Busting People for Pointing Out Security Flaws 350
gsch writes "'In 2004, Bret McDanel was convicted of violating section 1030 when he e-mailed truthful information about a security problem to the customers of his former employer. The prosecution argued that McDanel had accessed the company e-mail server by sending the messages, and that the access was unauthorized within the meaning of the law because the company didn't want this information distributed. They even claimed the integrity of the system was impaired because a lot more people (customers) now knew that the system was insecure.
Notwithstanding the First Amendment's free speech guarantees, the trial judge convicted and sentenced McDanel to 16 months in prison. I represented him on appeal, and argued that reporting on security flaws doesn't impair the integrity of computer systems. In an extremely unusual turn of events, the prosecution did not defend its actions, but voluntarily moved to vacate the conviction.'"
Something is Rotten (Score:5, Insightful)
There are practices and standards for developing secure code. If your programmers follow these, then even their knowledge of the source shouldn't matter if they go rogue or want to have fun in their free time. Look at Linux. An operating system used by millions and every hacker in the world can get their hands on the source code. Why don't we see many viruses for Linux? Because it was implemented well. Perhaps companies should start to realize that if they produce code for Win32 applications, they're going to have to resort to the same tactics that Microsoft uses: Don't let the source code out or its true flaws will be revealed and exploited!
For the consumers of these companies, be wary that your product is only as secure as the company's relationship with its developers--kind of scary considering they're keeping them quiet via threat of lawsuit.
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a SAD fact, that some of these known bugs are security vulnerabilities, one would hope that security bugs top the priority list but they do not, useability most often comes first.
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience, moveing a piece of graphics one pixel has way more priority for a customer than to fix an SQL injection problem, and since the company developing the software gets money for moving the graphics around, but not for fixing the bug - guess what I'm being told to do...
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:5, Interesting)
Bugs are going to happen. Incompetent design doesn't have to.
There is an expensive (~$3000 license per machine) "enterprise" product that we use throughout the company. It needs to store usernames and passwords with reversible encryption. In the first version we deployed, the encryption was a substitution cipher - literally the level of "security" you'd get from a cereal box spy ring. We complained to the vendor. The next version used a one-time pad that was the same for every password on every machine where the software was installed in the world. I wrote a script that generated a decoding table in a few hours, and I'm not even a cryptography geek. We complained again, and they changed it to something that at least *appears* reasonably secure, I haven't had time to look into it.
Even assuming it is decent this time, why did it take so long for them to do? Encryption isn't a new field. There were plenty of algorithms they could have used from the beginning instead of re-inventing ciphers from centuries ago.
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Interesting)
The company has a substantial investment in this particular product (on the order of half a million dollars in licensing), so they wouldn't consider replacing it.
I am a little more confident in the
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:5, Insightful)
1: All software has some number of bugs.
2: A VM is a piece of software
--
Also realize that in order to be effective, each such piece of software would have to execute inside its own VM in complete isolation from other applications... no IPC, no shared memory, no networking -- after all, a bug in one application could be exploited by a "properly" invalid network request... While highly secure, this is not the most useful of configurations...
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:2)
I've got some bad news for you: Linux, FreeBSD, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice, Firefox, pretty much every large app & library all have security flaws.
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:4, Insightful)
But I'll say, if you do demand source you should be able to find and fix any security flaws yourself and report them for the benefit of those who can't and/or don't.
Fixing flaws will always be faster for open source users because users can be doing it for themselves, and they'll be found faster too since you'll have more users proactively looking for and fixing flaws than a closed source company will (waste of manpower better tasked to adding new features and enhancements (i.e. future profits)).
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Insightful)
While I think that implementation may have a little to do with it, I think the driving factor is that Linux has no where close to the user base that Windows does.
The purpose of many of these viruses is to create a large botnet. That's alot easier to do when you targt an OS aimed at the everyman computer user who lacks sophisticated understanding of his box and how to maintain it. Linux on the other hand has no where close to the user base spread across so many differe
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Insightful)
The real reason you don't see that many viruses or worms directed at linux systems is that the concept of least privilege was implemented at the start. Unlike most windows systems whic
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Insightful)
No it wasn't. And it still hasn't been.
Certainly it has a concept of "less than full privilege," and that was there from the start, having been copied from earlier systems. Windows has this concept also, but it's perhaps more honored in the breach than the observance. However, my email client, my video player, and my web browser still run with the full
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Insightful)
This is important, as many forms of malware (including that needed to build a 'bot) can be implemented w/o the requirement of root/superuser access. While the OS protecting itself is a Good Thing, this doesn't do anything to protect the computer itself against abuse (or to protect the Internet against abuse of this computer).
This is a fact too often mis
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:5, Insightful)
Image the botnet you can have if you can manage to compromise all of them, silently sending data, doing damages.
Numbers, numbers you said.
Try again.
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for playing.
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been in the webhosting industry for about 6 years... you have it quite backwards. Browse through the discussion threads on WebHostingTalk, and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Granted, a lot of us are very on top of things, but there's also a swarm of 15 year olds that go get a dedicated server, and start up a hosting company with absolutely no clue what an SSH shell even is, let alone how to do anything but click links in
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not disagreeing with you, and many others here have made very valid points about other factors to viruses and the systems they run on - but I am only really qualified to make statements regarding end user proficiency.
Taking your statement as true, I still believe that the number of clu
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is also compounded by the fact that the tech behind the scenes is getting more complex by the minute as the concepts build on each other.
I think a cool idea whould be to create some sort of setting or application that runs on your windows box and proactively explains things when they come up. Somewhat like ESPN had going on about 3 years ago with Hockey games. Once a week a game was chosen to be the "learning" game. Whenever a penalty was called, the announcers would breifly explain and illustrate what the penalty was, how it occured, why it was a penalty, and the price to be paid.
I know they have a help file now, but no one is going to go out of their way to learn something like this. Maybe a little more comprehensive tool tip text type of thing would do the trick.
Just as long as it isn't animated and dosn't make noise.
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:5, Insightful)
The average home PC is administrated by someone that has no clue about security, while the average Apache admins, knows how to lock down a system, and doesn't use the system for everyday stuff, like viewing e-mails, and running programs randomly downloaded off the internet.
If we gave Linux machines to the same idiots that run Windows XP machines, you would have botnets, there might not be as many, but they would still be there because many virii are run via social engineering, not via operating system tricks. The dumb user is not something Linux can fix.
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:5, Insightful)
But, (you saw that BUT coming did you
Like when Sasser, or Slammer, so many names I am mixing them up, was runnig wild on the internet, I had a dozen of email containing the trojan paylod and i opened them! thats right I opened them and nothing happen. Why? Because I was smart? No, I wished to make a point to my friend. I used Mozilla on Linux, nothing happen.I used Mozilla on Windows, same result, nada. Did I dared use Outlook? not in a million years. In fact, My wife, who is a computer newbie, use Windows XP has her OS, with full admin rights, because you know some programs just runs better, and has no problem surfing where ever she wants, reading emails from friends, even infected one. She dont use Outlook or IE, that is all I ask of her.
Anyway all this to say that no matter how competent you are, when your tools are broken, you will be broken. Period.
Number is factor. Competent user is another factor, and platforms are one more factor to consider.
P.S: Sorry for my english mistakes. I am a Canadian born french african.
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:5, Interesting)
Right. The fact that Gates, Ballmer & Company decided to ignore practically every reputable security expert on the planet and release ActiveX, a completely unsandboxed tool for crackers, had nothing to do with it. Right-o, Matey.
First ActiveX exploit released: 1993. Latest ActiveX exploit: in the wild currently and unpatched. That's 13 years that Microsoft has ignored your security and refused to correct a huge, gaping security hole.
We won't even talk about the RPC processes (accessible through ports left open by default) that have traditionally been running in Windows (up until just a few months ago), with full Admin privileges, every time you log in, no matter how you log in.
The real reason Windows has more security problems: the head-in-the-sand, we'll-bend-over-and-take-more-of-this-same-old-cra p attitude of Microsoft customers.
But here, I'll let the Microsoft folks themselves tell you:
"Our products just aren't engineered for security," said Brian Valentine, Microsoft senior vice president for Windows development. Another Microsoft executive recently explained they never paid attention to security "Because customers wouldn't pay for it until recently."
Article (2003) quote from http://archive.corporatewatch.org/profiles/microso ft/microsoft1.htm#Crapsoftware [corporatewatch.org]
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Interesting)
"ActiveX (in a browser, I have to assume thats what you're talking about) gives security prompts on any attempt to install software. If you click No or do not install or whatever, it doesn't."
Spyware vendors got past that years ago.
"Wow, way to quote a 3 year old article."
You say that as if three years were a long time or things had changed at Microsoft. Three years isn't that long at all, especially as Microsoft hasn't yet produced another OS or browser (Vista and IE 7 are in beta), nor has there b
Re:Something is Rotten (Score:3, Insightful)
But isn't this how a bank keeps its employees quiet about private data, or how a manufacturer keeps its trade secrets (spaghetti sauce recipe, engine tuning secrets, freight routing AI, etc)?
And why do they have have to? Because relying on personal integrity routinely fails. Don't even start with "if they'd only treat employees fairly, by paying every 21-year-old new hire mid six-figures, a corner office, two months off their fi
and? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:and? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't suppose you will corroberate this fictional anecdote with the name of the airport and the name and manufacturer of the security system.
Surely in your country this is cause for a massive class action against the airport.
Re:and? (Score:2)
Yes, there are irrational and stupid people throughout the world, but I am guessing that your friend's crime was not simply "making comments about weak airline security to his coworkers and boss", but doing something, saying someth
Re:and? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:and? (Score:3, Insightful)
True, this is an analogy that may not fit, but if it comes down to one group being able to continue to make money at the expense of many other groups due to sheer negligence,(Gee, hope nobody finds ou
Re:and? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, and the submitter's remark, "Notwithstanding the First Amendment's free speech guarantees," is silly because the First Amendment doesn't guarantee 100% free speech in all situations.
How do you get from there to criminal prosecution for pointing out security flaws?
Re:and? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oddly enough, I hold my first ammendment guaranteed right to free speech at a lot higher level than any trade secret.
Come to think of it, I don't know that the constitution guarantees me the right to trade secrets. Hmm.
Understandable (Score:5, Interesting)
The first impression is that this is really weird. Prosecutors, at least in my neck of the woods, don't give two shits about justice or truth. They just want convictions. Do we actually have a prosecutor somewhere with integrity? How many times has hell frozen over this month?
Take a minute to think about it, though, and things change. Prosecutors still just want convictions that stand on appeal. In this case, the conviction was eventually going to get tossed, so the prosecution gets to look like a hero by bailing out early.
As usual, what at first blush appears to be a noble action by a public servant turns out to be self-serving. There is still no chance of a prosecutor having integrity. All is, again, right with the world.
Re:Understandable (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, that's their fucking job! They represent the accusation, after all.
I'd be more concerned if the judge just wanted convictions. That's the guy who is supposed to be impartial, not the prosecution.
It goes deeper than that (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, I think I ought to reiterate that I'm talking about image, not whether the prosecutor is actually fair. Far too many prosecutors are willing to tar innocents rather than admit they nabbed the wrong guy.
That said, it may be that this prosecutor actually may have learned something, and decided to cut his losses rather than look like a bully working for the company (instead of the public interest). This was a criminal case after all, not a civil lawsuit.
Re:Understandable (Score:2)
Point taken... (Score:3, Interesting)
...but not completely. There's a saying where I live that the County Prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Any grand jury that doesn't do exactly what the prosecutor wants will find itself the subject of a carefully orchestrated smear campaign, complete with local news stories (planted by guess who) investigating the problem of "runaway grand juries."
My point is that prosecutors have a lot of power and any public servant with lots of power should always be willing to step outside the
Re:Understandable (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I prefer that prosecutors are first and foremost concerned with justice. I want the right people convicted and sent to prison, not just the ones that the prosecutors can convict.
LK
Re:Understandable (Score:2)
Re:Understandable (Score:5, Informative)
Quoth the parent:
Errrmmmm
Quoted from the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:
(Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct, (1989) reprinted in Tex. Govt Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. (Vernon Supp. 1995)(State Bar Rules art X [[section]]9))
3.09 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) refrain from conducting or assisting in a custodial interrogation of an accused unless the prosecutor has made reasonable efforts to be assured that the accused has been advised of any right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not initiate or encourage efforts to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pre-trial, trial or post-trial rights;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; and
(e) exercise reasonable care to prevent persons employed or controlled by the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.07.
Comment:
Source and Scope of Obligations
1. A prosecutor has the responsibility to see that justice is done, and not simply to be an advocate. This responsibility carries with it a number of specific obligations(emphasis added). Among these is to see that no person is threatened with or subjected to the rigors of a criminal prosecution without good cause. See paragraph (a). In addition a prosecutor should not initiate or exploit any violation of a suspects right to counsel, nor should he initiate or encourage efforts to obtain waivers of important pre-trial, trial, or post-trial rights from unrepresented persons. See paragraphs (b) and (c). In addition, a prosecutor is obliged to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice, that the defendants guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence, and that any sentence imposed is based on all unprivileged information known to the prosecutor. See paragraph (d). Finally, a prosecutor is obliged by this rule to take reasonable measures to see that persons employed or controlled by him refrain from making extrajudicial statements that are prejudicial to the accused. See paragraph (e) and Rule 3.07. See also Rule 3.03(a)(3), governing ex parte proceedings, among which grand jury proceedings are included. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.04.
<END of quoted material>
Almost every state has the same, or similar rules, in place, as does the federal court system. Care to try again, ArsenneLupin?
Oh, and while we are on the subject IAAL I just don't practice law.
Re:Understandable (Score:3, Informative)
Additionally, this sort of action is morally indefensible, and no doubt the company took a great deal of flack from it's customers over it. It is entirely possible that the company asked the prosecutor to quietly drop charges, so it wouldn't be brought back to the forefront of its customers minds.
Or it could be that the court district is running out of money, and doesn't want to waste money
Re:Understandable (Score:2)
Additionally, this sort of action is morally indefensible, and no doubt the company took a great deal of flack from it's customers over it.
A fair point, but do consider this: the impersonal possessive pronoun does not take an apostrophe.
Vacation vs. Repeal (Score:5, Interesting)
(IANAL, but my uncle is.)
Re:Vacation vs. Repeal (Score:3, Interesting)
C'mon.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And as long as we're slinging around prissy "Will they ever learn?"s, the other poor victim of persecution, McCarty (what's up with all these Celts?) is a real case of failure to learn. Has it not sunk in yet that you simply can't intrude on systems or files without permission, however helpful your intentions? How freaking difficult is that for people to grasp?
Re:C'mon.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you mis-spelled "vindictive".
Afterall, we're talking about a former employee, and considering how far things were taken, it doesn't sound like it was an amicable separation.
Re:C'mon.... (Score:3, Interesting)
*Former* employer's email (Score:4, Informative)
You may have some re-reading to do yourself. It said he used his *former* employer's email server. That most likely is criminal. If he had sent the email from a personal account then he might only face a civil lawsuit for some sort of breach of confidentiality.
Re:*Former* employer's email (Score:2, Informative)
If I send you e-mail, I'm apparently "accessing" your server within the meaning of the law. If he sent e-mail from a personal account to "customers@formeremployer.com", then there's no hax0ring involved. (And formeremployer.com might want to put some access restrictions on their mailing list, but if the mail goes through when sent through normal channels, ipso facto he's authorized to send it).
Re:A weak analogy... (Score:3, Interesting)
If analogies from outside the computing world applied within the comp
Security through Prosecution? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can a federal law be passed to correct this? DOes congress even care?
Re:Security through Prosecution? (Score:2)
The problem with that is that when the catastrophic thing does happen, the person who could have said something will remain quiet out of fear of losing their job.
ISAGN (Score:2, Interesting)
Synopsis kind of misleading. (Score:5, Informative)
Next, click the link... you'll find that it is cut and pasted right out of the article. That generally wouldn't be so bad.... but is gsch "Jennifer Granick"? If not, the quote should be phrased in a way that this is evident, in cases where there is first-person content in the quote.
Call it grammar nazism, but for very obvious reasons, the synopsis as it currently reads, is misleading... if one wanted to be a dick about it, they could say that it even seems like this person is masquerading as the defendant's attorney. I won't go that far, but the point is made.
Re:Synopsis kind of misleading. (Score:2)
Look closely (Score:3, Informative)
Congrats! (Score:3, Interesting)
Solution? (Score:2, Insightful)
A third [solution] might be to define unlawful access as the circumvention of some kind of security measure.
I'm not so sure about this one. After, we're talking specifically about criminal liability for researchers who demonstrate that the security of a system is broken. Criminalizing the circumvention of security is exactly the problem many people have with laws such as the DMCA.
Re:Solution? (Score:2)
I thought the problem people had with the DMCA was that it prevents consumers from exercising rights (fair use copying) over content that they would have if they purchased it in an older, non-DRMed format without breaking the law.
I'd think that very few people would be opposed to criminalizing circumvention of security per se, in cases where there wasn't assumed to be some underlying right to do
Re:Solution? (Score:2)
The DMCA criminalizes the equivalent of picking the lock on your own house, or having a locksmith do it for you.
Re:Solution? (Score:2)
Laws against breaking someone else's security to do something you wouldn't be allowed to do even if there was no security apparatus in place aren't
Of two minds (Score:4, Interesting)
The McCarty prosecution, brought by the same office that so egregiously mishandled the McDanel incident, is in the same vein. As with Puffer and McDanel, the government will have to prove not only that McCarty accessed the school system without authorization, but also that he had some kind of criminal intent.
Likely, they will point to the fact that McCarty copied some applicant records. "It wasn't that he could access the database and showed that it could be bypassed," Michael Zweiback, an assistant attorney for the Department of Justice's cybercrime and intellectual property crimes section, told the SecurityFocus reporter. "He went beyond that and gained additional information regarding the personal records of the applicant."
But if he wanted to reveal USC's security gaffe, it's not clear what else he could have done. He had to get a sampling of the exposed records to prove that his claims were true. SecurityFocus reported that USC administrators initially claimed that only two database records were exposed, and only acknowledged that the entire database was threatened after additional records were shown to them.
Ok, so there are two ways to look at this:
I doubt a jury will convict him, though, this being a technical argument mainly and a computer crime, any jury they seat is bound to wind up confused and the best the prosecution can hope is that someone on the jury will have enough savvy to explain it to the others. Or they may convict him for being a wily, young whippersnapper. Who knows?
Re:Of two minds (Score:3)
3rd party disclosure may be a factor. (Score:3, Insightful)
If he found the problem and contacted them directly they may have been more willing to patch and say thanks.
Re:3rd party disclosure may be a factor. (Score:2)
The guy was basicaly looking for an ego boost. he figured he could get his name in the paper and look like a hero. In the end, he essentially gave away personal information on applicants without eve
Stop using security as a shield! (Score:2, Insightful)
- McCarty notified security professionals about the issue.
- Puffer notified the system owner/operator of the security issues.
- McDanel notified the customers of his former employer.
TFA does not go into detail as to why McDanel was no longer employed by the company, but its not a huge leap to assume that he did not leave willingly. Was he really concerned about the information security of the cu
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
First Amendment.? (Score:4, Interesting)
Thank god, the prosecution did not defend the action on appeal.
Because the defendent seems to have been represented by someone who doesn't
seem to know that the 1st amendment isn't relevant here.
First Amendment (Score:2)
Re:First Amendment (Score:2)
We're living in the Age (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems to be the only solution businesses and politicians can come up with for their self-caused problems anymore.
Bret McDanel's reaction (Score:2)
At the risk of repeating myself... (Score:2)
Those who can't, sue.
Is it me or does this become more and more common? As soon as someone's not doing what a company would like him to do, he's slapped some trial on his back, hoping that he'll either back down or that a company (with quite some funds) can easily get a better lawyer than Joe Average.
Another often repeated phrase I use: There is no techical solution for a social problem. In this case, there is no legal solution for a technical one. Shutting people up does not create more s
Re:At the risk of repeating myself... (Score:2)
You can't exactly have free speech when in fear of someone suing you for doing so, and companies know and exploit this to their advantage.
The only thing broken here.... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's like the full disclosure question (Score:5, Interesting)
Full disclosure: if I find a bug in, say, Windows, should I
If I find a bug in USC's website, should I
If I find a bug in my employer's systems, should I
Enquiring minds wish to know ...
Re:It's like the full disclosure question (Score:4, Informative)
"Standard practice" among my colleagues who do vulnerability research is to report to the manufacturer of the product first, give them 30 days notice to fix and deploy patches (or _maybe_ longer if the manufacturer can come up with plausible reasons why not to release the vulnerability), then announce publicly to bugtraq or another forum. If you announce before that, it's considered sort of rude.
That said, remember that bug finding is at core a prestige game, so you want to make sure you get credit for finding this sort of stuff before, say, secunia or another group either stumbles on it, or the manufacturer decides to disclose on their own. I don't know how you'd go about this, to be honest.
If I find a bug in USC's website, should I
Report to USC; if they don't take action, report it to someone else at USC. USC is a private company and it's their prerogative to take action or not; unless the bug affects you directly or is in the public interest, let it lie. An example would be if you're a student and your personal data are at risk, in which case you should forward a paper trail to, say, someone at the California Dept. of Education's legal group, and only go public with it if they don't act.
Pretty much the same goes for your employer's systems.
If you mean "systems" in the sense of "services/products they sell to others", and your employer won't take action on a known flaw, that sort of goes under the category of "products", which you're probably going to be under an NDA not to disclose. If your employer is lame enough to not do anything about it, find another employer if you're unable to escalate it.
You can always pass it on anonymously to someone who will report it. Unless you're in it for the bragging rights, that is.
Jury Trial (Score:2)
There seems to be a pattern. Of the cases like this that I am aware of (there have been quite a few), those whose case is decided by a jury seem to always be acquitted. Those tried by a judge don't always fare so well.
The issue here, I think, is that the security researcher is working for the benefit of the common person at the expense of the company. The members of the jury see themselves as that common person, and don't relate so well to the company. The judge, on the other hand, tries to be more "impar
First amendment? (Score:2)
When you have NDA's, TOA's that specify what is allowed on a system that does not belong to you, you are foreiting your 1st Amendment right to access the system. This guy did not need to access that system to live. He broke into a private system.
Re:First amendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
It has no effect on companies, contract law, or anything else.
There is no "first amendment right to access the system". Period. You do not have any rights at all - you have privileges that the operator of the system gives you. And these can be revoked at any time. Without cause or explanation.
Yes, that means AOL can cancel your account without telling you why.
Yes, that means when your employer says not to do something and you do it anyway you are exposing yourself to consequences. Sometimes legal consequences in addition to just getting fired.
My experience with an ASP (Score:5, Interesting)
Did we do anything about it? Nope. We ignored it. I didn't even bring it up to our managers. Why? Because in documenting the issue we would have most certainly violated the licensing agreement, and a good argument could be made (especially in light of judgements like the one in the article) that we were conducting criminal computer trespass by changing the URL to knowingly access another client's repository. As stupid as that sounds, I was not willing to risk my job, or prison time, when I knew there were probably 15 other such security issues in the product, and my blowing the whistle on this one wasn't going to fix what was essentially a very crappy product.
Is this a first (Score:2)
"Free speech rights" (Score:3, Insightful)
The government didn't do a freaking thing to limit his "free speech". The guy did something vindictive against his former employer, got caught at it, and they went after him.
It's stupid statements like that which don't put this guy (or the lawyer) in a very good light. It sounds like he's grasping at straws, looking for some way to vindicate his client for doing something really stupid.
Not to go all Stallman on you, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Look at Linux. An operating system used by millions and every hacker in the world can get their hands on the source code. Why don't we see many viruses for Linux? Because it was implemented well.
I think you mean a GNU/Linux virus. Very little malicious Linux code relies only on kernel exploits to do their bad stuff. Credit where credit is due, and all that. ;^)
Same here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Same here (Score:3, Interesting)
When I came forward with it, they called in my parents and were threatening me with explusion if I didn't tell them how I hacked the password list as "figuring out they're a formula from noticing a pattern in myown and my friends passwords" was considered impossible.
We'll never live in a society where the peop
This is nothing new. (Score:3, Interesting)
Real Fear (Score:5, Interesting)
This has been reported to Sprint and various local 9-1-1 officials several times. Sprint denies it is vulnerable; local authorities are disinterested in investigating. Nobody will put any attention on this until that one day that a malicious party will cripple 9-1-1 systems throughout the U.S. Then there will be screams for congressional investigations and finger pointing galore.
But the well-meaning party that performs a proof-of-concept exploit to make a point would be butchered as the terrorist they are trying to prevent.
For now, there are people who know that the 9-1-1 system is extremely vulnerable, and they fear the day it gets exploited. But they are more afraid of ruining their lives and their families' lives by speaking out.
This crazy inverted world we live in (Score:3, Insightful)
FreeMcCarty.com (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.freemccarty.com/ [freemccarty.com]
I am not a malicious hacker, i am not even a hacker, I am a security researcher who wanted to goto USC to get my degree, nothing more, nothing less. If you think about it, I am one person, if I goto prison for the offense I am accused of commiting then I can still look in the mirror and know that because of my action over 200,000 people won't be victims of identity theft.
Thats the whole point of security research in my opinion, making the internet safer, not for notariety, not for fame, or for money. Please take a look at my website and feel free to contact me directly with any comments, suggestions or if you are willing to assist my case.
Thanks,
Eric C. McCarty
admin@freemccarty.com
http://www.freemccarty.com/ [freemccarty.com]
Re:FreeMcCarty.com (Score:3, Informative)
If you read the article [wired.com] carefully, you'll note that they switch names from McCarty to McDanel and then back to McCarty, and then compare the two cases.
The other side (Score:5, Interesting)
That means the law frequently rests on the definition of "authorization." Many cases suggest that if the owner doesn't want you to use the system, for whatever reason, your use is unauthorized. In one case I took on appeal, the trial court had held that searching for airline fares on a publicly available, unprotected website was unauthorized access because the airline had asked the searcher to stop.
If a shop owner tells you to get out of his store, then you must comply or the police will be called. Why? Because if you do not comply with the wishes of the owner, its called trespass. But on the other side, the shop owner must notify the customer that they need to leave before calling the cops, otherwise its harrasment.
Just because you know something about computer systems doesn't give you the right to invade them and show the owner what you found. How would you like a home security firm to break into your house and then publish in the local paper that you keep a key under the doormat? Yes, my house is 'publicly available' given that its not behind any gates or walls, but that is not an invitation for everyone to come in.
What needs to happen is for security professionals as an industry to have more savvy contracts with the companys they consult for. With clauses stating that the consultant will be free from prosecution if a) they notify the company and give time to repsond and b) if the company doesn't take action and the risk is great to the public or the company's clients then c) the consultant has the right to go public with the information.
Of course there are more clauses you might want to add, but it seems like a lot of this could be solved in the contracting steps of taking the job. If you can't get a good contract, don't take the job.
Vigalante justice is illegal. Robin Hood was a good guy, as were the American Revolutionaries, but from a criminal law perspective they were all guilty of many crimes. They chose to break the law because of their personal convictions but they also more or less accepted the risks of doing so.
What happened to whistle blower protection laws, wouldn't those apply in these situations?
Re:The other, other side (Score:4, Insightful)
However; that doesn't mean that they now have the right to invade your privacy and call you. And yet, they do. How is it that your logic will apply to a security firm breaking into your house, but ignores a telemarketer that does, essentially the same thing? They call on a regular basis and really, that's as much "breaking in" as any other computer analogy.
Now, we all hate the telemarketers, and laws have been enacted to prevent them from harassment; but really, technically it *IS* legal for someone to "break in" to your house via the telephone, so I cannot say that your logic is flawless.
TTYL
Re:First Amendment? (Score:2)
There are "whistleblower" statuses which basically involves stuff of public good that won't otherwise come out [e.g. insecure banking, pills that are unsafe, etc].
I won't pretend to know the facts of the case. Just chiming in to say Free Kevin!
Tom
Re:First Amendment? (Score:2)
Quite a lot, assuming it's the American private sector. IANAL, but as I understand it a company may be able to fire or seek civil charges against an employee who leaks private info, and things get more complex if things like contracts or nondisclosure agreements are thrown into the mix, but they aren't normally able to ship him off to prison.
Re:First Amendment? (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I wouldn't want to hire a lawyer who thinks that the 1st Amendment is likely to be interpreted by any court as protecting speech that reveals "secret" information, especially if it's done by breaking into a computer system in the process.
The fact that the charges were later vacated by the prosecution might indicate that they didn't really have a case, but I don't think the 1st Amendment is likely to be the reason why.
Re:First Amendment? (Score:2)
Contrary to what you might think, the government runs the jails.
Re:First Amendment? (Score:2)
Contrary to what you might think, the government runs the jails.
Contrary to what you think the first ammendment is about free speech, not free access to someone else's private server and private email lists.
Contrary to what you think the government employees who run the jail check your conviction status, they do not evaluate your arguments of constitutional rights. The latter would be done by an appeals court while your butt was in
Re:First Amendment? (Score:2)
Re:Consequences of vacating the conviction? (Score:2)
If someone convicted of murder appeals, and before the appeal is heard the prosecuter becomes aware of new evidence that exonerates the defendant and moves to vacate the conviction, do you think that all future murders in the relevant jurisdiction should suddenly become legal?
Re:Consequences of vacating the conviction? (Score:2)
Re:Obvious (Score:2)
Yes, you (the collective you, not nescessarily you personally) should fix them.
How many times have these security "faults" been pointed out to management, and the answer has been "we don't have the budget to deal with that right now" , or variations on that theme?
Most of us know the "proper" way to do things - the way to do things that makes whatever we are working on more re