Slashdot Mirror
Google Search Convicts Hacker
An anonymous reader writes "Google search terms have helped convict a wireless hacker. The queries the hacker performed were introduced into evidence at court, where Matthew Schuster was charged with disrupting his former employer's wireless network and imitating other users' MAC addresses to obtain access. From the article: 'Court documents are ambiguous and don't reveal how the FBI discovered his search terms. That could have happened in one of three ways: an analysis of his browser's history and cache; an Alpha employee monitoring the company's wireless connection; or a subpoena to Google from the police for search terms tied to his Internet address or cookie. Google has confirmed that it can provide search terms if given an Internet address or Web cookie, but has steadfastly refused to say how often such requests arrive.'
No, they'll just give it all away anyway.
But when Google does it, it can only be for the common good, right? A malicious Hax0r gets put away??
Let's look at Google's privacy policy, shall we?
Information sharing
Google only shares personal information with other companies or individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances:
* We have your consent. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.
* We provide such information to our subsidiaries, affiliated companies or other trusted businesses or persons for the purpose of processing personal information on our behalf. We require that these parties agree to process such information based on our instructions and in compliance with this Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.
* We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, (b) enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations thereof, (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, or (d) protect against imminent harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public as required or permitted by law.
That's a pretty broad policy. *ANY* applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforeable governmental request. That leaves the door pretty wide open for the Chinese government to start asking for the query strings of their citizens to me.
I think the answer is clear, if you need to see webpages and want NO trace of you - you have to compromise a machine, surf via a proxy you set up in it, and then timebomb the drive to wipe itself after you are done. And even then you may get caught, if there are firewall logs.
Let's look at a leading company that does web proxy policy:
DISCLOSURE
All use of our site is confidential. We disclose user information only as provided for herein and when we believe that the law requires it, or when disclosure is necessary to identify, contact or bring legal action against someone who may be causing injury to others or interfering with Proxify's rights or property.
In the event of an assignment, sale, joint venture, or other transfer or disposition of some or all of the assets of Proxify, you agree that we can accordingly assign, sell, license or transfer any information that our users have provided to us. Please note, however, that the purchasing party cannot use the personal information you have submitted to us under this Privacy Policy in a manner that is materially inconsistent with this Privacy Policy without your prior consent.
That pretty much says: hey, we have your web surfing logs and we'll give em up if we have to. We don't want to, and we'll destroy logs after 30 days (it says that elsewhere in the policy) but dammit, if they bend us over and lube us up - we're gonna damn well hand it over rather than taking one for the team, so to speak.
I am no hacker and I do use google for many searches that I would not like to be a public information. Let us come clean, how many of us have not searched for a mp3 we liked a lot, or p0rn, or how to bypass company firewall?
The first thing he should have done is to delete Cache, browse anonymously, and FOR GOD'S SAKE, not be logged into google (which is integrated everywhere), or delete search history, or delete all cookies!
I know because I have suffered from this kind of stupidity, and in the end, I was unable to blame anyone.
Because Google can say ANYTHING it wants about you and people/police/FBI/government/corporations/your_emp loyer/etc will believe them without an OPEN REVIEW of how they obtain, generate, and store that information.
Is the information faulty? Did someone munge with the data? Were Google's databases corrupt? Was the data recreated or generated from other data? Has Google's spy software been through open source review? How well was Google's software tested?
It continually astounds me how intellectually lazy Americans have become! It continually astounds me how the American people are willing to look the other way when it comes to their liberty and civil rights being encroached on!
THINK FOR ONCE PEOPLE!
So it's not clear that Google had anything to do with this, and aside from the search terms, other evidence also pointed to his crimes. I'm pretty sure you've overreacted.
I'm not too surprised, though. A story like this (and realistically, the entire YRO section) is pretty much intended to rile the tin-foil hat crowd. Good thing for me that I'm entertained by it.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
...is not a bloody security feature. This is why people who actually want to secure a wireless network use some combination of Radius and VPNs...
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
The Linksys router Schuster used at his home and its MAC address proved that he was accessing the CWWIS wireless network.
Sounds like the MAC address was tied to his name somewhere and this was the evidence the FBI used to obtain the warrant. After that, everything was revealed by the contents of his computer.
If you purchase a network card online with a credit card it's possible that the FBI can trace the MAC address of that card back to you, providing the seller keeps records. If you're a linux user you can change your MAC address with,
ifconfig ethX hw ether xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
As long as you don't pass traceable information (like logging onto a traceable email account) and you use an anonymous proxy like tor as extra protection, it's pretty difficult to trace you. It's possible, of course, to locate you physically by triangulating your radio signals but this requires a bit more effort.
The above is provided for educational purposes only. I do not advocate breaking the law.
I know that Google analyzes the searches of its users -- for good purposes. I am sure they analyze how their search works, how users use it, and other things about those users. This helps them make a better tool. What I'm worried about is when this information is used to profile users, and identify potential 'terrorists'.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Yeah it's called spoofing. MACs are easy, as this was one of the things the guy in the article was doing. I myself did the same thing back in college for WiFi in certain buildings. I simple packet sniffing can yield some great things. IP spoofing is likely to be done, but good luck on getting a response from your target, at least with out some other tricky means.
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
This kind of proxy is very common on businesses and among other useful stuff they log the HTTP request made by any client in the network. This is the easiest way, noone else is requiered to get the queries just check your own server logs.
Actually, the first thing he should have done was to stop using his former employer's wireless network by appropriating its other customers MAC addresses to gain illegal access. The second thing he should have done was to not launch DOS attacks against said customers' websites. That automatically raised damages to above $5000 which led to the FBI getting involved. Once that happened, he was screwed.
Yeah, it's a bit sensationalistic to claim he was "convicted" simply due to his google search terms - those were merely one part of the evidence given in court.
There are numerous ways to make yourself anonymous, however, they are for another discussion. Which is why I just suffice to say this guy is a piss-poor hacker.
He didn't even try. He was just a disgruntled IT worker. Instead of using a machine gun to mow people down he wanted to use a transmitter to mow packets down. In this day and age people take that very seriously. So he's going to jail for 15 months. End of story.
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Because now you have a lot fewer of those rights.
In what way? To claim that a "right" has been violated here seems tantamount to making an assertion such as "Of course I may leave footprints, but no one has a right to follow them."
Why should an electronic trail have legal protections that a physical trail does not?
instead of searching for: "how to broadcast interference over wifi 2.4 GHZ," "interference over wifi 2.4 Ghz," "wireless networks 2.4 interference," and "make device interfere wireless network." he should have first searched for: "how to surf anonymously," "how to delete my browser data," and "how to shower without dropping your soap."
But seriously. No way to hide IP addresses from the server.
Just use an anonymous proxy like tor.
I seem to recall that there is a legal obligation to report certain classes of suspicious activity if they become aware of it -- notably, child pornography. They may not be obligated to actively search for it, but if they spot indications that a user is involved in that while analyzing their logs...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Yeah, what with being forced to use Google and all.
I mean, seriously, which right was violated here? The right to use a search engine without records? The right to use someone's wireless network without records?
Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.
Kudos on the post's headline being more accurate than TFA's headline.
The article's headline says: "Google searches nab wireless hacker," but the article actually says:
That may seem like simple semantics, but it's actually a pretty big difference.
Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.
after reading rfc 2549, i belive that anyone could spoof their ip or mac address very easily. trusted networks do not shit on your car
...For the beast had been reborn with its strength renewed, and the followers of Mammon cowered in horror.
I'm not worried about that, everybody is a possible terrorist theese days.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
That's like looking at a key eye witness who saw you stab Nicole Brown Simpson and saying "How do I know you weren't on LSD and just imagining me there?" Seriously, independent third party witnesses are key to the judicial process. Get over yourself. Google openly makes money on the fact that they keep track of your browsing habits in order to make their advertising revenue more beneficial to their paying customers. Google could plaster those records for everyone on the planet to see them and your rights still haven't been violated. If you don't like what Google or any other company does, don't use them. With Google it's especially easy to avoid. Being a techy, you could take it a step farther and route google.com to /dev/null.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
He wasn't just looking to score some free wifi, he was actively interfering with his former employer's business operations by DOS'ing customer websites, and knocking customers offline. To me, the sentence is appropriate. In fact, he's lucky to get what he got compared to some of the draconian sentences handed to other hackers in other criminal cases for doing far less than what he did.
Why should an electronic trail have legal protections that a physical trail does not?
Physical trails in the public are not protected. Physical trails in private are.
Its OK for me to watch you in public talking to person X. In theory, one needs a warrant and probable cause of a specific crime to listen to person talking with person X on the telephone.
That's not comparable.
In this instance it would be like talking to person X on company Y's premises. Company Y certainly has a right to know what is going on in their building and if it's illegal have every right to call the police about it.
That's my view, anyway.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
True, but the GP's point is still valid ... conviction based solely upon server log entries (or even the use of such logs to intimidate, such as the RIAA has been doing) should simply be unacceptable to a judge. Such information being a part of the fabric of evidence in a larger case is one thing, but it is simply not reliable enough to be depended upon in such important matters.
Courts need to become more technically competent, I think. We're too accustomed to the idea that if data comes from a computer it is implicitly trustworthy, and that's a big problem.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
That's like looking at a key eye witness who saw you stab Nicole Brown Simpson and saying "How do I know you weren't on LSD and just imagining me there?"
..." They had come from another machine in the same domain as the funny page. I erased them, checked occasionally, and they didn't reappear.
Funny, yes. But I have a story that's not too far off from that sort of thing. About 10 years ago I was working on a project at a big corporation whose name isn't relevant here. I had a row of machines with different OSs for doing portability testing. Someone sent me email pointing to a bit of humor on some web site, and by chance I happened to read it on the NT box. It was cute, I sent back a message saying that I'd laughed, and went about the day's work.
When I came in the next morning, the NT machine was sitting there displaying a whole lot of pornographic images. "Well, that's interesting
But the next morning, they were there on the screen again. So I really investigated. I found the "deleted" email, fetched the funny page again, and examined its source. It had some truly bizarre javascript that I didn't quite understand, but I did find the routine that fired off a download just after midnight. I called a few coworkers over and showed them the original page, the code, and the results. Nobody could quite explain the code, other than that it did something just after midnight. We found that when we disabled JS, the porn downloads stopped.
We tried it on a number of other machines. It only worked on MS Windows boxes, not on Solaris or linux or FreeBSD or any of the others. We had lots of Windows boxes, each with a different release installed, so after a while, we had lots of machines that were all downloading porn every night just after midnight.
We did discuss the implications if the higher-ups got wind of this. We had this scenario of them trying to figure out how we were sneaking in every night at midnight without the security guys seeing us, downloading a lot of porn, and then sneaking out without being seen. We were sure that the porn downloads were going into our permanent records.
Actually, we thought it was funny, as did our bosses. And these were all "crash and burn" test machines, so eventually we wiped each one clean, reinstalled the OS, and the porn went away.
But the legal system doesn't have our sense of humor. It's easy to imagine, in the light of TFA, that we could have been charged with a repeated pattern of downloading porn on company machines. In some companies, this could have easily got us fired. Luckily for us, our bosses just considered us crazy software developers.
I did learn enough that, some time later, I wrote up a little demo of how to make an innocent-looking web page download files that the user never sees, but which leaves incriminating downloads in the browser cache and the firewall logs, which could convict them as happened to this guy. I use the demo to convince people that I'm not being paranoid when the first thing I do with a new browser is to turn off java, JS and any other "scripting" tool. We're reaching the stage where you can be convicted for what you computer does behind your back. Stories like this are good for explaining why everyone really needs to learn enough about how their software works that you can block things like this that can plant evidence on your machine.
Of course, you really can't know about every automated thing that might be hidden in that box. And I should probably add this news story to my demo's docs, as an extra motivator.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Court documents say that Schuster ran a Google search over CWWIS' network using the following search terms: "how to broadcast interference over wifi 2.4 GHZ," "interference over wifi 2.4 Ghz," "wireless networks 2.4 interference," and "make device interfere wireless network." [TFA]
... A few months ago, I did a number of google searches with very similar terms. I was trying to find out how to diagnose and defend against some wireless interference. Not that I learned all that much. I suspect that you need some rather special equipment to locate the source of interference, but I don't know what that equipment might be.
Hmmm
Anyway, I wonder if I could be a suspect now because of those searches?
I have noticed in the past that if you ask questions about security, you're usually treated as if you were a potential security risk, not as someone trying to improve your own security.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.