The paper outlines the effectiveness of using a computer to detect remote attacks (think email and MS worms like the rash we recently had), sink their services (the equlivent of asking a telemarketer about all his services which you arn't going to buy; he can't bother someone else while he's on the phone with you), and launch a counter-attack against the attacker (use the same hole that orinigally wormed the attacker to remove the worm and close the hole, so no one can do it again).
This happens to have altruistic intentions, but what about when this is used for 'evil'? Or just as a 'precautionary measure'?
"We didn't 'hack' their computer, your honor. Our machine told their machine to shut down because it was attacking our computer. A machine that's shut down can't be hacked, therefore we didn't 'hack' their machine. We made a defensive move in response to thier offensive one. It was self defence, your honor."
(Edited by Kevlar at 1:52 pm on Oct. 28, 2003)