Slashdot Mirror
Prankster Spoofs President Clinton in CNN Online Chat
According to this Fox News piece, during a highly-publicized CNN.com chat with U.S. President Bill Clinton, a chatter managed to log in with the username "President Clinton" and respond to another user's question with the answer, "Personally, I'd like to see more porn on the Internet, Wolf; how about you?" The comment was pulled almost immediately by a moderator, and the bogus Clinton was kicked off in about 20 seconds. CNN seems pretty miffed over the incident. I guess online identity spoofing isn't as common on CNN as it is on Slashdot. For more info about this little stunt, see the prankster's own page, which tells you exactly how he did it -- and why it was so easy.
at least, according to the guy's statement. How could it have let him log in with the (presumably) reserved ID for the typist is beyond me.
Hope CNN recognizes this as what it is, an exploit of a technically bogus program rather than an all-out attack on truth, justice, and the American Way...but I doubt it.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Last time the President went online, the moderators filtered out any question that even smacked of controversy. The questions were such softballs they bordered on brown-nosing.
If you get the chance to barge into a chat with Clinton, instead of spoofing, how about doing what no reporter seems to dare and asking him a hard question?
What ever happened to holding the President to high scrutiny?
You know why it's REALLY funny? Cause being online used to be about being silly and having fun, not about politics and money and stuff.
Years ago, I figured out how to spoof on an old BBS by putting a certain number of spaces, and then From UserName:
This one guy who used to login who took himself entirely too seriously, I used to "make" him ask to be forcibly cross-dressed and "confess" that he had just wet his pants. I can't tell you how long this went on before he figured out it was me.
Damn... that same old spirit... and who could be a more fitting target than Clinton.
Good idea! McCain suggested today that Presidents should undergo barely-moderated weekly questioning, like the Prime Minister of England. I used to watch M. Thatcher bust a move all over whatzisname with the fuzzy sweaters-Neil Kinnock. That was excellent. Can you imagine members of Congress grilling Clinton every week on national television? Yes!
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
So, CNN decides to try something new. Online interview. Sounds neat. They even get President Clinton. It's a good way to help the acceptance of the Internet as a daily part of life along.
And then, some dip decides that now is a great time to make his little statement about .
Good work, genius. Why didn't you drop an email to CNN's people, letting them know about this problem?
Of course not, because that wouldn't give you a chance to put up a "Look how cool I am!" web page.
Heck, the guy practically praises the event at the beginning of the article, calling it "a reasonable attempt to integrate two media".
So, if it was so reasonable, why did you feel the need to screw around with it?
Christ, people, if we ever want to stop this idea that all computer people are "hacker doodz", then we need to stop acting like five year olds whenever the chance might present itself.
... is so soft on a sitting president. Never in history have journalists been so complementary of the prez. Almost like the editor expects positive stories about Clinton and censors bad ones. Just look what happened to Paul Sperry (journalist who asked Clinton about that China scandal) -- he was banned from Whitehouse for even asking something like that. Ludicrous!
2 08_xex_wnd_hires_pa.shtml
About time he got heckled a bit...
BTW: Sperry was hired by the last bastillion of the (big corporate)free press: WorldNetDaily. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20000
--
GroundAndPound.com News and info for martial artists of all styles.
I find this exceedingly amusing because it is the PERFECT example of how poorly the mass media researches and checks their facts. Not a hack, hardly even a spoof. This is a problem directly with Conference Room, which works under small loads, but not under large ones.
Conference Room even has a 'NickServ' and 'ChanServ', making it easy to check if the president's typist has the correct password before voicing it. Nevermind the quick voice and devoice of someone under the nick President_C|inton. I'm not at all suprised someone under the same nick got voiced right away.
It's all just so amusing. His site is a good explanation of what happened - though the logs are a bit confusing.
--onyx
--onyx--
From the guy's 'statement:' ...
I hope that this harmless prank has served to let CNN know that this system is insecure and needs to be overhauled
As opposed to giving the public the impression that net-savvy computer geeks are all immature hacker-types? Excellent.
There's a fine line between identification of security flaws and abuse of power.
-Ravagin
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is NPR! And that means....it's time for a drum solo!"
Karma: T-rexcellent.
I certainly don't condone what this guy did, but I'm appalled at the results -- the authorities denouncing it as a "hack" and "cybervandalism" are taking the usual attitude I've seen. To quote another Slashdot reader, "Someone says to the emperor, 'Sir, you have no clothes,' and boy is the emperor pissed!"
Do any of you remember the Hotmail "hack" from summer 1999? You could read other people's mail, simply by knowing their Hotmail email address -- no password required! Similarly, this guy was able to impersonate the president without any password.
If you (1) implement the best security you have and you do your homework and lock down your servers, and your system still gets cracked, well, you did the best you could. But if you (2) make no effort to implement security, or just leave all the default accounts and passwords on the server, and you get cracked, you'll get no sympathy from me, or anyone else.
Don't get me wrong. This guy shouldn't have done what he did, but CNN has no right to call it a "hack" or "cybervandalism" if they made no effort to prevent it.
I really hate it when case (2) occurs, and the "victims" start screaming bloody murder. Honestly, I'll bet the sysadmin of that IRC server leaves his front door unlocked a lot.
Let me start by saying that I'm an avid FoxNews viewer and am usually pleased with the reporting. However, in your article online regarding the CNN chat with Clinton, I see very poor journalism. You quote several unnamed "experts" that said the disruption was a "hack". Firstly, if you look at the IRC protocol, RFC 1459, specifically section 4.1.2, you would notice that IRC allows one to change their nickname to anything they want. Because CNN chose poor IRC server software, they have several moments which knocked off all of the users and required them to reconnect. Because they had no security restricting who could own the nick President_Clinton, they were open to someone impersonating him. Because CNN chose poor software and didn't bother to install any type of security, there was no hacking needed.
In related news, I found the television reports on the "hacking" of major online powerhouses to be filled with buzzwords and little content. PLEASE, if you're going to report technical news, have someone who knows modern technology report it. At least go down to the server room and as one of your network administrators before running a story. Of course, with the mail problems over the last week, I'm not sure they know much anyways... they don't seem to know about things like redundant servers.
Find the FACTS, then report, so we can decide. Also, I'd like to see a report on the DeCSS lawsuits filed by the MPAA and DVDCCA in recent months, and not just from the MPAA's side.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
He should have come on with the nick "Monica_Lewinsky" and submitted a whole bunch of questions:
I mean, come on. If you're going to do something, do it all the way :-)
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Same deal here in the True North. Some time is taken out each day so the opposition parties can grill the government on whatever scandals the feds are trying to cover up.
Question Period doesn't get watched as much as it should. When I do see clips of QP, or even run across it on C-PAC (Canada's C-SPAN clone), I'm usually treated to the sickeningly satisfying sight of government ministers dancing around hard questions tossed like hand grenades from the mouths of the opposition. You never get a straight answer, but you get to see the people in power run, dissemble, dodge questions, cover their asses in legalese, and even spew outright lies, just to get the damn question out of the way.
Not to ignore normal Parliamentary sessions and their provincial counterparts...bickering, heckling, posturing, yelling, stomping, and once in a while theatrical protest! It's like kindergarten for grown-ups. Somehow, stuff gets done (mainly because the government party can push every piece of legislation through. The opposition's there for embarrassment value.)
Tangent: When I see Congressmen or Senators speaking on U.S. TV, they're usually dull, proper, and not exactly forceful, save for a few firebrands. Meanwhile, in Canada...once, while watching the Corrections Minister bark out a point, two old farts on the opposite side could be heard booing. Booing! In the legislature! During normal sessions! Another incident saw a member of the opposition, then run by Quebec separtists, remove a chair from the chamber and keep it for two weeks. It's more entertaining than, say, WCW.
I'm not sure this kind of system could work in the land of the free. Hell-raising Congressmen and Senators might enjoy it too much.
Oh, and we have senators too, but they don't do much besides sleep and suck money.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
hahaha. this reminds me of a time in about 1995, when the (canadian version of) The Discovery Channel had a live online chat on the internet, possibly with some scientist or something, but possibly just with the web-happy lady (mara/nara/mala something like that).. :)
anyways, it was live on tv, and they were showing the real-time chat on the tv.. i was sitting at my computer at the time, so i joined the irc channel.. suddenly someone started posting a bunch of anti-micro$oft stuff, and they discontinued the live chat, "there is someone ruining it for everyone else here, by forcing their views on everyone in the channel" hehehe. they didn't even call it a flame or a flood or anything, didn't have a clue!
Micro$oft Sucks!
Micro$oft Sucks!
Micro$oft Sucks!
over and over.. heheheh.
"..Constructive critizism is always welcome however."
Back in late 95 through very late 96, I worked at CNN Interactive. One of the fun things I got to do toward the end of my time there was moderate online chats.
The system we used, it was HORRID. It was so horrid, I can't even remember the NAME of it. It was quite prevalent at the time - and it did act as a 'normal' IRC server for those folks who wanted to connect up directly.
The nastiest chat I had to deal with was with Magic Johnson. We had to have two typists (one for Magic, one for the talking head anchor guy), two moderators to catch questions and forward on good ones to me, whereupon I'd pick out the best and sling'em out for the guys to chat about, ooh fun.
Moderating a chat like that can be VERY stressful... especially when this dingbat producer pulls a very good typist off "Magic's" computer and puts on this gal who is practically a two-finger hunt-and-peck typist, just because he wanted to "spread the fun around". I won't go into how many hangers-on crowded into the conference room to schmooze with each other while the chat/interview went on. Ugh.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
Huh, There's no mention of this on the CNN site. I can't help but wonder what would've happened if the prankster wouldn't have made a statement that was quite so obvious. How long could he have fooled people?
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Is this true, or is this troll... erm... spewing?
My understanding was that no information has logged on anon. cowards, including IPs?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
nick collide impersonation trick... How fun. Too bad he didn't ride a net split and take ops on the channel. *Grin*
The sad thing is that this might scare CNN away from using something standard and open like IRC and into using some messed up AOL chat program. Oh well... Any ideas how we can help them prevent this from happening again?
I'm trying to figure out if I should be impressed someone did this. It's not techincally impressive, and all he did was mention "porn". Woo. More impressive would have been tossing out comments like "We've just decided to nuke Iraq." or things like that. Reagan used to use comments like that just to piss the media off.
On the other hand, all involved did end up looking stupid. Wasn't hard to make them look bad, but it was done. Cool.
Study political history. This has been the pattern whenever a "new" issue and threat has scared ppl. The politicans will always overreact.
What most ppl will not want to address is that the internet is not secure and that this is a highly technical (ie, protocol) issue. To make the net more secure will require ppl to probe for its weakeness. But the lawmakers will have made this type of research illegal. But the lawmakers will then make only research efforts legal. But then again, this is what is now the status quo!
Ppl are going to try and crack. Making this illegal is not the ultimate solution. Monitoring is also not the ulimate solution. Perhaps there might be a technology solution, like coming up and implementing a new set of protocols? Unfortunately, the money hungry lobbyists will not push for this.
Standard disclaimer, it is late and I'm tired.
Yikes! I like the Tories, but is Blair really a fascist? That's strong (overused) language.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
dunno I emailed 'em about the troll infestation the other day, Hemos' reply goes like this....
We've been looking at a number of solutions, but more to the point, the next couple weeks are going to have some majorly cool anti-Troll weapons. yes, the arms race will accelerate,
but that's the nature of things - and we'll beat them off for a while.
They just have to hold them off till May (then they go home from school)
--
+&x
If these organizations were motivated by what I'm sure many Slashdot readers would consider more noble motivations such as doing the technically Right Thing... then a simple email may have sufficed. However, for one reason or another, the history of computing is full of examples where such warnings go unheeded. That same history is also full of examples where a technical prank that was humorous, intelligent, and most importantly non-damaging was played to embarrass authorities into correcting a technically hazardous situation. This is the true legacy of the technical prank sometimes included in the definition of a "hack".
Whether this particular prank was intelligent could be up for debate. I believe that calling for "more porn" is hardly original. But then, that's probably as much to do with one's taste in humor as well intelligence (and I admit I did get a chuckle out of the whole situation). But the prank did no damage. It has caused a reasonable amount of embarrassment for CNN. And you can bet that CNN will be doing something to their environment to ensure this kind of situation does not happen again.
...
Hi -
Great to hear from you! Thanks for writing us at Fox News. We want you
to know that we appreciate your comments and questions and we've
forwarded them to the right people.
In the meantime, we'd love to send you a FREE GIFT from Fox News and
invite you to sign-up for our weekly email newsletter.
To get your FREE GIFT or to sign up for the newsletter, go to
http://www.foxfan.com
If you cannot access our web page, you can still get the FREE GIFT and
newsletter by calling Fox News Viewer Services at (888) 369-4762. Please mention that you would like the free gift and/or the email newsletter.
Best regards!
Fox News Viewer Services
Fuck 'em.
Yes, I do think fucking media companies is what they should get for trying to pass off bots as caring, breathing people, and then try to sell me something.
(the free gift is more marketing, don't ya love 'em)
--
+&x
I'm surprised at many of you people. As much as some complain about the difference between "hacking" and "cracking", I would think you would be happy at this categorization.
To me, if they had spoofed the protocol, or had invaded CNN's servers, that would have been a "crack". Since this was more in line of a clever use of the technology, it should be charactorized as a "hack".
For once the media got it right! Rejoice!
P.S. I still reserve the future right to rail against people for pedantic use of "hack" v.s. "crack". :)
--
ditto
--
+&x
Do you folks not realize who this man is? There is no event a Clinton would walk within 150 miles that wasn't completely scripted and he knew the questions 48 hours in advance. This is the way he works. So, you (as citizens) will never get your questions answered. The only questions that will get through are the ones by crying single mothers who need more government money. Why does Hillary only run a "listening campaign?" Because she cares about the views of the citizens of New York? Sure... ;)
;)
All these "town hall" deals are this way. What candidate would want to be asked a tough, maybe embarassing question? They (and you) know that will be the only clip played on the news for weeks to come. So, to avoid this, they only allow generic questions that let the repeat the one or two themes of their campaign, which they hope is carried by the mass media.
Even if a "hard hitting" question comes about, you can bet it wouldn't be against the candidate at such a forum. Take the McCain fiasco with the allegedly 13 year old boy who idolizes McCain and his (near) weeping mother. No one asks, "What pollster (who gets paid per valid person he polls) would bother talking to someone who can't vote for another five years?" No, instead all the news blurbs are about how her son was in tears because a mean Bush push pollster (how many ordinary citizens, the same types which can't find the power button on a simple computer case, know the term "push poll?") said McCain is a bad man. This has accomplished what it was set out to do, boost McCain. Too bad he shot himself in the ass with that commercial calling Bush "Clinton." Without that, this would have been a decent last week before the South Carolina primary for him.
I won't get into the number of levels of people these questions go through before being asked by Wolf Blitzer or answered by President Clinton. But be assured, the two aren't sitting there at terminals actually typing.
(Same article, just better formatting; had it on html by mistake :) )
Let's look at the two primary motivations identified in Wankel's "statement" web page:
1. "Users change their nick after someone else disconnects to impersonate them make humorous statements for the purpose of entertaining other users." (sic)
Practical jokes have a time and a place. Among friends in an IRC #? Sure. At your best friend's bachelor party? Sure. While he's at the altar, taking his vows? Uh uh. Social etiquette - and not Zone Alarm/Black Ice - constrains our actions. We could behave like jerks, but out of respect we don't.
Wankel and everyone else in the channel were given an opportunity to participate in a groundbreaking event - an IRC channel interview with the President - but with clear and explicit limitations on their participation. They were not given "voice" precisely because this was to be a moderated discussion. Clearly this was not your basic IRC chat, and Wankel could have shown a little more respect for the event by not taking advantage of a server crash in such a manner. I can toss a sarcastic barb at a friend, but I wouldn't at a prospective employer I'm being interviewed by - or for that matter a potential employee I was interviewing - for the first time.
2. "I hope that this harmless prank has served to let CNN know that this system is insecure and needs to be overhauled before someone does actual harm to them or one of their guests. "
Oh, give me a break. Was this really the only way to serve notice to CNN of his concerns? Couldn't he have just given them a little feedback afterwards? Did Wankel really have to disrupt the tone of the interview with such a moronic comment about porn to get across his "point"?
Just as in real life, not all "online outlets" have to be Cryptonomicon secure; for example, the very IRC channels Wankel mentioned where friends can congregate and, when a server crashes, play pranks on one another. And when you do come across a situation which _you_ think would benefit from additional security measures, is it asking so much to display a little maturity?
Wankel is asking CNN to think a little before the next time they play with technology. So why couldn't he?
My fellow Americans, it is a sad day when hackers are able to impersonate myself, the duly elected commander-in-chief of the American people. I promise you, the American people, that we will apprehend those responsible for these crimes. On the dawning of this Internet Age, we must be ever vigilant in fighting to protect our freedoms from those who would seek to take them away from us.
---My fellow Americans, let's join now to protect the interests of our fellow Americans! The American people have asked
karma?
--
+&x
:)
Goldmeer
Bill Clinton then proceeding to break into a chorus of "Getting Sticky Wit It" to the tune of Will Smith's "Getting Jiggy With It."
Seriously, you don't get many chances like this, who has time to plan?
... whether he understands the Internet sufficiently to know that this was a non-event in the IRC scheme of things?
You never know, he (or his spokespeople) might actually be more clued up than the media.
It certainly would be a coup for them to respond intelligently about what happened, in the sense that the US network-aware population would be astounded. I doubt that they even recongnize the political opportunity though.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
9) *Bill_Gates* Monopoly? Sure, as long as I can be the hat.
8) *Kofi_Annan* Anyone for Coffee? It's strong and black.
7) *Phil_Evers (head of Esmerelda)* At least the Tisza and Danube taste of almonds now.
6) *General Wiranto* Anyone up for a song?
5) Signoff: John_Howard (You are temporarily banned from this server. jdIc4341)
4) *Boris_Yeltsin5* Who put the room-ski on spin cycle?
3) *Joerg_Haider* Australia's One Nation party were wimps.
2) *NASA* If those damn martians would just tell us where they were, we wouldn't need to keep "losing" craft
And the number 1 "hacked" IRC comment is...
1) *President_Clinton* Bill and I love you all!
We can only hope that Clinton or one of his advisors knows that this is pretty much a non-event. Remember that he has a high-level policy meeting today to discuss Internet security. I'd rather he didn't have staring in his face what on the surface looks like a blatant example of Internet insecurity.
We simply don't need the US Government's "help" in securing the Internet. I would hate to think that a simple prank like this would help to bring that nightmare upon us. Given the way CNN's competitors (especially Fox) have been making this non-event into a Big Thing, Clinton and his spinmeister friends might decide that "action" is required.
The cost of this prank might be very high...
Reading the log you can see that one of the ops (Jackie_CNN) was just too clueless to be opped on the channel. First she voiced President_C|inton (then devoiced a short time later), then voiced wankel (now known as President_Clinton) in spite of the fact that his IP address was completely wrong - with username petro for one thing, and the wrong numbers for another thing. On top of that, the other op (JoeCNN) was too clueless to undo the damage.
Any 14 year old IRC groupie could have done a better job of opping the channel. Opping is more than just knowing how to click power menu options.
Nothing personal Jackie, but you'd better go hang on IRC a while longer before you op the next interview.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
According to the wankel's statement CNN has called it a "prank" and said that they "were not hacked into". FoxNews are the ones who called it "vandalism" and "hacking".
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ahh the inaccuracies. I really don't think /. is the place for debate on UK politics but seeing as each of your statements is patently wrong I feel I should correct you.
* You do still have a right to silence. What has changed is that the court is entitled to draw a conclusion from your refusal to answer the question. To me this makes perfect sense - "Did you kill the girl?" - "no comment". What conclusion would you draw?
* Video cameras are placed and paid for by the local council/police forces. Central government has nothing to do with them and afaik they have passed no new laws regarding cameras since the election. I may be wrong about that though...
* The dome was paid for primarily from the lottery, and the rest from sponsorship. Not the treasury. And no government minister had direct control over content or anything else.
As for "functionally more right wing" - rubbish. You are forgetting the Poll Tax, privatisation of every utility known to man, removal of unempolyment benefits, education cuts and council budget capping. All these things were brought in by the last conservative government, all are to me far more right wing than anything this lot have done so far. And far more damaging.
Just my 2p worth...
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
That happens in the U.S. Senate every few years, too. Come to think of it, we're about due :)
:)
Then there was President Jackson, aka Old Hickory, aka Colonel Jackson (though he was a General at the more interesting points).
Just off the cuff:
1) sent the British commanding general at New Orleans home in a rum barrel. He demolished the last British force in North America, unaware that the war had been settled a week earlier in France. Remnants of the British army were scattered across three or four states.
2) At his innaugeration, became the only U.S. President *ever* to ride a horse through the White House.
3) He was a brawler and a duelist. His dueling glove shows visible wear (I believe it's in the Smithsonian). He once told the entire United States Senate to meet him on Capitol Hill, and bring their guns. None showed up.
4) My favorite: The duel with Charles Dickinson. This was one he'd rather have avoided. I forget the grounds, but I think it had something to do with Mrs. Dickinson. Dickinson was a marksman, and the night before the duel, put half a dozen bullets into an area the size of a silver dollar on the tree that Jackson would be standing by while showing off for his friends. Jackson came out in flowing robes, and simply let Dickinson shoot. He took the bullet in the chest without flinching. Dickinson tried to flee, and had to be dragged back so that Jackson could shoot. Jackson aimed, then lowered his aim, shooting him in the groin. Once Dickinson went down, Jackson collapsed from his own injury. "I didn't want the (*%^$&*( to die with the satisfaction of knowing he'd hit me." He spat blood for the rest of his life from the wound.
5) His dying words: "My only regrets are that I didn't shoot John C. Calhoun and hang Henry Clay." (two famous statesmen of the era).
Hmm, or in the Nevada state legislature:
"Sir, are you accusing me of prevarication?"
"I'm not sure what that big fancy word means, but if it means am I accusing you of lying, I sure am!"
See, our politics aren't *always* dull
>he made a joking comment, that nobody could think came from the president.
:\) = cigar in the smiley . . .
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. How about, "that noone thinks the president
would make if he thought he'd get caught"
Pranks are included in "hacks", at least according to the Jargon File. The canonical example would be the Cal Tech Rose Bowl Hack.
--
I mentioned earlier that motivation often comes in the form of money and embarassment. What drives those motivations home is fear.
People don't change things because they feel comfortable. Someone who grasps a situation may feel a bit of fear just KNOWING something is possible and that alone will motivate them to fix the situation. However, quite often officials do not grasp the situation and must have the severity of that situation demonstrated to them.
Seeing is believing. Spook the horses.
I've been in more than a few situations where some generation of fear was required to get the Right Thing done. And I'll likely do it again.
As any Star Wars fan will gladly tell you - Fear leads to the Dark Side. You can over do the fear factor. You can quickly cross from a practical demonstration of risk to out right fear-mongering. One should always be on guard against such excess.
Again, it would be nice if we were in a perfect world where simply pointing out a deficency was enough to have it corrected. But the Real World is not wired that way. To get things done, sometimes you have to push buttons; you have to present a motivating factor. Fear is one of those.