FBI Raids Security Researcher's Home

Sparr0 writes, "The FBI has raided the home of Christopher Soghoian, the grad student who created the NWA boarding pass site. Details can be found on his blog including a scanned copy of the warrant. The bad news is that he really did break the law. The good news is that Senator Charles Schumer did it first, 19 months ago, on an official government website no less. The outcome of this trial should be at least academically interesting. At best, it could result in nullifying some portion of the law(s) that the TSA operates under." Read on for Sparr0's take on what laws may apply in this case.

Boiling down some of the legalese, the charges (if any are filed) will be "conspiracy to knowingly present a false and fictitious claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof in violation of USC 18 (secs. 2, 371, 1036, 1343, 2318) and USC 49 (secs. 46314 and 46316) and 49 CFR (secs. 1540.103 and 1540.105)" (edited for brevity).

Comments

Too bad it has to be this way

[Salvance]

Even faced with potential jail time, some people have a burning desire to be in the limelight. I wonder why Christopher Soghoian didn't just create a site anonymously. It would likely have the same effect, and he'd stay out of prison.

It's unfortunate that exposing holes in our security gets no press until someone actually leverages the hole to cause harm. For years before 9/11, the U.S. knew our airports were pitifully insecure, particularly Boston Logan, yet failed to do anything about it. So even though we'll be safer as a result of Christopher's work, he may be in prison. Unfortunately our society aplauds the whistleblower only well after the whistle has been blown, and the government aplauds them almost never at all.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[Simon Garlick]

The fact that you think Soghoian should have HIDDEN HIS IDENTITY FROM THE GOVERNMENT in order to identify a flaw in official security processes says a lot about your government.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[ResidntGeek]

He could have put it on gnunet, turned on active migration, waited a few weeks for it to disperse, then post a few mesages on IRC and his blog saying "Hey! check out what I found on gnunet! Why, who could have put that there?"

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[bfields]

I wonder why Christopher Soghoian didn't just create a site anonymously.

He's one guy, he's young, and he's been entirely open and straightforward about why he's doing this--that gives him a much better chance to shame the TSA. It would've hurt his case (with the public, at least) if he'd looked furtive.

And someone with determination (not to mention search warrants) could probably figure out who he was eventually anyway.

Unfortunately our society aplauds the whistleblower only well after the whistle has been blown

Well, I'm applauding.

You can also contribute to his legal defense fund, if you'd like to show your support.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[dsanfte]

There's a difference between pointing out security flaws, even giving detailed instructions, and providing a mechanism for breaking the law.

If he had simply pointed out the hole, people would be calling him a fearmonger.

Although one could argue that that shouldn't be illegal, I think the DMCA's provisions against circumventing a security mechanism probably apply.

It would, if the DMCA didn't solely cover breaking security mechanisms that serve to prevent copyright infringement. That's not what happened here.

On another point, the reason our airports were so lax before 9/11 is that we would not have put up with post-9/11 security back then. Actually, I just realized that I've not been on an airplane since 1999, and I don't know first hand how things are different.

So you just discredited your own statement? Thanks?

This is the type of thing that gets modded as Interesting on Slashdot?

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[ricree]

Like others have said, it wouldn't be all that hard for him to have done it anonymously, but he shouldn't have to in the first place.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[cecil_turtle]

...made a powerful tool available for someone who intends to do harm.

He saved the HTML from NWA's actual ticket printout page on their website, and made a form to fill in like 10 variables mad-libs style. I hardly call that "a powerful tool". More like saving somebody who knows how to right-click about 90 seconds of work to forge it themselves.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[jamesh]

Sensible disclosure of vulnerabilities improves security for everyone.

Thoughtless disclosure has the potential to make things a lot worse. In the software example, if another ping of death exploit were found, simply announcing it to everyone in full would be foolish (unless you wanted to make a point and shame an organisation, then it would be foolish and malicious, and possibly illegal).

The line between sensible and thoughtless disclosure is a tricky one though. If the secret society of bad guys already know about it then all bets are off, but how do you know?

"Excuse me bad guys, are you aware that a ping with x, y and z parameters will crash a machine running w OS?"
"We are now"
"... doh!"

It should certainly be illegal for a commercial organisation to fail to respond to notification of a vulnerability in their software, but again, under what parameters? Does Microsoft have any obligation to fix holes in Windows 95? Is there any obligation to fix holes in Linux 1.x.y? (and who's obligation is it?)

There should be answers to all of these questions though, and a protocol to follow, so that this sort of mess doesn't happen.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[niiler]

If the government thinks that he is enabling the "terrorists", they may also see contributing to his defense fund as contributing to terrorists which would result in your loss of habeas corpus. That said, while I have mixed feelings about what he has done (in terms of leaving his identity out there vs. taking a clearly political stand), I do feel that his is a worthy cause.

Just my 0.02 cents.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[Paradise Pete]

the reason our airports were so lax before 9/11 is that we would not have put up with post-9/11 security back then.

Exactly right. And if Bin Laden had announced beforehand that he was going to find a way to make everybody voluntarily suffer in long lines, submit to invasive searches, and just generally make life a little less pleasant every day, we still wouldn't.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[Millenniumman]

He didn't have to publicly supply a way to bypass security. That is endangering everyone unnecessarily. First he should have contacted the airport security officials privately about it. If they did nothing, he should have then announced that he had found a way to bypass security, but not given any specifics. If they still did nothing, he should have publicly reported the problem.

It's like someone showing burglars into your home to show you that you have a security problem, before they even tell you.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[chazwurth]

The line between sensible and thoughtless disclosure is a tricky one though. If the secret society of bad guys already know about it then all bets are off, but how do you know?

In this case, the vulnerability had been made clear by others months prior to this disclosure. In fact, this wasn't so much a disclosure as much as it was a public demonstration of just how easy it is to exploit the already known vulnerability. ...unless you wanted to make a point and shame an organisation, then it would be foolish and malicious, and possibly illegal.

Attempting to shame an organization isn't necessarily foolish and malicious. If that organization is a government body charged with insuring your safety, and it is failing spectacularly to do so, you might desire to shame it publicly in order to improve its behavior. Illegal, I'll grant -- and often the law is unjust.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he shouldn't have bothered at all.

That would have been best for him.

If you find a flaw in a security system, you should be treated as a rock star for a few days.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[ravenshrike]

What the hell is he gonna do with 2/100s of a cent?

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[psykocrime]

He didn't have to publicly supply a way to bypass security.

He didn't.

That is endangering everyone unnecessarily.

No, it's not. As plenty of others have already pointed out, it doesn't matter if Osama f'in Bin Laden is sitting
in the seat beside you on your flight... As long as he doesn't have a bomb, or any other means of creating problems
on the flight, the fact that it's Osama is irrelevant. So these fake boarding passes *might* help somebody
get on a plane who isn't allowed... big deal, they will still be searched, run through a metal detector, bomb-sniffing
crap, etc. This is completely insignificant from a security standout.

And even if it were a security flaw, people have to realize that with freedom comes danger. It's probably a little bit more
dangerous to live in a very free country, than one with a strict totalitarian regime who controls every movement everybody makes... but most
people will take that tradeoff. I know I sure will. "Give me Liberty or give me Death" is not just a cute sound bite to me.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[psykocrime]

On another point, the reason our airports were so lax before 9/11 is that we would not have put up with post-9/11 security back then.

And there's no good reason for us to put up with it now.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[Salvance]

While his actions do endanger everyone's security, I disagree that he could have pursuaded officials to make security changes just by publicly announcing the flaw. If Senator Charles Schumer couldn't get security officials and Northwest to change their policies (which he tried to do), how can a grad student? The only way is to publicly bypass the security and make people worry.

It's no different than computer viruses. Nobody really cares too much about computer security until they get their first virus/worm/etc.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

Maybe because they are spectacularly so good that no-one even notices them which is kind of the idea that any would be terrorist would want.....

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't have to publicly supply a way to bypass security. That is endangering everyone unnecessarily. First he should have contacted the airport security officials privately about it. If they did nothing, he should have then announced that he had found a way to bypass security, but not given any specifics. If they still did nothing, he should have publicly reported the problem.

He was acting towards the end of your suggested sequence of events, it has already got to the point of being publicly reported - what Soghoian did was effectivly bring it to the public's attention.

• This was such an obvious flaw - one could reasonably assume security officials knew about it
• Many others - including Senator Schume, and Slate Magagine (http://www.slate.com/id/2113157/) had drawn attention to this "vulnerability" prior to Soghoian
• Soghoian had tried to publicise the problem previously without sucess - then he had his brilliant idea of producing his PHP script to demonstrate the ease with which the vulnerability could be exploited - only by doing this did he really succeed in fulfiling his duty to publicly report the problem. He has done a better job than either the Senator or Slate Magazine or the others who knew about this flaw in bringing it to the public's attention - he should be applauded for doing that.
• The fact that he has published on anonymity Preserving in P2P Networks strongly suggests that he could have acted anonymously if he had wanted to (or felt he needed to)

I am quite shocked that if Slashdot was the Jury, and the Jury's opinions were the initial opinions of the individual Jurors and not those of the Jury acting as a committee following deliberation that we wouldn't have unaminously aquited Soghoian. I'm in the UK - and this scares me - given the state of the extridaition arrangements the UK has agreed to with the USA and the potential for indefinate imprisonment in the US for non-citizens. I've been to the US twice on business this year, reading this and the countless articles like it will certainly make me think twice before arranging another trip.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[monkeydo]

This isn't disclosure of a vulnerability. This vulnerability has already been disclosed and beaten to death (on the floor of the US Congress even). It was discussed by Schneier and others as soon as the ID checks at the gate stopped. What this guy did was much more like publishing an exploit script. It's even worse than that, since he was actually generating the fake documents for people.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[letxa2000]

When I saw this in the news the other day, I said, "Duh... I wondered about this lack of security a few years ago." As soon as you allow people to print their own boarding passes on their own printers, it's a piece of cake to print your own. Obviously you'd never get on a plane with it, but every time I presented my home-printed boarding pass to the TSA guys that check your documents before you get metal-detected, I always wondered, "Do these people really think they can recognize a valid boarding pass from a home-brewed one?" This isn't rocket scientist. I'd have to assume that anyone that deals with computers and has more than a few IQ points thought of it. This "security researcher" didn't do anything special whatsoever.

If he really wanted to bring attention to it, he could've just posted a website that says, "Printing your own false boarding pass is a piece of cake." End of story, the truth, and no laws broken. But actually putting up a website that serves absolutely no practical purpose except to violate the law was stupid and unnecessary.

I wouldn't be surprised if the ultimate response to this is that we will no longer be able to check-in from home and print our own boarding passes. I suspect, at best, we'll have to go through one of those kiosks in the airport and get an official ticket printed before we get in line for TSA.

Thanks, Christopher... Very few people actually believe the security is real anyway so you proved nothing that people didn't already know. You have, however, highlighted it so that the government will most likely have to enter CYA mode and further decrease the convenience of flying by banning home-printed boarding passes. For that, the flying public thanks you.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[chazwurth]

You didn't see the spectacular failure of security in airports that preceded the Sept. 11th attacks by mere hours? Haven't you noticed the fact that the so-called security measures enacted since then are unlikely to prevent an identical attack? Or are you saying that because a successful attack hasn't been carried out recently, we are therefore secure? That's a very dangerous stance. It assumes that because vulnerabilities haven't been exploited, they aren't a problem. That's like saying that because some critical vulnerability in your operating system of choice hasn't been exploited yet, the vendor might as well not issue a fix; we should only fix a problem once half the boxes on the 'net have been infected with the as-yet-unwritten virus that exploits the problem. Soghoian pointed out a problem that has been known for months and yet hasn't been repaired. He did this to draw attention to the security theater that exists surrounding airline travel; he was trying to highlight the fact that our government doesn't take security seriously, but only tries to foster the appearance of safety while failing to address real issues.

If you want another example, read this: http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/student-papers/sp ring02-papers/caps.htmf

For a wealth of information about problems with our airport and airline security, start reading archives of Bruce Schneier's Crypto-Gram: http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram.html

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[maxwells_deamon]

Why not leave the site up, monitor it and "talk" to anyone who presents a boarding pass made on the site? You would have the name and flight info!

This is just being a bully instead.

Disclamer: I did not see the site when it was up so I have made some assumptions here which could be wrong.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[incabulos]

It seems to me that the TSA ought to be investigated into supporting and encouraging terrorism.

Deliberately keeping flawed airport security systems in place ( for over a year ) even though you know that it provides no safety to people? Lying to the people who you are charged with protecting about how safe they really are, and attempting to silence all criticism that may actually result in these systems being scrutinised so that security improves?

Doesnt it look like the TSA is trying to help terrorists? And when there is another terrorist attack conducted via an airport, what happens? The TSA will ask for and receive even more power! They (incredibly, how on earth did this conflict of interest happen?!) have a motive to help terrorists, and now this security reseacher has uncovered evidence that supports this viewpoint - that they are deliberately endangering people by keeping this flawed system in place.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[dircha]

Contribute to his defense fund and before you know it you are "providing material support to a terrorist organization".

All it takes is for Bush to give the approval for a charge with those magic words, and you can be declared an enemy combatant, tortured and shipped off to Gitmo indeterminately - being a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil means nothing. They wouldn't have pushed the Congress so hard for it if they didn't intend to use it.

Is it so inconceivable? Contributing money to an Islamic charity the provides relief to the wrong people can get you a charge of providing material support to a terrorist organization.

This man is engaging in conspiracy to provide forged documents to terrorists. I'd call that material support. Under the new policy, that's all the grounds Bush needs to declare him an enemy combatant.

Contributing to the defense fund of an enemy combatant might just get you the same.

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[FractalZone]

"It's probably a little bit more dangerous to live in a very free country, than one with a strict totalitarian regime who controls every movement everybody makes... but most people will take that tradeoff."

One can only hope that most people see their freedom/liberty and individual rights being slowly eroded in the name of (bogus) safety.

I don't know about you, but I have never been directly adversely affected by a terrorist or some obvious act of terrorism (not the namby-pamby kind of "terrorism" that involves nothing more than someone feeling uncomfortable or vaguely threatened).

On the other hand, the War on Terrorism, like the War on (Some) Drugs, and every other crisis the U.S. government invents to further its agenda, to the detriment of the best interests of the people and in direct opposition to its ostensible reason for being, namely to uphold the Constitution of the United States, is making my life (and quite probably that of most people reading this) worse on a regular basis.

These days, unlike when I was a teenager, the equivalent of the Gestapo goon's order, "Your papers, please!", is very real in the USA. The jackbooted thugs are not Nazi Germans, but rather TSA, BATF, DEA, EPA, and FBI agents as well as other minions of the federal government and their state and local bully boys.

Why should any average person, engaged in ordinary behavior be expected to carry ID, much less present it like a good little subject/ward of the State?

Of course, I may be out of touch...I remember when the very notion of patenting an idea was considered absurd. Software patents would have been dismissed as ludicrous. So it goes...downhill. I also remember when I could go to the airport, buy a ticket (paying with cash if that was my preference), get on a plane and travel, effectively anonymously as one's stated name was simply accepted, and arrive at my chosen destination (within the U.S., anyway); never feeling the presence of any government agency looming over me (with the remote exception being the FAA :-).

It all boils down to this: Who do you want controlling your life (and the lives of the people you interact with on a daily basis) -- you (and them), or Big Brother armed with the latest high tech surveillance gear, weaponry and a nearly complete disregard for the Constitution?

I'll take my chances when I get on a flight to Las Vegas that some rabid anti-abortion, anti-gambling activist group has not decided to hijack the plane and crash it into Caesar's Palace as some sort of protest against all the imagined evils that it's members think Sin City represents.

I know, based on statistics and documented history, that I am far more likely to be harmed by government than I am by an organization such as Al Quaeda. Taxes taken out of my pocket to fund these government Wars on This, That, and The-Other-Thing which just happen to make me less free are definitely a threat to my well being. Are you any different?

For liberty,
Fractalzone

Re:Too bad it has to be this way

[Zeinfeld]

In this case, the vulnerability had been made clear by others months prior to this disclosure. In fact, this wasn't so much a disclosure as much as it was a public demonstration of just how easy it is to exploit the already known vulnerability.

Yes which is precisely why it will probably be possible to persuade the Feds not to prosecute in this particular instance.

I absolutely disagree about putting the information up on the Freenet, that would have made the legal problem much much worse. In addition it would probably end up with the FBI arresting people running the Freenet.

Ten years ago this would almost certainly have ended up in the courts and a federal case made of it. Today there are enough FBI agents who understand what is going on that it is easier to persuade them to back off.

There are four points in his favor, first he created the site openly, second he did not attempt to use it for gain himself, three others had made the same point in theory without comment the issue only attracted notice after practical demonstration, four he took it down immediately when requested. When I read the first story I was concerned that the Slashlawyering might persuade him to continue which would have made the situation far worse.

There are certainly arguments that the defense might make if charges were brought. It would not be a good idea to make too much of them unless you want to force the FBI to prove that the law allows them to put a stop to it.

I wouldn't mess with NWA

[CrazyJim1]

They're straight out of Compton yo.

Real reason he is being arrested:

[hsmith]

The gov't doesn't like to look bad. They don't like flaws being publically seen of their great "system" of boondoggles which they have created.

We all now the TSA is a scam, we all know we are not one bit safer, we all know the airways are no better than they were before 9/11. Just a great hat trick.

Re:Real reason he is being arrested:

[Jeremi]

No, they are saying he's lying by presenting a fake boarding pass to TSA agents

... well, he didn't do that...

or making it easy for other people to do so.

I think part of his point is that it was already easy for other people to do so. Not that pointing out the obvious will probably help him much from his cell in Gitmo...

Re:Real reason he is being arrested:

[swillden]

If you so desired, you could actually read the laws that you obviously have no understanding of.

Oh, if that were only true. John Gilmore's been trying for years now to do exactly that -- to read the laws/regulations under which the TSA operates and to which we're subject. Even with his millions of dollars and army of attorneys, he hasn't been able to to break the shroud of secrecy surrounding these laws, what makes you think anyone else can?

Or didn't you realize that the US now has secret laws that the public is not allowed to read? And that courts (9th circuit district and appellate) have ruled that the government doesn't have to show us the law? Hopefully the Supreme Court will correct the situation, but I'm not holding my breath.

For his sake

[Lord_Dweomer]

For his sake I'm glad this is getting so much coverage. Not only will it hopefully make a lot of America realize how dumb our government is, and make them realize that Democrats can be just as authoritarian as Neocons...but most importantly, it makes it near impossible for the Feds to "disappear" him because he has the media spotlight on him and the second he goes missing the entire internet will raise a royal hell storm. And that is a PR shitfest that the GOP definitely does not want to have on their hands, especially around election time.

Of course, at this point...I wonder if they even care that the public would be aware.

Re:For his sake

[Simon Garlick]

the second he goes missing the entire internet will raise a royal hell storm

Oh no, not a hell storm of nerds posting anonymous comments on Internet messageboards! Anything but that!

Re:For his sake

[Lord_Dweomer]

Oh no, not a hell storm of nerds posting anonymous comments on Internet messageboards! Anything but that!

I'm actually referring to the mass media who will be picking this story up, posting it online, and informing the unwashed masses about the situation. The internet is FAR more than anonymous nerds these days, perhaps you'd better re-evaluate your statement.

Re:For his sake

[Tony Hoyle]

Yeah, like dimitri skylarov was all over the front pages of the newspapers, and CNN did a three hour special on software patents, and the Fox picked up on how regressive the DMCA was...

Oh, wait... this is planet earth, I forgot.

Conspiracy?

[TubeSteak]

A conspiracy with who?

Legal Defense Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Soghoian is setting up a legal defense fund. You can learn more and donate at
http://slightparanoia.blogspot.com/2006/10/legal-d efense-fund.html

Cue typical slashdot pro-State responses...

[dada21]

1. "If you don't like it, move away." Considering the fact that Congress is severely limited by the Constitution in creating NO law that infringes on our God-given (or inherent, if you prefer) right to speak freely on our property, the laws listed above have nothing to do with what he did. In fact, his website IS his property, he rents it, and he's protected. Congress here should be the ones behind bars for continuing to violate the Constitution they took an oath to uphold.

2. "He broke a law, he should go to jail." The court system should be mandated to tell the jurors in all trials about their right to nullify terrible laws. Jury nullifaction is more than a priviledge, it is a right even greater than serving on a jury.

3. "He didn't do anything wrong." This shouldn't matter either way unless he violated someone's property or person himself. I find it outrageous that people are arrested for inciting violence -- the gun doesn't kill, the inciter doesn't kill, it is the person who physically performs a violent act that is the cause of the violence. Not only did he do nothing wrong, we shouldn't even be considering whether or not he did or didn't. Did he harm anyone physically? Did he physically steal anything? Did he trespass?

On top of those 3, we should also realize that the laws pertaining to security are 100% unconstitutional. The airplanes are private. The airports should be privatized (I can't see how airports could be considered federally-regulated properties). The passengers are generally private citizens. The Constitution is clear on this, too -- it should be left up to the individual States and the people.

This is what you get when you have democracy -- even a republican form of it.

"Democracy is the most vile form of government...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." James Madison

"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." John Adams

The U.S. isn't going to hell in a handbasket, it's been there since 1913 (or 1865, if you consider the traitor Lincoln's actions).

Thankfully, there are a great number of opportunities to vacate from the system without leaving the lands of the "Nation." I can only hope that more freedom lovers just stop voting for authority and move forward to taking that authority back.

Re:Cue typical slashdot pro-State responses...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. "If you don't like it, move away."

You already pointed out that this point of view is morally bankrupt. It also may not be an option in the future. There's a rule inching toward approval to let the DHS deny permission to leave the country.

Re:What did he expect?

[illegalcortex]

Look, if my house has poor security, you're still in trouble if you start a factory to create keys for criminals to break in.

You wanna rethink that analogy there, "Reality Master"? Cause I'm pretty sure they call those places "locksmiths."

Re:What did he expect?

[siddesu]

Of course, if it wasn't your house, but a hotel, both you and your guests would surely be _WAY_ safer if only hardened criminals knew about your lock problems and how to open the door.

After all, we know that about half the population of any given country is just waiting for a chance to get on a plane with a bomb, and that the turrists are spontaneous people who don't research and plan in advance.

What is funny is that while there's a law to punish the guy, apparently nothing will be done to either Northworst, or the TSA for not doing their job. America obviously takes air travel security seriously.

Not a terrorist

[suso]

This guy is not a terrorist, he's a security researcher. I live in Bloomington as well and work with a guy who is taking a cryptographic protocols class with Chris. He says that Chris is a decent guy, which is probably the case. I for one commend Chris for releasing this kind of information to the public. Even if he had released it to the FAA or Northwest Airlines, its doubtful that the public would have ever known. He is simply doing what most security researchers do, its just that his research coincides with current hot topics in politics and public interest.

Write to your senator now ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Senator,

I would like to bring your attention to the outrageous behaviour our government agencies have displayed regarding the matter of security researcher Christopher Soghoian's comments on the TSA security procedures.

Quite frankly the FBI raid on his premises are beyond comprehension for a country that preaches freedom and respect for human rights.

Not only would I like you to help in resolving Christopher's plight, I would also ask that you investigate and bring to the public's attention the true nature of the effectiveness of the TSA policies as well as to the rather offensive nature of the "secrecy" of the policies upheld by the organization.

Public transparency of the government is very important to me and any help you can give to avoid being virtually disenfranchised due being unable to evaluate the performance of my elected officals is critical.

Sincerely

Exposing the powerful is always a crime

[davecb]

And so a corollary is that any security researcher who exposes a risk or danger is a criminal (;-))

--dave

A question of intent

[dsanfte]

I think what needs to be looked at here, and what is often ignored by those with agendas to push, is intent. His intent was to improve security, not to see it subverted by enemies of the state. It is the government's fault, not his, that the only way to ensure the closure of this security hole was to engineer a tool to exploit it.

The fact that he published his identity and did this entire thing above-board settles the question of intent for me. He was not maliciously motivated. That is the basis by which we should judge him.

If I showed up at my apartment with the door unlocked, I would be rather annoyed. If I had had notes posted to my door for several years beforehand telling me my lock was insecure, and how to secure it with relative ease, and I then showed up at my apartment door to find it unlocked with a note saying "Told you so", I'd be embarassed. The key is, as long as the belongings inside are left untouched, all that's hurt here is pride. Pride is not something the law needs to be protecting.

We need martial law now

[bxbaser]

The only way to get this situation under control.

Schumer may not be relevant

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Senators have constitutional immunity for what they say in the Senate. That might extend to his official website, though Proxmire set a precedent that points in the opposite direction.

More to the point is that Bruce Schneier was pointing out the boarding pass problem in _2003_.

What exactly were they looking for?

[TheSHAD0W]

The man affirmed that he created the page, the FBI had plenty of grounds to charge him. Why search his premises? Looking for other dirt to kick up in case the judge disagrees with the prosecutor?

Re:What exactly were they looking for?

[jtobin]

Possibly, but most likely to scare him. Especially given that they raided his house at 2AM. Their goal seems to be to try to frighten people out of questioning the authorities and the 'security' measures they've put in place (even when they're fundamentally flawed, ad in this case).

Re:What exactly were they looking for?

[loraksus]

Harassment, mainly. He is looking at a period of several months and several appearances in court and discussions with his lawyer before he gets his computer and personal property back, assuming they aren't "lost" in the system.

The repairs for any damage that the FBI did, include the maliciously broken window (really, the FBI doesn't know how to pick locks?) will come out of his pocket.

And yes, now they can scan his hard drive for whatever they want, im / chat logs, "kiddie porn" (aka porn involving a girl who faked her ID, even if it is sold through regular channels under the belief that it is legal - it just takes 1 of these to get a mandatory sentence of several to a dozen years in prison, depending on the state).
Anything that can be used for character assassination will be. It doesn't help that that congressman who is trying to look tough on terrorism opened his mouth either.

Re:What exactly were they looking for?

[Anonymous Coward]

The man affirmed that he created the page, the FBI had plenty of grounds to charge him. Why search his premises?

According to his journal, the idiot talked with the FBI prior to the search warrant being issued. It didn't sound like he had a lawyer with him, either. Who knows what he blabbed about that could be used as cause for a warrant and additional charges.

His blabbing almost certainly strengthened the government's case on the charges already in progress, too. Now, those words can be twisted and used against him to undermine his defense. He has really screwed himself over. If he had kept his god damn mouth closed, maybe he would have walked with only minor punishment. By blabbing, he probably took that off the table.

Number one rule when dealing with the cops, _especially_ if they already have the goods on you: shut the fuck up! Nothing you can say is going to help. It can only hurt. It can only make the prosecution's job easier and the defense's job harder.

all this hoopla over nothing

[oohshiny]

Notice how in all this discussion, everybody is implicitly assuming that the watch lists are actually worth anything. In fact, I think the reason this hole has existed for several years without any problem due to them is that the watch lists simply don't make any difference at all.

Which raises the question: why have the watch lists in the first place? I think they are more psychological than anything else: they give the impression that there is a continuing threat, they give the impression that the government is doing something, and they make people willingly give in to controls that they previously wouldn't have considered. Remember: you used to be able to travel across this nation without the government being able to track your every step.

Re:all this hoopla over nothing

[loraksus]

60 Minutes did a great segment about the the No Fly list (titled "Unlikely Terrorists On No Fly List") which aired 2006-10-08.
Great piece and it is pretty much guaranteed that you'll feel the watch lists are a joke (or a bigger joke) after you watch it.

It's on their annoyingly bad website. These links should work.
Video
Article

And "Security Theater" is an excellent way to describe the "security" measures that have been enacted over the past few years.

No, not necessarily

[RKThoadan]

"He really did break the law?" I don't think so, but I'm not qualified to make that statement and neither are you. It takes a judge or a jury to say that. To me, it doesn't appear that he conspired to do any such thing. He simply wanted to public to realize how insecure it really was. It sounds like this law requires such intent. There is also the question of whether Northwest Airlines would be considered a Government agency or department for the purposes of this law.

Re:No, not necessarily

[illegalcortex]

First you have to define aiding and abetting, and that ain't exactly a cut and dried issue. For example, if I loan a friend my car, I am not a principal to him using it to run over the ambassador to Sweden. Likewise, you first have to show that his site actually significantly aided anyone in committing said crime. As you said, it comes dow to how he is "aiding" these people. Considering the incredibly low hurdle of forging boarding passes, I do not thing he can be considered as significantly aiding. Anyone with a scanner, a printer, and Microsoft Paint could do this. The fact that this kind of thing is so dirt simple is proof enough that no one needs any help.

Second, back to the issue of aiding and abetting someone to commit the crime. Who was the person who committed the crime? Without that person, 18 USC 2 is irrelevant anyway.

Third, I think both Soghoian and Schumer would fall under free speech. Both were trying to speak out about the holes in the security. Both Schumers HOWTO and Soghoian's demonstration site could reasonably fall under that kind of speech.

Read The Declaration of Independence.

[khasim]

Look at the bottom. Look at all those people who signed their names instead of putting "John Doe".

Freedom requires that people stand up, publicly, for what they believe in. That is why the 1st Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Simply striking against a convenient target does not get you any closer to being Free. Nor does it keep you Free.

Freedom is not safe.

Re:Read The Declaration of Independence.

[Lumpy]

And that did that AFTER they were of a size of group that was not easily quietened or disappeared. Until then you HAVE to be the silent dissent that they cant put a finger on. Only after your numbers are large enough that you can put up a fight and they have to think twice before arresting you and hanging you for treason.

The founding fathers did not sign that document and then nailed a copy to the kings door when it was only 8 of them. They did that quietly and only AFTER they had sufficient strength to overcome the oppression that would be sent when they made their intentions public.

THAT is the difference. If the article's author got 30-40 researchers and professors to all stand together and say "screw you Homeland security! you give us NO security!" and then published the proof to that effect, the FBI would not have raided their homes in 24 hours, a cowardly senator would not have opened his big trap against them and the government would have had to treat them very VERY differently.

A single person is easily opressed and removed. a larger group, specifically a group that is well known is not.

A good time for prosecutorial DISCRETION

[kaltkalt]

Even if he did break a law, and I'm a lawyer and I'm far from convinced that he did, this is a prime example of when the US Attorney should use some prosecutorial discretion and, after investigating the matter and being content with the subject's explanation as to what happened and why he did what he did, decide not to prosecute. The worst thing this guy did was act imprudently. No terrorists got on airplanes, nor could they have. The best thing this guy did, and I don't think there is any question about his intentions, is to bring attention to a security flaw. He took down the website when asked (maybe even prior to that) and nothing bad resulted from his actions. He had no intent to hurt anyone, no intent to steal or deprive anyone of property, and no intent to help anyone actually break the law. So, even if he could be prosecuted, he shouldn't be. Not everyone who breaks the law should be charged with a crime.

Legal Defense

[BertieBaggio]

The fact that he is going through this for pointing out a flaw is pretty horrifying. That said, hopefully the justice system will 'do justice' to keep this guy out of prison. Even still at best he's going to be pretty shaken up by this for a while to come, and probably be out a fairly sizable chunk of money in legal defense; at worst, he's gonna have a pretty horrible time (can't check punishments as all but final 2 of the USC links The Fine Summary are 404s). All for pointing out what should be a fairly apparent flaw in a 'security' system. I guess the guys at the FBI just like arresting folk for things like that. Hell, why didn't they arrest Andy Bowers of Slate for his research / article too?

Also, can some pro-2nd amendment folk go and give him some "legal defence"? You know, protect people from the government and all that... ;-)

Re:Legal Defense

[ThatGuyPat]

"The fact that he is going through this for pointing out a flaw is pretty horrifying."

Pointing out a flaw and developing a tool to exploit it are two different things.

Re:CFR 49 says

[ScrewMaster]

Doesn't matter. I don't even think the FBI much cares if they win or lose the case, or if it even goes to trial. What does matter is that they've terrified some other potential geeks from publishing anything else negative about the TSA or other government organ. It's a win-win from their perspective. Pretty much a lose-lose from where I'm sitting ... free speech takes another hit. This is exactly the kind of situation the Founders envisioned when they came up with free speech and plugged it into the Constitution. Here's someone that saw something wrong with government, and wanted the rest of us to know about it. So, of course, in true Constitutional spirit the FBI raids his place and charges him with a crime. Doesn't matter what crime, so long as the kid is terrorized sufficiently. I mean, there are so many laws on the books nowadays that everyone, and I mean everyone, is guilty of something and can be nailed to a cross for little reason, or no reason at all.

Cripes.

My response to Rep. Markey

[riffer]

My letter to Congressman Markey can be seen here: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=28 1474976826167

I encourage all other security professionals to do the same.

Who are the terrorists in this case?

[PhunkySchtuff]

My dictionary definition of a terrorist:
terrorist noun A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
terrorism noun The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

I quote from his blog:

I didn't sleep at home last night. It's fair to say I was rather shaken up.

I came back today, to find the glass on the front door smashed.

Inside, is a rather ransacked home, a search warrant taped to my kitchen table, a total absence of computers - and various other important things. I have no idea what time they actually performed the search, but the warrant was approved at 2AM. I'm sincerely glad I wasn't in bed when they raided the house. That would have been even more scary.

This is a case of classic police-state gestapo tactics.
This guy hasn't done anything wrong, he hasn't even hilighted a previously unknown security flaw, and now he's subject to this kind of treatment...

Re:GNUnet vs. Freenet

[ResidntGeek]

I'm not sure, to be honest. So far GNUnet hasn't avoided that fate; there's not too much content on the network yet. I try to keep the daemon running on my computer whenever it's on, and encourage its use whenever the topic of P2P networks compes up, but I doubt it helps much. I assume Freenet and/or GNUnet will grow as the RIAA sues more people and starts leaning on ISPs to block networks like Gnutella, but who can tell?

Worse and Worse

[EPAstor]

Damn... I just don't know what we can do to fix this anymore. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if there's any chance of getting our freedom back. And the media coverage of all these problems? Nil. How in the world do we get enough people to notice, at this point? Also, are we college students really so apathetic now? The draft for the Vietnam War started riots, but there's next to no noise on campus over these problems - even at liberal schools... I haven't lost hope yet, but how can we get the people of the United States to start caring again?

The only way to be certain...

[jd]

...of what the bad guys know is to tell them and mark it off on the list. Anything else is down to chance.

The chance of them knowing is the probability of them finding the information multiplied by the probability of knowing the value multiplied by the probability of producing a workable exploit.

The chance of you knowing if they know is the probability of them knowing multiplied by the probability of you knowing who the bad guys even are, multiplied by the probability of obtaining real information (they can jam anyone monitoring them by flooding the information space with junk information), multiplied by the probability of you knowing you even have real information, multiplied by the probability of being able to determine what the information actually means.

Counterintelligence is an exceptionally difficult field with a painfully poor track record. Most published successes have been by a series of sheer fluke events and staggering luck. Most published failures were unlikely to be anything else. We don't know about the unpublished stuff, but percentagewise, are we more likely to see bragging over achievements or failures, if both can be equally hidden?

I'm not saying that everything should be published, merely that it should not be assumed that not publishing is the same as others not knowing.

Now, can a case ever be made for publishing everything? Yes. Game Theory requires that all "full information scenarios" have a strategy for one side and one side only that will ALWAYS result in the winning conditions being met, no matter what the other side does. It is possible to imagine situations, particularly in computing where there is essentially no randomness and a "full information scenario" is possible, where the outcome can be guaranteed, if you want it to be.

No matter what anybody else might say, it is not the job of an enemy to make your life easy, so we shouldn't expect them to. We should expect them to do the researcxh, the legwork, the analysis to figure everything out. They might indeed just wait until someone tells them, but that should be a bonus. It should not be your modus operandi. In computer security, you must assume that there are opponents out there who could have all of the industry-standard backdoor passwords, a complete printout of every Operating System and network device QA test that failed and got overlooked, and a copy of the highest-end vulnerability scanner the commercial sector has going for it.

Hell, we know that a Russian spammer got a tier-1 backbone provider to turn off Blue Frog's Internet connectivity. Turning off a link like that is very traceable, but appears to have been regarded as mere amusement for the backbone provider. The same provider is hardly likely to show scruples when it comes to handing out internal or commercially-sensitive data, software or anything else. Given the repeatedly low scores on security for many US government departments and the almost routine mishandling of classified data, there are probably those in the information black markets who know more national secrets than the entire White House combined. If one backbone provider is riddled with corruption and pwned by organized crime, then we must assume that such people are unlikely to be avoiding big money out of a sense of decency and moral fortitude.

But if the most dangerous people have the most dangerous information already - and that includes whatever terrorists might actually exist - then most of the obscurity only serves to increase the value of what has already been stolen. This makes the thieves rich, the criminals dangerous, and the politicians popular for appearing to do something, but it doesn't make anyone else - users, vendors, bystanders - any better off at all. Illusions are fun on the stage, but they should be left there.

From Senator Schumer's Feb 13, 2005 Press Release

[Kanaka Kid]

From Senator Schumer's (D-NY) Feb 13, 2005 Press Release:

Schumer today laid out the following scenario in which someone on the terrorist watch list can get through airline security undetected:

1. Joe Terror (whose name is on the terrorist watch list) buys a ticket online in the name of Joe Thompson using a stolen credit card. Joe Thompson is not listed on the terrorist watch list.

2. Joe Terror then prints his "Joe Thompson" boarding pass at home, and then electronically alters it (either by scanning or altering the original image, depending on the airline system and the technology he uses at home) to create a second almost identical boarding pass under the name Joe Terror, his name.

3. Joe Terror then goes to the airport and goes through security with his real ID and the FAKE boarding pass. The name and face match his real drivers license. The airport employee matches the name and face to the real ID.

4. The TSA guard at the magnetometer checks to make sure that the boarding pass looks legitimate as Joe Terror goes through. He/she does not scan it into the system, so there is still no hint that the name on the fake boarding pass is not the same as the name on the reservation.

5. Joe Terror then goes through the gate into his plane using the real Joe Thompson boarding pass for the gate's computer scanner. He is not asked for ID again to match the name on the scanner, so the fact that he does not have an ID with that name does not matter. [Since Joe Thompson doesn't actually exist it does not coincide with a name on the terrorist watch list] Joe Terror boards the plane, no questions asked.

Based on the above press release by a US Senator, shouldn't Schumer be charged with similar crimes?

It Doesn't Have To Be This Way

[logicnazi]

We won't be ANY safer after Christopher's work. Not because he was wrong about his claims but because he is right. We only have security theatre.

No rational allocation of resources would have beefed up passenger screening after 9/11. I don't care if you do get a AK-47 on a plane nowadays you won't be able to hijack it and crash it into a building for the simple reason that the people on the plane KNOW they will die if they let you fly the plane.

9/11 was a one time deal. It worked because no one expected terrorists to fly planes into buildings. After 9/11 any hijacking would end like flight 82. While this would be a horrible tragedy it would be far easier to create such a tragedy with surface to air missiles, gas attacks in subways or a hundred other ways we aren't guarding against.

The real risk now is new attacks not a repeat of 9/11. We should be spending our money securing chemical plants or defending our water supply not inconveniencing people in airports. Any security in airports beyond pre 9/11 levels is nothing but a show designed to make people think they are safer while wasting resources.

Christopher is showing that the post 9/11 security measures are total theater. He isn't being arrested because he put people at risk, he is being arrested because he made uncomfortable.

Re:In English, please?

[PhxBlue]

So, if I say "Bush has an ass the size of Texas", I should expect the FBI soon?

No, that's only a wrong word choice. It should read, "Bush is an ass the size of Texas."

Security post 9/11

[Cr33pybusguy]

Security is a joke in airports.

I was a airplane re-fueler at Edmonton International Airport post 9/11 (Shell Aerocenter 2002-2003) . I can tell you this. EVERY refueler and most baggage handlers carry knives or a multi-tool (ie. leatherman) of some sort. So do many pilots. Why is this? We use them to lever open hatches, latches, open your bags for the video cameras ect. (I shit you not. I know several guys who carry those little keys that fit the little locks on your bags so they can poke around in your bags) It would be a snap for some one on the inside to plant a knife. Or even a small gun.

But how do you get past security you ask. I'll tell you. We don't. We have our own entrances and exits and these don't use metal detectors or our steel-toed boots would set them off every time. The only thing that is our security check is our id tags. Sure we go through an extensive process before we are issued one but there's lots of criminals working at your airports. That and they aren't that tough to forge. If you have a "friend" at your local DMV you could probably do it.

So security is tight at the terminal? You can charter a small to large plane at your local FBO. We never check you or your bags. Why would we? We think you are some rich guy who jaunts around on his private jet. Perfect for loading with explosives and plowing into buildings on you jihadic quest.

But what about the regular people who go through security? Did you know that you are allowed 10 packs of matches but no lighters? I can do a shit load of damage with ten packs of matches and I'm sure you could too! Oh yeah the metal detectors that you walk through aren't sensitive enough to pick up a bic lighter. If you get caught with one. Just say oops, my bad I forgot about it and make sure they see your pack of smokes. They'll take the lighter away and thats it!

If you are worried when they swab your laptop and you've been chopping some of columbia's finest ontop of it don't worry. They are searching for bomb residue. But here's a secret. They don't swab your MP3 players, video cameras, and cell phones. They just scan them with the machines. I'm not sure how many ounces of high explosive you fit in a video camera but i'm guessing it's a fair amount.

What about sniffing dogs? I fly all over the place to meet up or disembark from ships. I can't remember the last time I saw one. Why? They are a bitch to train. (pun semi-intended) Something like one out of every 20 makes the grade. And THEN they are split up for K-9 tracking, bomb sniffing, narcotics, sniffing, blind leading ect. The odds of running into a dog is pretty slim unless ou are at one of the well funded big airports. (LAX, Heathrow ect.) Most of the guys who I work with on multi-national ships regularily bring some drugs home. Not alot, but a few grams to help make the welcome home party a bit more welcoming.

These flaws are just a few I could think of off the top of my head. So whats the point? If you are creative enough (and hackers prove this regularily) and determined enough you can get past and security thats in place. Especially when it's so shoddy like it is at our airports.

So to be honest some one forging a boarding pass should be the least of their worries. Happy flying!