Slashdot Mirror


Nmap Author Receives FBI Subpoenas

spafbnerf writes "Fyodor, author of the open-source network scanning tool Nmap, posted a story to the nmap-hackers list about having received a number of subpoenas from the FBI this year, demanding webserver log data, none of which produced anything, either because they sought old information that had already been deleted from his logs, or because the subpoenas were improperly served. In every case the request was narrowly crafted, usually directed at finding out who visited the site in a very short window of time, such as a five minute period. Fyodor writes: "If they see that an attacker ran the command "wget http://download.insecure.org/nmap/dist/nmap-3.77.t gz" from a compromised host, they assume that she might have obtained that URL by visiting the Nmap download page from her home computer"." Update: 11/25 20:21 GMT by T : Reader kv9 adds a link to Kevin Poulson's story at SecurityFocus.

77 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. Seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That seems like a legitimate investigative technique. They're probably trying to match up different pieces of evidence to find the person behind things.

    1. Re:Seems reasonable by RonnyJ · · Score: 5, Insightful
      That seems like a legitimate investigative technique.

      Yes, though the main concern of mine is that he says the FBI were using subpoenas that were improperly served - how many people wouldn't bother checking, and just give up information straightaway?

    2. Re:Seems reasonable by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, the suggestion is that they are trying to find out who downloaded the source onto a compromised machine. So - someone has cracked root on an unknown machine, visits insecure.org with the browser on their own machine, pastes the URL for the tarball into the shell on the compromised machine, and makes nmap. What it sounds like they are looking for is the IP address of the browser used to get the URL for the source.


      Personally I don't see the problem with this. They are not just sniffing around looking for "suspicious" things, they know what they are looking for and where it's likely to be. This is not randomly searching people on the street, this is going directly to the CCTV tapes.

    3. Re:Seems reasonable by kimmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doh!

      Okay, now they only have to check the server does have it's clock in sync, otherwise those 5 minute clips of logs won't be very useful.. :)

    4. Re:Seems reasonable by Cylix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, if enough people manage to read this then it won't ever be a problem again....

      Honestly, if you really wanted to make this work and just get left alone by the FBI and the kiddies...

      Download links could be generated at request with a unique identifier embedded.

      Thusly, if someone generates a dynamic link and pastes that into their term for wget... bam... you have an identifiable link with both addresses.

      just make sure everything is logged quite properly.

      It would certain ease the issue of tracking.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    5. Re:Seems reasonable by KarmaPolice · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, the suggestion is that they are trying to find out who downloaded the source onto a compromised machine. So - someone has cracked root on an unknown machine, visits insecure.org with the browser on their own machine, pastes the URL for the tarball into the shell on the compromised machine, and makes nmap. What it sounds like they are looking for is the IP address of the browser used to get the URL for the source.

      Well, now they can visit slashdot instead...

    6. Re:Seems reasonable by Zapman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Out of curriosity, how does one verify that a subpoena is served properly? I assume that you read such very carefully, and call it a day.

      --
      Zapman
    7. Re:Seems reasonable by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You ask a good lawyer to look at for you. Even if you read it "very carefully", you aren't an expert on what is required for it be to proper (I assume, based on the fact that you are asking this question), so you might draw the wrong conclusions.

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    8. Re:Seems reasonable by Le+Marteau · · Score: 3, Informative

      Okay, now they only have to check the server does have it's clock in sync, otherwise those 5 minute clips of logs won't be very useful.. :)

      Incorrect. Fyodor's clock can read 1988, and the logs would still be useful. The spooks can sync his logs up with the 'real time' by comparing his network activities with other servers, and what THEIR clocks said in THEIR logs. For instance, the probes that THEY were doing to his server, would be logged, as well as when they did the probes.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    9. Re:Seems reasonable by DrTentacle · · Score: 2, Informative

      IANAL, but a warrant != subpoena.

      A subpoena is an order demanding compliance with a legal proceeding, more usually in terms of attendance or provision of evidence. It doesn't require immediate action. You've got time to talk to your legal guy about it before acting on it, and to challenge it if you think it's wrong.

      A warrant to search or seize, however, gives them permission to do just that, right there and then. You can call your lawyer or whatever, but that's not going to stop them doing exactly what it says on the papers. You can still challenge it, but it's going to be after the fact.

  2. Trinity used Nmap....look where it got her. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Up shit creek sans paddle.

    1. Re:Trinity used Nmap....look where it got her. by JamieF · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah but for a while she had a boyfriend who could morph himself, move super fast... putting any sex toy or porn star to shame. Not a bad deal.

  3. if the server goes down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    the text is here

    Dear Nmap hackers,

    Let me first wish you Americans a happy Thanksgiving. Meanwhile, I'm
    hard at work on a holiday Nmap version which should be available by
    Christmas.

    But enough pleasantries -- I want to discuss a sobering topic. With
    increasing regularity this year, FBI agents from all over the country
    have contacted me demanding webserver log data from Insecure.Org.
    They don't give me reasons, but they generally seem to be
    investigating a specific attacker who they think may have visited the
    Nmap page at a certain time. If they see that an attacker ran the
    command "wget http://download.insecure.org/nmap/dist/nmap-3.77.t gz"
    from a compromised host, they assume that she might have obtained that
    URL by visiting the Nmap download page from her home computer. So
    far, I have never given them anything. In some cases, they asked too
    late and data had already been purged through our data retention
    policy. In other cases, they failed to serve the subpoena properly.
    Sometimes they try asking without a subpoena and give up when I demand
    one.

    One can argue whether helping the FBI is good or bad. Remember that
    they might be going after spammers, cyber-extortionists, DDOS kiddies,
    etc. In this, I wish them the best. Nmap was designed to help
    security -- the criminals and spammers put my work to shame! But the
    desirability of helping the FBI is immaterial -- I may be forced by
    law to comply with legal, properly served subpoenas. At the same
    time, I'll try to fight anything too broad (like if they ask for
    weblogs for a whole month). Protecting your privacy is important to
    me, but Nmap users should be savvy enough to know that all of your
    network activity leave traces. I'm not the only one who gets these
    subpoenas -- large ISPs and webmail providers receive them daily.
    Most other major security sites probably do too. Most of you probably
    don't care if someone finds out that you downloaded Nmap, Nessus,
    Hping2, John the Ripper, etc. Nothing on Insecure.Org is illegal.
    But for those of you who do care, there are plenty of mechanisms
    available to preserve your anonymity. Remember this security mantra:
    defense in depth.

    Cheers,
    Fyodor

    1. Re:if the server goes down... by ralphus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One major point to pay attention to here is that if you have a data retention policy that is written that says for example, "I don't keep logs older than 1 hour" and you follow it, you can't respond to subpoenas for any data that falls outside your retention period.

      --
      Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
    2. Re:if the server goes down... by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Way to go, FBI! [/sarcasm] I can't imagine many acts more calculated to alienate infosec geeks from the FBI in particular, and the US govt / law enforcement forces in general

      Why? What's wrong with a narrowly tailored subpoena in regards to a specific, discrete illegal act?

      This is exactly what everyone here's been asking for for years. Some of you obviously won't be happy until the FBI refrains from prosecuting every single computer-based crime.

    3. Re:if the server goes down... by Jonathan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why? What's wrong with a narrowly tailored subpoena in regards to a specific, discrete illegal act?

      Er. how about this: the FBI should worry about crimes that *shock* actually matter *shock*,like serial killers, for instance. Maybe someday in the distant future when there are no more serious crimes, the FBI should get itself involved in utter trivialities like computer "crime".

    4. Re:if the server goes down... by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One major point to pay attention to here is that if you have a data retention policy that is written that says for example, "I don't keep logs older than 1 hour" and you follow it, you can't respond to subpoenas for any data that falls outside your retention period.

      A very, very good point. I work at two competing ISPs. Once logs everything and keeps logs for months, the other (on my advice) keeps them for as short as reasonable. (30 days)

      You can guess which one got caught up in a nasty discovery distraction during a client lawsuit....

      Better just to clear the log, and get it out of the way. What's the point in keeping old email or RADIUS logs? Parse them for the statistical numbers, and then dump 'em!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  4. Seems valid by Staplerh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even the Nmap Author seems to agree that it could help in the fight against these undesirable script kiddies, etc. However, I think it is great that this author has brought this to public attention, and will hopefully increase oversight of these cyber-investigations.

    Of course, we do need law enforcement and this is a legitimate field to investigate so that we can have protected web commerce. With eyes on their activities, we can hopefully keep the Internet free and safe. Thoughts?

    --
    "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
    - Bob Dylan
    1. Re:Seems valid by gvc · · Score: 4, Informative

      From the Oxford English Dictionary:

      oversight ('&schwa.Uv&schwa.rsaIt), sb. [OVER- 7, 5.] The action of overseeing
      or overlooking.
      1 a Supervision, superintendence, inspection; charge, care, management,
      control.

    2. Re:Seems valid by Chundra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hopefully the internet will continue to be unsafe, filthy, and represent all that is wrong with our species as a whole. It makes things more interesting and certainly more entertaining. Thoughts?

    3. Re:Seems valid by hunterx11 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps you were trolling, but I think there is some validity in what you say, but only partially. The internet does often represent all things human, and this includes both the good and the bad. In polite society you censor the bad, but on the internet there is no such censorship.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    4. Re:Seems valid by kfg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps neglecting the fact that if a word has multiple meanings the existence of one meaning does not negate the proper use of another meaning is an oversight on your part?

      Your use of language might need some oversight.

      KFG

    5. Re:Seems valid by Doomdark · · Score: 4, Funny
      In polite society you censor the bad,

      I think you misspelled "police"?

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
  5. She? by product+byproduct · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are we talking about Trinity?

    1. Re:She? by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Funny

      Could be, but only if someone was using Nmap to try to get her out of the Matrix and ran afoul of phone phreaking laws.

      What with all the new Gov. VoIP regulations being debated about, it's only reasonable that the FBI would want to prevent unauthorized access to the Matrix.

  6. Reasonable by SorcererX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, I'm pretty sure that if a person downloaded nmap to a compromised host that person most likely visited the nmap website some time. The problem is that a lot of people visit that site, and it is nearly impossible to weed out the false positives from the person they are seeking. Furthermore, the FBI approach would only work if the person visisted the site recently, which might not be the case. It'd be impossible to figure it out if the person last visisted the namp website several months ago forexample.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    1. Re:Reasonable by Pete+(big-pete) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SorcererX (818515)
      Well, I'm pretty sure that if a person downloaded nmap to a compromised host that person most likely visited the nmap website some time.

      kfg (145172)
      Why?

      The easiest way of getting the exact url to download is to check it directly on the site yourself. Even if the link was found from elsewhere on the net, the person doing the download would have probably checked that the link was valid in advance.

      The key word here is "most" - sure if someone is really really really careful to cover every track they could possibly leave, then maybe they won't have directly visited the site. Most people would have done though. Of course the difficult part is determining when.

      -- Pete.

    2. Re:Reasonable by Leebert · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that a lot of people visit that site, and it is nearly impossible to weed out the false positives from the person they are seeking.

      Suppose that the FBI is investigating a largeish case that involves multiple sites, but they have a reasonable idea it's all the same guy.

      Now, request the nmap logs for the time window that nmap was downloaded at each site. Presto, if you're lucky there will be a correlating netblock (or IP) prior to the download for each event.

  7. FBI spies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do you know that Google searches are subpoenable?

    So Googling your victim, for example, before committing the crime is not very smart.

    Unless of course you can randomly change your ip
    in a pretty large range of course, heh heh.

    1. Re:FBI spies by MikeFM · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Smart hackers never hack from an IP traceable to them anyway. That's why unprotected WiFi points are so useful. There is no way in heaven or hell to trace the connection back to the source. Of course there are lots of places you can jack in for a unlogged wired connection too. It's just to easy to keep from being traced.

      Fortunately most hackers are dumb and lazy so they aren't that hard to trace.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    2. Re:FBI spies by retro128 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why unprotected WiFi points are so useful. There is no way in heaven or hell to trace the connection back to the source.

      I wouldn't say it's impossible. If I had the investigative resources of the FBI the first thing I would do when I found out an attack happened from a "borrowed" WiFi point is get the MAC addresses of recently connected cards. Then all you have to do is go back to the manufacturers and find out who the cards were sold to and what their serial numbers are, and follow the trail of vendors all the way to the person who originally bought the card. Even if that person sold it on eBay or something, just keep following the trail.

      Of course, the AP has to log the MAC addresses, and not have been reset since the attack, but I wouldn't say it's IMPOSSIBLE to be nabbed if you take over a wifi point. If what you did was bad enough, they'll find you. That is, unless perhaps you went through enough cascaded anonymous proxies :)

      --
      -R
  8. Of course.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If they used Tor, subpoenas wouldn't really have given any useful information away. Then again, it's so sloooow perhaps they'd still be downloading ;).

  9. New Christmas Version ... ? by oostevo · · Score: 3, Funny
    From the posted article ...

    Let me first wish you Americans a happy Thanksgiving. Meanwhile, I'm hard at work on a holiday Nmap version which should be available by Christmas.

    I suppose this new version will give a new meaning to the Xmas scan, no?

    --
    In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
    Oh wait...
    1. Re:New Christmas Version ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Making a list,
      Scanning it twice.
      The FBI knows,
      Who's naughty or nice...

  10. Bad joke... by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    No wonder he's reticent about providing information.
    Fyodors are supposed to remain closed at all times.

    (Sorry)

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Bad joke... by JamieF · · Score: 2

      >Buy my copy of The Mythical Man Month

      Maybe if you try to sell small chunks of it to multiple bidders, it'll sell faster.

  11. Valid investigation techniques? by Dogun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, that is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

    Nmap is popular as hell - unless they already have a suspect, this isn't going to be useful for them, all it will do is give them a scapegoat 9 times out of 10 - lets say they do get Fyodor's webserver log - which I doubt he'll be keeping in the future, assuming he does now - all that would give them is the IP addresses of a few dozen nmap users - one or two of which may be script kiddies of some sort.

    And if they can verify that a script kiddy A downloaded nmap in their window of interest, what are they going to do? Assume they're responsible for the wrong crime and charge him or her. It's stupid and its a witchhunt and it's a shot in the dark.

    Of course, if the FBI has already got a suspect, they might be able to strengthen their case, but that's still pretty circumstantial evidence. Not exactly a smoking gun.

    Just my $0.02US

    1. Re:Valid investigation techniques? by Restil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In any large investigation, law enforcement typically questions hundreds of people, some of whom may be suspects, some potential witnesses, and some who are just shots in the dark. Yes, having 50 different ip addresses, only one of which MIGHT be a potential suspect might seem like a long shot, but if the IP address they're looking for IS in there, they might be able to match it up with other evidence. Considering the fact that Fyodor has yet to actually submit requested logs to an agent, in spite of numerous requests, means that this IS a long shot, a time consuming one to aquire, with a very short lifespan, and likely not really worth the effort to aquire. But it's still a legitimate source of evidence, and if it shuts down a spammer or script kiddy, I'm not going to fault them for trying.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    2. Re:Valid investigation techniques? by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when are fishing expeditions effective?

      Ask anyone who's ever caught a fish.

      Seriously, if they don't have any concrete leads, what are they supposed to do? Just stop investigating?

  12. Thanks for author by Mariukenas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wish more webmasters put such letters on their websites. More people would get aware of that surfing the net leaves traces and all of us would have more clear picture of how many subpoenas are served to webmasters.

    1. Re:Thanks for author by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Many subpoenas and such of that type have a Thou Shalt Not Tell restriction. It's seriously bad mojo if they leak news of an investigation.

      Meanwhile, those helpful popups do tell people that their computer is broadcasting an IP address.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Thanks for author by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would guess that the "Do not tell" restriction is on information specifics. To say that you recieved a supoena requestion information on IP addres X in this time window could get you in deap shit. Saying that you have been given a few Subpoenas over the last 6 months is probably no big deal.

      IANAL

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
  13. 'She'... in related news.. by pented_rage · · Score: 5, Funny

    The FBI has tracked down a perpetrated hacker after a slip-of-tongue by Fyodor in a recent nmap-hackers list posting, relating a female hacker using wget command to get nmap. After searching the homes of the 3 females known by Fyodor, they have identified and captured the assailant.

  14. Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not a script kiddie or a cracker, but I have done some interesting things out there. It sends chills up my back to think of the number of times I'd have been caught if a third party download site like this had had a five minute window opened in their logs. I'm impressed by the FBI's request, it's a technique that has a negligible chance of walking over someone's privacy (he even states that there were no results), yet has a good shot of working. I'm surprised that they didn't get anybody. But then again, the FBI aren't in the habit of tracking down small fry.

  15. Naked Nmap Chick... by severed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My first thought when I got that e-mail was that the feds wanted to know who was downloading Nmap pr0n.

    Of course, I'm the one who wrote the script and shot the video, so it's only natural.

    I think Fyodor is doing the right thing, and I think the feds are just using standard intimidation tactics... but then again, I've always been about state powers as opposed to federal powers. At least with state powers, you can always choose to move to a different state...

    --

    HaXXXor.com - Naked Chicks Teach You How To Ha

    1. Re:Naked Nmap Chick... by Wizarth · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'm the one who wrote the script and shot the video

      Shame, shame! Aside from the bad outfit, and the bad acting, in the movie you scan first localhost (usually behind the firewall, so not to useful) then localhost/24 ... so good, you scanned 127.0.0.*, meaning you hit your own box 255-ish times! Again behind the firewall!

      That said, I do have a copy of that movie on the usb stick in my pocket.
  16. Re:She?! by SWroclawski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think this is purposeful, and, frankly, smart.

    The assumption here is that the person the FBI is looking for is breaking the law, and is cracking boxes and other unsavory things.

    Why do we assume that the person is a he?
    It is possible that it's a she.

    People seem to be more sympathetic to women, and so I'd think this would be a good way to combat the steriotype of male "hackers".

  17. A *real* webmaster by mobiGeek · · Score: 4, Funny
    Only real webmasters get subpoenaed by the FBI. If you haven't been subpoenaed lately, take a good hard look at your website...it has become meanlingless.

    :-)

    --

    ...Beware the IDEs of Microsoft...

  18. Catching Script-Kiddies? Maybe... by CharonX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmmm...
    Perhaps they might catch the odd Script Kiddie (provided their "press button to h4X0r" tool doesn't download Nmap automatically, and if they do know that Nmap exists).
    But on the large, they won't catch any serious hacker - first of all, they gonna run through anonymous proxies, secondly they already know the URL (probably in a txt file or something), and thirdly, if they use some kind of tool to help them, self-made or not, it will have a "get Nmap or similar" button.
    All in all, nice try, no cigar though.

    --
    +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
  19. Log Retention by mordors9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Personally I would like to encourage everyone, escpecially ISPs to not maintain logs. That way they can answer every subpeona as unable to comply. But that is just me.

  20. Re:She?! by temojen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In a language without a pronoun for a person of unknown gender, she is as good as he.

  21. So, about this girl... by antic · · Score: 2, Funny


    So, this girl that has been downloading... are there photos of her? Huh? Huh?

    --
    'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
  22. Re:time to flame fyodor into reality by jdunn14 · · Score: 2, Funny

    made for backhats

    Are those over by the asshats?

  23. Re:Personally.. by benna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is that when we start trusting the government like that they can take it to far and then we are screwed. It may well be that they had a legitamate reason to want to see the logs but we can't trust that that is always the case. As for wget, I use it all the time to download things onto my shells.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  24. Uh. Yeah. by jcuervo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are so many things wrong with this.

    Can you challenge subpoenas?

    --
    Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  25. I know who it was! by jcuervo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're looking for these chicks!

    --
    Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  26. Fyodor is lucky... by nusratt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that it wasn't a Patriot Act subpoena:
    he could be prosecuted merely for revealing that he'd RECEIVED it, even AFTER it became defunct.
    Welcome to John Ashcroft's post-Constitution USA.

    (and why in God's name has he continued preserving logs, after having received even ONE approach from the government?!)

  27. How they use this by ca1v1n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some people here seem to think that they'd have to be snooping lots and lots of net traffic in order for this to be any good to them. Not so. If you strongly suspect that the perpetrator comes from some small set, like, say, employees of a certain corporation, students at a certain school, etc., then a 5-minute window of logs will likely show only one hit from that IP range. That, along with what they have that leads them to suspect that IP range in the first place could be enough to execute a warrant.

  28. Subpoena automation? Hmmm.... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder. Why can't they automate the subpoenas?
    That way they'd have one ready and well-written in case of a hacker emergency.

    Oh well.

    1. Re:Subpoena automation? Hmmm.... by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2, Informative
      I wonder. Why can't they automate the subpoenas?

      To get a subpoena you need to send an application to a judge specifying precisely why you want it and what you want, then convince the judge to say "yes". The long part of this is handing the paper to the Judge and convincing him/her to sign it.

      In theory there should never be a full automating of this process, since that would also imply that the requests get rubber-stamped.

      Besides, you're gonna be spending way more time in the initial investigation (to get enough evidence to convince the judge) and in the subsequent analysis of the resulting data (presuming that you get any) than you will typing the details of the subpoena into the boilerplate for the application.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  29. Moron! :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the "translated" site contains any pictures, your browser will download them directly from the server. Unless you're using lynx, or something.

    The server logs will contain "2004-11-25 23:59 - 80.70.60.50 GET /wideopenbackside.jpg"

  30. And of course since our furry and scaly friends... by PaulBu · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... have feelings too, the proper way to refer to something unknown is he/she/it, to be abbrevaiated as s/h/it! ;-)

    Paul B.

  31. Re:She?! by Zen+Punk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Please. I'm not sure that I would call it a "stereotype," even though it probably could be defined as one. It's a legitimate assumption based on experience. Let's face it: On average, as a whole, "hackers" and people knowledgeable about computers are male. I can count the number of females I know who realize that Windows != computers on one hand. This trend is apparent in other science and engineering fields, albiet to a lesser degree. Why is this? I can't really say, and that's beyond the scope of this article. I'm just saying that I don't think it's fair to say that someone is not thinking clearly and being influenced by stereotypes when they refer to an unknown hacker as male. He is probably saying that becuase all of the hackers he knows are male.

    --
    Sleep is futile.
  32. Re:About wireless by MikeFM · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm all for public access points but I do think that you should know what you're getting yourself into when you run a public AP. Most businesses especially should make sure they are covered.

    A little off topic of the FBI but related to public APs.. Something I like to do is run a public AP that doesn't have access to the Internet. It just acts as something of a localized BBS system. Anyone within reach can message each other, trade files, participate in the forums, or check out the wiki. It's not hard to make it so that someone connecting will get you're entrace page anytime they try to connect to something other than your system. With a decent antenea you can reach a fairly large group of people in a crowded metro area. An interesting way to meet your neighbors.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  33. Re:time to flame fyodor into reality by dumpsterKEEPER · · Score: 2, Informative

    Perhaps you don't understand the point behind nmap, but that is exactly why it was created. The idea was to provide a general purpose tool that gave intelligent admins the ability to scan and "attack" their own network with the exact same tools and techniques used by attackers. Nmap provides a centralized tool for all of these techniques that does not involve combing warez sites looking for each individual tool.

    Out of all the options that you listed above, the only one I haven't personally used is the decoy scanning as I don't have a use for it. Combinations of the other settings are very useful for checking the setup of both network monitoring tools as well as verifying configurations very quickly across multiple servers or desktop systems. In addition, I have found nmap to be very useful in tracking down certain virus infections. When I know that a virus opens a specific port on a compromised box, I can do a network wide scan and quickly return all hosts that are potentially compromised (as we are talking student computers at a college, we are not directly responsible for the machines themselves).

    True, nmap does put this same power in the hands of potentially malicious users, but given that they would have these same tools whether or not nmap existed, I much prefer being able to access them easily myself.

  34. Re:She?! by value_added · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the "One of the Slashdot Posts Worth Saving" Department:

    * --All right, I'm only going to say this once: 'He' is the singular indefinite pronoun in English ("if a person drinks too much, he will likely experience a hangover"). 'He' also happens to be the masculine personal pronoun.

    'She' is the singular pronoun of personification in English ("if England fails to advance America's foreign-policy ambitions, she will suffer terrible consequences"). 'She' also happens to be the feminine personal pronoun.

    Confusing the two exhibits not a warm-and-fuzzy concern for the inclusion of women so much as a writer's or speaker's ignorance. Using the feminine personal pronoun as an indefinite article is as moronic as using the masculine personal pronoun for personification. Thus the captain greets us: "Welcome to my ship. Isn't he splendid?"

    Give it up, people. It's not thoughtful; it's just illiterate. ®

  35. Re:She?! by Morphine007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's just from looking at simple security/crypto convention. The two people who want to to "legit" things with their intarWeb are generally named Bob and Alice. Eve is usually the nasty interloper trying to foil all their plans. So... in crypto at least... your attacker is a chick named Eve.

  36. What Fyodor is trying to tell us is that we should by Bob+Bitchen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    not be saving our web logs. At least not the ones that keep track of visitors. They can't see what doesn't exist. But I wonder if they could force us to keep web logs?

    FBI == Fucking Ballbusting Imbeciles
    How many FBI agents do you know?

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/3t236
  37. Perfect, but FBI has shortage of trust by augustz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is I think the perfect type of narrowly targeted investigative technique that I would support. The FBI KNOWS a crime has been committed, and is following and building an evidence trail.

    The problem is, the FBI has squandered a lot of their social capital in the IT space by pulling all sorts of ugly students in trolling the net to harasss or intimidate folks or prosucte crimes that folks don't consider serious to merit such strong persuit.

    Now, when they take an appropriate approach, folks are still skeptical.

    1. Re:Perfect, but FBI has shortage of trust by bani · · Score: 2, Insightful

      nothing wrong with holding up the FBI to high standards. the FBI are supposed to be the elite of law enforcement.

      after all, who watches the watchers?

  38. Re:She?! by dvdeug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'He' is the singular indefinite pronoun in English [...] 'He' also happens to be the masculine personal pronoun.

    You say that as if it just "happened". It's also not true; if you wrote "when a nurse comes, she will start by ...", no one would blink.

    'She' is the singular pronoun of personification in English

    Ships are usually she. That doesn't mean it's the only pronoun of personification; if you wish to personify an object as male, it's entirely correct.

    Confusing the two exhibits not a warm-and-fuzzy concern for the inclusion of women so much as a writer's or speaker's ignorance.

    A speaker's ignorance for what, some grammarian's rigid idea of what English should be? It's clear, whatever English was a hundred years ago or even 20 years ago, that using she is appropriate in today's English.

    This overbearing post about some rigid rules of someone's conception of what English's rules should be is worth trashing, not saving.

  39. ass u me by orpx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fyodor writes: "If they see that an attacker ran the command "wget http://download.insecure.org/nmap/dist/nmap-3.77.t gz" from a compromised host, they assume that she might have obtained that URL by visiting the Nmap download page from her home computer"

    How do they assume what time the attacker visited nmap's site in the first place? If i was a well grounded hacker i'd probably have visited nmap's site so many times i have the url memorized, only having visited nmap's site in the first place, years before.

    and what's with accusing a 'she' to be the perporting hacker? If anything I think it was they.

  40. my 2 cents by poemofatic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why? What's wrong with a narrowly tailored subpoena in regards to a specific, discrete illegal act?

    No, the question is "What's wrong with getting a valid subpoena *before* asking for the logs?" The issue is not the worthiness of the cause, but relying on general security paranoia and flag waving to bypass due process. Fyodor is right to demand a valid subpoena -- if the FBI is such a bumbling set of wankers as to not be able to come up with a subpoena, why trust them to accurately identify the suspect, or to not abuse the information they get?

    --

    When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

    1. Re:my 2 cents by catenos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, the question is "What's wrong with getting a valid subpoena *before* asking for the logs?"

      Nothing. It's just that IPs per se are no sacred data and just because you have the right to ask for a subpoena, there are a lot of people who willingly provide such data without subpoena if a request looks genuine (no paranoia or flag waving involved). And so it only sounds reasonble for the FBI to see if more paperwork can be avoided by asking first.*

      And while your argument, that the FBI shouldn't be trusted if they don't have a subpoena, goes exactly against such behaviour, you cannot really blame the FBI for adjusting to what is current practice. Blame the people not holding to your standards.


      *It's an entirely different thing, if they tried to gave the impression, they can force the request without subpoena, but there was no mention of that in the article.

      Lacking this, the only one who should always require a subpoena is the ISP, i.e. the one who can connect the IP to a real person.

      --
      Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
    2. Re:my 2 cents by bani · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If law enforcement doesnt want the public to get away with violating the law, then law enforcement shouldnt be suprised if the public requires law enforcement to follow the law as well. Thus law enforcement can get a subpoena or search warrant, or they can go pound sand.

      No hypocrisy in that.

  41. Re:She?! by djcapelis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    By convention, Eve is a passive attacker, the active attacker is named Mallory, which is usually regarded as a male persona.

    So I'm sorry, but that's not the reason Fyodor used "she."

    --
    I touch computers in naughty places
  42. Re:Fatuous Sexism by Reene · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are virtually no female hackers. Pick whichever adverb you want. Don't throw a fscking bitch fit because you perceive, for whatever reason, that the males among us somehow don't "recognize" female hackers (or female geeks for that matter).

    The simple truth is that we're such an extreme minority that it is no wonder we are overlooked in most texts. I have stopped being offended by the seemingly exclusionist behavior because I'm smart/mature/whatever enough to realize that isn't really what it is.

    So in short, get over yourself. The injured-ego oppressed feminist act gets old real quick, especially among hackers (since you seem to be claiming to be one yourself).

    --
    "He does look a bit Oompa like, even if his Loompa is a bit off-kilter."