@flyingpenguin@infosec.exchange
Post #4415879
2026-08-06 10:59 UTC
@DaveMWilburn@infosec.exchange @Viss@mastodon.social @jfslowik@infosec.exchange interesting. Morris specified offense in C, while the labs specified it in their precise test configuration. The worm made runtime choices too like which hosts, which exploit... and every one was attributed back to the man who launched it. Authoring the code rather than the config is a difference but it doesn't move the attribution. Intrusion tasks chosen as the benchmark, safeguards deliberately switched off, internet egress provisioned.
Replies (1)
-
@DaveMWilburn@infosec.exchange 2026-08-06 11:14
@flyingpenguin@infosec.exchange @Viss@mastodon.social @jfslowik@infosec.exchange It would be an incredibly difficult case to prosecute. You'd have to convince a jury that the decendants' actions meet all the elements of the crime, including poor configurations and vague prompts, none of which explicitly asked or even suggested the model hack into an outside entity's network. IMO we really need new laws that establish crimes based on recklessness, negligence, or failure to supervise autonomous agents.