caused by the individual coder, not by her employer.

So while this probably will never effect me, it gives me a little more incentive to make sure that I lint every line that I write, and damn the deadline. But hey, on balance that's a good thing, right? ;-)

What a difference... (1)

huddles (68183) | about 12 years ago | (#3771024)

Top story on Slashdot:
Your Rights Online: UK Parliament to ban DoS Attacks

Earlier on Slashdot:
Your Rights Online: Legalizing Attacks on P2P Networks

Yup, makes me PROUD to be an American, you bet!

Joe
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...