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."

18 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. The battle by Adreno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The battle by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately most peoples mind are stuck in the 20th century. And don't consider how quickly these things can spread now. Say 15 years ago this happened keeping it quite would have gave them a security advantage as it is easy to control the flow of information, so for someone else wanted to break in had to duplicate all the research again. However today once you try to silence someone the information flows faster, and it is harder to keep the information down, so when a problem is found it is best to fix it then put time in hushing it up. Sorry the world follows different dynamics now adapt or parish.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:The battle by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      adapt or parish.

      That's right! Change, or we're sending you to... church!

      --
      Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
  2. Obligatory IANAL by blcamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Obligatory IANAL by Ioldanach · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe this will help: 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)))). The alleged violation is "abridging (the freedom (of speech) or (of the press))". The assembly subclause is enclosed within a different area of the clause.

    2. Re:Obligatory IANAL by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not saying I agree with stopping the presentation, but the right of free speech is really about petitioning the government over greivances [sic], not saying whatever you want.

      No, the right of free speech is about speech alone not being a crime for which one can be punished, or a source of harm for which one can be made liable. It's fairly obvious that freedom of speech is separate from the right to petition; just look at where the semicolons were placed. The amendment is addressing three different rights:

      1. Freedom of religion
      2. Freedom of speech, including speech via the press
      3. Freedom of assembly for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress

      You wouldn't try to argue that freedom of religion is all about petitioning the government for redress, would you? The segment describing freedom of religion relates to the right of assembly in exactly the same way as the segment about freedom of speech.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  3. The real question I want to know... by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Stored value cards are foolish by kriston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  5. The FBI's role by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. no, not really by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:no, not really by Hoplite3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, the old fire in the theater line... That's from the Holmes ruling in the Schenck case. Schenck was posting fliers bashing the draft for WWI and got swept up and jailed by the police. Holmes wrote for the Supreme Court majority that such speech was equivalent to shouting fire in a theater and Schenck (continued) his time in jail.

      Remember kids: every time someone uses this line to define the limits on free speech, they are hearkening back to rulings that undercut the very purpose of the 1st amendment.

      --
      Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
    2. Re:no, not really by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Very interesting. Further reference:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

  7. You did miss something. by stomv · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    1. Re:You did miss something. by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US has tons of limits on free speech, including but not limited to restrictions with respect to
          * perjury

      But no prior restraint here.

      * profanity

      Most such restrictions get shot down in court; if it's about profanity in particular, they fall afoul not only of freedom of speech but of religion as well.

      * threats
      * slander and libel

      Again, no prior restraint here. And what constitutes a threat is reasonably narrowly defined, though prosecutors are always trying to stretch it

      * classified information

      You have, perhaps, heard of the Pentagon Papers case? Where the Washington Post and the New York Times could not be enjoined from publishing classified information?

      * treason

      It's awfully hard to commit treason with public speech. Laws against sedition, on the other hand, have a long history of violating freedom of speech.

  8. remember kids by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember kids: every time someone uses this line to define the limits on free speech, they are hearkening back to rulings that undercut the very purpose of the 1st amendment.

    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.

    1. Re:remember kids by fuzznutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

      The keyword there is FALSELY. It is not "illegal" to shout fire in a theater. In fact, I would hope that someone would do just that in the event of a fire. The key issue of the MIT students is prior restraint of free speech simply because a party doesn't like what they believe they might hear.

  9. MBNA != MBTA by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  10. What it's like to tango with the MBTA by knifeyspooney · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.