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?
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
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
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.