Slashdot Mirror
Brian West Update
Concerned Onlooker writes: "Remember the story about how Brian West reported a security leak to a client of a competing hosting service and then was promptly arrested by the FBI? Well, as usual there's more to the story, as shown in this release that I got today from Sheldon Sperling of the U.S. Dept. of Justice. Sorry about the Word-generated HTML. It's just nice to follow up on what outraged many of us at the time...." West has pled guilty to a misdemeanor offense.
It seems that his plight was not as was reported. It says he was trying to profit from the stuff he downloaded. Maybe he wasn't so innocent after all.
I remember reading that story and thinking about here was a good guy -- one of us, doing a fairly nice thing and reporting a security hole (that obviously someone other than him should have been the first to notice). I remember being more than a bit outraged that law enforcement couldn't tell the difference between between breaking into a system malciously, and just noticing something amiss.
Now, I can't say that I blame him for poking around a bit. If it was me, I'd probably have done the same -- never know when a username/password list is going to come in handy I suppose. I think it is the for "profit" motive - that he would steal someone elses work and try to sell it as his own is the real sin here. I guess I also can't imagine the Perl scripts of some fairly small town newspaper (we're not talking the NY Times here - although I do feel the need to say, "Free Registration Required") being that cool that they deserved to be stolen.
I'm glad the rest of the details came out on this one.
... I am the kind of pollyanna cretin who beleived the guy when he put forth the story that he was being punished for doing his competitor a favor. "Why you bad men always pick on nice hacker fellers? You mean men!"
The theft and the defacement are so banal. The really bad part is how angry I got at the "injustice" done him by the unthinking cops.
Sorry cops.
some posts act like this guy is innocent.... IMHO, he shouldn't be punished for the penetration or browsing, cause he reported it to the company.... but, he apparently deliberately lied to the company about some stuff, and attempted to steal some of their intellectual property for his own personal gain.... sorry, this guy seems a bit shady, and it seems to me he got what he earned for himself....
This is exactly the kind of cracking that needs to be prosecuted. This jerk wanted to have his cake and eat it too: look like a hero for publicizing the security hole, then profit from stealing another's work. It doesn't even sound like he was very smart about it.
Some people posted in the original article saying basically the same thing, but were ignored or flamed. Others were obviously lied to. People wrote letters, donated to the EFF, etc.
It's nice to see such noble acts, but please folks, take cases like this with a grain of salt until the truth comes out, eh? We geeks already have enough of a reputation for being reactionary.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
..that we shouldn't automatically believe the story of every hacker/cracker/defendant who claims that he's being prosecuted for being a "good citizen". Every single prosecution of someone for some sort of "computer crime" isn't cause for us to plead for more donations to the EFF.
This isn't to say that we shouldn't support the EFF.
Most every criminal defendent comes up with some story as to why his acts weren't really illegal, or if illegal, should have been legal. We, as a community, listened to Brian West's story or made up one of our own and decided that this was yet another travesty of justice.
The bottom line in this case is that West was a crook (or at least admitted to being one). Our lesson to learn is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
No, he should go to jail as per the law requires. He not only didn't alert the system admin, he downloaded files and changed them, got access to password files and changed them, and distributed both to a friend.
Not only that, but he afterward went around an told everyone a different story than what he had actually done. I say this guy is an immature loser that deserves what he gets.
The responsible thing to do would be to anonymously mail the admin and tell him/her that such and such exploit is open and that he/she should fix it.
rJames.org - illustration
Perhaps you didn't read the article. He found the security hole and then proceeded to steal scripts from them. His intention was to rewrite them and then sell them for a profit. What he did is called corporate espionage.
This guy stole. It's sorta like if you saw a Wells Fargo truck with the back door open, took a couple of money bags, then told the driver, "Hey, you're back door is open."
I think you'd be arrested too.
you reap what you sow
Any 5 year old can sell crack - its illegal as well.
He didnt just 'hack it' he stole data - thats a computer crime and he pled guilty - end of case.
I was one of those people who said this the last time and got flamed and moderated down for suggesting the guy might not be all he seemed.
Some slashdot readers need to read the information and think about things
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
It seems like those posting comments so far haven't read the article.
It seems that West exploited the security flaw to his own benefit before reporting it to the competitors. THAT was why he was charged, and THAT is why he plead guilty.
It also says that he hacked the Potea Daily News website, downloaded some files, then claimed that his intrusion was accidental... Oops, my cat stepped on my keyboard, and it happened to be the correct user name and password!
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
so by this way of thinking a bank doesn't become "secure" unless you try to steal some money from it, right?
you reap what you sow
No, you are wrong.
It applies to "protected computers"
From 18 USC 1030(e):
(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;
That's basically any computer on the internet.
`"it is important that web sites are secure from unauthorized access and that intellectual property is protected. Cyberspace will be a better place for all if such privacy and property rights are respected," stated Assistant United States Attorney Jeff Gallant.'
Also from the release:
"Using MS Front Page, defendant discovered a common security flaw between MS Front Page and MS Internet Information Server (IIS), the server software being run by
PDNS."
So tell me why Microsoft is not facing misdemeanor (or felony) charges instead of the user that was clever enough to discover yet another innovative, undocumented feature in the software..
Since the DoJ is obviously committed to making sure "that web sites are secure from unauthorized access and that intellectual property is protected," they'd better throw the FBI at any average citizen that is smart enough to research the (in)security of the software that they use, instead of targeting the company that is more concerned with taking your money than making sure it actually works.
no, some posters are just stupid.
lets use your window analogy:
The defendant, using a security vulnerability known as a Window, was able to break inside INSERTCOMPANYNAMEHERE and read and copy confidential documents sitting on a desk. He then gave a copy of the papers to a friend to show him how utterly 1331 he was and then told the company about the problem with breaking through a Window. However, for noticing the stupidity of BRIAN WEST, the prosecution is serving legal papers up within a court hearing for misdemeanor charges of breaking inside a building through a window without authorization.
rJames.org - illustration
I'm perplexed how the FBI possibly ascertained exactly that West was rewriting the Perl scripts in PHP to resell as a product, as they indicate as the impetus of their response of search warrant and arrest.
At first blush, it seemed like he just poked around the site a bit -- something I might do if I accidentally came across this problem, if to do nothing more than to understand the scope of the vulnerability.
So he downloaded some files here and there. Even, *gasp*, Perl scripts. Does this constitute the theft of intellectual property? Does this warrant the execution of a search warrant by the FBI?
It seems, on its face, that:
a) PDNS had more information about this individual's competitive position and included this in its complaint to the FBI, or
b) the FBI did lots of detective work (including possibly monitoring email and/or phone communication) and concluded that he wasn't so helpful, or
c) this is simply what the FBI found after the fact as a justification for their overreaction to PDNS's complaint.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
It's great that the truth according to the prosecuter came out. Anyone with any sense can understand that we he did wasn't noble nor helpful. It was wrong and illegal.
... wouldn't you love to know if the paper understood what happened to it? Wouldn't you love to know what happened to their webmaster? Their network administrator?
But
In the IT world mistakes like this are often glossed over and not taken seriously. One would expect to be fired over something like this, but alas, they are not.
The best example of this is the Code Red and NIMDA fiasco. I can't tell you how many admins should have been terminated for not properly patching their systems. It is amazing.
Good *god*, how long is it going to be before people stop believing this argument? This isn't like someone "noticing that you left your car doors unlocked and pointing it out to you". It's like someone noticing your car doors are unlocked, climbing in, popping the trunk, having a good look around in there, rifling your glove box, stealing the paper you left there with the access code for your home security code on it, and grabbing a copy of the business plan and customer list you had in the back seat.
No, it does not, not unless you actually breach (apparently ineffective) security and enter a system you are not allowed to have access to. Just by checking a response that a server will give publically as to which Operating System it is running is NOT breaching security.
If you have actually bothered to read the press release, it clearly states that West actually penetrated a (supposedly) secure service. He found a security hole, and then used it to breach the security on the server. Whether or not he had malicious intentions is irrelevant - I know it's often used, but the following euphemism still holds true: If someone breaks into your house, just to look around, without doing any actual harm, they are still breaking the law. Just because they climbed in through a window that they discovered you hadn't locked doesn't make them any less guilty.
The fact that he didn't seem to have any malicious intent is reflected in the fact that he was charged with (and pleaded guilty to) a misdemeanor. Had he had malicious intent, or done any malicious damage, I'm sure that he would have been charged with an actual crime (there is, to the best of my knowledge, even though IAMAL, a legal difference between a misdemeanor and a crime).
Chill... :) My intentions were honorable. I was still under the impression at the time of the posting that he was only trying to help out and that any documents obtained from the server were to test what vulnerabilities were present(as was reported in the first article). I somehow missed the part where he was trying to sell the scripts he stole for a profit...
hrrm.
Actually, I beleive that it is you that is misinformed. In it's current drat, the ATA would most definately apply in this case:
...and from the draft of the ATA of 2001:
From Title 18, Sec. 1030 of the US Code:
(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;
SEC. 106 INTERCEPTION OF COMPUTER TRESPASSER COMMUNICATIONS.
(1) in section 2510-
(A) in subsection (17), by striking "and" at the end;
(B) in subsection (18), by replacing the period with a semi-colon; and
(C) by adding after subsection (18), two new subsections as follows:
"(19) `protected computer' has the meaning set forth in section 1030; and
"(20) `computer trespasser' means a person who accesses a protected computer without authorization and thus has no reasonable expectation of privacy in any communication transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer."; and
(2) in section 2511(2), by adding after paragraph (h) a new paragraph as follows:
"(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser, if-
"(A) the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser's communications on the protected computer;
"(B) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;
"(C) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser's communications will be relevant to the investigation; and
"(D) such interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to or from the computer trespasser.".
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
I'm glad legislation is in the works to treat him as such. I recommend mandatory life sentence. We cannot remain idle while our nation is being attacked by such brutal "haxorists".
I recommend mandatory life sentence.
As a corporate IT manager i would like to ask you one question ?
Under what circumstances does a username/password list to systems you have not been implicitly given access to come in handy ?
The only reason to have passwords to a system that you do not have rights to is to connect to it without permission - i look at this as a simple thing - it is unauthorised access and theefore illegal.
When will some people get this through their heads - if you have someone elses account and password obtained from any source which does not have authoirity (eg the Sysadmin or network admin) then you are commiting a crime - you should not have it.
It doesnt matter what you do with them or where you got them, possesion is Intent - Intent is used to prosecute.
think about this scenario - the police for some reason suspect you of hacking - they come to your house and find on your computer some information or artivles on hacking, maybe a hacking program and they find a list of passwords and logins to systems and websites.
Guess what - thats intent and you are getting charged with hacking, if they happen to be bank system passwords you are probaly going to be charged with fraud. They might not prove the charges but they have sufficient prima fascie evidence of crime of intent to commit to charge you with these things.
I cannot see ANY justification to have lists of passwords and user names to anybody elses system unless they gave them to you - the White Hat or Just Looking Around or Education arguments are so much crap its not funny and its the argument all the hackers attempt when they are caught.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
I desreve to be modded down. I didn't read the article fully. He deserves what he gets.
Lets get this straight - independant forces and overwhelming evidence of what he actually did are everywhere - his fingerprints are all over the server and hes too dumb to delete the passwords and files he stole BUT obviously the police and FBI made him confess under duress ?
What IS the weather like on your planet
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Actually it would seem to be more like:
While looking inside a Window, he realized it wasn't locked, opened the window, found some confidential documents laying around, made photocopies of them to keep, showed other people, made a few "adjustments" to the original copies, and then informed the company that they left their window unlocked.
Scott
Not unless you then say "You should use some kind of UNIX instead...", and the person is a terrorist. Then you're "advising or aiding".
In my country he would most likely get away with what he did, with the computer. Maybe with a monetary punishment, but there is a law about 'spreading alarming news' which I believe he did by trying to present the story in different way to the community and this is a crime that could be charged with several years in prison.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
This case is quite clear cut that Brian West had done something stupid and wrong. He deserves what he gets.
But, there are cases are not always as clear cut as that. In this case, we can identify his criminal intention from his download of password list then use it to exploit other parts of the system.
What if the confidential / proprietary info is left in a completely unencrypted/protected state. A few months ago, when my friend was looking up info for a robot toy from a very high profile website, the ColdFusion server encountered some internal errors and dumped out its own scripts and even the **administive password**. My earlybird friend cached the page and showed up later on today.... The intention seems to be benign enough, but the material evidence seems to be the same.
That's why, when ridiculous convictions really occur, we still need the community, we still need EFF. In some cases, we are the only people who understand what we are thinking...
But the passwords *were* gifted to the individual. They were so poorly-protected as to be considered public.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
except for the following:
Subsequent investigation revealed that WEST had downloaded the computer files, was in the process of rewriting the files, and intended to market the revised software program.
I was pretty pissed off too about this when the story first surfaced. Little additional details like this one kind of put a different light on it, though.
I'm just blown away by the fact people actually defend this guy! We all have to start changing our view on security breaches by bringing in real life analogies.
If this guy had gone to the front door of his competing ISP, noticed it was unlocked and then walked in, HE WOULD BE GUILTY OF BREAKING AND ENTERING.
The whole underground movement of "lets push doors to see what's open and make ourselves look good by admitting to breaking and entering" isn't going to cut it anymore in this post terrorism world. He committed a crime plain and simple, doesn't matter if the key was copper or RSA. You are not a good neighbor if you are constantly looking for ways to break into my house. Especially if I don't even know you!!
It's true, people do need to check their firewalls and whatever other security means they have for exploits, but it does not give anyone a license to go willy nilly on the net looking for exploitable systems. If someone has a system infected by nimda and you see their IP coming across your firewall, yes call them. That's OK cause you are not breaking or entering.
--toq
~~~Moderators, note I posted this with my real account. Unlike the karma whoring anonymous cowards I stand behind my opinions.
Now, I even see people write "JAVA", and that's not even an acronym! Though I suppose one might infer that it's Just Another ....
Would those in attendance mind helping me by gently informing the users of this barbarism that "You sound like a freaking ignoramus!"? While I've got you, could you do the same for (stop here if you have a weak stomache and an appreciation for language) virii.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
No. He pled guilty under Title 18, Section 1030(a)(2)(C).
Only 1030(a)(1), (4), (5)(A), and (7) are the computer crimes considered terrorism offenses under the draft of ATA (See Sec. 309)
By hacking the computer he gives up the right to any privacy regarding his actions on and communications with the attacked computer (Sec. 106), but then I wouldn't really expect someone to have privacy regarding what they do with a computer they shouldn't be on in the first place.
I believe that it's interstate commerce because he used the "facilities of interstate commerce" (e.g., phone lines, etc.), which federal courts generally consider to be interstate commerce even if everything takes place within the same state.
Yeah, I know it's stupid, but I didn't write it. I'm just explaining it.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
Hmmm...maybe the FBI really ARE the good guys!
I think this is an excellent opportunity to put things in perspective. The FBI, along with other government agencies, are much maligned on Slashdot. Now, I'm all for civil debate. Wanting to know the facts, and not believing everything you're told, are good things that should be encouraged here in the US. Those principles are espoused here except, it seems, when dealing with law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Remember this case next time you are quick to judge an investigation or trial.
Evil is the money of root.
He didn't have malicious intent? You didn't read the article did you? Just admit it!
Clearly his intent was to.. steal software and sell it as his own...Look at :
"Subsequent investigation revealed that WEST had downloaded the computer files, was in the process of rewriting the files, and intended to market the revised software program." -(From the linked article)
That isn't malicious?
(there is, to the best of my knowledge, even though IAMAL, a legal difference between a misdemeanor and a crime).
I'll give you a break and mention that the acronym is IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer). If you _are_ a lawyer, well...
The proper distinction is misdemeanor versus felony - both are "crime" in the sense that people who commit them can be prosecuted, found guilty, etc. However, misdemeanor (literally, mistaken behavior) is much less serious than felony (a heinous act): a misdemeanor usually won't disqualify you from getting a job, depending of course on the nature of the conviction and the job, whereas a felony often makes subsequent employment more problematic, especially in a capacity more responsible than low paid hourly work. And felons are prohibited from owning guns and voting (though in many states they can apply to have their voting rights reinstated after serving their time). Overall though, you _don't_ want to have a felony record.
Many offenses - especially white-collar ones such as this case - can be resolved either as misdemeanors or felonies. Typically, if the situation is marginal, or intent was lacking, and no harm was actually done, etc., the prosecution can be persuaded to offer a plea to a misdemeanor "in the interests of justice" (i.e., this clears the case quickly without requiring an expensive jury trial). That's what happened here - the proverbial slap on the wrist.
This guy committed theft and hoped to profit by it. He's lucky to be getting off with a misdemeanor. If he'd simply reported the hole, he'd be in the clear.
Is it possible that Brian West was confronted with the following:
FBI: Mr. West, we'll give you a choice, you can plead guilty and admit to the following and serve a light sentence, or you can fight this for the next five plus years, probably be found innocent, while you and your family starve in the mean time.
Mr. West: Um..Um...Um....OK, where do I sign?
Don't believe this can happen? It already has to others. Unless you are an absolute saint, few of us are, you don't stand a chance if the big wheels decide to roll in your direction.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
For a second I was like "thats so cool that batman is a hacker!"...then I remembered thats Adam West, not Brian West.
Oh well.
can't sleep. clowns will eat me.
The other part - the attempted profiteering - is another matter altogether. I don't see how it's connected to the cracking at all. It's basic Black Market racketeering of information, and that should be prosecuted as such.
But the cracking? If the original company were competent, they wouldn't have security even an insider could crack. (Dual-key systems, and distributed privilages, are common ways to limit the damage even an administrator can do.)
Probing and scanning a machine (which includes testing passwords) is not a crime in many States. Only actual damage caused. And, to be honest, that arrangement sounds eminently sensible.
What we are beginning to see here is the blaming of the use of the computer, when the computer had nothing to do with it. This is the kind of fuel the Furher needs to pass the anti-terrorist measures.
(Isn't it coincidental that the cracking gets big publicity at the time the bill runs into trouble...)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Phillip: I say, Bartholomew, have you finished that smashing Practical Extraction Report Language script for your World Wide Web page in Extensible MACro System?
Bartholomew: Why no Phillip, I have chosen to rewrite it with VIsual editor, and I have used the wonderful Active Server Pages environment on my International Business Machines computer system. Perhaps later I will re-write it in PHP Hypertext Preprocessor.
Phillip: At least it's not FORmula TRANslation or COmmon Business Orientated Language!
Both: Ha ha ha ha ha !
That's the first government document I've ever seen discuss various programming languages like perl and PHP... you don't see court orders talking specifically about perl scripts very often...
I don't think I've ever seen "Practical Extraction and Report Language" spelled out in the straight press. I wish whomever the writer of the release asked for a definition had told them "Pathetically Eclectic Rubbish Lister". Of course then, they'd probably have just used the acronym.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
this argument is no defence - they were not gifted to the individual he found a way in and stole them - thats the crime - the security of the system is not relevant and in this case the guy spent weeks looking for a way in - hardly easy then is it ?
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Now...why do legal people send stuff in microsoft-mangled RTF? They made that 'open' standard to share documents, and then they use it in a nonstandard way. dammit.
You have a good point about this but for one simple fact - and this can be found by reading the logs - this guy isn't going to trial because he hung himself out to dry by admitting he had done it, boasting to people (including the editor of the paper) keeping the stolen files and then giving passwords to a friend.
In other words the evidence alone would hang him - the fact that he tends to come across as an arrogant person in his writings and letters, and dont forget he only tried the white hat when caught.
people like this guy think the law doesnt apply to them, they think that computer crime is something no one else will understand and that makes it hard to prove etc, it isnt - trust me i have worked with Australian Federal Police investigators at a previous role (involving an attempted hacking incident at a financial instituion) these guys were very very smart and skilled and 2 of them were ex hackers (1 who had served jail time) they know what they are doing.
This guy has to have committed the most amaterish, pathetic and misguided hack in history and then thought he could use the open source movement to cover himself and the EFF to protect him - he was wrong and this should teach us a lesson.
All is not what it seems in these cases - IMHO there is no such thing as white hat or black hat ONLY hackers - any justification you can try and find wont change the fact that these guys support an ethos surrounded in getting access to things they havent been given.
Hacking is wrong. FULL STOP
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Sysadmins who leave a company and keep their passwords and then use them to get into companies have very short careers
Sysadmins who give passwords to friends have even shorter ones
There is an implicit trust and proffesionalism involved in being in control of system security - any admin worth 10cents would never give away passwords - if he did he would never ever get a job in IT again.
And any sysadmin who replaced another and didnt delete his predessors accounts and access and change service passwords deserves the same fate - its good housekeeping and its the first thing i do
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
When I was growing up, my parents used to leave a key to the house hidden under a rock in the backyard in case I got home and they weren't there. I know other people that did the same thing. Some people might say this is a common and well known security hole in single family dwellings.
Now if someone found that security hole, would it be ok for them to take the key and make a copy? Would it be ok for them to repeatedly break into my house to take my personal posessions? Would it be ok to distribute the key to others? For a profit? Would it be ok as long as they told me about it later and told me how they could make my house more secure?
The existance of a security hole does not make it ok to steal. That's the bottom line. Pick another cause to fight for.
He hates these cans!!!
After reading about this case for the first time I felt it necessary to write he DOJ lawyer and state my thoughts. It was the first time I ever felt so motivated. It was astounding that he would be arrested for helping a site with poor security, yet absolutely believable given the state of US law concerning computers, the net and IP.
I know someone who showed his employer that the Win95 'login' passwords could be considered security since they could by passed with the cancel button, and they chewed him out for "hacking" their computers. He also had a web page about the place he worked. (Nothing rude. He was actually pretty proud of the place.) It had some pictures from a pamphlet that the company would give to customers to learn about the company and what they did. They fired him claiming he was trying to impersonate the company on the web and also claimed he was violating their copyright by using the pictures from a pamphlet that anyone could pick up for free.
Anyhow, It figures the first time I speak out, the case is a lie at face value. I have to admit I feel used and perhaps even mildly abused. I would write Sheldon Sperling back to apologize but I figure he has gotten enough email about this case. I am glad I had the presence of mind to mention in my message to him that I know the defendant could be lying and in that case my statements might not apply.
How easy it is to seperate the Sysadmins and suchlike on here from everyone else (excepting the trolls -- we know what they are)
The sysadmins and pros and suchlike who work in IT agree this guy committed a crime or provide rational arguments as to why he didnt - they can rationally understand it and even maybe support the FBI - they understand what they did, have read the articles and post insightfull comments and thoughtfull questions and maybe even have a laugh.
The other group include those who thing all hackers are cool and that the goverment has no right to keep them out, they throw up any argument no matter how tenuous to defend the actions of Mr West and then even resort to saying he was forced to confess under duress ! then theres the conspiracy theorists and the lame he didnt steal anything of value (which is wrong guys as they law treats theft of data like theft of anything else)
How much time will the actions of someone who is now a confessed criminal who wasnt sophisticated enough to cover his tracks going to get you all in a lather ? Hasnt he had his 15 seconds of fame yet?
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Here's a hypothetical situation: What if some malicious company made a webpage that when I connected to it, it downloaded the password file to a cookie on my hard drive. I don't know it's there. Then they come after me, claiming that I hacked into their system. True, I could say that I didn't know how it got there, and if I could get a person to show that their code downloaded the file (which would probably require a subpoena to look at their HTML code), that could make a good defense that I had no intent.
But what if I can't get that kind of help? What if I get a bone-head judge? Could someone be sent to jail for doing nothing more than browsing a web-page? It does seem that this guy was an damn-big idiot at least, and a malicious cracker at most, but it seems like cops are getting overzealous in prosecuting tech "crimes" without understanding what's really going on.
Who here wrote a scathing letter to the editor or someone else regarding this incident when it first came out?
I should see more hands that!
For those that did raise their hand, did you write them an apology for your uncalled for comments? Go on, raise your hand.
I didn't think so.....
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you DON't want your house broken into...then try not living on a PUBLIC street. The world for example last time I checked was available to the public.
You sir, are quite the idiot.
I guess im the pointy haired sort of guy you are referring too.
To restate the obvious for those with IQ's lower than their shoe size - You have no right to have passwords and logons to any system you are not explicitly authorised to connect to. - thats simple fact. If you have said passwords then the intent is there to use thm - i dont care what bullshit defence you use to me.
These passwords were behind a secure (or thought) secure system - It apparently took mr west several weeks to get into this system so its not like they were in plain sight.
Yes im sure that this would prove that and if you got my password list i would resign from my company - thats proffeisonalism (although as i run a secured netWrk with 2 firewalls and a DMz server between the internet and all of my secured domain servers (with pin security access for remote logon and mail access only at that point - it would be a fucking good hacker (you aint he) who could manage it - and we have paid to have it tested - i would probably hire anyone who could do it in fact !)
Anyone who would break into your house would not leave a note moron, they would rob you blind.
Do you even live in the real world ? why is it not ok to break into someones house but perfectly acceptable to break into their servers ? What are you on about ?
You sir are a moron
And a troll
Get a job in the real world as a sysadmin and see how much sympathy you have for this shit then.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Not in plain sight means behind the scenes - LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT
Anyone who has read the details of this story would see that Mr West did not suddenly find this exploit =- he spent weeks looking for it - this negates the argument about random discovery and the in plain sight crap - oh ant the article in the newspaper analogy is total bullshit and a lame attempt to obfuscate the situation - no matter what page of the newspaper it is on it is considered not only in plain sight but in the public domain and is the most irrelvant argument i have ever seen - this information was found by deliberately looking for it and trying until it was found - the guys is a criminal and your attempts to defend him are misguided and franly laughable
He sought the information - he copied it - he distributed it and he boasted about it - he attempted to besmirch the name of a competitor to get business in what i consider the most pathetic attempt at blackmail that i have ever seen - in short he is a loser
End of story
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Nope
the statement on a web page about authorised access only means we can suee your ass and charge you with a crime - why do you think its there.
This is the sort of rubbish i keep seeing here - simply put there are some answers for you
1. he did not just find the passwords - he spent weeks looking for a way in however he could and this is the one he got.
2. The names and passwords were not on the home page - they were inside the system and he got them after he got in
3.Where did they post login information ? he didnt hack into the webiste he hacked into the server
4. they were his competiton thus he can be deemed as commiting industrial espionage
5. he copied the passwords and logins and the files and gave them away thus he is guilty of dealing in stolen goods
6. It wasnt a public page
7. He didnt get in thru a bad password
8. Posting login is not an invitation as it says on most (and i am sure this web page ) AUTHORISED USERS ONLY - thus if you dont have the right to be there dont login
9. having got in he told the newpspaper editor he had and boasted about it and about hacking a bank (he lied but thats not the point)
in short hes stupid
This is the sort of weak crap that all the script kiddies use - it was there so i had the right - they all use it right up until the minute the FBI arrests then then they claim the freedom of the EFF and open source etc - trust me these people dont give a fuck about any of this - they are out (as this guy was) for personal gain
HE LOOKED FOR THE HOLE
All of this information is in the various newspaper stories and affadavits and court documents - READ it before you post this lame attempts at justification
ALL HACKING AND CRACKING INTO SYSTEMS IS WRONG - IT COSTS COMPANIES MONEY AND ULITMATELY IT WILL COST YOU FREEDOMS - DONT DEFEND THESE GUYS
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
I think what you're trying to say is that you're using the wrong tool for the job. If your editor can't handle highlighting of PHP, then perhaps you should consider alternatives...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Imagine that Brian said to a friend:
"I got this files from the Poteau Daily News and Sun Web site. It's realy bad coded. I'm going to rewrite the whole thing in PHP and see if they will buy it."
This would be enough to get him acused of "intending to derive a financial benefit from the unauthorized access".
Everybody seems to be assuming that "intending to market the revised software program" means that he would sell the new version on the open market. Actually, if he wanted to try and sell the new version only to the Poteau Daily News and Sun he would still be "intending to market the revised software program". A clarification of this is nowhere to be found.
Another suspicious thing is that he actually warned them about the security flaw, just the day after he found it out. Now, assuming he wasn't stupid, there are only two good reasons to do so:
- He actually had good intentions and wanted to warn them about the security flaw so as to avoid further instrusions.
- He wanted to blackmail them
If the second case is true, then why:- Did he explain them the nature of the security flaw ?
- There is no reference to him demanding money from the Poteau Daily News and Sun ?
I would say the waters are still mudded"But the passwords *were* gifted to the individual."
Does that mean if I don't lock the door to my house, I have "gifted" all of my possessions to my neighbors? If they take my stuff, it's still stealing.
I may have been stupid to leave my door unlocked, but that's another story.
perhaps you should consider alternatives...
May I suggest Vedit? It includes syntax highlighting for many languages but it also allows the user to create custom configuration files for syntax highlighting in any language. These configuration files also permit pattern matching.
Version 6, a major upgrade, is being released in October. I've used Vedit for 20 years, back when it was the only editor available for CP/M.
In those days, of course, there was no such thing as syntax highlighting...but I digress.
I can understand your point but why would they if people didnt think hacking into them was their right ? if no one went out to hack their systems why would they need to be secure ?
If you extended this argument to homes we would all live in a house surrounded by barbed wire, rottweilers and floodlights with machine guns for point defence.
BTW from the information provided he didnt make a new account he stole exisiting ones.
I still think all hacking is wrong as the white hat argument is trotted out only when they get caught doing something they should not be.
Now if you will excuse me one of the rottwielers is barking and i think another on of those avon ladies is caught up in the barbed wire.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Prisions are full of people who only took one small step. Each one didn't seem so bad, but they all add up. Step A is a little naughty, step B a little more. People generaly don't go from not even a traffic ticket to Bank robbery and Murder is one giant leap.
Look at this guy, he's propable going to go to jail, do a ton of public-service and get put on probation all for stealing some scripts. I wouldn't be surprised if the scripts were freely avialable for download on an other site. Moral of the story is if you get stupid, you'll pay for it.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Whether you believe the law to be flawed is irrelevant - you break it you will be charged - thats the problem with the law - you cant say you dont recognise it and therefore get away with it.
I think possessing the passwords is itself proof of intent to use them in most cases - otherwise why have you got them ?
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Oh in case anyone isn't aware of it, Parole Boards usualy don't even look at what a potential Parolee was convicted of, they look at what he was charged with originaly. So Copping a plea effectively means admitting guilt to all of the charges, not just what you are convicted of. Don't like it, serve all of the sentence, its your choise.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Use Web folders, and any other text editor. Personally, I like TextPad (www.textpad.com).
You can access a WebDAV server just like a network share. I believe in XP, you can even map it to a drive letter, but don't quote me on that.
Not only that, he abused the trust of his fellow hackers (if the article is credible) by lying about his intentions. This doesn't help any of us, since next time we see a case against someone like Dmitry Sklyarov or Randal Schwartz it's going to make it that much harder for those of us who understand the issues (even if only vaguely at times) to trust the accused-- and it certainly doesn't help the general public come to understand or trust the hacker community.
I do not have a signature
If you have said passwords then the intent is there to use thm - i dont care what bullshit defence you use to me.
At my last job, one of the network admins was trying to convince the management that our network procedures were insecure. After several weeks of getting nowhere, he installed some publicly available hacking tools and pointed them at our domain. Without using any of his inside knowledge of the system -- using only the default configuration of the tools -- he got a name/password list of most of the managing partners, the CIO, and the senior network administrator. None of these were passwords he would have had access to with any of his approved access from work.
He brought this list into the next meeting to demonstrate how insecure our system was. The official response was that he must have used his inside knowledge, and that no one from outside the company was that interested in trying to hack our system. This was at a law firm, BTW.
Although in the West case it's pretty clear he was also trying to rip off their site administration scripts, your assertion that mere posession of a password list equals intent to commit a crime doesn't stand up.
Nope, no sig
Yeesh!
There are a ton of breathless posts up on this subject, all saying "Gosh! He plead to the Fed charges--that means he's a crook!" And, as is all too usual for /. commentators, everybody seems to have stopped reading the prosecutor's press release right there.
Let's stop right there for a moment: this is not a news article. It is a press release, issued by the Federal prosecutor. Press releases, on their face, are designed to promote a person, product, or cause--they make no pretense at all of being comprehensive or factual. They are more than 'spin'--they are a carefully-structured form of shaping the truth. In other words, when your government lies to you, it usually uses a press release to do so. "We'll protect your civil liberties while monitoring your email and listening to your phone calls?" Press release. The many public benefits of Echelon? Press release. The pressing need for a national ID card? Soon to be a press release.
So let's put on our critical thinking hats, kiddies, and re-read this press release with a little more critical attitude. Let's start with the simple facts: Brian West was cruising a news site; he found a security flaw; he downloaded a couple of PERL scripts; he called the editor of the paper the next day and told the editor he'd found a flaw. The newspaper editor flipped out, called the FBI, the FBI showed up at Brian West's office, Brian West (really stupidly) blithely gives the FBI permission to search his hard drive and copy all of his files, and gets charged with hacking. Right?
Now let's think of the context: hackers are Evil. They get long jail terms--they do hard time. Nailing a hacker has all kinds of sex appeal for a prosecutor--computer crime is very juicy stuff for the media. (The best example is right here on SlashDot--look at how many people have read this bit of fluff and leapt to post comments about how wicked this West fellow was, and how much we should apologize for all those nasty things we said about the cops.) So just how "nailed" was West?
You'll have to go all the way down to the bottom of the press release: the maximum penalty for this misdemeanor (speeding is a misdemeanor) is a year in jail. But the prosecutor's press release says explicitly that West will probably get probation. And (read a little higher up) West has been released without bail--solely on his promise to appear--pending sentencing.
Now--why would the prosecutor's self-issued press release admit that this heinous computer crook has received a complete pass? That he won't do a day in prison, won't pay a penny in fines, and has been released without bond pending sentencing? Remember: this is the prosecutor's press release, so this is the most positive spin the prosecutor can put on this.
Because the prosecutor didn't have a case--but West had probably run out of money. Note that West had two lawyers to pay (not that legal fees in Edmond, OK or Cleveland, TX are gargantuan, but presumably West wasn't exactly rich either). There are lots of times in the American legal system where justice is lost in the rush to expediency. "Criminals" plead guilty to misdemeanors with no penalties because they can't afford the cost of a trial. Prosecutors demand guilty pleas--even if there is effectively no sentence--in order to chalk the case up as a "win". This, I'd bet, is precisely one of those cases.
Ask yourself this question: if the Justice Department had issued this kind of press release for Dmitry Skylarov, would you regard it as a rousing vindication of the Feds--or a moral victory for the defendant?
I'm going to generalize a little bit here and take this out of the context of this one hacker.
Now if someone found that security hole, would it be ok for them to take the key and make a copy? Would it be ok for them to repeatedly break into my house to take my personal posessions? Would it be ok to distribute the key to others? For a profit? Would it be ok as long as they told me about it later and told me how they could make my house more secure?
I agree: what you have wrote is criminal activity. No worse than B&E, theft (possibly grand theft) and whatever the crime is called for profiting off of criminal activity. There is no need for a special "Urban KeyUnderRock Act" -- we have laws to handle this already. But what about this scenario:
Instead of a home, how about a medical office. Some place of business keeping private information on people. Now if someone found that security hole (key under rock), would it be ok for me to -- after contacting you and giving you ample time (weeks) to correct the problem -- write a detailled pamphlet (sp?), write the newspaper, call in journalists, etc., describing the security hole and how widespread this type of security violation was and how it affects all of the people who go to this medical building? Would you have any right to call the cops on me? To try and have me arrested, sued, fined, incarcerated? Because you either don't want to spend the money to do it right?
My opinion is no. I warned you, showed you how to fix it and scolded you for being so patently stupid and disrespectful of private information and you either threatened me or blew me off. My going public with the information is, in my opinion a public service -- the same type of thing as the whistlebowers and people who risk their lives and personal finances to bring a big bad company to justice.
Let's face it; Most companies think this kind of stuff is only doable by UberHaxors -- therefore it's not worth fixing just because some guy comes up and shows them how it's done. The policies are changing, and that is a good thing. However with Mr. Ashcroft's assinine laws he is leading the way to making true security a thing of the past.
Without this bit of hacking the councilors would've gotten away scot-free. Because of it two resigned and the rest were soundly defeated six months later in elections. The employee managed to conceal his identity and no sane person would try to convict the press member of a crime.
So... what you're saying is that if you want to be a white hat, you better be a politician or risk incarceration?
Incorrect. I worked at the HelpDesk of G.E. in Appliance Park, Kentucky, their central IT and server location, and different happened for me. I was on a COMMON mapped drive, provided(with FULL read and write permissions) for everyone in buuilding 4(IT), by default. The server was BLDG4USERS1. the pccommon directory is essentially a repository for temporary items from users of the system. Anything can be read or deleted by anyone. In this mapped drive, I found a folder, Jenne, which contained various items. Among these (yes I was on lunch, and had time) were router configurations, switch configs, and even weak encrypted enable passwords. When I approached the person I believe owned the folder (a GE network support person), he didn't seem concerned or alarmed. He did, however thank me. Since we were both in the break area (I know I was on break), I went on to divulge that I had also noticed his social security number in an expense report, apparently pre- filled, to expedite his filing of such reports. This took him by surprise, and he gave me an apparent sincere thanks. I had already approached my immediate supervisor about notifying him, but he had no solution, and no interest in doing so. I did not want to carry this clear up the chain of command, because, as a creative and enthusiastic person, I had made enough waves trying to get a Cisco CCNA/NP lab up and running. I lost my job. I was 'untrustworthy'. There are no hidden facts, i'm not slanting the story, and I can even see how snooping into a personal DRIVE could be real bad. This was a PUBLIC drive. I could've deleted his whole folder....
... I'm sure everything else slashdot has linked to is still entirely accurate....
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
In the eyes of the law, cracking is cracking.
In this case it was a government computer. It would only take one instance of a reporter getting a hard life sentance for using computer information to expose criminal politicians. After that, there would be a serious damper on the idea of any sort of press investigation of crooked politicians.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
So you hate yourself because you believed the perp's story, and now you are (equally uncritically) believing the cop's story?
As I read the indictment, there is a lot open to interpretation. There are a lot of claims that the guy "was going to" do bad things [tm] and a very, very slim list of questionable actions that were admittedly taken.
The scientific method enshrines skepticism as a primary virtue. Faith is the domain of religion. Neither Slashdot nor your local police department require or deserve religious devotion.
--Charlie
Hmmm
So let me see - having worked for 10 years and done everything from help desk to field support to sys admin to gain my position i am a stooge ?
And the analogy between a house is obe that is CONSTANTLY used on this site to defend this sort of person - it might be wrong but thats life and it it after all my opinion.
My arguments are not froma corporate viwepoint - my arguments are from years of maintaining secure systems, patching, updating, rebuilding, years of stoneds, melissa's, prelissas, markers, code reds, nimdas and such like, years of repairing damage done when some uber 14 year old manages to find a hole in a web page on a system you didnt set up but has become your responsibiltiy and you have to clean the mess up, years of port scans and DOS attacks on servers and one case of a super cool dood who hacked into a system at a previos employer and then proceeded to destroy it (a company that made glass windows and doors no less - what sort of reason was behind that)
Now i have an instruction for you. i looked back at your past posts and you have posted some very anti corporate diatribes and at least one bad experience - thus YOUR opinions are colored as well.
I have 25 staff under me and they are all great guys, i try and pay them well and look after them and i have turnover of less that 1 person in 2 years - in return i defend them and expect loyalty and hard work thats all - i dont spout corporate ethics - i support systems and see the damage.
Your point may be a little vallid and was fairly well put BUT i have one question for you - What is your proffesion - i suspect programmer rather than admin support - that alone would color opipnions.
Please note im not flaming you here - i respect your opinion and can see how you came to it - im only pointing out why its not the case
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Comment removed based on user account deletion