Your reply is well thought-out and logical, and most certainly all admins shouldn't be responsible for making sure typo'd URLs don't get intercepted by their webservers. The point I think Mr. Smith is trying to make is that Verisign seems to *want* to intercept this private information and use it to their own commercial advantage. Respectable sysadmins do not wish to receive form data intended for other sites. But really, all webmasters *should* be responsible in making sure the forms on their site do POST to the correct URL. Now from what I understand (DISCLAIMER: I am *NOT* a lawyer nor am I educated in law) Verisign's Sitefinder does not violate the ECPA by merely accepting the form data since the data was misdirected anyway. However, it's what Verisign *does* with that data that may violate the ECPA. If they're moving that data to Omniture (or any other org/corp), then it could very well be a violation not only of the ECPA but of their privacy policy. - Christopher Wagner chrisw@pacaids.com -----Original Message----- From: N407ER [mailto:n407er@myrealbox.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:43 AM To: Richard M. Smith Cc: BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS. COM Subject: Re: Does VeriSign's SiteFinder service violate the ECPA? Richard M. Smith wrote: > Hi, > > Here's a question for the lawyers. In certain situations, does the > VeriSign SiteFinder service violate the Electronic Communications > Privacy Act (AKA, ECPA)? > > Here's the actual text of the ECPA: > > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch119.html > > With my packet sniffer, I noticed that the VeriSign SiteFinder Web > server happily accepts POST form data which is intended for another Web > server. This situation will occur if the domain name is misspelled in > the action URL of a form. > > Without SiteFinder in the picture, the HTTP POST operation is never done > since the DNS lookup fails. By this logic, all webservers which unintentionally accept traffic without somehow verifying that a typo did not take place violate the ECPA. Thats ridiculous. Do you really want a precedent where, if someone accidentally POSTs bank information to your site instead of the URL they meant to type, you are somehow liable? If I accidentally call you instead of my friend and tell you all sorts of juicy gossip, is it really your fault? I'm bothered by the VeriSign thing, too. But you've been posting a lot of stuff about how it breaks certain services, breaks certain mail clients, and may be illegal. What it does to mail clients and services is annoying, though easily fixed. But you should hardly wish for it to be deemed illegal. That's not the sort of precedent I want to worry about. Ta for now.
