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.

Comments

Much ado about nothing.

[plover]

TFA quite clearly states that he was convicted because he lied to the police about his activities. Here's the quote:

"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.

Re:Much ado about nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, geeks should ALWAYS lie to the police, whether in the right or not. Because the police have one job - Check off that last little box on their list. If they can do that by throwing away a "cybercriminal" by getting a jury full of people who can't even open email attachments to convict, they WILL.

Because, naturally, everybody else is a corrupt, money-grubbing idiot who have no interest in serving society, helping people out or any other noble enterprises, whereas all geeks are paragons of altruism who live in their parent's basement and work tech support so that they can write free software for the greater good.

All the cops that I've met were just trying to do their job. They don't get paid by the conviction. They would much rather be stopping violent criminals and making people safer, but they have to deal with all crime because non-violent crime can damage society just as much as violent crime. I have certainly heard about corruption, bigotry, etc., but haven't seen it myself.

On the other hand, I've known some technical people who have no interest in playing by the rules (on any level). Most people seem to think that cheating the law is some sort of game (although they don't want to play anymore when they lose). I've known geeks whose morals were just as low as any corrupt cop, and heard about those who did just as much damage.

This case is a nice example. If the defendant was forthright and honest, the judge would likely have taken his word and let him go. Because the guy tried to cheat the system, the judge has no reason to believe anything else he says, including the part about how he didn't mean to defraud the site he was visiting, that it was an honest evaluation. As you said, it's hard to tell the difference, so the character of the defendant plays a big role in determining his goals.

And quite rightly so...

[gravyface]

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.

couple of checks?

[cdn2k1]

I think by "couple of checks," you mean "a directory traversal attack."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/dec_case/

Re:seems like there could be more to this story.

[gormanly]

He tried to access the system twice and both times was denied access. What does that mean? Was he trying to gain access to a part of the system where access to sensitive information was stored? Was he trying to login, but not knowing how to?

Directory traversal, and using lynx.

He never tried to defraud: What does that mean? Is it because he never gained access? If so, was his intent to try and defraud had he gained access? (In my opinion, if that were the case, he certainly should be considered to have tried to defraud.)

He gave them £30 (at the time, ~ US$58). This is the opposite of defrauding them...

Another defense argument is this guy's actions were merely attempts to verify legitimacy of the fund raising site. So, what exactly was he doing to verify? (And why wouldn't he take more traditional avenues such as Googling, etc. What are the implications of every cynical user of a site attempting "access" to verify legitimacy?)

He clicked on a banner add to donate to the UK's Disasters Emergency Committee's appeal for the December tsunami in Asia, and got no confirmation page. His first thought was that this was a phising site and he'd been scammed. So he panicked and tried the directory traversal...

Has this guy done other things and now authorities, etc., are just using technicalities to shut him down?

No. This was AFAIK his first offence of any sort at all - and now his career's in ruins.

The Computer Misuse Act (1990) is an apalling piece of shoddy law - speaking as an IT professional who's actually had to read it. The only thing it's good for is threatening users.

These are dark times...

[nightfire-unique]

As a fellow security consultant, I cannot believe the comments I've read for this article so far. Have people lost their self respect so fully that they hand every last shred of individual right and responsibility over to the state?

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.

DEC - I'd have panicked too.

[rapiddescent]

Whilst I think Cuthbert was daft for lying and that was his mistake, I would have also panicked...

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.

This is like... thought police

[zappepcs]

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?