Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Won't Block Black Hat Eavesdropping Demo
snydeq writes "AT&T says it won't interfere with a highly anticipated talk on intercepting cell phone calls at the Black Hat conference this week. Hacker Chris Paget last week said that he plans to demonstrate on Saturday how to set up what's essentially a fake cell tower that allows him listen in on nearby mobile calls. But Tuesday, he wrote on his blog that he had 'heard that AT&T may be considering suing me to stop my talk.' AT&T, however, has insisted it has no plans to interfere with the talk."
But what about the types of people that actually enforce the wiretapping and interception laws?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Did he hear it over an AT&T line?
Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
So he blogged that he heard that AT&T might sue him to stop the talk, AT&T deny the rumour, it makes headlines.
Good to hear that AT&T is actually doing the "right thing" and hopefully learning from the research instead of attempting to suppress it.
...not to mention that he definitely has a lot of time on his hands.
Just because one person at AT&T said they won't do anything about it, there is absolutely no guarantee that someone else doesn't have different plans.
There are many examples of a corporate spokesman saying one thing, while the company immediately did the opposite.
just imagine:
Well dressed spokesman speaking to TV reporter: "Absolutely not! There is no credibility to the rumor that there is any terrorist activities or police actions taking place at this facility! The rumors are absolutely false! I can only guess that maybe someone who doesn't know any better got a little excited when someone in shipping started playing with some bubblewrap. Everything is just fine, no trouble what so ever."
In the background, a group of fully outfitted swat or paramilitary in black body armor and assault rifles run out of the nearby building and take cover behind a shipping crate, an explosion is heard and gray smoke pours out of the doorway the team just came from...
While I detest AT&T on multiple levels, this shows that AT&T is thinking clearly(at least at the very moment at time). AT&T was probably advised, from a legal standpoint, that they(AT&T) had no legal basis to use to stop this demonstration. It is the same reason why we can learn how to build a multitude of bombs, learn how to make various drugs, and learn a plethora of various knowledge on the internet and out in the "real world". The First Amendment to the United States' Constitution cannot and will not be put on hold to make any group happy. Aside from threats of violence, "free speech" cannot be withheld from the citizenry.
Even though people, today, tend to believe to contrary, the U.S. Constitution is still very much alive(in that is still protects us the same way it has since its inception). While AT&T might have won a temporary injunction to stop this(if they properly sopped for a judge), it would have been quickly squashed on appeal and the information would have been disseminated rather quickly. The fact is that AT&T does not want negative press.
Of course, that could change. I mean, in the interest of being consistent, AT&T might just try to kill this at the last minute.
I'm still not very convinced this is legal, and you want to be sure. While they might well say "It isn't like he caused any harm, just let it slide," they also might now. The law is the law and all that. Plus maybe some company pressures them in to it. Some provider who gets mad says "Hey, you need to charge this guy, he broke wiretapping laws!"
When you are doing something all on your own equipment in a controlled environment, then sure you are good to go. So having a lab with what you need and trying it on your own stuff, that is legal. However intercepting random people in the area of your tower? Don't think that is legal, doesn't matter if you are doing it as a demonstration or not.
Too many problems with the iPhones - personal towers might be a good idea
Headlines like that truly annoy me. The implication is that AT&T is going to allow eavesdropping when in fact they are just not going to stop a talk! I don't like AT&T but that doesn't mean I like to see them or anyone else incorrectly maligned!
Different conference. My understanding is that the EFF is involved, and signs are being posted around the perimeter. Either way, I won't be using a GSM enabled phone. Should be interesting.
...critical systems are now running in a decentralized manner...
Not so. Your entire internet is still in the hands of a small group that can cut your connection at any time with a simple flip of a switch or drop of an anchor.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Somebody at AT&T should be getting a pat on the back. He or she just helped the company dodge a Barbara-Streisand-Effect bullet.
-- arstchnca
--
He should be worried about being arrested rather than being sued. It's illegal for civilians to intercept cell phone signals. Why would AT&T step in? They'll just let him commit a crime and the police will take care of the rest. And since he's gone to the trouble of announcing this to the world, law enforcement already knows what is going to happen, and they'll have personnel ready when the moment arrives.
Anyone else remember how Adobe got the FBI to arrest and charged Sklyarov?
It doesn't matter what some mediadroid says. All it would take is one phone call from the right person at AT&T to the right person in the DOJ.
AT&T could deny any and all prior knowledge when the Feds arrest the presenter for breaking some law or another. Hell, AT&T could even call for his release afterward knowing that history would repeat itself.
Considering how big AT&T is again there really isn't anything anyone can do even if they did move openly. Boycott? HA!, how many of us can afford to give up our cell phones, home phones and Internet connections in protest? AT&T knows they have most of us by the tender bits.
Listening in on cell phone calls was sometimes as trivial as turning on your TV to the right UHF station. If you wanted to get sophisticated, you bought a scanner to listen on the right frequency.
It's interesting someone found a way to make a base station an do a MITM attack, but this is nothing compared to the massive problem with cloning, interception, and everything else than went on in the analogue era of cell phones for many many years.
AccountKiller
No AT&T, you can't stop him. That is the problem, and the point of his talk.
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
I wonder how many will actually cut AT&T some slack or give them credit for NOT interfering?
Claiming that AT&T is threatening to sue him will serve to garner him more attention, which is probably exactly what he wants.
The guy is making as much ado about his presentation as possible. He forced AT&T to deny that they will be suing him, nice propaganda move - probably no one in AT&T gave a f**k what's his presentation until he started spreading rumors about AT&T.
I mean really, if you are so fucking smart you can write programs that do all of these things, why aren't you doing something more productive with your "skillz"?
Probably because it's not about proving anything. It's fun. Yes, breaking or altering things to make them achieve an unintended result is fun. Creating something is not necessarily fun, in part due to the labor (and money) involved, and because it's an all-or-nothing ordeal; whereas when you modify something, the results tend to be immediately observable. It's just another derivative work.
Yeah sure, seems like a whole lot of fun when I can't use windows online anymore...Your assertion seems dichotomously true, and yet false. I derive great pleasure from making things that no one has had the brain-power to think up before. In that context, it seems like such "derivative works" are the product of laziness on the part of the authors to me.
-Oz
Your assertion
I didn't make an assertion. I said that duplicating or creating an 'original' product is not ALWAYS fun. In many cases, it IS fun. The "brain-power" that you imagine your creations to require is almost certainly not one of wits; thinking of something is easy - creating it isn't.
I bet he got it.
but seriously operation takedown aka hackers 2, this was kind of a major plot point.
I've created many products that in the beginning stages were in fact "derivative works". However, I don't see how your line of reasoning relates to assholes writing crap-ware that fux up your windows machine to the point of rendering it inoperable. How is that supposed to be "fun" for anyone? I can imagine a modicum of smug at having ruined someone's ability to get online, but again, if you are smart enough to do that, you can do much more productive things with your time (whether or not you write "ALL" of the code involved...you know, like making Open Office work seamlessly with Microsoft Office...Or making Battlefield 2 work flawlessly on Ubuntu!)
-Oz
I think it is strange that we are now more worried about being sued then about the technical knowledge and the fact that if he can do it, everybody else can do it.
And this is a place where everbody says IANAL. This is a place about IT. And yet most people are more concerned about the law then about the technical side of it all.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Senator Stampingston: Gentlemen, it's clear that we're in a universally precarious situation. Dethklok has summoned a troll.
General Krosier: That's impossible, there's no such thing as trolls.
Senator Stampingston: Then how do you explain the dead unicorns?
Um... Okay, moving on to the next call...
Don't they teach students about man-in-the-middle attacks anymore, these days?
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I don't know if you know many hackers in the exploit business (either professional/security or video games) but most of them do not actually use what they create. A proof-of-concept might be created by the former because it was cool at the time. In video games, the hacker usually spends a few days/weeks debugging the hell out of the game, and then tests his exploit for a day, distributes it, and moves on to another project. DRM crackers tend to follow the same ruleset: they identify a new DRM scheme a game uses, download/install that game, develop the exploit, and never play that game again.
Remote machine control (i.e. trojan backdoors) as you mentioned earlier is an interesting field that is both useful and malevolent. A lot of the development in this area is by people who think it's cool to figure out new ways to automate system interaction - not to control thousands of compromised zombie computers. To change subjects, viruses that destroy a computer's foundations don't usually start out with the intent of nuking machines everywhere. No, someone somewhere just thought it would be cool to theorize just how badly things could go under the worst of conditions.
The one common thread here is that all of these people had an interest in one area (video games, security, DRM, remote admin, system operation/stability, cellular tech/radio) and they sought to apply their skills in a way they found fun. Usually this excitement comes from learning more about the target, or the increase in aptitude of their trade (programming/RE/security), or because the process of hacking is a rush to them.
Most of the 'hackers' I mentioned do not themselves use what they make to cause harm. Not because they are always ethical, and not because they are always afraid of repercussions, but because most of the time, employing their tool is even less fun than devising it is. There are exceptions, but they are uncommon. The people you are angry at, the real people who cause harm, are usually not the exploit authors. They cobble available information together in a way we would laugh at - these people are not, as a rule, capable of creating anything new or worthwhile.
From what I've heard of jury duty and from people I know who have had jury duty, they strongly emphasis only whether or not the law was broken and will screen for anyone thinking. Guess if they can't get a plea bargin, they go for the next easiest thing.
If you're in the US, you should know your rights as a jury member:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
How does an AT&T customer know he is connecting to a fake tower?
He gets a signal.
AT&T Won't Block Black Hat Eavesdropping Demo at Black Hat conference.
But I'm sure they'll be blocking the wireless hacking demos at DEFCON.
See ya'll there, gotta love these 2 conferences.