Slashdot Mirror


World's Biggest Hacker Held

Hieronymus Howard writes "The London Evening Standard is reporting that the "worlds biggest computer hacker" has been arrested in London. Gary McKinnon, 39, was seized by the Met's extradition unit at his Wood Green home. The unemployed former computer engineer is accused of causing the U.S. government $1 billion of damage by breaking into its most secure computers at the Pentagon and NASA. He is likely to be extradited to America to face eight counts of computer crime in 14 states and could be jailed for 70 years. Apparently he broke into U.S. military computers to hunt for evidence of a UFO cover-up."

41 of 631 comments (clear)

  1. Smart? Yes. A Nut? Perhaps. How about both? by lecithin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Apparently he broke into US military computers to hunt for evidence of a UFO cover-up."

    It sounds like an excuse to me.

    So is the guy really nutty or is this just an attempt to justify his illegal activities?

    Then again, perhaps he was on to something?

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
  2. Obligitory Slashdot Discussion by DeadSea · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't believe that this guy is the world's biggest hacker. Have you seen Cowboy Neal??? Now that's big!

    This guy was looking for UFOs. In Soviet Russia, UFOs look for you!

    We all know that if he was an uber-hacker he would have created a Beowulf cluster of all the computers he hacked.

    One billion in damages? That number has to be inflated. (Actually the article says 570000 pounds which is only about 1 Million US dollars according to my currency calculator)

    1. Get paranoid about UFOs
    2. Hack into the US government
    3. Get caught
    4. ????
    5. Profit!
    1. Re:Obligitory Slashdot Discussion by rokzy · · Score: 4, Funny

      you must be new here.

    2. Re:Obligitory Slashdot Discussion by Thuktun · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually the article says 570000 pounds

      Wow, that guy IS big.

    3. Re:Obligitory Slashdot Discussion by zenneth · · Score: 4, Funny

      heh, that's great irony... the six-digit guy telling the five-digit guy he's a noob.

      --
      The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
  3. Sweet Jesus. by newrisejohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you do $1 Billion worth of damage just to look for UFO conspiracy information, you deserve to be locked up.

    Although this could help his insanity plea.

  4. This just in by yotto · · Score: 5, Funny

    The police have apologized to his mother for kicking in her door, but it was the only way they could reach the basement.

  5. Whoah by LegendOfLink · · Score: 5, Funny

    OMG, they finally caught JeffK!?

  6. World's Biggest Hacker? by Dagny+Taggert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Really? Because he broke into a Pentagon network? That just makes him stupid; if he were really a big hacker, he'd be doing blackhat corporate work. UFOs! Yeah...whatever.

    --
    Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
  7. One beeelllliiioonn dollars? by bc90021 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1 Beeelllion Dollars?

    Where do they get that from? If that's really the case, it would only take about 6,000 people to cause enough damage to double the national debt!

    The article doesn't mention anything anywhere about pure damages, for starters. It mentions the costs associated with tracking and capturing the guy, and costs correcting some of the problems - combined. Those costs are listed as 570,000 pounds. At the exchange rate I just looked up (1.83 dollars to a pound), that's still only 1,054,500 dollars, which is more like a meeelllion dollars. Even if they tack on the 950,000 pound in fines, that's still not even three million.

    That's a far cry from a billion... and about two million less than the damages Kevin Mitnick was supposed to have caused.

    Frankly, they should have just let this guy find some "evidence" of UFOs. Then he might have spent his time trying to convince people of it instead of looking for more!

    1. Re:One beeelllliiioonn dollars? by newfoundry · · Score: 4, Informative
      From the BBC report:

      "The Briton was indicted in 2002 by a federal grand jury on eight counts of computer-related crimes in 14 different states.
      It claimed that he hacked into an army computer at Fort Myer, Virginia, obtained administrator privileges and transmitted codes, information and commands.

      Unauthorised access
      He is accused of then deleting around 1,300 user accounts.
      The indictment alleged Mr McKinnon also deleted "critical system files" on the computer, copied a file containing usernames and encrypted passwords for the computer and installed tools to gain unauthorised access to other computers.

      A loss of over $5,000 (£2,725) to the Army stemmed from the alleged damage, according to the indictment."

      So in the space of three years, $5K becomes $100M? Nice rate of return, if you can get it...

  8. Re:what? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From what I've been able to tell over the years, the damages in these cases is almost completely made up. The FBI loves to post huge numbers on cases like these because it makes them look important. More realistic estimates based on administrator time and business lost due to the servers being unavailable tend to be far lower.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  9. Re:Smart? Yes. A Nut? Perhaps. How about both? by Omnieiunium · · Score: 5, Funny

    He wasn't onto anything. He found nothing. Nothing at all. He did not hack into our databases or steal information. Never happened. Never.

  10. Re:So... by hamburger+lady · · Score: 4, Funny

    goes by the name of 'Brasky'. i'd say he's about 8'5", 750 pounds.

    --

    ---
    Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
  11. Re:what? by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To be fair, the cost of finding and fixing trhe holes should not be included. After all, it was broken before he got there.

    Not to mention that they should be found and fixed regardless of any intrusions.
    =Smidge=

  12. Re:what? by the_bard17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to mention trying to figure out where all those holes in security came from and patching them.

    Yeah, that makes sense. Pawn the cost of fixing your security holes on the guy who found them.

    If my house ever gets burglarized, I'm going to try to get the burglar to pay the contractor to fix the "hole" the burglar got in through.

  13. Free On Bail (BBC) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to this, he's free on bail:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4071708.stm

    1. Re:Free On Bail (BBC) by magarity · · Score: 4, Funny

      Free on bail + facing 70 year sentence = run awaaaaaay! run awaaaaaay!

  14. Most secure? by Mille+Mots · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...The unemployed former computer engineer is accused of causing the US government $1billion of damage by breaking into its most secure computers at the Pentagon and Nasa...

    Maybe it's just me, but any device connected to any other device is no longer to be considered as secure.

    I would have guessed that the gubbermint's "most secure computers" would be airgapped, but apparently that is not the case. Or, perhaps, the author of TFA is being just a bit sensational and overdramatic. ;)

    1. Re:Most secure? by Rorschach1 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Even stuff classified at the 'Secret' level is kept on separate networks. If you find any SIPRNET traffic on unclassified networks, it's using NSA-approved encryption devices to tunnel traffic.

      Of course, something as Earth-shattering as UFO proof wouldn't get anywhere near a computer only approved for 'Secret'. Think secure facilities with guards, shielded rooms and computers, and vaults. Where classified networks do exist, you'll see mandatory physical separation distances between cables to avoid crosstalk, heavy use of fiber optics, pressurized conduits, and so forth.

      Fortunately I don't often have to deal with that stuff. As exciting and mysterious as classified data processing might sound, it's mostly boring and a freaking pain in the ass to deal with.

  15. Re:what? by nodwick · · Score: 4, Informative
    The idiot article quoted in the summary got it wrong. See here or here. The original article also gets the correct number in british pounds.
    Using software downloaded off the internet, McKinnon allegedly hacked his way into almost 100 networks operated by NASA, the US Army, US Navy, Department of Defence and the US Air Force, with the US government estimating that his antics have cost around one million dollars (£570,000, 790,000) to track down and fix.
  16. Odd facts in this case by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What an incredibly odd story. Look at these quotes from the article:

    "Most of the alleged hacking took place in 2001 and 2002. At one stage the US thought it was the work of the al Qaeda terror network. "

    OK, so this must have been some serious stuff going down for them to think that he was al Qaeda. Or was it?

    "Friends said that he broke into the networks from his home computer to try to prove his theory that the US was covering up the existence of UFOs. "

    Uh oh, we're talking mentally off here.

    "He is accused of a series of hacking offences including deleting "critical" files from military computers. The US authorities said the cost of tracking him down and correcting the alleged problems was more than £570,000. The offences could also see him fined up to £950,000 if found guilty on all charges. "

    Here it comes, the big bill for this mentally off "al Qaeda" operative. "Lesse, captain, I spent my lunch hour running a scan." "Aha! We'll bill that time as worth £50,000!"

    "Prosecutor Paul McNulty alleged that McKinnon, known online as "Solo," had perpetrated "the biggest hack of military computers ever". He was named as the chief suspect after a series of electronic break-ins occurred over 12 months at 92 separate US military and Nasa networks.

    Ah, it gets better. This guy must have been hot stuff! They think he's some kind of master criminal or something. Or al Qaeda maybe.

    "It is alleged that he used software available on the internet to scan tens of thousands of computers on US military networks from his home PC, looking for machines that might be exposed due to flaws in the Windows operating system.

    Many of the computers he broke into were protected by easy-to-guess passwords, investigators said. In some cases, McKinnon allegedly shut down the computer systems he invaded. "

    WHAT?! He's just a script kiddie??! All this fuss over some guy port scanning Windows boxes??

    "The charge sheet alleges that he hacked into an army computer at Fort Myer, Virginia, where he obtained codes, information and commands before deleting about 1,300 user accounts.

    Other systems he hacked into included the Pentagon's network and US army, navy and air force computers. "

    So let me get this straight. Some nutcase into UFOs uses script kiddie technology to port scan Windows boxes and somehow manages to get into the Pentagon and the military? Are you kidding me? Either they are running Windows boxes with easy to guess passwords and insecure networks, or else they should have charged him with a lot worse stuff than standard port scanning. Or maybe the reporter has no clue what he did, but this doesn't add up.

    The only thing that does make sense is the U.S. military thinking a script kiddie UFO chaser was a master criminal at work...

    1. Re:Odd facts in this case by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I've done some work for NASA and the DoD in the past, and all I can say is I'm surprised by how few break-ins the guy is tied to. Typical system administration passwords are "password" according to the agency-wide briefing I was in on, the use of .rhosts on mission-critical systems is scary, and the preference of rsh/telnet over secure protocols is beyond belief.


      The evidence so far is that the guy IS a skript-kiddie, and probably not a very good one at that. If, after countless reviews and endless debate, many Federal agencies are still scoring D or worse on their own evaluations, I cannot find any reason to have any confidence in their ability to secure their systems.


      Perhaps, instead of wasting time chasing UFO spotters, they should be putting more time and effort into getting their own house in order. Windows machines are rated for standalone security, not network security, and Windows is only C-class even then. That may be fine for a desktop hosting seriously unimportant files, but I would not regard that as nearly good enough for servers or desktops likely to have files of significance.


      For the sorts of establishments we're talking here, I would say that a minimum of B3 on internal security and something comparable for network security should be the minimum for anything beyond the kiosks they've been pushing people onto.

      --
      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)
  17. Re:Don't they mean cracker? by Morgon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why's it always gotta be about race?!

    --
    [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
  18. "Most secure computers" - I doubt it by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless the Pentagon and NASA have VERY VERY silly systems, their *really* important computers are simply *not* accessible to hackers. I really can't believe that truly ensitive systems wouldn't just be air-gapped from the world.

    Sure, it's possible to hack intelligence agencies but it I'd put money on it failing to get you the really juicy stuff!

  19. Re:what? by 93,000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Duh . . .

    He compromised over 3 Libraries of Congress worth of information, which costs the government such a large amount of money that, if stacked in $20 bills, it would be the size of four Volkswagen beetles. And if you don't know that it takes 1/4 billion in twenties to equeal a Volkswagen bug, then turn in your nerd card at the door.

  20. He didn't commit a crime in the US by thogard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He only committed a crime in the UK even though the effects that crime where in the US. There are already enough laws in the UK about breaking into military sensitive computers that can put him in jail for a very long time and there are enough treaties with the US so that breaking into a US military computer in the UK can get you thrown in jail forever.

    The judge should rule that he can't be extradited to the US until he has been tried in the UK and then only if the US has charges that don't fit into double jeopardy.

  21. Re:Don't they mean cracker? by Datamonstar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, a saltine of massive proportions.

    --
    The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  22. He Got The Wrong System by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Funny

    If he was really smart he would have broken into the alien computer system via the link in...ah, forgot I ever said that.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:He Got The Wrong System by Metzli · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would only work if was using an older model of Powerbook. It might also require that he looks more like Jeff Goldblum.

      --
      "It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
  23. Re:what? by Zeebs · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you call any of your doors the "hole" you might want to get your contractor to come and fix it anyway.

    --

    Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
  24. A Darwin Award nomination, say I! by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The guy is smart enough to cobble together scripts and guess passwords so he can get into computers run by US Military Intelligence ("The World's Biggest Oxymoron", by the way)...

    And what does he look for? UFO information! Now he's facing 70 years in prison.

    Come on, that must be the equivalent of tipping a Coca-Cola machine onto yourself.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  25. No, I'm New Here by New+Here · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, I'm New Here

  26. It's a good thing he didn't download Eminem songs! by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a good thing he didn't download Eminem songs as well. Then he would have been in deep shit.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  27. Re:Smart? Yes. A Nut? Perhaps. How about both? by prisonercx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't be too sad for him, he got his wish. He's about to be far more involved with anal probing.

  28. Re:what? by elhaf · · Score: 5, Informative

    However, in this case TFA on cnn at least, gives a figure of 1300 user accounts deleted in one instance. That probably involved real cost. He wasn't just looking for info, he was also being malicious.

    --
    Six score characters.
    Brevity being wit's soul
    I have enough space.
  29. Re:Don't they mean cracker? by guitaristx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Everyone, please send emails to this address of a similar nature:

    Dear editor,

    I am a computer hacker. By this, I mean that I enjoy learning and exploring computer technology. I have a degree in computer science, and am involved in many not-for-profit computer-technology endeavors. I am not a criminal. I do not violate computer security, I do not write malicious software, and I do not intentionally cause harm to the computer systems that I have access to. Any computer system access that I have has been given to me through legitimate means. It has come to my attention that you have used the term 'hacker' in the article linked below to indicate a person who intentionally violates computer security systems: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/191647 14?source=Evening%20Standard&ct=5

    The proper term for such a person is 'cracker' or 'security breaker', i.e. one that "cracks" computer security. By using the term 'hacker' in the way that your publication has done, you spread misinformation about me, and people like me. You are demeaning and destroying a culture that, above all, values learning, knowledge, and wisdom. Please stop insulting hackers by equating them with criminals. For more information, see here: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/appendixc.htm l

    Please issue a correction, and please make sure that a clear distinction is made in the future.

    (your name here)
    A Proud Hacker

    --
    I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
  30. Re:Smart? Yes. A Nut? Perhaps. How about both? by Dasch · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sure, that's true! Last year I was standing next to a house, smoking some weed, when I lost my balance, tripped, and fell through a window! I thought I might as well crash there, so I took a nap in the owner's bed.

  31. In other news . . . by ndansmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . Halliburton has won a no-bid contract from the Bush administration to fix the "$1 billion" of damages.

  32. Re:Smart? Yes. A Nut? Perhaps. How about both? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep. It's still illegal. But while it's illegal for a burglar to enter your unlocked house, you're no less of an idiot for leaving it unlocked. And exaggerating the scope of the break-in ("he diabolically circumvented the integrity of the house by adjusting the rotational position of the entry affordance!") has as more to do with CYA (in the case of the homeowner, perhaps to collect insurance) than it has to do with the guilt of the burglar.

  33. Re:And my reply, if I were an editor would be by guitaristx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good thing you're not an editor. First, www.dictionary.com shows that the malicious definition of 'hacker' is deprecated. Next, www.webster.com shows both meanings, as you say, but (as with most lexicons) the more common or more proper definitions are listed first. Notice that the malicious definition is listed last. Furthermore, in the context of the offending article, the term 'hacker' is jargon, and is therefore subject to definition by the particular field to which the jargon term belongs: computer technology. Therefore, Webster, OED, and any other general-knowledge dictionaries' definitions of said term are superseded by the generally-understood meaning within the field of computer technology.

    A respectful computer expert (that is, a computer expert that respects the skills, opinions, and decisions of other computer experts) would understand the distinction between the usual news article's use of the term 'hacker' and the more correct term as I have described it. However, the average lay-person will not understand the distinction, and will be left with a negative connotation whenever encountering the word 'hacker'. Therefore, as a hacker (in the non-malicious sense), it is my duty to defend myself, and others like me, by communicating to insensitive publications the inherent offensiveness of careless use of the term 'hacker'. If a publication receives a request like mine (see GP), and chooses to respond to it as you have, it is an indication of the publication's insensitivity and intentional alienation of a significant non-malicious worldwide subculture. Therefore, if I do receive a response from either of the publications I've contacted today, and it's similar to yours, I will do whatever is in my power to spread the word about their discriminatory practices. Not that I want to do that - I hope that my letters will incite changes in the treatment of the term 'hacker'. In any case, I'm doing my part to ensure that 'hacker' loses its negative connotation, since the correct definition of it describes me, and others like me, much better than 'computer expert', 'computer enthusiast', 'geek', 'nerd', 'programmer' (et. al.). If ethnic groups can be defensive about what they wish to be called, then subcultures should have the same right.

    --
    I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic