Slashdot Mirror
More on Last Year's Cisco Source Code Theft
grazzy writes "The New York Times has a story about last year's theft of Cisco source code:
The incident seemed alarming enough: a breach of a Cisco Systems network in which an intruder seized programming instructions for many of the computers that control the flow of the Internet. "
This definetly goes to show that www.hackiis6.com's 18yr old rule was probably imposed to simply limit the number of hackers who will enter. Props to the kid for pulling this off... even if he did get into trouble =).
Get Paid to search
You expect these things when someone begins a sentence 'More on'
One of my English profs explained the importance of thinking through sentence structure so as not to be phonetically or grammatically careless, i.e. 'Me and Jim went to the arcade' as it could sound like 'Mean Jim went to the arcade', proper grammar is 'Jim and I went to the arcade.'
Thus endeth today's grammar report.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"last years theft" : A theft, in the last years of Cisco "last year's theft": A theft, in the previous year. Apostrophes do make a difference.
Note that this article was written by the person famous for creating the myth of Kevin Mitnick being a super hacker. Markoff is largely responsible for the fear and paranoia surrounding Mitnick and consequently his unfair prison experience.
His articles were full of lies and exaggerations back then so I would take this article with a grain of salt as well.
She did taunt anyone. She recieved taunts. It was these taunts that lead the authorities onto the trail. More so, his anger came from monitoring emails to the sys admin where he was called a "quaint hacker". The messages were not taunts. They were not even directed at him.
Anm
it was probably dobrk, that was one of the vulnerabilities the attacker(s) used last year to root systems.
see http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/xfdb/13880 (this was the 1st google link i saw, there are probably others with better information but i'm lazy).
I know you're trying to be funny, but I think you're missing something basic. The reason this is "theft" and not "infringement" is because the intruder made a copy of something not generally released. (the source code).
In the music world, if someone buys an album, and gives copies to his or her friends, he is violatating the artist's right to control copies. (i.e. their "copyright"). If that same person hacks into the artist's recording studio, and downloads unreleased tracks, the artist has had those tracks stolen. It is a "theft".
So far you have criminal trespass (or whatever the computer equivalent is) and infringement, but still no theft.
Also, there really is no difference between this and downloading songoftheday.mp3 unless you want to say only the original uploader of songoftheday.mp3 is a thief and everyone else is just an infringer. What about the people who downloaded the leaked code, are they thieves or infringers?
While I applaud your lame attempt at a meta troll, I must say, your warped ideology does not make it theft.
They didn't use holes in cisco routers to break into their network.
They used stolen passwords gathered from other hacked machines by using trojaned sshd's.
Says so in TFA.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Actually, the photographer insisted the laptop be held so the logo was in view. Even though the hacking had nothing to do with the laptop.
Your guess is perfectly accurate; a Berkeley department cluster, with Wren having no power beyond informing the sysadmins of the breakin, which she promptly did.