Comment by ineedasername
6 years ago
The court is claiming it wasn't a prearranged part of the test that they were aware of. It will be up to the company to prove that it was
It should be pretty straightforward to determine if the contract explicitly specified electronic penetration or left some ambiguity. Unfortunately it looks like they won't release the contract so we won't know. (I'm sure the defense will get to see it, unless they go to Kafka land, though presumably they also wouldn't have charged these guys if there was such a large hole in the contract language.)
The contract will almost definitely go into evidence. Unless the judge makes an explicit ruling to the contrary, I believe this means that it will be made public (although access might involve a physical visit and some fees)
In my experience red team contracts explicitly state what is in-scope. Ambiguity means no.