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
... 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--
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
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
First. There's no way you could have known this without doing it.
Second, you are taking the Internet WAY too seriously. It's justs bits people. Big deal. (I'll for go my IRC bastards rant for now)
Frankly it's about time the Masses realize that the computers don't emitt Smartness-Radiation and that a dope infront of a TTY is still just a dope.
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.
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". :)
--
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
:)
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."
... 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
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.