Video Poker Firmware Bug Yields Big Money, Federal Charges
JoeyRox writes "Over the course of playing $12 million worth of video poker, Las Vegas resident John Kane stumbled onto a firmware bug in IGT's 'Game King' machines that allowed him to cash out for 10x the amount of his winnings. John and his friends took advantage of the vulnerability to the tune of $429,945. John's friend was arrested by U.S. marshals and charged with violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but a federal magistrate ruled that the law doesn't apply and recommended dismissal. The case is currently being argued in a U.S. District Court."
If you knowingly trick a computer into giving you money that's not yours, it's not any different than tricking a person into the same. Open door fallacies are the worst.
Whether or not it was legal, I don't see this as immoral.
John Kane stumbled onto a firmware bug
John's friend was arrested
And the original perp gets away scott-free.
This looks to me like a civil matter. That is, if there had never been the DMCA. There is a recent trend by big corporations to abuse the criminal court systems to resolve their disputes with the heavy hand of govnernment. I don't think it will stop until we stand up and demand government that is FOR the people.
We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
I don't see this as being a criminal act, but given the way that it was carried out, I think the casino has every right to demand 9/10 of his winnings back.
You win a game at the $1 level, exploit a bug to change your cash level to $10 before accepting the payout, and then accept your payout. Well, you didn't actually make the bet at the $10 level, so you shouldn't expect your winnings to be multiplied by 10, but that's what's happening here. I'd argue that he's still entitled to the original 1x amount and let the casino ban him if they want to.
Long signatures suck.
The point of the machines (from the player perspective) is to stick in money, push buttons, and make it dispense more money (vouchers) than you put in.
The house edge comes from the fact that pushing the buttons correctly in all situations is difficult.
This guy did it right. If the house wants to fix the "bug" that allowed him to take out more money than they thought he should, that's their right.
Prosecution on this one... very grey area.
But I'll forward the how-to on to my video poker friends, just in case they find a machine with those firmware revisions, so that they'll be sure not to expose themselves to prosecution in this manner.
Then he’d immediately switch to a different game variation, like straight “Draw Poker.” He’d play Draw Poker until he scored a win of any amount at all. The point of this play was to get the machine to offer a “double-up”, which lets the player put his winnings up to simple high-card-wins draw. Through whatever twist of code caused the bug, the appearance of the double-up invitation was critical. Machines that didn’t have the option enabled were immune.
At that point Kane would put more cash, or a voucher, into the machine, then exit the Draw Poker game and switch the denomination to the game maximum — $10 in the Silverton game.
Now when Kane returned to Triple Double Bonus Poker, he’d find his previous $820 win was still showing. He could press the cash-out button from this screen, and the machine would re-award the jackpot. Better yet, it would re-calculate the win at the new denomination level, giving him a hand-payout of $8,200.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Up Up
Down Down
Left Right
Left Right
B A
Profit!
But in this one, it doesn't. Spending an extra $50 that appears in your checking account is not fraud, spending an extra $500k that appears there is. Logically, there is no difference, but intent matters. Unless you are a billionaire, when you see $500k that you didn't deposit, you know it' s an error, and you have an obligation to "not spend money that isn't yours." Regardless of whether the bank lets you.
This game is much the same. The first time the game overpaid him, and he was drinking, and just took his receipt, cashed out, went home, slept it off, and noticed he had more Benjamins than he expected.... this wasn't a crime.
When he went back trick the same machine, the same way, again, it was.
The issue is intent. The person in this case clearly knew that they had found a flaw in the machine, and knowingly abused it to get money that he knew he wasn't owed.
This is no different than someone discovering a vulnerability on a web site and exploiting it to take passwords and other personal information that does not belong to them. They know they have found a flaw and they knowingly use it to take something that they know they are not entitled to.
I work as a slot mechanic at a casino that has about 700 of these Game King video poker consoles installed.
This particular option can be set by anyone who can open the machine, including our change ladies. There is no log and no way to tell except to go to each machine and check them individually.
I am going to have a very bad day when I get back to work tomorrow.
As long as he didn't do anything but push the standard control buttons, I think he's entitled to whatever he can get.
If the casino thinks they're paying out too much, they can sue the maker of the video poker machine.
If it had been a human dealer that repeatedly made mistakes, would it have been fraud?
The odds are generally "rigged" in the house's favor. Casinos that that anything that threatens their "entitlement" to be cheating.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
"Casino error in your favor. Go directly to jail"
Cash out machines have only been around so long. It must have been a bug between the cashout (paperless) system and the actual interface with the board software. I bet the 'firmware bug' was there from the newly needed firmware for these to work with the next generation of paperless machines. If you play close attention the bug happens when the paperless cashout is fed back into the machine.
Paperless play machine = 1 more level of complexity = 1 more bug introduced - simple as that
even if you win in court can still make the Griffin book / life time baning.
It's not unusual for a software bug to require multiple steps to manifest, and many times those steps are arrived at through chance.
I think the older IGT games are in mame need to test this there.
Gambling machines are probably better tested for bugs and flaws that most military computer equipment. I'm not kidding, the amount of testing vendors *and* the US government puts gambling machines through before they get set loose on the general public is humongous. If both the vendor and the US government didn't classify this bug in their rigorous testing, it's not a bug. Either that, or *all* gambling machines are tested inadequately and should be pulled from casinos immediately. I wonder what costs more, pulling all gambling machines and retesting them with a new to devise method, or just letting this guy keep the money and pulling only video poker.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
By admitting they let people play a machine that contained buggy software, the casino admits they committed a federal offense. The guy that's being charged now was just playing the machine by the rules the machine gave him. Nothing more, nothing less. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They might want to make you believe a small part of their explanation of the truth, but they are leaving large bits of it out that is incriminating them, not the guy that has pulled the money out.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
There is a major difference in the two situations...
The UK scenario is people accessing a machine designed to give them their own money from their own bank accounts. Doubling the money as you remove it in no way resembles any intended purpose for the machine.
The video poker machine is a situation where the machine is intended to supply an opportunity for the users to extract as much money from the machine as possible. While they are doing this they are supposed to try to accomplish this by spending the least quantity of cash possible. The coding of the machine is supposed to try to counter the user's intent to acquire as much money as possible.
I find it hard for them to cry foul when someone is overly successful at accomplishing the intended purpose unless the user was directly altering or interfering with the operation of the machine. That doesn't appear to be the case here. The machine was simply following its program as supplied by the manufacturer.
Uh, what?
Maybe the guy who programmed the firmware did it intentionally. Just a thought. But it's a valid one. How the hell would this guy know?
Seriously. Maybe the programmer put in a "back door" so he could get a few dollars in winnings when he went to Vegas. How do we know otherwise? In which case this player was not committing fraud at all... the machine would have been doing exactly as it was intended to do by the programmer.
And there is probably no way to prove it either way. So let the guy go.
Is "Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start" hacking? Thats essentially what he did, just fewer button presses.
It may be a cheat code, and an unintended exploit, but to call it hacking is a stretch. Don't some games reward you more for winning multiple times in a row? Isn't that in fact commonplace? How is he supposed to read the minds of the programmers and know that this was unintended behavior rather than his reward for winning multiple times?
a Programmer once rigged a game and he got killed just be for he was to go to court to tell his story.
If you knowingly trick a computer into giving you money that's not yours
How is this really any different than computer glitches that offer items on sale on websites for pennies on the dollar? In those cases people scream that the merchant must honor the purchase, even though it means the merchant is out a ton of money by doing so.
Just because there is a bug in a program does not make benefitting from it fraud, especially not from a state machine designed to spit out money. He just figured out a more beneficial path.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
useing standard control buttons to get into amt setting menu and useing default password to set a ATM to make it think that it has less cash in it then it really does = jail
"was it a criminal violation of federal anti-hacking law for Kane and a friend to knowingly take advantage of the glitch to the tune of at least half-a-million dollars?"
...
Wasn't there a case some time back where some stock traders noticed a pattern in an HFT automated trading program, and acted to make some trades to game the system. They were fined even though they did nothing more that make stock trades
AccountKiller
Casinos should embrace it. Follow me here. There are only a handful of reasons to waste money on video poker: 1. You rarely visit casinos and you haven't figured out it's not that much fun yet 2. You love gambling 3. You love gambling too much 4. You've figured out how to lose slowly enough that the free drinks balance it out 5. Your friends are wasting even more money losing at other casino games and you have to kill time 6. You hope that the machine will magically grant you a money wish The key is number 6. It's hard to feel any sympathy for the casinos that rake in billions upon billions due to false hope, boredom, and addiction. Nevertheless I offer to them this suggestion: embrace it. Let us, the foolish masses, believe that maybe some day (if we're lucky) we could actually figure out a way to beat the machine. The questionable winnings of this crew are a bargain for this kind of marketing. Let the false hope roll.
I think (based on what I read) MAME wont support gambling games that are still being produced or that are new enough to still be in casinos.
This case should have been simple.
Charge him with cheating. This is Nevada, which makes it a felony.
There was no need to even bring the feds into this at all.
"standard control buttons" implies "those available to the player/public". I doubt you can completely control the innards of an ATM through the keypad on the outside. If so, it'd be a major insecurity.
Here is a possibility. What if he really was winning say $100, but the computer said he only won $10. Or, he never even paid any attention to what he was supposed to have won, only the $100 when it popped out of the machine or into his account.
===Off topic. In the early 1980's I bought a Bobbi Fischer Chess computer. At the time it was one of the more advanced ones, costing $150-ish range. It had a flaw. Sometimes the computer would play and illegal move. It would Castle out of check. It wouldn't let you do that move, but it would do it.
And guess what? A few years ago I bought the dominant computer chess program from Ubisoft. It does the same error! Did Ubisoft just buy the code from the Bobby Fischer game, and add on some flashy videos and design of the chess set?
A federal prison term is the least of your worries in such case. The people who own gaming parlors are the kind of people who embed their opponents in concrete, after having their ears, tongue and genitals cut off, plus stuffing a severed horse-head up their anus.
Not completely, but do a search for "Tranax manual download". A fair number of people have managed to do enough.
Re: He stumbled upon it by playing $12 million worth of video poker.
.
Good point. Certainly the amount of time he's invested in playing $12M worth of video poker means that he's seen a lot of interesting combinations and tried out multiple variations and permutations of which games to play in which sequence. He's accidentally stumbled upon a way of playing that causes the machine to behave in his favor. Exploiting that, however, is not quite moral, though. And the casino, having allowed erroneous software to pass onto the casino floor in hardware, is also at fault. How did the Gaming Commission allow this to happen? I thought they vetted all of the hardware and software in Vegas?
I don't see how this can be considered cheating. Receiving more money than you put in is within normal operation for a gambling machine, the software running on the machine is an expression of the rules of the game, and he played strictly according to the letter of the rules as expressed in that software. It's not his fault that the rules weren't exactly what the casino thought they were.
This is very much like the guy who figured out the algorithm for the Press Your Luck TV game show machine. He just kept winning, while the PYL people realized something was going wrong for them. But they graciously handed over the winnings and redesigned the machine. PYL greatly benefitted just from the publicity about the show in general, not to mention royalties from replaying that episode of the game repeatedly for years to come. The casinos should pay up, then extract whatever they can get out of the manufacturer. I'm not surprised that they're pursuing the players, since their policy is to attack anyone doing anything defined as cheating by them. But 1) that doesn't mean the prosecutors have to do what the casinos want, and 2) that's a short-sighted policy. It would be smarter for the casinos to repair/replace the machines and keep quiet. Word would get around, and most likely there'd be an increase in revenue as people try to find bugs. Monitor the machines and quickly fix any bugs found. The end result will be more revenue, not less.
And yes, Cotton Thaggard was wrongly convicted (civil charge). The bank that pressed the issue likely netted less profit in the following years due to bad publicity.
Sounds to me like the Computer in question had a "tell". Seems fine to me to take advantage of that. More realistic that way!
Otherwise it is like whining, hey no fair, you can figure out when I am bluffing or not, give me all the money I lost back. To which the response should be, well either don't play or become ( or design) a better poker player...
"You're using it wrong." is NOT something producers/developers/manufacturers/engineers can just throw at design failure.
"He used the seat belt wrong." doesn't whoosh away blame on the user, it means hella scrutiny and examination.
The more relevant comparison is the following: say the poker machine is programmed to make you lose 20 cents for every dollar you play, so that you get 80 cents back in winnings, on average. However, suppose you find a bug that enables you to only lose 10 cents out of every dollar and get 90 cents back, on average. This means that you get to play roughly twice as many games before you lose everything.
When the casino finds out about it, are they entitled to demand an extra 10 cents for every games you played? Furthermore, can they send you to jail?
video poker