Slashdot Mirror


Man Fired When Laptop Malware Downloaded Porn

Geoffrey.landis writes "The Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents fired worker Michael Fiola and initiated procedures to prosecute him for child pornography when they determined that internet temporary files on his laptop computer contained child porn. According to Fiola, 'My boss called me into his office at 9 a.m. The director of the Department of Industrial Accidents, my immediate supervisor, and the personnel director were there. They handed me a letter and said, "You are being fired for a violation of the computer usage policy. You have pornography on your computer. You're fired. Clean out your desk. Let's go."' Fiola said, 'They wouldn't talk to me. They said, "We've been advised by our attorney not to talk to you."' However, prosecutors dropped the case when a state investigation of his computer determined there was insufficient evidence to prove he had downloaded the files. Computer forensic analyst Tami Loehrs, who spent a month dissecting the computer for the defense, explained in a 30-page report that the laptop was running corrupted virus-protection software, and Fiola was hit by spammers and crackers bombarding its memory with images of incest and pre-teen porn not visible to the naked eye. The virus protection and software update functions on the laptop had been disabled, and apparently the laptop was 'crippled' by malware. According to Loehrs, 'When they gave him this laptop, it had belonged to another user, and they changed the user name for him, but forgot to change the SMS user name, so SMS was trying to connect to a user that no longer existed ... It was set up to do all of its security updates via the server, and none of that was happening because he was out in the field.' A malware script on the machine surfed foreign sites at a rate of up to 40 per minute whenever the machine was within range of a wireless site."

32 of 635 comments (clear)

  1. This Is What Lawyers Are For... by reallocate · · Score: 2, Informative

    This guy should get one. And, meanwhile, insure no one touchs that laptop.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  2. Tough lesson learned... by Muckluck · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a tough lesson learned for Mr. Fiola, but the lesson is, always request a clean build when receiving new equipment in the workplace. That would have eliminated the malware and given him a clean system to work on.

    --


    --I like turtles...
    1. Re:Tough lesson learned... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      And they say "No, you take this laptop as-is and use it" with the same unthinking and unresponsive attitude with which they fired him, and then where is he?

      Of course that is probably a better circumstance under which to be looking for a new job than the one he's in now...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  3. Re:Certainly sounds fair... by dal20402 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who WOULDN'T do at least as much?

    Government employees in Massachusetts, the state that is so corrupt and dysfunctional it gives government all over the rest of the U.S. a black eye.

    Seriously. I just escaped (to D.C., which, despite its warts is a million times better) from three years of living in that hellhole. I don't think I encountered a single effective or competently run state agency the whole time.

    I expect the employee who would have been responsible for wiping this laptop is probably a relative of some high official, and probably doesn't know how to do anything except reinstall Windows from a factory CD.

  4. Re:What is the real truth here? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sounds like it may have been the previous user that got the machine infected.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  5. Julie Amero ? by PoliTech · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Julie Amero ? by stavros-59 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep.

      The forensic report is linked to on this page and is scathing about the IT staff.
      They did the handover and didn't even notice that the antivirus wasn't working and that their SMS update system wasn't working.

      It should be policy to handover computers with clean image and with updates.

  6. Lawyer: This, boys and girls, is why . . . by hawk · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, the attorney in this story might be a good choice . . . (but I cannot endorse him).

    This, in a nutshell, is why lawyer's represent guilty scum.

    Sometimes, it turns out, they are neither . . .

    Personally, I'm skeptical about the idea of malware that secretly downloads and hides kiddie porn--why would the malware developer do that? I really can't fault the emploeyr for not considering such an idea and investigating it.

    The defense attorney, though, is to advocate for his client, even if the client claims seem far-fetched.

    hawk, esq.

  7. The majority of computer users are unaware... by dclozier · · Score: 3, Informative

    So expecting them to ask for a clean build is asking to much. Their IT department should have known better and done this automatically.

  8. Unlawful Termination by HannethCom · · Score: 2, Informative

    In Canada that would be unlawful termination.

    Actually even if he was guilty, they would have had to tell him before he went outside why he was fired, or he would have grounds for compensation.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
    1. Re:Unlawful Termination by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Massachusetts is not a Right to Work State. It does have "At-will" employment laws though.

  9. Re:The real crime here... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

    The real problem is that, as the summary said, they didn't change the security software username, and killed the old username at the server. Therefore, he was running unupdated software... leaving him open to any new Internet threat. Sounds like the IT Department deserves to be fired.

  10. Re:Certainly sounds fair... by wtfispcloadletter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Then there's projects like Unattended that work great and can have a laptop or workstation back up and running in a default state, with all programs and updates applied in 60-90 minutes.

    There is no excuse for giving someone a used laptop or workstation that hasn't been cleaned. We don't concern ourselves much with our workstations since they never leave our network, but any laptops get a thorough cleansing before being re-issued to someone else.

  11. Re:Certainly sounds fair... by Raineer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Maybe somebody without Ghost? If you don't have something similar to Ghost, then you sure as hell don't fire someone with something illegal on the HDD. That is one certain way to open yourself (as a company) up to lawsuits. If you cannot prove what was on the laptop when you gave it to him, the firing surely is on shaky grounds.
  12. Re:Lawyer: This, boys and girls, is why . . . by AxemRed · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would say that the scripts surf a list of shady sites to get hits on banner ads. I imagine that, even though they don't stay up as long, kiddie porn sites may have ads too...

  13. Re:Lawyer: This, boys and girls, is why . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Probably, the malware itself is a temporary webserver to help distribute the load of an illegal kiddie porn pay site. Look up Fast Flux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_flux) spammers use it all the time and it is very simple to set up.

  14. Re:Lawyer: This, boys and girls, is why . . . by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your skepticism is mis-placed.
    There is more than one kind of malware.
    One kind sends Phishing Spam / Viagra spam / etc.
    Another performs DDoS attacks.
    A third acts as a distributed FTP/Fileshare server so that the guilty have a place to hide & share their wares and not have a single point of being shut down by the authorities. Whether this be lists of CC numbers or kiddie porn is immaterial.
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  15. Re:Lawyer: This, boys and girls, is why . . . by Killeroid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Personally, I'm skeptical about the idea of malware that secretly downloads and hides kiddie porn--why would the malware developer do that? The malware wasn't downloading and hiding kiddie porn From the article: "Loehrs found a script file that was set to go out and run its own searches on foreign Web sites, she said. "And once you get into some of these foreign sites, you'll get all kinds of stuff you don't want to see. "Actually, the child pornography was just a very small portion of it. The majority was just bizarre porn. He was being hit with everything," she added." The malware author was probably running a pay per click scam by using his malware to visit a bunch of sites and making it seem a bunch of visitors were browsing the site.

  16. Re:Certainly sounds fair... by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Isn't anyone going mention poor Mary Jo Kopechne? I believe it's mandatory when trashing Ted Kennedy.

  17. Re:Certainly sounds fair... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Never mind that Ghost is an absurdly simple program -- Linux (and any other Unix, for that matter) has had dd, for free, pretty much forever. More recently, there's ntfsclone, which will grab everything but unallocated space.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  18. Re:Certainly sounds fair... by LackThereof · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wonder if he will be hired back with back pay. A different article I read about this said that he had no interest in ever working for or having any dealings with this company ever again.

    He will, however, be suing them.
    --
    Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
  19. Re:Lawyer: This, boys and girls, is why . . . by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
    If the intersection of child porn distributors and malware authors is larger than 0, the malware author may have written the malware to distribute the child porn. Or to keep it in circulation to gain later access to it, etc.

    That would really be insanely stupid considering the hysteria kiddie porn provokes. If he wanted to just store it, encrypt it and it's 100% safe. Stash it in a folder on a innocent DVDR; etc, etc. Anyone capable of creating malware certainly knows how to do this, and not risk having a FBI team break down his door next week.

    I think the guys who do trade kiddie porn would be extremely paranoid and cautious.The dumb ones would have been caught by now. The idea that these guys are snickering while sending illegal porn to innocent people is as silly as those characterisations of terrorists as "they hate us because we're free". I believe the guy in this case was likely innocent, I think he was just collateral damage from some pay-per-click scam. The porn in his cache was just a side effect of sending his browser around in the background to earn a few cents.

  20. Re:Lawyer: This, boys and girls, is why . . . by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Informative

    Lawyers represent the guilty because A) you may be guilty but we need to make sure your sentence is reasonable (a lot of people would like to hang a man for showing a kid his penis); and B) You might actually not be guilty.

    In old country, court used to mean you had no representation (lawyer), the prosecution made whatever wild claims it likes, and then they lock you up. End of story. Guilty or not, you get a fighting chance BECAUSE the alternative is we send men in black to your house and throw you in jail after a cute little show just because we don't like you.

    Think Salem Witch Trials, nobody had any real defense, all accusations were absolute indications of guilt. This is what happens when you take away the right of the (presumed) guilty to defend themselves.

  21. Re:Lawyer: This, boys and girls, is why . . . by jc42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Personally, I'm skeptical about the idea of malware that secretly downloads and hides kiddie porn--why would the malware developer do that?

    Why would it matter whether you believe someone might have a motive? I don't understand why people might commit all sorts of crimes, because I'd never do that. But some people commit those crimes anyway. Lots of people have motives to frame others for crimes.

    In any case, on to methods. I have a demo on my web site of how to do "preloading" in javascript. Is javascript enabled in your browser? If so, my demo shows how I can create a web page that quietly downloads images from arbitrary URLs, without showing them to you. This may be used to load those images into your browser's cache. It has valid uses, such as to speed up subsequent downloading of other pages from my site which use those images. But I can just as easily fill your browser's cache with porn. Unless you know how to scan your browser's cache (or have the sense to purge it frequently), you'll never know what I've done to you. My code (actually my web server) also tells me your IP address, which I can use to send the authorities in to examine your browser's cache.

    I'd be willing to testify in court how easy this is. And give the court a copy of my code (though they could easily download it from my web site ;-).

    And yes, I usually do browse with scripting disabled. This was typed into a Firefox 3.0 window, which has the NoScripts extension installed. My demo code won't work against me.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  22. Re:What is the real truth here? by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Informative
    The phrase "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" comes to mind. Forensic analysis of the machine apparently showed it to be severely compromised by malware. Allow me to quote from one of TFAs:

    "What I found is, he would log in to the state's Web site, he'd be on for five or 10 minutes and during the exact same time that he's filling out a form, an image shows up, out of nowhere. No typed [Uniform Resource Locator], no search, no Web site activity, just bam, a cached image shows up on his computer," Loehrs said. The offending images were located in the laptop's browser cache directory.

    "He'd have 40 Web sites hitting his computer in a minute -- who's the IT guy who looked at this and said, "Wow, this guy is pretty active on the Internet?'" Loehrs said. "It's physically impossible!"

    Loehrs found a script file that was set to go out and run its own searches on foreign Web sites, she said. "And once you get into some of these foreign sites, you'll get all kinds of stuff you don't want to see.

    "Actually, the child pornography was just a very small portion of it. The majority was just bizarre porn. He was being hit with everything," she added. Are you still so certain of your position?
  23. Re:Whats interesting in this story is.... by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Informative

    Which makes me wonder --- how, exactly, do they define child porn?
    In my state child porn is pictures or video of person under the age of 18 involved in sexual acts or just unclothed. Also, anyone that looks like they are under the age of 18 according to the police inspector whether or not they actually are. Also , anyone that is obviously over the age of 18 but is dressed up to look like someone under the age of 18, also cartoon renderings of imaginary people who if they were not imaginary would be under the age of 18 or look like they would be in the opinion of the police investigator.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  24. Re:Certainly sounds fair... by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    A different article I read about this said that he had no interest in ever working for or having any dealings with this company ever again.

    In fact, his attorney referred to his former employers as "buffoons".

    From the article:

    But he is unlikely to take his old job back, even if the DIA were to offer it, [attorney Timothy] Bradl said. "I would think that theoretically he'd be entitled to his job back with back-pay, however he would never want to go back to work with such buffoons," he said.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  25. Re:What is the real truth here? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually he didn't need to even look at ANY porn. I have worked more years in PC repair than I care to admit and I can tell you from experience I have seen an old lady's PC infected from a travel site, one that got rootkitted when his kid went to get gameshark codes and a couple hit by ActiveX drivebys from "webchat" sites the teenage son went to. These are just the ones I know about,because I knew these folks and I got curious and so went to the sites listed in the IE history for the times that the customer said the PC started "acting weird". I used to keep an old WinXP box with a 4Gb HDD that was imaged just for checking out malware or testing bug removal tools and was surprised how quick these "legit" sites hit that box.


    And let us not forget even trusted websites can get compromised,so for all we know this guy was surfing a legitimate website and got hit by a driveby or one of the many exploits that had been released since his machine no longer was updating. I personally hope he gets enough out of them in a lawsuit that he never has to work again. It is obvious to me they never bothered to look at the laptop except to look for porn,and the fact that it was THEIR OWN SCREWUP that caused this in the first place should make it a slam dunk for any decent lawyer. But as always that is my 02c from many years of fixing Windows boxes,YMMV

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  26. Legal "slam dunk"? by Mathinker · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's no such thing as a legal "slam dunk". The only person who will certainly make money from suing them is the lawyer himself (unless he takes the case on a percentage-of-settlement basis, of course).

    This whole case would seem to hinge on one forensic expert's testimony, so if I were a lawyer, I'd be a bit leery about considering this an open-and-shut case.

    Still, I wish the guy a lot of luck in setting a precedent that you can't be held accountable in all situations for what your computer does.

    I'm not sure if the guy wasn't lucky that the employer went immediately to start criminal proceedings --- that's the only reason he has a valid forensic analysis of the computer to show. In an ordinary instance of firing, the computer would almost certainly have been reimaged before he could sue to have it analyzed.

    It seems there's room for a law that in cases like this, the employer has to get a forensic snapshot of the computer involved before reimaging it (or be responsible for destroying evidence in any subsequent discovery proceedings).

    1. Re:Legal "slam dunk"? by tdandh · · Score: 2, Informative

      This whole case would seem to hinge on one forensic expert's testimony, so if I were a lawyer, I'd be a bit leery about considering this an open-and-shut case.


      Actually, this was backed up by two forensic examinations by the AG's office. FTA:
      Loehrs, who spent a month dissecting the computer for the defense, explained in a 30-page report that the laptop was running corrupted virus-protection software, and Fiola was hit by spammers and crackers bombarding its memory with images of incest and pre-teen porn not visible to the naked eye.

      Two forensic examinations conducted by the state Attorney General's Office for the prosecution concurred with that conclusion, Wark said.
  27. Re:"We stand by our decision" by shilly · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, the person who said "We stand by our decision" is linnea.walsh@state.ma.us

    I think it would be helpful for people to drop her a line asking how she lives with herself, and whether she can look her children in the eye now that she's helped ruined a man's reputation.

  28. Re:Not everybody is a slashdotter by C4Cypher · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's his job, he had about as much choice in the matter of operating system as he did about which computer he was going to use. The employee who got the sack is genuinely a victim. Management has some of the blame for going off half-cocked, but speaking as an IT professional, the responsibility is with the techs to not only ensure they hand out the good machines, but THOUGHROGHLY investigate an issue, especially concerning somthing as serious as child porn, before they throw the 'offender' under the bus. IT should be supporting, serving and protecting their users, not getting them prosecuted unjustly.