Slashdot Mirror
Apple Plugs Software Update Hole
hype7 writes "Apple's getting quick! Less than 5 days after the recently reported software update vulnerability was discovered, Apple have a patch plugging the hole. Apparently, packages now presented via the Software Update mechanism are cryptographically signed, and the new Software Update client 1.4.6 checks for a valid signature before installing any new packages."
Was there a worm hole in the apple?
"they have patches :D"
We wouldn't want all those people more intelligent than the rest of us to get rooted.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Do you use the software update mechanism to update the software update mechanism?
IIRC, doesnt MS's Windows Update already do something like SHA1 (or some other algorithm) signiture checking?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Micrisift is nipping at their heels on turnround time. What a great position to be in.
(Insert obligtatory Linux plug here)
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Subject line says all...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I know, I know. I should go work on discrediting the Apollo missions, too. ;-)
As a Tibook owner I'm darn glad Apple is getting more serious about releasing security patches. Now that they've entered the server market (with the Xserve), they really have no choice.
True, Apple has said that OS 9 is dead, but there's a hell of a lot of installations out there, and they all use an insecure Software Update mechanism as well. Apple needs to do the right thing and fix it for those who haven't upgraded because they can't (like those with hardware whose drivers haven't been updated yet), and to prevent Classic from becoming its own security hole.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
the reason it was so quick, was that they had probably included these crypto-features in their new upcoming os release(s)... they could have just done a diff ...
but who knows? maybe they are quick!
- david
What bug-free and/or 100% secure OS's exist? How would ever know if it was 100% secure?
What?
I might buy one. However, since every time I get ready to purchase one I read an article about how they are screwing someone, I'll have to pass (yet again).
people would be screaming about how slow and inefficient they were.
Hypocrites.
if you want to make sure this update is valid you can read the update info and verify the checksum
or for the extra paranoid, check the secure page
Apple has been really taking security seriously lately and this only helps to build confidence that the machine is capable of being used by more novice users who know nothing about the evils of being rooted.
Wow is right. Wow as in 'Wow what a dumb fuck?!'
Macs are virtually invulnerable to attack, and the reason this made such news is, partially, because Apple rarely has to post any security fixes. It is a secure OS by design. You're just (apparently) too far down the lemming road to see otherwise. One last note: You mentioned you were so impresed you could shit yourself...if your real age is what your mental age seems to be, then you're wearing a diaper right now....so don't worry about it.
Enjoy every day like it's your last. One day you will be right.
so you think X acts odd?
look at good old mac os 9 where holding down the mouse button would freeze every process of copying or deleting files.
so what?
OS9 and OSX are VERY diferent from the ground up. I would be surprised if fundamental security issues that are found in one, exist in the other.
Cheers
Now Fritz and I can get them to working on that analog hole.
what a great way to sneak in a little trojan... spoof apple's own software update function and provide it for everyone under the guise of apple acting swiftly to patch a hole. put it up on a spoofed apple page and even provide a verification checksum to ease any suspician. ah well. would make a good movie twist...
The line between terrorist and patriot depends on which side of the molatov cocktail you are on.
The problem does indeed exist in OS9, since the problem is, in general terms, getting the user to download and install malicious software, since there's no way of verifying the authenticity of the update.
Speaking from experience, yes, often times a whole bunch of features are developed and then they sit on it. It makes more marketing sense to release things in increments.
Hard to tell whether this is right or wrong...but at least they released this quickly after the flaw was announced.
Ah. I too encountered the issue that the checksum didn't match... until I realized I was not checking the .dmg, but rather the .pkg. Make sure you are checking the .dmg and everything should match up. Now of course you have to trust that the checksum is authentic...
The line between terrorist and patriot depends on which side of the molatov cocktail you are on.
It's better that SU looks at checksums of incoming packages, I agree.
But how does it verify the checksums it matches?
If SU is looking up a list of checksums on a web site somewhere, what stops this attack from happening again?
Just set up another spoofed web server that dishes out checksums for bogus packages, and SU thinks everything is okay...
Bah. In my opinion, the most secure OS ever used on most desktops was DOS. :)
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Slashdot is funny. When Microsoft announces a patch for Windows two days after a security hole is found, they get bashed for publishing insecure software.
When Apple fixes a hole five days after acknowledging it, they're praised for being so quick to patch it.
Yes, but can we trust the software update to software update? 8-)
Then they'd have to make a "Software Update Security Hole Patch software update/security hole patch".
I design user interfaces for a free network management application,
people are hypocrites.
Here's it's description of the path:
Security Update 7-12-02 delivers a more secure Software Update service to verify that future updates originate from Apple. If you would prefer to download this manually from a secure Apple server you can download the package at http://www.info.apple.com/kbnum/n75304
ALL that this quasi-"hole" came down to was, "Wow! If you download software updates from apple.com over the internet, you are susceptable to man-in-the-middle attacks!" what a surprise. I mean, it's a VERY GOOD THING apple has plugged this, i'm just saying if they hadn't no one would have really been hurt :)
Anyway, though, let's just check: how do the other OSes handle this same problem? Someone in another thread claimed that Windows Update used some kind of "SHA-1" hashing, or something. OK. What about the Unix world? How does apt-get validate the checksums of the "new packages" it receives when you run apt-get update? How does "red carpet" do the same? What about the BSD ports system? When you go to www.solaris.com or www.redhat.com or www.kernel.org, and you see on the news page that there's a big new security patch, and you download it, how do you know that that's real and you aren't just looking at something sitting on a compromised router somewhere, masquerading as those sites?
I am just curious.
Maybe if the government would stop dicking with everyone and intentionally making it difficult to widely implement ssh and scp (scp is the ftp/ssh thing, right?) on a large scale in software projects such as web browsers, we'd have scp everywhere by now, and web browsers would default to https, and the public keys for ftp.apple.com and ftp.microsoft.com and ftp.debian.org would all be logged in the "trusted public keys" files of those respective OSes by default, and this wouldn't be a problem, becuase netscape and internet explorer would give you big warning signs everywhere when the ftp site you are looking at isn't the one you think it is.. and everyone would be just that much safer from being subject to service interruptions because of social engineering.
Do you ever use telnet? Ever?
Do you use insecure POP3?
If either of these things is true, your passwords are flying through unprotected space every time you do either one, and you have no sane reason to complain about apple leaving apple software update with this "hole" for so long. If someone has the ability to exploit the software update "hole" mentioned here, they also have the ability to eavesdrop on all the traffic-- including passwords-- that you create when you do telnet, insecure POP3, or a number of other things.
I'd say the hypocrisy here is that we're considering it a horrendous hole that an apple network application was susceptable to man-in-the-middle attacks, but we're not, as members of the internet community as a whole, looking for ways that we can implement things such as ssh tunnelling or s/wan on a massive scale so that man-in-the-middle attacks can be wiped out at the root of the problem instead of having to be implemented individually in every single application in the universe.
This update also adds the command-line updating tool that comes with Xserve. See 'man softwareupdate'.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
don't you know that the most secure systems are the ones that are _off_?
;)
Mac OS 9 was pretty secure also. i never said anything about it being stable - but neither did you
and claim riches uncountable and knowledge untold
why is it making me post as AC? i told it to log in and i didn't check the AC box!
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Yes, so long as the means of communicating the checksum are secure (i.e., not prone to a man-in-the-middle attack).
Actually checksums have been used for years in order to ensure that a program has not been replaced with a malicious bit of code or modified in any way:
For instance, you want to make sure you haven't been hacked and ls hasn't been tampered with to hide the files? Have an checksum for it stored offsite and/or in a secure manner (encrypt it with a symmetric key and pray that key hasn't been compromised as well) and then compare with what pops up when you look at the file.
The idea is that if the file has changed at all, the checksum is going to be different.
Note though that in order for this to work the means by which you receive the checksum *must* be secure. They can be cleartext (such as in this case), but you must be able to confirm the source of the checksum is who you think it is.
Thus, it would be a poor way for the software update mechanism to operate (since the attacker could send a false checksum) but is okay for something like this.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
A hacker now just has to do some more work. Instead of just the DNS misdirection, they now need to create a checksum for their bad/malicious code. The updater will query their fake update server for the now forged checksum and see it matches the fake update package that was retrieved from the same hacked up server.
Even if they automatically get the checkum from a specific IP or set of IPs, all one has to do is create a server with that IP and insert it in the network and get a few routers to change their IP routing tables.
If they use a third party to verify the downloaded checksum is authentic, that server itself is vulnerable to the DNS and IP routing 'man in the middle' attacks.
This just makes the haker's job a little more complex. But if they have privs to alter DNS on a server this is just two minutes extra work. This whole thing is just silly. The initial problem was a non-problem. The solution doesn't provide any substantial obsticle to someone that wants to perpetrate such an attack. There in fact is no solution other than a 1-1 split key system. I generate a public key one time and send it to Apple. They then use that key to encrypt/sign all the updates sent to me. I use the private key to verify/decrypt the update and install it. I know that only Apple has my public key so I can be safe.
The problem here of course is that Apple needs to store potentially millions of public keys on their servers, and use a lot of CPU to do the unique signing/encrypting as people request the updates.
The split key eliminates the man in the middle, as they have no way to get ahold of each user's public key. They can't fake one, and no amount of DNS or IP redirection (other than the initial sending of the public key) will allow them to masquerade as the authentic site.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
A hacker now just has to do some more work. Instead of just the DNS misdirection, they now need to create a checksum for their bad/malicious code. The updater will query their fake update server for the now forged checksum and see it matches the fake update package that was retrieved from the same hacked up server.
Ever heared about public key cryptography? They sign their packages with their private key, and their public key is hard coded in the software. It's not just a checksum, it's a cryptographically signed checksum. It's pretty safe.
To sign a checksum for his bad code, the attacker needs to crack Apple's private key. Which can take a few weeks if you're the NSA, but a few hundreds years if you're anyone else.
1) If you download a package, and for some reason, it doesn't install right off (any kind of error, or even if you're just not ready yet), Software Update FORGETS IT HAS DOWNLOADED IT. This is particularly frustrating when you have just downloaded an 18 MB package over your modem, and you have to do it again.
2) If you download part of a package, of course, it doesn't use any kind of smart downloading process to pick up where it left off. Arg.
3) What is this with everything requiring 300 MB to install 20 MB pieces of software? Sure, that's sneezing space for those of you with 40 GB drives, but some of us are still running mere 5 Gig machines.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
The "Installer" application has a bug in which it miscalculates the space required for an update or install. It's a silly bug, but since most new Macs have a hard drive of 30GB or more even 300MB is hardly anything.
-- thinkyhead software and media
For someone to steal a single private key is rather trivial. Getting enough CPU together to brute force the private key is relatively simple, especially for a hacker that has compromised many systems and can easily install a distributed key generator on all of them. As was seen by several recent worms/viruses it would be possible to install such a client of literally tens of thousands of systems. Since you can have both encrypted and decrypted versions of the protected information, checking for a good key is easy.
If, in my method, a hacker was to get hold of a public key or two (or a hundred), only a few people or sites would be affected. All the other keys would not be compromised. The risk of wide-spread corruption is almost nil. A hacker would need to get the account information and the account's encrypting key before a successful redirection would work and install the modified code.
Apple already has the infrastructure of the iTools system for storing the private keys for each site/user/system and for the authentication for updates. The only thing that would remain is to be sure they have enough CPU power to to on-the-fly signing for each request. This is the scenareo I see: Create a public/private key pair using an Apple supplied utility (or GPG) Log in to iTools and send them the public key (using SSL) later: SWU queries Apple for any new packages If packages are available, SWU sends the iTools account info (using SSL) Apple retrieves your public key and uses it to sign the appropriate packages SWU retrieves the signed packages and verfies them against your local private key If they pass muster the packages are installed. Many people will say the single signer model is safe enough. That may be true, but don't for a moment think that it actually eliminates the risk of wide-spread distribution of fake updates. The multiple signers model does.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
doesn't seem to be compatible with the 10.1.3.1337 update that came out yesterday :(. in fact, all my programs don't launch anymore. not even aol.
You mean lets say they took over distributed.net and had around 28,149 (or more, since this was the active number of participants in rc5-64 yesterday, who could have multiple machines) machines trying to crack said keys. Lets see, they have been working on rc5-64 for 5 years now... Putting in some estimation for moore's law, lets say it would take 2 years starting now. So lets get it done in a 3 months period then we need 8 times as many machines. That means at least 160,000 compromised machines all contacting unknown network addresses over three months. If that is not noticed, that is one hell of a hacker. And thats assuming that Apple used something with an outdated keyspace thats only about as large as rc5-64.
In other words, yeah, it might not be the safest option out there. But its safe enough for me.
I think you underestimate the difficulty of brute-forcing RSA-style keys... RSA-129 (which is about 426 bits long) took 1600 computers 8 months to factor back in 1994. That was the part that could be distributed over multiple machines. Then it took a supercomputer with 16384 processors 45 hours to solve the 4GB matrix that came out of the distributed part of the process.
It's not gonna be a piece of cake to crack the 1024 bits keys that are the minimum people use these days, even if you do have tens of thousands of machines to do the distributed part. And after you're done with that, where are you gonna get a computer that can solve a multi-gigabyte matrix in a reasonable amount of time?
The real truth of the matter is that it's not Apple who gets a free ride here at Slashdot - it's Linux. Usually when a Linux distro is patched/updated the story on the front page ( and it's always on the front page) usually includes the word "drool" and at least one exclamation point. Apple takes their lumps here same as Microsoft. Worse in many ways because more than half the people here are at least dual-booting a MS OS. Almost none are using an Apple one. But when do the Linux guys get criticised here? About anything?
And just for the record.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
If you need to report a security problem to Apple, there are instructions on the Apple Product Security page.
It boils to an email to product-security@apple.com. Encrypt sensitive information using Apple's product security PGP key, key ID 0x44E85F68, fingerprint AE43 8996 9250 78A6 D587 3CA8 2165 60D7 44E8 5F68.
Although PGP for Mac OS X is sadly still in suspended animation, others have mentioned the availability of MacGPG and related tools, which are perfectly suitable for PGP, including rudimentary integration with Mail.app.
Well, softare update is now available from the CLI:
...]
Welcome to Darwin!
[jupiter:~] root# softwareupdate
Software Update Tool
Copyright 2002 Apple Computer, Inc.
Your software is up to date.
[jupiter:~] root#
Also, the man page for software update says you can install (a) specific update(s) by name, by softwareupdate [item
Interestingly, it must be run as root, though Software Update via System Preferences only requires an Administrator's password -- this could just be because it sudo's, as an admin *can* sudo... Also, it was written (the CLI tool, or at least the man page) on May 2, 2002.
The only "OS" where you could get a virus by leaving a floppy in the drive...
One cool new thing in the Software Update Security Update... it adds a file to /usr/sbin/ called softwareupdate. Looks like darwin users may soon be able to keep upt odate as well
An example (maybe a bit exaggerated):
...
/.)
Several bugs have been found in some versions of Linux and one in BSD:
Linux: Day one: New patch fix for kernel blah.blah released.
Day one cont.: Another patch released
Day three: Two more patches released; Everything fixed.
Major press releases: A few.
People's general response: Yay what's new.
Mac: Day one: Nothing
Day two: Nothing
Day five: Patch released within 5 days omfg!!!
Media coverage: Everybody and thier dog knows (esp. thanks to
People's general (and much intended by the media) response: omg Apple rulez compared to microsoft i'm so glad apple exists otherwise i'd have viruses etc. blah blah terrorists could blah blah blah.........
Is it just me or does anybody think that a proprietary OS is a proprietary OS is a proprietary OS is a proprietary OS.......... How is apple any better than microsoft? Ok, maybe more deceptive and subtle, i'll give you that...
Anyone who can put a trojan on the site can also put a bumb SHA1 on it. Why doesn't Apple use PKI?
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I appreciate, even though it is probably coincidental, that Apple did NOT attack the press for reporting this hole before they had a chance to plug it. It has been a reasonably quick, mature response. Unlike another company that we all know that seems incapable of fixing holes without having a go at all "enemies" on the side.
Your pocked must be saturated with urine. Well done. I suppose you want us to notice that you're not a hypocrite, and I suppose you're trying to extract attention and accolades for your superior moral stance. Well, once again, congratulations. You're our hero. foad kthx.
at any rate, the reason for microsoft getting panned for issuing a patch two days after the vuln is "reported" is because THEY SIT ON THE FUCKING VULN REPORTS FOR WEEKS, RETARD. They only leak the vuln as soon as their patch is ready, which is weeks after THEY'RE TOLD ABOUT IT.
not impossible, if you're the nsa (or can they?), or can throw millions of teraflops at the job (this equates to being able to throw billions in cash btw). other than that it is impossible, not even mass distributed computing will do it before the key in question expires (bear in mind that apple has their keys expiring after a year).
Had to remove critical updates to keep XP from locking up on me.
However, I would have thought that would be standard practice in this day and age, most everything else done by major companies has some sort of cryptographic signature in this sort of context...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
You're seperate-key-for-everyone idea is fucking retarded. Even if apple had everyone's public keys and encrypted it to them, so they could download and decrypt it, they'd still need to sign it with their private key. Encryption isn't the issue; it's the signature verification that matters. Even if everyone (stupidly) had to send public keys to apple, apple would still need a master private key to sign with, and they'd still need the corresponding pubkey to be distributed with softwareupdate.
It isn't hard to use 4096bit keys (not sure if they do), but even smaller sizes are still practically impossible to break. REgardless of NSA technology, simple physics keeps them from brute forcing keys. The energy it would take to flip that many bits is astronomical.
Apple could easily guard the secret key by keeping it (a) well backed up in safe offline locations and (b) keeping the copy they use on an offline machine, and manually transfering the data to be signed on and off using physical media. Extreme, but secure.
You either don't "get" the concept of signing, or your trolling. In either case, fuck off, mate.
While this is a valid point, I doubt it poses a plausible threat in this particular case, primarily because public key encryption is so widely used. If anyone wanted to spend enormous amounts of resources to crack such keys, the chances are, they won't be going after Apple's Software Update servers and it's relatively small number of clients.
The same has been seen with viruses. It's not necessary that viruses and worms are more difficult to write for Macs (although thay may be the case), but a simple matter of economics. Why write a virus that would, at most, infect 2-4% of the world's computers when, for the same (or less) effort, 90% of the world's computers can be targetted?
---
Open Source Shirts
Good point. But that could also be said about the initial 'problem'. If someone where going to do a MiM attack via DNS spoof, why would they target Apple and not Microsoft, or Adobe or Id(or whoever makes the latest game).
I think the problem with your statement though is that it qualifies as security by obscurity. Claiming relative safety because of a relatively small size is just bad voodoo.
As for the cracking issue, I'm be far less worried about someone cracking the cipher than I am someone emailing it out of the building, or someone hacking in and downloading it.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
SUCK MY DICK you macintosh faggots who can't bear the truth!
> Ever heared about public key cryptography?
This raises an interesting point (though one that goes a
bit off topic for the Apple update): What happens when
some math grad student discovers a generalised way to
determine a private key given the corresponding public
key? Just something to think about.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
We can all throw out our frequent-flyer cards and starting riding pigs transcontinentally...
Sir, ... but many of your facts are sadly misinformed. I will list them below.
... they are stupid entertainment programs. Maybe you should go to the product maker's website and look at what they are. One program used for hacking is SoftICE (really a debugging software ...but hey, we all know what it's used for.).
... this is usually to play games and nothing else. And I have NO idea where you get your AMD info! AMD is the major competitor of Intel ... and for your info, the Compaq you bought uses AMD.
... but you probably don't know what perl is. ... you obviously didn't read it.
... you should be more interested in him looking at IRC chats in the underworld and such.
.. are you TOTALLY NUTS??? HAVE YOU READ THE FIRST THING ABOUT LINUX??? It is an open source operating system that allows computer software writers to do real work. Much scientific work is done on linux clusters. Also ecommerce, B2B, database management, .. the list goes on. Linux can be used to do bad things, as any operating system can (such as Windows). But Linux is a GREAT way to learn how a computer works.
... it may not be. You'll have to look at this on a case by case basis. But, surely "hacking" is not the major cause of this.
.... but could be because of using the computer too much. " In extreme cases, over-exposure to computer radiation can cause schizophrenia, meningitis and other psychological diseases." ... This is HILARIOUS ... what are your sources.
I see your intentions are correct
First of all, lets resolve what it means to be a "hacker". A hacker is someone who writes software and messes with new technologies and likes to figure things out. Now, that being said, there are "bad" hackers that wish to use such skills in malicious ways. I assume these are the people you are talking about, normally called "Crackers".
1) Changing ISPs. It is true that AOL has many "kid safe" features, but these are truly a joke to anyone who is interested in being a cracker. Further, there are many reasons to use another ISP: cost, speed of access, busy signals, crappy front end software (such as AOL).
2) Comet Cursor, Bonzi Buddy, and Flash ARE NOT hacking programs
3) Asking for new hardware
4) Some of the "hacking manuals" you mentioned are FAR from it. Most notably, "Programming in Perl" is one of the best books on perl programming there is
"The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is one of the best essays out there on the meaning of open source software
5) This is the first sign that you might actually have right. However, if your child is really interested in learning about computers and programming, he may spend a lot of time here too.
6) Quake is a GAME! It is not a hacker hangout. Please look into the softwares you post about before making totaly false cliams
7) Is your son becoming argumentative and surly in his social behaviour? Hmm... sounds like a typical teenager.
8) Is your son obsessed with "Lunix"?
"BSD, Lunix, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos."
9) Sections
apache
Jul 10
apple
Jul 15
(5 recent)
askslashdot
Jul 13
(2 recent)
books
Jul 12
bsd
Jul 13
(1 recent)
developers
Jul 15
(3 recent)
features
Jul 5
interviews
Jul 15
(1 recent)
radio
Jun 29
science
Jul 14
(2 recent)
yro
Jul 15
(3 recent)
Apple Plugs Software Update Hole | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 178 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Is Your Son a Computer Hacker? (Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 13, @12:15PM (#3877446)
As an enlightened, modern parent, I try to be as involved as possible in the lives of my six children. I encourage them to join team sports. I attend their teen parties with them to ensure no drinking or alcohol is on the premises. I keep a fatherly eye on the CDs they listen to and the shows they watch, the company they keep and the books they read. You could say I'm a model parent. My children have never failed to make me proud, and I can say without the slightest embellishment that I have the finest family in the USA.
Two years ago, my wife Carol and I decided that our children's education would not be complete without some grounding in modern computers. To this end, we bought our children a brand new Compaq to learn with. The kids had a lot of fun using the handful of application programs we'd bought, such as Adobe's Photoshop and Microsoft's Word, and my wife and I were pleased that our gift was received so well. Our son Peter was most entranced by the device, and became quite a pro at surfing the net. When Peter began to spend whole days on the machine, I became concerned, but Carol advised me to calm down, and that it was only a passing phase. I was content to bow to her experience as a mother, until our youngest daughter, Cindy, charged into the living room one night to blurt out: "Peter is a computer hacker!"
As you can imagine, I was amazed. A computer hacker in my own house! I began to monitor my son's habits, to make certain that Cindy wasn't just telling stories, as she is prone to doing at times.
After a few days of investigation, and some research into computer hacking, I confronted Peter with the evidence. I'm afraid to say, this was the only time I have ever been truly disappointed in one of my children. We raised them to be honest and to have integrity, and Peter betrayed the principles we tried to encourage in him, when he refused point blank to admit to his activities. His denials continued for hours, and in the end, I was left with no choice but to ban him from using the computer until he is old enough to be responsible for his actions.
After going through this ordeal with my own family, I was left pondering how I could best help others in similar situations. I'd gained a lot of knowledge over those few days regarding hackers. It's only right that I provide that information to other parents, in the hope that they will be able to tell if their children are being drawn into the world of hacking. Perhaps other parents will be able to steer their sons back onto the straight and narrow before extreme measures need to be employed.
To this end, I have decided to publish the top ten signs that your son is a hacker. I advise any parents to read this list carefully and if their son matches the profile, they should take action. A smart parent will first try to reason with their son, before resorting to groundings, or even spanking. I pride myself that I have never had to spank a child, and I hope this guide will help other parents to put a halt to their son's misbehaviour before a spanking becomes necessary.
1. Has your son asked you to change ISPs?
Most American families use trusted and responsible Internet Service Providers, such as AOL. These providers have a strict "No Hacking" policy, and take careful measures to ensure that your internet experience is enjoyable, educational and above all legal. If your child is becoming a hacker, one of his first steps will be to request a change to a more hacker friendly provider.
I would advise all parents to refuse this request. One of the reasons your son is interested in switching providers is to get away from AOL's child safety filter. This filter is vital to any parent who wants his son to enjoy the internet without the endangering him through exposure to "adult" content. It is best to stick with the protection AOL provides, rather than using a home-based solution. If your son is becoming a hacker, he will be able to circumvent any home-based measures with surprising ease, using information gleaned from various hacker sites.
2. Are you finding programs on your computer that you don't remember installing?
Your son will probably try to install some hacker software. He may attempt to conceal the presence of the software in some way, but you can usually find any new programs by reading through the programs listed under "Install/Remove Programs" in your control panel. Popular hacker software includes "Comet Cursor", "Bonzi Buddy" and "Flash".
The best option is to confront your son with the evidence, and force him to remove the offending programs. He will probably try to install the software again, but you will be able to tell that this is happening, if your machine offers to "download" one of the hacker applications. If this happens, it is time to give your son a stern talking to, and possibly consider punishing him with a grounding.
3. Has your child asked for new hardware?
Computer hackers are often limited by conventional computer hardware. They may request "faster" video cards, and larger hard drives, or even more memory. If your son starts requesting these devices, it is possible that he has a legitimate need. You can best ensure that you are buying legal, trustworthy hardware by only buying replacement parts from your computer's manufacturer.
If your son has requested a new "processor" from a company called "AMD", this is genuine cause for alarm. AMD is a third-world based company who make inferior, "knock-off" copies of American processor chips. They use child labor extensively in their third world sweatshops, and they deliberately disable the security features that American processor makers, such as Intel, use to prevent hacking. AMD chips are never sold in stores, and you will most likely be told that you have to order them from internet sites. Do not buy this chip! This is one request that you must refuse your son, if you are to have any hope of raising him well.
4. Does your child read hacking manuals?
If you pay close attention to your son's reading habits, as I do, you will be able to determine a great deal about his opinions and hobbies. Children are at their most impressionable in the teenage years. Any father who has had a seventeen year old daughter attempt to sneak out on a date wearing make up and perfume is well aware of the effect that improper influences can have on inexperienced minds.
There are, unfortunately, many hacking manuals available in bookshops today. A few titles to be on the lookout for are: "Snow Crash" and "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson; "Neuromancer" by William Gibson; "Programming with Perl" by Timothy O'Reilly; "Geeks" by Jon Katz; "The Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling; "Microserfs" by Douglas Coupland; "Hackers" by Steven Levy; and "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond.
If you find any of these hacking manuals in your child's possession, confiscate them immediately. You should also petition local booksellers to remove these titles from their shelves. You may meet with some resistance at first, but even booksellers have to bow to community pressure.
5. How much time does your child spend using the computer each day?
If your son spends more than thirty minutes each day on the computer, he may be using it to DOS other peoples sites. DOSing involves gaining access to the "command prompt" on other people's machines, and using it to tie up vital internet services. This can take up to eight hours. If your son is doing this, he is breaking the law, and you should stop him immediately. The safest policy is to limit your children's access to the computer to a maximum of forty-five minutes each day.
6. Does your son use Quake?
Quake is an online virtual reality used by hackers. It is a popular meeting place and training ground, where they discuss hacking and train in the use of various firearms. Many hackers develop anti-social tendencies due to the use of this virtual world, and it may cause erratic behaviour at home and at school.
If your son is using Quake, you should make hime understand that this is not acceptable to you. You should ensure all the firearms in your house are carefully locked away, and have trigger locks installed. You should also bring your concerns to the attention of his school.
7. Is your son becoming argumentative and surly in his social behaviour?
As a child enters the electronic world of hacking, he may become disaffected with the real world. He may lose the ability to control his actions, or judge the rightness or wrongness of a course of behaviour. This will manifest itself soonest in the way he treats others. Those whom he disagrees with will be met with scorn, bitterness, and even foul language. He may utter threats of violence of a real or electronic nature.
Even when confronted, your son will probably find it difficult to talk about this problem to you. He will probably claim that there is no problem, and that you are imagining things. He may tell you that it is you who has the problem, and you should "back off" and "stop smothering him." Do not allow yourself to be deceived. You are the only chance your son has, even if he doesn't understand the situation he is in. Keep trying to get through to him, no matter how much he retreats into himself.
8. Is your son obsessed with "Lunix"?
BSD, Lunix, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos, before the Russians lost the Cold War. It is based on a program called "xenix", which was written by Microsoft for the US government. These programs are used by hackers to break into other people's computer systems to steal credit card numbers. They may also be used to break into people's stereos to steal their music, using the "mp3" program. Torovoltos is a notorious hacker, responsible for writing many hacker programs, such as "telnet", which is used by hackers to connect to machines on the internet without using a telephone.
Your son may try to install "lunix" on your hard drive. If he is careful, you may not notice its presence, however, lunix is a capricious beast, and if handled incorrectly, your son may damage your computer, and even break it completely by deleting Windows, at which point you will have to have your computer repaired by a professional.
If you see the word "LILO" during your windows startup (just after you turn the machine on), your son has installed lunix. In order to get rid of it, you will have to send your computer back to the manufacturer, and have them fit a new hard drive. Lunix is extremely dangerous software, and cannot be removed without destroying part of your hard disk surface.
9. "Has your son radically changed his appearance?" This may be a problem
10. Is your son struggling academically?
See number nine above. Most likely not because of hacking