Slashdot Mirror
Lynn Settles With Cisco, Investigated By FBI
Following up on yesterday's story, daria42 writes "Security researcher Michael Lynn has settled a dispute with Cisco over his presentation on hacking the company's routers, which was given at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas this week. The two parties and Black Hat organisers have agreed not to further discuss the presentation, which contained techniques Lynn said could bring the Internet to its knees." Not all is good news, though. jzeejunk writes "The FBI is investigating computer security researcher Michael Lynn for criminal conduct after he revealed that critical routers supporting the internet and many networks have a serious software flaw that could allow someone to crash or take control of them."
What a load of horseshit. Lynn follows his conscience and speaks up about Cisco's security vulnerabilities, and not only is he severely slapped down by this permanent injunction (which I don't consider 'good news' in any sense), but now the FBI has decided to get involved. It'll be chilling to watch them pull his life apart and examine each bit under a microscope over months or years.
Lynn exposed a serious security flaw that could have been used to compromise networks throughout the nation. Cisco should be rewarding him for protecting them against losses they would no doubt have experienced in the future if this flaw went unreported. As for the government, they should be pinning a medal on Lynn, not investigating him.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Needs to be spread if we're to expect cisco to fix it.
Again... how is this "illegal". When ford sold the pinto's that blew up when rearended, were mechanic's and insurance agenst who brought it to the light of the public sued? If you make a faulty design, you shouldn't have grounds to sue anyone who points it out. It's your own fault and no one else's. I didn't see the guy who figured out you could open all those bike locks with a bic pen going to prison or being investigated by the fbi...
...and told us that it will be the year we all live in from now on.
Regardless of what you think about Lynn's tactics, or Cisco's, or ISS's, or Blackhat's, the bottom line is that the FBI is now investigating. The government is going after a private citizen for releasing information about routers, because it's "critical to the national ingfrastructure". How long before pinging a router is an "investigable offence" for causing a drop in router resources?
libertarianswag.com
What exactly was CISCO suing over? It seems to me that CISCO didn't like what he had to say, but that doesn't give you a right to sue somebody. Obviously, they weren't alleging libel or slander, since everything he said was apparently true. I don't recall allegations that he misappropriated trade secrets or something. Did he just give up so that he didn't have to defend a baseless suit?
Was his disclosure good for the internet in the short term? Probably not. However, unless there is some law that I'm missing, describing how to use a bomb is not the same as advocating that it be used.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
First, according to this new article, Lynn would have been allowed to speak if Cisco was allowed to speak as well.
In other words, give Cisco the opportunity to explain that patching vulnerabilities in major commercial vendor-supported code isn't just something that happens instantaneously. I'm not saying Cisco is completely in the clear here, but no everything shouldn't be open source, and patching shouldn't/can't happen like it does in the open source community. Some people will no doubt fundamentally or philosophically disagree with this, but in major network infrastructure, there is a place for stable, predictable commercial support. Along with that sometimes comes commercial and/or proprietary code - code which is kept proprietary for competitive advantage. This is not to say that flaws should not be revealed for the good of all, but speaking in generalities here, broadcasting everything as loudly and widely as possible to the public isn't necessarily the best way to address issues. Nor is hiding things in obscurity. But there is a scale here, and it's NOT black and white.
Further, the FBI is investigating not because of some corporatist government conspiracy, and is not being used as Cisco's own "police force". It is investigating a claim of a complaint it received, as it is compelled to do by its very reason for existence, and doesn't even know if a crime has been committed. Would you want law enforcement agencies to not investigate allegations of crime, whatever your opinion of this particular instance aside?
Even Lynn's own lawyer says "that she thought the agency was simply following through on a complaint it received when Cisco and ISS filed their lawsuit against Lynn and that it didn't come after her client reached his settlement. She didn't know the nature of the complaint but said it was probably something to do with intellectual property and that it most likely came from Cisco or ISS.
Granick said she did not think the FBI would arrest Lynn.
"Definitely not," she said. "I don't have any sense at all that that's where they're going. I don't know what the circumstances are under which anyone contacted the FBI. It may very well be that given that we settled the civil case yesterday, this is over."
So please, let's not overreact.
Also, if Cisco did know about it and kept it under wraps while they worked on the problem I call that common sense not secrecy. How would you like it if someone posted a sign on your street giving the code to your alarm system or garage door opener?
You got any karma man? I really neeed it. Just a little hit! Come on!
FBI investigation =/= FBI hunting you down and cracking down on you and your ilk Just think for a moment about how many thousands things the FBI is currently "investigating" that you will never hear about.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
"The FBI is investigating computer security researcher Michael Lynn for criminal conduct after he revealed that critical routers supporting the internet and many networks have a serious software flaw that could allow someone to crash or take control of them."
The FBI is investigating Michael Lynn... after he revealed ...
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
He's being investigated for what, now? Talking?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
He wasn't revealing state secrets, and he didn't "yell fire in a crowded theater."
Someone should challenge the trade-secret-protection criminal laws on 1st ammendment grounds - yes, there is tort, and yes, restraining orders may be appropriate in rare circumstances, but a criminal conviction, I think not. It's time to give the local jury pool a lesson on free speech and jury nullification.
I hope they drop this ASAP, and if they don't, the ACLU should get involved. This is America, not Soviet Russia.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The problem isn' that Cisco hadn't fixed this problem. They did, months ago. BUT, they didn't tell anyone what their patch fixed, so there are people out there running old versions because they don't know that the patch is CRITICAL to their security, mostly out of fear of munging their network up with a new IOS version.
there are channels he could have gone through that would have made Cisco aware of the problem (if they weren't already) without endangering the safety of the nation's network by talking to a bunch of black hats!
Two things:
First, Cisco was already aware of the problem and had released a patch for it last April.
Second, Blackhat is not about blackhats. It is about security and is visited by some of the most renown security professionals including ranking officials in the CIA, NSA, and other 3 letter acronyms.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
The hole exists. Sometimes it takes shouting about it to get it fixed. He gave them time. If you think 3+ months is enough time or not is a debatable point. But he DID notify them through channels.
before everybody starts yelling about the need for these things to be reported, there are channels he could have gone through that would have made Cisco aware of the problem
Cisco was aware, in fact they were originally supposed to be co-presenting with him. Lynn contacted them four months ago. The problem is many of their customers were not aware of the problem, and despite reports to the contrary, while the exploit used to get onto the system has been fixed for a while, the ability to run arbitrary code has not. Now Cisco is working to abstract their hardware layer. Put these two items together and you get new routers, with a flaw, where a single, generic exploit can take them all out.
I know a lot less about networking and networking security than Mr. Lynn. I am willing to believe, however, that he would not give up a good, paying job and risk his future employment prospects unless he felt that this was a real and serious risk. Whistleblowers need to be protected and companies that willfully disregard warnings that their incompetence is threatening vital business and communications infrastructure around the world are the ones who should be investigated, not Mr. Lynn.
How is this funny or relevant?
Since when is it evil for a law enforcement agency to follow up on a complaint, even if the complaint is later found to be invalid? Or should law enforcement agencies be able to predict the future, and just skip the investigative step, and automatically know whether a crime has been committed? It might have been absurd or vindictive for ISS and/or Cisco to approach the FBI, but when someone approaches the FBI and claims a crime has been committed, would you prefer that the FBI did nothing? It HAS to investigate, just like the police still respond to even 911 hangups. If nothing is wrong and no crime has been committed, it's dropped. But when a complaint is initiated, the investigative step MUST take place, else, how would law enforcement even function?
...between "security through obscurity" and attempting to hide vulnerabilities, and broadcasting security issues as loudly as possible at public forums.
Both are harmful, and neither benefit security optimally.
As with most things, the most beneficial position is usually a balance between extremes.
Wile E. Coyote can walk off a cliff and doesn't fall - until the Roadrunner points out there's no ground under his feet.
Apparently the FBI thinks computer security works the same way.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The lesson to be learned here is that full, immediate and anonymous disclosure is the best way to publish vulnerabilities. It's too bad that vendors and law enforcement have scared the shit out of such that this is necessary, but they too have to live with the consequences of their actions.
Hey, how bout we try a proper analogy:
How would you like it if you had your security number written on a piece of paper stuck to the side of your house and some kid told you he knew about it and said you should take that down. After you told him no, he rand around the neighborhood and told everyone.
I'd be embarassed too, but it'd be my own damn fault.
I may just be a simple Canadian, but wouldn't common sense dictate that this should read: Lynn awarded medal by greatful country, and FBI investigates Cisco Systems for possible negligance which would endanger the entire Country. Ok perhaps a bit long winded, but really come on people get with the program! Corporations seem to be getting out of control with the amount of power given to them. There are so many things wrong with this its unreal. First off is (seemingly) a Corporation influancing the FBI, a Federal Law enforcement adjency!
The bottom line is that Lynn is a whistle blower, and the FBI should be investigating Cisco for innappropiate conduct by trying to hide (not fix) a serious vunrability that could effect the entire country.
The whole thing sickens me.
While I would be the first to agree that a healthy amount of cynicism is, well, healthy, too much cynicism is as dangerous as not enough. The truth is that there are still lawmakers who value the opinions of their constituents, especially if their constituent attempts to educate them on an issue that they were ignorant of.
It may not look like it from the outside, but I would suspect that the majority of lawmakers still attempt to cling to the ideals they started with and, when given the opportunity, will attempt to act according to them.
Don't limit your options just because cynicism dicates that they're pointless. You might be right and it's a wasted effort, but if you're wrong, you've voluntarily missed an opportunity.
*sigh* back to work...
the fact that Cisco would not tell anyone about it
Free speech is now a crime. If Cisco released the same information that Lynn did, they will have the FBI after them as well.
WTF is going on in this country?
If you dare mention that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, you will surely get beheaded for it.