Student Charged With Three Felonies For Finding Security Flaw — and Report

Well, yet another teenage hacker who "did the right thing" by reporting a security flaw is being punished for his actions. Although it definitely sounds like the whole story may not be in the clear yet, a 15-year-old New York high school student has been charged with three felonies claiming that he accessed a file containing social security numbers, driver's license numbers, and home addresses of past and present employees ... and then sent an anonymous email to the principal alerting him to the security flaw. "All that was needed to access the information was a district password. School officials have admitted that thousands of students, faculty and employees could have accessed the same file for up to two weeks."

Comments

Improper disclosure?

[sethstorm]

Was there any bit of responsible disclosure, because it sounds a bit like "killing the messenger". While there may be discipline in order, this seems to be overkill if he was really intending to do the right thing.

Re:Improper disclosure?

[SQLGuru]

I guess part of me wants to know how he found out. If he found out by accident, then yeah, this is a case of "No good deed goes unpunished"....but if he was looking around for something to hack and found more than he was expecting, then there should be some punishment (though probably not three felony charges).....

Layne

Re:Improper disclosure?

[eggled]

From TFA:

School officials have admitted that thousands of students, faculty and employees could have accessed the same file for up to two weeks

So, thousands of people have had access to this file, and the one person who tried to report it (and was tracked down) is being charged with felony counts of computer access and identity theft? And they're not checking to see if anybody else has tried to access this file, to indict them, as well? Definitely seems like a case of shoot the messenger. According to a state trooper interviewed in TFA,

He deceitfully used someone else's name and password so he would not get caught and was looking to profit from his criminal act.

I didn't see anything about him trying to profit, though... He sent an email to the principal (contents unknown), from an anonymous email address, signed 'A Student'. Without more info, I'm inclined to speculate that he didn't really appear to be attempting to profit. (Wouldn't it be better to keep this a secret and profit from the information, if that was really his intent?)

Re:Improper disclosure?

[Spazztastic]

I didn't see anything about him trying to profit, though... He sent an email to the principal (contents unknown), from an anonymous email address, signed 'A Student'. Without more info, I'm inclined to speculate that he didn't really appear to be attempting to profit. (Wouldn't it be better to keep this a secret and profit from the information, if that was really his intent?)

All they're doing is making an example out of him. A company did the same thing a few years back with a white hat (Whos name I can't remember, and I can't find my copy of The Art of Deception/Intrustion to look up his name). He produced the error, sent them a paper on it, then they claimed that in the span of 6 months he used their service illegitimately for his own benefit.

I guarantee whoever designed their security infrastructure had their ego shattered by this and in a fit of nerd rage decided to strike back with everything he could.

Re:Improper disclosure?

[theaveng]

A sniper rifle aimed at the head of the principal and/or prosecutor also works: "Don't try to 'make examples' of good, decent people trying to do the right thing. Else YOU will be made an example of how Liberty-loving people deal with out-of-control Tyrants."

Okay, I joke.

But any politician hearing about this unfair prosecution ought to update the "Good Samaritan Law" so it not only protects people trying to save injured persons, but also protects people trying to help schools/companies by revealing security flaws in their system.

Re:Improper disclosure?

[Sancho]

But any politician hearing about this unfair prosecution ought to update the "Good Samaritan Law" so it not only protects people trying to save injured persons, but also protects people trying to help schools/companies by revealing security flaws in their system.

That's one of the best ideas I've heard all day. Unfortunately, because politicians are about as dumb as a bag of bricks when it comes to computers, all they'll see is what the media shows them i.e. "Bad hacker got caught!"

Re:Improper disclosure?

[diskofish]

That is exactly right. From the sound of the article, the files were in plain sight for anyone who had access to the network (though it is unclear). If they are going to charge the kid, then the network engineer should be hit with the same charges. There is definitely some minimum amount of security required, or else it's just pure negligence. Anyone who's ever administered a server knows they are probed ALL the time.

Re:Improper disclosure?

[Spazztastic]

Anyone who's ever administered a server knows they are probed ALL the time.

Anybody who's ever administrated a school network should know that every kid is a potential "hacker," and you should be always keeping all the security up to date and patched regularly.

Re:Improper disclosure?

[dhasenan]

Even if he was looking for something to hack, he didn't do any damage. Instead, he performed a public service. Punishing a person for something he maybe was wanting to do is just stupid.

On the other hand, if he didn't phrase his message carefully, it could have been taken as a threat. If he said something along the lines of "Please use a more secure password on $SERVER -- I guessed it easily", then it's hard to sympathize with the administration. If he said "I accessed your server and now have the social security numbers for every faculty member", then it's much more ambiguous, and I'd expect the student to be investigated. Just investigated, not arrested.

Re:Improper disclosure?

[sukotto]

Using your post as an example:
Let's see here... you could be charged with
- a criminal death threat
- possession with intent (if you own a rifle)
- conspiracy to commit murder (since you discussed with all of us and presumably none of us called the police)
- making a terrorist threat
- material support for terrorism (if you donate to a charity the DA doesn't like)
- and a whole bunch of "minor" crimes.

So... have fun in prison... we'll see you in 150 years or so.

This started out as a "+1 funny"... but now I just feel "-1 WTH is happening to your country?" :-(

Re:Improper disclosure?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

He's in trouble because he copied the file(s) to his computer. It's not like he just said, "Hey this looks insecure", he actually copied the data and looked at it. That's a huge violation. Yeah I'm not riding the "HE'S BEING PERSECUTED!" train. He copied people's private info to his personal computer. Who knows where it could end up from there? It doesn't matter if the network was insecure, he should have just called the administration and said, "I think this might need looking at..."

Re:Improper disclosure?

[DigitAl56K]

He copied people's private info to his personal computer. Who knows where it could end up from there?

Yes, and who knows where it might end up being accessible to "thousands of students, faculty and employees" if nobody ever reported the problem?

Fair enough, the law is the law. If you use someone else's password you've accessed a system in an unauthorized manner whether you copy a file or not. In fact if there is any doubt that you *were* authorized to use that password then you could argue whoever made the file accessible inherently granted you authorization to access it. But let's have some common sense here: by shooting the messenger they're essentially making fear/obscurity their main security measure, and that's exactly what landed them in this situation in the first place.

Does anyone know if the school is facing charges or a suit for breaking data protection laws btw?

Re:Improper disclosure?

[cromar]

I hate this line of "reasoning." Entering a computer network is not the same as entering a house or other physical place. Since the beginning of the internet, systems have been presumed open. Only after more and more time has gone by, is this idea changing. Hell, most systems at the beginning didn't even have passwords. And they were considered open. Now all of a sudden, because manufacturers are lazy and most users/administrators are ignorant, do we hear people make analogies to physical spaces. Guess what? Networks and computer systems are not physical spaces! They have their own history and organic rule sets that have grown over the last 30+ years.

If anything, a better analogy is to compare systems to stores. Both provide public services and are accessible through public thoroughfares. So, if I leave my store open and unattended, that does not mean you should not come in unless I specifically leave a sign saying "the door is unlocked but don't come in." That's ridiculous. Instead, if you went in, while certainly raising suspicion and probably causing the owner to become irate and the police to investigate you, you haven't done anything wrong or illegal. Same if you have a key to said store and the owner has not asked you to not come in after hours. You haven't done anything illegal. Now, if you're in there looking at unsecured credit card numbers (left out in a file cabinet), you still haven't done anything illegal. You might tell your friend the owner that he might want to be more careful with where he puts others' private information. Still nothing illegal. Only until you take those CC#'s and/or use them fraudulently have you committed a crime.

Re:Improper disclosure?

[theun4gven]

He did nothing of the sort. He in no way entered "a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force." He accessed data on a network he had password access to.

There was no physical space involved. The best this could relate to your analogy is that he knocked on the door and told the guy inside the password, asked for a listing of what was inside, asked for a specific item from the list and was handed the item without ever entering the premises.

This is in no way breaking and entering.

Therefore, your post is irrelevant.

Once again kids:

[yttrstein]

Reporting a security hole is not noble, it's stupid.

Re:Once again kids:

[GrumblyStuff]

How did it ever come to this anyway?

Seriously, what the fuck happened to common sense? Where and when did society decide that a problem is only a problem if it is found?

At this rate, I'll be surprised if people even call the cops or the fire department to report a crime/fire.

Re:Once again kids:

[Swizec]

If I wasn't implicatly involved I'd never go to the trouble of calling the coppers for anything. Let the victim call them, I don't want to be involved in any way, because most of the time it's just more trouble than it's worth.

Think about it, if I report a problem I'll be the main suspect for a while, I'll have to be interogated and I don't think they're ever nice about it, I'll potentionally have to appear at court and it's just overall too much of a mess. I have my own shit to deal with.

Re:Once again kids:

[Anonymous Coward]

A man approaches a stranger and says, "Hey, I noticed your shed is unlocked." The stranger responds, "What were you doing in my backyard?"

It's not that the unlocked shed isn't a problem. It's that there is also the issue of what the person was doing there in the first place and is anything missing.

With a shed, it's not much of a problem. Check to make sure nothing is missing. Charge them with trespassing if you are so inclined.

With a computer, especially a government or business computer, it's more complicated. You can't just take a peek and make sure nothing happened. Insurance issues alone probably require that they press charges to the full extent the law allows. Doing so also keeps the ball squarely in the court of the alleged victim.

If the person had a legitimate reason for being where he was, no charges are going to stick. If he didn't, he might be in some trouble.

In ANY case, the GP is right. Just don't do it.

While we're on the subject, don't talk to cops without a lawyer, either.

Re:Once again kids:

[Sancho]

And this fiber right here is exactly why it doesn't make sense to jump to conclusions. What sparse information we have is conflicting. Where does the profit motive come into play? Where's the profit in alerting the authorities when you find a hole like this? What do they mean by "used someone else's username and password?"

We don't know if the kid's being hung out to dry, or if this is an appropriate response to the actions taken. Yet all throughout the comments, you see people immediately assuming that the kid is being martyred.

I'm not even saying that the kid isn't. I'm just saying that we don't have any clue based upon the presented facts, so taking one side or the other is a bit like American politics--pick a side and pretend you're at a football match.

Re:Once again kids:

[tsm_sf]

Now that's the State Troopers words, and may not be true

I think the general rule of thumb is that you can only trust a cop if you're under the age of 10. Assuming that this trooper a) knows what he's talking about and b) isn't lying to make the arrest look significant is quite a stretch.

Re:Once again kids:

[xouumalperxe]

Reading the Register article, and both linked Daily Gazette articles, only two things are certain: The kid saw the information, and he communicated with the school principal regarding it. We don't know the tone of the communication, we don't know how he acquired the password, we don't know whether he kept a copy of the data, only that he saw it. The district representative saying the kid said "Look what I got" to the principal is hearsay at best, bravado at worst. The articles all read like trying to make the best case possible that the kid is the "villain", yet there is no statement that he did, or intended to do, anything malicious to the effect of blackmail. There is no information that he did anything illegal to acquire the login details themselves. I would think that, if there had been any attempt at foul play, they would've jumped at the opportunity to post them.

Personally, and because of the rather damning tone of the (sparse in details) articles, I'm going with "knee-jerk reaction" myself, as my optimistic approach. The other reasonable alternative is "vilify the kid so people won't notice we cocked up". The kid having actually done anything wrong (as opposed to, eventually, illegal) comes as a distant third.

Well, another victim of "the book"

[GrumblyStuff]

As in, being hit with the law book.

"He deceitfully used someone else's name and password so he would not get caught and was looking to profit from his criminal act."

I RTFA but see no sign of this. At best is this bit from a followup link in TFA:

"He sent an e-mail to his principal saying, 'Look what I have,'" DeFeciani said.

But for fuck's sake, three felonies at 15? For a fucking non-violent, non-destructive "offense"?

Poor kid is screwed for life.

Re:Well, another victim of "the book"

[sortius_nod]

Where do you want someone to start with an answer to that?

Seriously though, this is what happens when you create a police state. This is no different to any other dictatorship where non-violent crimes (anti-government, anti-religion, etc) are punished with prolonged sentences or even death.

Seriously, wake up America, all this horseshit about peace, freedom, and democracy isn't even upheld in your own country. Do you really think the rest of the world are stupid enough to believe you can "bring freedom to the world"?

news flash

[catmistake]

stupid people fear smart people

Re:news flash

[SmokeyTheBalrog]

And smart people fear stupid people even more.

Re:news flash

[characterZer0]

And they vote.

where's the intent?

[Uberbah]

This is like Boston freaking out over Lite-Brites. I hope the kid not only calls their bluff and asks for a jury trial, but finds some way to counter-sue.

The felonous emperor has no clothes.

[Creepy Crawler]

And one who breaks security is like the one who alerts the king about wearing no clothes. You WILL get punished. You WILL be dealt with.

I saw this all the time at schools, jobs and like. People dont like smart people. People who intentionally find broken ideas and mechanisms will be dealt with, not glorified and congratulated. Highlighting a security problem means they have to put in the effort to fix what you brought to their attention, or threaten you to STFU.

If you are smart about security, keep your mouth shut. There's not much you can do, except yourself be a target.

Re:Anonymous

[Farmer Tim]

If you're baiting your honeypot with real data, you're doing it wrong.

But being an eye witness is not an active choice

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Forget that this kid was doing a service to report the flaw, they are more concerned with why the kid was trying to access the site in the first place.

OK, I know Slashdot is collectively in holier-than-thou rage over this poor, "innocent" kid, but why was the kid trying to access the site in the first place?

It seems to me that he's not being punished for reporting something, he'd being dealt with because he probably broke the law.

Of course, the officials responsible for the shoddy security and data protection should also be dealt with under whatever laws apply in that jurisdiction. But that doesn't excuse a kid who actively went on a fishing expedition. The end cannot be allowed to justify the means in cases like this, or you undermine the basic principle of the laws: you give carte blanche to crackers to have a go at whatever they like, since if they get in, they can just report it and pretend they were doing the world a favour.

"copied" the files...

[Gary W. Longsine]

You keep using that phrase, "copied the files to his computer". I don't think it means what you think it means.

In discussions like this, it might merely mean that the kid accessed a protected area by accident, and his web browser "copied the file to his computer". Law Enforcement sometimes misuses the mere presence of data on the suspect's computer as the standard for proof of guilt, which is sometimes only the browser cache or even the cache for a filesharing program, when the user may not even know what the heck was in it.

The file name undoubtedly was not "click here to get 3 felony charges file against you and seriously fuck up the rest of your life" . The kid appears to have been doing the right thing. Now, if he tried to sell any of the data that he saw, sure, charges might be appropriate. Based on what little public information is available, this appears to be a case of shooting the messenger.

Re:"Using someone else's password"

[bcwright]

What, exactly, do they mean by that? Remember, we're talking about governmental entities that have a long history of not understanding much about computer security. For example:

$ ftp ftp.myschool.edu
Connected to ftp.myschool.edu
User (none): guest
331 Enter email address for anonymous login password
Password: myusername@yahoo.com
230 User guest logged in.
FTP>

Law Enforcement: "Clearly he was trying to impersonate Mr. Guest!"
You: !@#@#$

You think that's too silly? It's no worse than any number of other things I've heard about from such people. Or consider this:

You: "Let's see if that cute girl Angela in my English class has put up a home page on the school computer system. Let's see, use Firefox to browse to www.myschool.edu/~angela/ ... That's odd, doesn't look like what she'd have on her home page. What's this file?"

Cops: "Clearly he was trying to break into the Assistant Principal Angela H's computer work area!"

I don't think these examples are unrepresentative of the typical computer security understanding of law enforcement, unfortunately.

Re:Password use

[bcwright]

At least a couple of the articles say that the password he used (whatever that means, see my other comments on the subject) belonged to "another student." Oh, really?! Why did that other student have access to the data?! And why isn't he being charged?!

Clearly what we have been told about this incident is highly misleading. Either
(1) The file was in a location that could be accessed by ANYONE on the school network, or
(2) it had already been hacked by another student, who for some reason is not being charged, or
(3) He hacked into an administrative area, where the file may have been inadequately secured. Comments by the administration and law enforcement to the effect that the password he used belonged to another student are either incorrect or misleading.

Something is clearly rotten about this story, unfortunately it is difficult to tell if he did anything wrong or not, or whether he is a criminal or a scapegoat. Not only do we have to get information filtered through the administration and law enforcement (for whom computer security is usually at best an arcane art that they understand only poorly if at all), but all the primary sources are articles written by local news journalists rather than technical journalists, who are generally not much better at understanding the technical details.

It would appear however that unless he needed to hack into a reasonably well protected account in order to obtain the data, the school is clearly facing a serious HIPAA breach. That alone could be making them overreact, by trying to find some way - any way - to pin the blame on someone else.

The lesson here

[catdevnull]

The lesson here is to get better at sending "anonymous" e-mail to report this stuff.