Slashdot Mirror
Interview With MIT Subway Hacker Zack Anderson
longacre writes "In his most extensive interview since the DefCon controversy emerged, MIT subway hacker Zack Anderson talks with Popular Mechanics about what's wrong with the Charlie Card, what happened at DefCon, and what it's like to tango with the FBI and the MBTA. The interview comes on the heels of Tuesday's court ruling denying motions by the MBTA to issue a preliminary injunction aimed at keeping the students quiet for a further five months."
I'm really glad that the court decided to overturn the injunction. We need to get information like this out in the open, so we can solve these problems quickly and in an open-source manner. Simply denying that a problem such as this exists does not solve the problem... it delays a fix, and makes it even MORE likely that such exploitation will happen in the first place.
US Constitution, Amendment I:
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.
Did I miss something here?
Not that I want a security system compromised, because I don't... but the 1st Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall ... abridge free speech in instances where a subway system is hacked".
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Did the MBTA learn a lesson here about making a mountain out of a molehill? They essentially took something that would have received almost no attention and turned it into a national news story and then publicly filed all the details in open court such that anyone with the wherewithal to defraud the MBTA now not only knew about the exploit but had the full details on how to do it.
Stored value cards are foolish.
They should only ever be used for identification and authentication.
The value being managed must always be stored and administered on the billing system itself.
This is why the responsible agencies (EZ-Pass, WMATA DC Metro, NYC Metrocard) should not, and usually do not, use stored value cards.
How naive of the MBTA to do this.
Cloning is still a problem with DC Metro and NYC Metrocard, but this is relatively easy to detect using database analysis and trending.
The security should lie with the central system.
Stored value cards are never secure--especially if you're depending on the obsolete version of MiFare Classic which should have only ever been used for authentication (serial numbers, keys, and scanned fingerprints).
Never for a so-called "digital purse" like MBTA used it for.
Kriston
The FBI's role should have been to offer him and his buddies a lab, security clearance and a plush job to do this kind of work for them. Seriously, these are the kind of guys that the cops want working for them because every security hole in the infrastructure they find helps the cops do their job--and these guys are smart and educated enough to help the vendor fix the problem.
Grow up - your free speech rights aren't absolute.
There's the classic example of shouting fire in a crowded theater, for example. There's various laws against disclosing all kinds of information - medical records (go to a hospital, and you'll find signs in the elevators reminding staff to be careful when discussing patients), state secrets, etc.
And that's not getting into the realm of lawsuits. I mean, I could go on for hours about how you molest your children while smoking crack, but you can sue me for libel and I'll lose if I can't back up my claims. If you sign an NDA and then announce a press conference to disclose stuff covered under that NDA, I can get an injunction against you to prevent your holding that press conference.
In this case, the folks running the subway got an injunction to prevent the disclosure of the hack. And a judge looked at the evidence and decided that they didn't deserve a permanent injunction.
The US has tons of limits on free speech, including but not limited to restrictions with respect to
* perjury
* profanity
* sealed courtroom/trial
* threats
* slander and libel
* classified information
* treason
Support a few technologists in Washington.
the more it just seems someone at MBTA mistook their (MIT's)vulnerabilities rapport for the
scheduled Defcon talk that Friday and panicked.
quote/
"The FBI agent said, basically, this is not going to be an investigation. We don't have anything here. Don't worry about it.
So we told them we'd provide them a vulnerability report, going over what we found, and also methods that could fix these problems, and they said we could get that to them within two weeks. We had actually planned on getting it to them within the week, before business hours ended on Friday, so they'd have this in their hands before we gave the talk. We felt this was a courtesy we should give them.
This report was not going over what we were speaking about at DefCon, that wasn't the point. Some other people at MBTA have claimed that it was, but the point of the report was to go over the vulnerabilities, and go over ways that they could fix them. That's what we provided them, and we got it to them that Friday."
end quote/
and that's where it went wrong I think.
Had that report arrived monday nothing might have happened.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Every time someone picks a single item from among several used to make a point and rests their entire argument on it, you should be skeptical.
I noticed that you didn't mention the more applicable end of things, i.e., courts enjoining speech pursuant to a lawsuit, of the larger issue that free speech rights aren't absolute in the US, and never have been.
Also, Schenck vs. US was a bad decision, and fairly un-American in my view. But what Holmes said "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic," is fundamentally reasonable, even if that justification wasn't appropriate to the case.
You seem to be confusing the bank, MBNA, with the Boston transit authority, MBTA. Hacking MBNA would almost certainly be a felony. Hacking the MBTA is not even definitely illegal if you don't actually ride a train without paying. That what all this is about.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Having lived in Boston for five years, I don't need to RTFA to know what that was like.
-They arrived at court 45 minutes late without apologizing to the judge
-During oral arguments, the MBTA's attorney paused several times, each time for 5-10 minutes, for no apparent reason
-MBTA officials wore blazers acquired off the rack for $9,000 apiece; no immediate plans to purchase pants
-Despite earning one of the highest wages in the industry, the attorney was surly and lazy
And, after the judge denied the MBTA's request for an injunction against the hacker, GM Dan Grabauskas issued a press release trumping the agency's legal victory.
It had to help the students that Rivest was their professor. At least his reputation in the security world goes before him.
It it were a lesser name in the field would their claim to have been studying the security of the system been taken so seriously ?
If it had been just some guy in charge of Mississippi state university's computer science curriculum they would likely all be in jail by now.
Nullius in verba