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
The real issue at hand, at least with Cisco router owners, is not the fact that Lynn released information concerning the exploit, but the fact that Cisco would not tell anyone about it. Time and time again has shown how security through obscurity is not real security, especially when Cisco's source code had been stolen.
The reality of it is that Cisco fixed the exploit last April with a patch and no longer offers the vulnerable IOS for download on their site. The problem with that though is that they did not inform anyone what the patch fixed and who needed to download it. Most people who are vulnerable to this attack are those who have not updated to Cisco's version as of April (which are a few I'm sure. No point on upgrading a working system with a patch that could break you.)
The real problem is Cisco and their disregard to release information over a severe vulnerability in order to press forward their new OS next year.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
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...
Can you imagine the chaos?
I bet some people would even end up going outside.
I would probably crawl up into a ball and cry until it was fixed; with my girlfriend consoling me.
I suppose I could look through my old cached history of webpages and pretend that I was online!
...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
I found this linked on Nick84's site (http://www.rootsecure.net/): http://www.infowarrior.org/users/rforno/lynn-cisco .pdf
If I'm correct, it's the slides that were taken off of the hand out cd.
Another link from a Wired article:
http://cryptome.org/lynn-cisco.zip
Irongeek's Hacking Videos / Security Videos and Articles
"There's no arrest warrant for (Lynn) and there are no charges filed and no case pending," Granick said. "There may never be. But they got a complaint and as a result they were doing some investigation."
In other words, probably not really in trouble with the FBI.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
No, sometimes this is the only way to make progress. Companies (more appropriately managers) are content to live in the dark on security issues instead of dealing with them. In my experience, money is the only concern in respect to most PHB's, and the only way to make a change is to expose it in a critical manner. I applaude this guy.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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.
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.
...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.
Crafted IPv6 packet vulnerability.
5 0729-ipv6.shtml
s p
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-200
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1841669,00.a
Upshot is that if you aren't running IPv6 on the router, this doesn't affect you.
You should always give these type of presentations at the "White Hat Security Researchers Conference of Law Enforcing Good Guys", not the "Black Hat Hacker Convention of Nefarious Ne'er-do-wells and Juvenile Deliquents".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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...
I read the presentation. (here).
Lynn shows how to do a remote exploit on Cisco's firmware. This is impressive because the router runs software that attempts to detect inconsistencies. It will reset itself and start up afresh. The big deal is that Lynn shows how an exploit can fix things up and avoid those measures. Basically, his technique is like a ninja, that breaks into a building through a window, but then immediately reassembles the window before the security guard making his rounds can notice that the window got destroyed. That's it!
There's no indication Lynn stole ANYTHING from Cisco, or broke any law.
Lynn apparently "reverse engineered" the OS in order to do this. That's usually fine; it is his right to do that.
Considering this, I'm pretty pissed that Cisco's spokeswoman, Mojdan Khalili, said that Lynn broke the law (without saying what law it was). I think that could be libel (or slander -- I'm not a lawyer) -- in any case, Mojdan Khalili, working for Cisco, just ruined this guys rep, and sicced the FBI on his ass.
Perhaps if you write her, she will get Cisco to ask the FBI to lay off the good researcher (ask her to have Cisco "take it all back"). From yesterday, here's her contact info:
978-936-1297 mkhalili@cisco.com
Also, some total jerk looked up her address and posted it (here). I think that's totally inappropriate; if you show up on her doorstep and bother her, I hope she calls the FBI on you, you freak!
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
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.
He gave Cisco *FOUR MONTHS* to fix it, which is hardly "instantaneous".