Herramientas prohibidas para alemanes

Verbotene Tools:
AnyDVD & AnyDVD HD
SpyAgent
John the Ripper
Asterisk Logger
FairUse4WM
Advanced Office Password Recovery (Elcomsoft Co. Ltd)
WirelessKeyView
Legale Tools
No23Live
No23 Recorder
QT Lite
Tor & Privoxy & Vidalia-Paket
User Agent Switcher
TVAnts
Miro
PPMate
SopCast
PeerGuardian
CryptLoad
Secunia Personal Software Inspector
Network Share Browser
Wlandscape
Wireshark

Vorsicht, Hackerparagraph: Diese Tools sind für Admins verboten

Von Jörg Geiger und Manuel Masiero 23. Juni 2008

Vor einem Jahr verabschiedete der Bundestag mit großer Mehrheit den Paragraphen 202c des Strafgesetzbuches, unter IT-Verantwortlichen besser bekannt als Hackerparagraph. Seitdem herrscht Chaos bei Administratoren, die die betroffenen Tools für Sicherheitstests der eigenen Systeme einsetzen. CHIP Online klärt über die aktuelle Situation auf und sagt, was erlaubt und was verboten ist.
Fotostrecke: Gut oder böse - die verbotenen Tools

• 1Vorsicht, Falle
• 2Verbotene Tools erkennen
• 3Software-Tools im Überblick
• 4Gesetzeskonforme Sicherheitstests
• 5Auswirkungen des Hackerparagrafen

In IT-Unternehmen und bei Strafverfolgern herrscht seit der Einführung des so genannten Hackerparagraphen Unsicherheit (§ 202c StGB: Vorbereiten des Ausspähens und Abfangens von Daten). Der Grund:
Der Gesetzgeber stellt Herstellung, Beschaffung und Verbreitung von "Computerprogrammen, deren Zweck die Begehung einer Straftat" nach § 202a und § 202b StGB ist, unter Strafe.
In diesen beiden Paragraphen geht es um die Überwindung von Zugangssicherungen zu gespeicherten Daten und das Abfangen von Daten. Das Problem dabei: Der Gesetzestext ist an dieser Stelle sehr schwammig formuliert.
Sicherheitsexperten wie Lutz Neugebauer, Bereichsleiter Sicherheit beim Bitkom, sprechen von einer Dual-Use-Problematik. Denn einerseits werden Tools wie Passwort-Knacker oder Portscanner für Hackerangriffe eingesetzt, andererseits nutzen aber auch Administratoren, Sicherheitsforscher und Qualitätsprüfer diese Tools, um IT-Systeme sicherer zu machen. "Man sieht einem Computerprogramm leider nicht an, ob sein Zweck die Begehung einer Straftat ist", erklärt Neugebauer.
Pikant dabei: Schon beim Verdacht einer Straftat nach § 202c StGB muss die Staatsanwaltschaft ermitteln. Doch erste Anzeigen sind im Sande verlaufen, es gibt keine spektakulären Urteile. Was bleibt, ist Unsicherheit - vor allem bei den Sicherheitsverantwortlichen in Unternehmen. Was ist jetzt noch erlaubt, was strafbar und was führt sogar direkt in den Knast? CHIP Online kennt die Antworten.

...

John the Ripper (Download, 11.09.2007)
"John the Ripper" knackt gesperrte Windows-Rechner,
falls Sie mal Ihr Passwort vergessen haben.

Netzwerk knacken und ... KNAST

Source
Abfangen von Daten

Wer unbefugt sich oder einem anderen unter Anwendung von technischen Mitteln nicht für ihn bestimmte Daten (§ 202a Abs. 2) aus einer nichtöffentlichen Datenübermittlung oder aus der elektromagnetischen Abstrahlung einer Datenverarbeitungsanlage verschafft, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft, wenn die Tat nicht in anderen Vorschriften mit schwererer Strafe bedroht ist.

La navaja para estúpidos maliciosos

Hanlon's razor [La navaja de Hanlon]

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Also worded as:

Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.

Nota bene:

A similar quotation appears in Robert A. Heinlein's 1941 short story Logic of Empire
("You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"); this was noticed in 1996 (five years before Bigler identified the Robert J. Hanlon citation) and first referenced in version 4.0.0 of the Jargon File ^[4], with speculation that Hanlon's Razor might be a corruption of "Heinlein's Razor." "Heinlein's Razor" has since been defined as variations on Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice. or ... but keep your eyes open.
A variant, Grey's Law (influenced, no doubt, by Clarke's third law), posits "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

["Cualquier suficientemente avanzada incompetencia es indistinguible de malicia"]

La navaja para estúpidos maliciosos:

Nunca atribuyas a la malicia lo que pueda ser adecuadamente explicado con la estupidez

Lo que puede leerse:

Nunca asumas malicia cuando baste la estupidez

Laws of Robotics

The word robot first appeared in a 1921 Karel Čapek play, R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots).

Three Laws of Robotics by Isaac Asimov

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

In the 1990s, Roger MacBride Allen has modificated and added a fourth law to these laws:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must participate instead of obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such participations would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot cannot be ordered to destroy itself (no longer superseded by the Second Law)
4. A robot can do "whatever it likes" so long as this does not conflict with the first three Laws

The Fifth Law of Robotics, introduced by Nikola Kesarovski in his short story "The Fifth Law of Robotics":

• A robot must know it is a robot

(Lo ideal para un sistema autoritario!) The military would want strong safeguards
built into any robot where possible, so laws similar to Asimov's would
be embedded if possible. David Langford has suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that these laws might be the following:

1. A robot will not harm authorized Government personnel but will terminate intruders with extreme prejudice.
2. A robot will obey the orders of authorized personnel except where such orders conflict with the Third Law.
3. A robot will guard its own existence with lethal antipersonnel weaponry, because a robot is bloody expensive.

In a later essay, Asimov points out that analogues of his Three Laws are implicit in the design of almost all tools:

1. A tool must be safe to use. (Knives have handles, swords have hilts, and grenades have pins.)
2. A tool must perform its function efficiently unless this would harm the user.
3. A tool must remain intact during its use unless its destruction is required for its use or for safety.

Clarke's three laws

Clarke's three laws

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
   possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something
   is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
4. For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.[1999]

Sturgeon's law

1. "Nothing is always absolutely so"
2. "Ninety percent of everything is crap"

Adagios de la ley de Sturgeon:

1. "No existe la absoluta verdad"
2. "Noventa por ciento de todo es basura"

Nota bene:
I asume that 90% of all in life is 6...!  ;-) ---cebaehren

Regla del 80/20

Il Principio di Pareto o "legge 80/20":

• economia: l'80% delle ricchezze è in mano al 20% della popolazione (ma ovviamente i valori reali variano a seconda dei paesi e dei periodi). Oppure: il 20% dei venditori fa l'80% delle vendite, ed il restante 80% dei commerciali fa solo il 20% delle vendite.
• qualità: il 20% dei tipi possibili di guasto in un processo produttivo genera l'80% delle non conformità totali. Oppure: l'80% dei reclami proviene dal 20% dei clienti.
• informatica: l’80% del tempo di esecuzione è impiegato solo dal 20% delle istruzioni di un programma. Oppure: l'80% delle operazioni degli utenti sono dovute al 20% delle funzioni a disposizione di un applicativo.

El principio de Pareto

The Pareto principle