Re: qubes

45 views
Skip to first unread message

Oleg Artemiev

unread,
Jun 21, 2015, 9:37:35 AM6/21/15
to CyberPsychotic, qubes...@googlegroups.com, qubes...@googlegroups.com



11:59, вс, 21.06.2015, Oleg Artemiev <grey...@gmail.com>:

Eto Tema is bankovskogo sectora.
Проще набрать чем пояснить письмом.  Ты доступен для звонков на мобильный?


10:00, вс, 21.06.2015, Fyodor <fyg...@gmail.com>:

Pishi tak.

Yes I do, I explained the reason above. А вот дальше я не очень пойму - when somebody passed.. что ты хочешь тут сказать, может я поправлю?

On Jun 19, 2015 3:17 AM, "Oleg Artemiev" <grey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you still want to have some sort of VM authentication mechanism,
yes I do. For above reason. When someone has remotely passed into my
VM I need a password between user and root and clear message that
breaking from user to root on my system exactly violates Russian law
and should violate most of remote to me laws (i.e. US or whatever).
And only then - let them try to break-in and try to get whatever
evidence they want. This may appear important when "evidence" is shown
the 1st question is are those received not against the law?

Как тебе этот абзац из списка рассылки - я ведь не хочу чего-то глупого, верно?

--
Bye.Olli.
gpg --search-keys grey_olli
Key fingerprint = 9901 6808 768C 8B89 544C  9BE0 49F9 5A46 2B98 147E
Blog keys (mostly in russian): http://grey-olli.livejournal.com/tag/

Oleg Artemiev

unread,
Jun 21, 2015, 9:41:05 AM6/21/15
to CyberPsychotic, qubes...@googlegroups.com, qubes...@googlegroups.com

Hello lists.

Fyodor is a friend of mine and I trust him to rephrase my writings. He should reply to this email tomorrow.

Fyodor

unread,
Jul 1, 2015, 12:42:15 AM7/1/15
to Olli, qubes...@googlegroups.com, qubes...@googlegroups.com

Apologize for delay: what Oleg is saying is that whenever a user is trying to log in or elevate privilege to root/admin level it is essential to have a banner warning the user that this is a private property system and any unauthorized access is a criminal offence and is punishable by law.

Cheers

bradbury9

unread,
Jul 1, 2015, 4:42:33 AM7/1/15
to qubes...@googlegroups.com, qubes...@googlegroups.com, grey...@gmail.com, fyg...@gmail.com
El miércoles, 1 de julio de 2015, 6:42:15 (UTC+2), Fyodor escribió:

Apologize for delay: what Oleg is saying is that whenever a user is trying to log in or elevate privilege to root/admin level it is essential to have a banner warning the user that this is a private property system and any unauthorized access is a criminal offence and is punishable by law.

Cheers

On Jun 21, 2015 9:41 PM, "Oleg Artemiev" <grey...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello lists.

Fyodor is a friend of mine and I trust him to rephrase my writings. He should reply to this email tomorrow.


10:00, вс, 21.06.2015, Fyodor <fyg...@gmail.com>:

Pishi tak.

Yes I do, I explained the reason above. А вот дальше я не очень пойму - when somebody passed.. что ты хочешь тут сказать, может я поправлю?

On Jun 19, 2015 3:17 AM, "Oleg Artemiev" <grey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you still want to have some sort of VM authentication mechanism,
yes I do. For above reason. When someone has remotely passed into my
VM I need a password between user and root and clear message that
breaking from user to root on my system exactly violates Russian law
and should violate most of remote to me laws (i.e. US or whatever).
And only then - let them try to break-in and try to get whatever
evidence they want. This may appear important when "evidence" is shown
the 1st question is are those received not against the law?

Those banners could be wrong in certain countries because it depends on specific country computer related laws, and those are different in every country. In country A accesing to a computer could be legal or not regulated at all, but in country B accesing a computer could be ilegal.

Oleg Artemiev

unread,
Jul 1, 2015, 8:00:39 AM7/1/15
to Fyodor, bradbury9, qubes...@googlegroups.com, qubes...@googlegroups.com

Thanks. Your translation of my y dreams is excellent.  :) 


On 12:47PM, Wed, Jul 1, 2015 Fyodor <fyg...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it is sufficient that the unauthorized access activity is
governed by law of a country where the machine is located. Look at US
as an example:
by accessing a computer system in united states without authorization
a person is placing himself at risk of procesuction in accordance with
US law. Doesn't matter where the person currently resides. and once
there is a court decision, this person would be arrested if he ever
steps on US territory (or a country that has extradiction agreement
with US).   There are multiple cases which reflect this sequence of
actions:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-11/accused-russian-hacker-on-tropical-holiday-nabbed-by-u-s-agents
...
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages