Slashdot Mirror
Consultant Convicted For Non-Invasive Site Access
Phillip P Barnett writes "Security consultant Daniel Cuthbert worried that he'd been stung by a phishing scam when he donated to a Tsunami relief effort in London, UK. He was convicted for hacking and lost his job after running a couple of checks on the website in question." From the article: "During the trial, Cuthbert's defence argued that any unauthorised access was entirely innocent. In evidence it was shown that he had attempted to access the tsunami donations site on two occasions and the site's security systems had denied him access. The defence also pointed out that Cuthbert had not attempted to defraud the site." ZDNet also has a commentary piece on what this decision may mean for the future of cybercrime.
I can't help but suspect there must be more to this story than is being put forth. Part of me wants to believe his defense, "he never tried to defraud", but my distaste for legal mumbo jumbo makes me wonder more about the specifics:
On its face, this looks like serious stuff with serious consequences for seemingly innocent activity and should give pause to any internet users, but I suspect there's more to it than meets the public eye.
"Instead, Judge Purdy found Cuthbert guilty, because he had initially lied to the police about what he had done; Cuthbert originally told the police one story and later changed it.
Judge Purdy said that Cuthbert was "deliberately trying to throw the police off the trail", by saying one thing and then another.
The fact that Cuthbert had changed his story on how and why he had originally accessed the site was the crucial factor in reaching a conviction, the judge said. "
The article above also says "The defence also pointed out that Cuthbert had not attempted to defraud the site." What it should have said is that Cuthbert DID attempt to defraud the police. Very unprofessional behavior from a supposed "security professional."
Moral of the story: don't lie to the cops about security testing. Take them seriously. Had he been honest, this wouldn't even have been prosecuted.
John
UK lawlessness, nothing new?
The UK has preceded the US in destroying the basic rights of its citizens, replacing laws against violence with laws against rights.
This is a country that won't let their citizens bear arms (increasing crime), but will let security officers shoot first and never ask questions. This is a country that continues to fight a war against secession for centuries.
TFA doesn't surprise me at all. Citizens have no rights any more. Just let the State provide. Does it surprise you that they criminalize non-violent behavior after you realize that national prisons were a statist recreation? More laws = more crimes = more criminals = more prisoners = more money for the State.
Again, nothing to see here, except it is a good preview of things to come in the US as we clamor for more regulation, more government control of the Internet, and more destruction of our basic rights to protect ourselves.
On one hand, he could have used legitamite methods to verify the site. On the other hand, he didn't destroy any data, view private information, nor was it a malicious purpose (supposedly).
Not only "land of the free" but "land of the lawyers" who love a good old 1st amendment smackdown. Shihar 153932
While I sympathize with him, taking the law into your own hands on a whim, regardless of the crime or environment, should not be tolerated. If he was B&Eing into a biker hangout to see if they had his stolen TV, he'd be prosecuted in the exact same manor.
body massage!
I think by "couple of checks," you mean "a directory traversal attack."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/dec_case/
However, we still don't have any laws against trolling. Shame, really...
Generally making a statement to the police isn't done under oath.
And really, if the crime was perjury, why wasn't he convicted for perjury and not something else?
The fact that he was arrested for performing a nonviolent act is the first abuse by authorities.
After finding no cause to charge him, they instead convicted him of lying. So he was wrongfully accused, but during interrogation he lied.
Crazy world we live in. Why not arrest every tenth person for murder. See if they slip up some fact, then book them.
In my mind, if the original arrest is unfounded, take no action.
This reads to me something like "If anybody tells you can't do something with a computer, and you do it anyway, it's a crime.".
So, in the UK, to attach criminal liability to your violation of any of my own wishes, I just have to somehow involve a computer.
What, by the way, is a computer in the UK? Do embedded devices count? Don't leave through that automatic door; Mickey here hasn't sold his quota of cars this week, and we want a fair chance to convince you to buy. Whoops--you triggered the photoeye, causing the automatic door to open. I guess you can't get more egalitarian than this--every individual has the right to pass criminal laws.
OK, this seems a really silly example. It is. After all, we trust the authorities to selectively enforce overly broad laws--only prosecuting the real bad guys.
Hell, it works on this side of the pond; why not over there?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Perjury is a crime, you know.
Perjury is a crime committed in court, not in an interview room. To put this in context, in the USA and many other countries, it's perfectly acceptable to say nothing when questioned by the police. Indeed, I believe the Constitution or an amendment (I'm neither a US citizen nor resident) grant citizens the right not to incriminate themselves. I'm not aware of any such right in Britain, and in Britain when you're arrested you are advised that:
In other words, you're strongly "encouraged" not to remain silent.
I'm neither condoning nor condemning Mr. Cuthbert's statements to the police, merely suggesting that we don't know why Cuthbert chose to (allegedly) lie.
This is where the serious fun begins.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/dec_case/
'DEC hacking' trial opens
Accused gives evidence
By John Oates
Published Wednesday 5th October 2005 16:22 GMT
Horsferry Road Magistrates Court has heard the first day of evidence against the East London man accused of hacking into a donations site for the tsunami appeal last December.
Daniel James Cuthbert, 28, of Whitechapel, London, is accused of breaches of Section One of the Computer Misuse Act, 1990, on the afternoon of New Year's Eve, 2004. He had earlier pleaded not guilty.
Cuthbert is accused of attempting a directory traversal attack on the donate.bt.com site which handles credit card payments on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee.
Giving evidence on his own behalf, Cuthbert, at times near tears, said he had made a £30 donation to the site, after clicking on a banner advert. Because he received no final thank-you or confirmation page he became concerned it may have been a phishing site, so he carried out two tests to check the security of the site.
The case continues tomorrow. ®
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
It sounds more like a red cross person asks you for money, but doesn't say thank you, so you try to pickpocket them to check their ID is valid, and then get caught with your hand in their pocket.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Being convicted for the act of breaking the law is the way it's supposed to work. However, there's a difference - he was convicted because he lied to the cops.
zdnet Judge Purdy accepted that Cuthbert had not intended to cause any damage, and also pointed out there was almost no case law in this area.
District judge Mr Q. Purdy, who heard the case, told Cuthbert it was "with deep regret that he was finding him guilty"
It looks to me that if he hadn't changed his story, nothing serious would have happened. If he had not talked to the cops without a lawyer, I think there's a good chance he would have gotten away with maybe a slap on the wrist. Since he lied to the cops to confuse the issue, the judge got mad and used a guilty verdict as a punishment for a lie. That's just wrong, and it sets a horrible precedence for future cases that are pursued based on a horrible law.
I guess it's not just the US who has a fuggered up legal system that bases legal decision on petty "get even" routines... It's just sad.
--- "To ignore race and sex is racist and sexist!" -- Jesse Jackson
You have the right to remain silent. Use it, and talk to a lawyer.
In the UK u dont really have the right to remain silent anymore. They changed that in 94 I beleive. What they basically say now upon arrest is
"You could harm your defense if you fail to mention when questiond something that you later rely on in
court"
Judge Purdy said that Cuthbert was "deliberately trying to throw the police off the trail", by saying one thing and then another.
Well no shit! The people who were prosecuting him clearly couldn't handle the truth. These are not reasonable people. One who arrests another for a directory traversal (with no evidence of cracking) is not a reasonable person.
The very fact the investigators couldn't discern between a cracking attempt and a directory traversal is evidence that the they were not capable of handling this type of work. Being an intelligent person, he probably figured the best course of action (to end this as quickly as possible) was to give the information to them in a way they could understand.
For example, if I were arrested for the same "offense," I would probably state something like this:
"I wasn't hacking; I was just using standard web access techniques to validate the site's identity."
Which, depending on your level of ignorance, may be construed as "lying." The investigator may live under the impression that the only type of web access which is "standard" is logging on the site using the main form. The investigators probably felt he was being an arrogant prick and wanted to make an example of him. This is not the purpose of law.
This guy donates 30 pounds to a charity, for which he receives no verification. He practices due diligence (against a phishing attack) by validating the authenticity of the site. And they have the nerve not only to arrest him, but to prosecute him! And convict him!
I am repulsed, and I weep for the security community.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Say the url was site.com/thanks.html. He changed it to site.com/../thanks.html.
.com/ and use it as parameters with no sanity check. He tried it, they had a sanity check, they logged it as an attack. Stoopid. I don't see how it's an attack. Wikipedia says you could potentially change it to ../../../../etc/passwd and try guess the number of levels you are away.
Apparently some dynamic sites just grab whatever's after
have a look at http://www.dec.org.uk. They are currently supporting as campaign to help the worthy cause of the situation in the Niger. Click on the donate button and you will be taken to a shocking rendition of a 1997-esque payment page that looks awful. So I imagine our man Cuthbert looked again at the dec.org.uk site and it looks bonafide enough and also the whois entry stacks up.
I remember at the time that the BBC News carried a story at, or about the time of the Hogmany (31st Dec 2004) regarding fake websites. I could only find this story on BBC website 6 days after the alledged incident.
so our man cuthbert panics. As you can see the basic link and page to securetrading.net (not even a .co.uk). Remember that 31-DEC-2004 is a friday before a long holiday weekend. So there will no-one to phone. He looks at the certificate for the server-side SSL - "Secure trading Ltd" a UK company. But the whois entry is privately registered and does not have any standard company details on it - it is also registered abroad (which isn't a big worry, but remember this is a UK gov't sponsored website)
My next port of call is Companies House - where all UK Ltd companies have to be, by law, registered. So using their webcheck facility - it is company number 04591066 with an address in south east london. Not a government organisation, but seems wholly owned by another unknown company UC Media? securetrading.co.uk? no, they're someone else. back to companies house - searching for UC Media, can't find them, but there is an entry for UC Group Ltd at the same address. bingo. hang on. there are two insolvency notices on this company...
I'm sorry but I would have also panicked.
It seems to me that its like a teen rattling a gate at the ball park to see if it is locked. While you might do so out of curiosity, or in an attempt to gain unauthorized access, it is still just checking to see if it is locked. If you have a valid ticket in your pocket, accessing through that gate would still be wrong, but checking that it is locked is not.
It does not matter if you have safe cracking tools in the garage at home, if you are simply standing outside the jewelry shop, and check to see if the door is locked or anyone is inside, this doesn't mean that you are attempting to steal diamonds. Sure, he may have had tools on his machine, but that is no different than saying a cop has a gun, and looked like he was trying to break into the store when the door was locked. Things are not always as they appear, and convicting on the basis of intention, especially when it is not overly easy to see the intention, is just wrong.
We have no need of, or room for, thought police in civilized society.
Of course, I may have missed a salient point here, but it just seems wrong to convict without evidence of harm.
In the case of where this seems to happen, like dangerous driving (intoxicated or not) it has been shown that this behavior does lead to accidents, and removing the driver from public roads is a safety measure that does not harm anyone. This is the reason for various lane markings, speed limits, etc.
In this case, there was no speed limits or lane markings, only a locked gate type of guidance. Convicting this man of attempting to steal when there is no blatant evidence is just wrong, and sets a bad precedent in my opinion. Banks don't keep their cash funds out on the sidewalk for a reason. If they did, and it went missing, what exactly would the courts say?
Additionally, it doesn't seem to ring true that a 'security expert' would leave such a trail as to be caught if he was truly trying to break into the system?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People