Slashdot Mirror


Contractors Lose Jobs After Hacking CIA's In-House Vending Machines (techrepublic.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechRepublic: Today's vending machines are likely to be bolted to the floor or each other and are much more sophisticated -- possibly containing machine intelligence, and belonging to the Internet of Things (IoT). Hacking this kind of vending machine obviously requires a more refined approach. The type security professionals working for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) might conjure up, according to journalists Jason Leopold and David Mack, who first broke the story A Bunch Of CIA Contractors Got Fired For Stealing Snacks From Vending Machines. In their BuzzFeed post, the two writers state, "Several CIA contractors were kicked out of the Agency for stealing more than $3,000 in snacks from vending machines according to official documents... ." This October 2013 declassified Office of Inspector General (OIG) report is one of the documents referred to by Leopold and Mack. The reporters write that getting the records required initiating a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit two years ago, adding that the redacted files were only recently released. The OIG report states Agency employees use an electronic payment system, developed by FreedomPay, to purchase food, beverages, and goods from the vending machines. The payment system relies on the Agency Internet Network to communicate between vending machines and the FreedomPay controlling server. The OIG report adds the party hacking the electronic payment system discovered that severing communications to the FreedomPay server by disconnecting the vending machine's network cable allows purchases to be made using unfunded FreedomPay cards.

105 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Who wrote this? by redback · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. They weren't fired for hacking, they were fired for STEALING.

    2. Unplugging the network cable doesn't count as hacking.

    1. Re: Who wrote this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It couldn't have been that easy - these machines have MACHINE INTELLIGENCE.

      AND they're bolted to the floor!

    2. Re:Who wrote this? by oobayly · · Score: 4, Informative

      2. Unplugging the network cable doesn't count as hacking.

      It would in the UK. A man was prosecuted here for adding a couple of "../" to a URI, which then provided him access to the root file system. I'm trying to find a reference to it.

    3. Re:Who wrote this? by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      While you are correct on both counts, what this story illustrates is the irony of large organizations (in commercial industry and government alike) that say "we want innovators/bold thinkers/unconventional thinkers/people who think outside the box" (or similar feel-good sounding things) when what they really mean is "we want innovators/bold thinkers/unconventional thinkers/people who think outside the box but who also remain within the strict policies/structures/conventions of the organization."

      Is it any wonder that people who perceive themselves as truly talented tend to want to go work for startups or perhaps create their own startup? The type of people places like the CIA and big companies claim to be seeking are precisely the type of people who look at places like that and say "no way am I going subject myself to all that bureaucracy." Stories like those sort of prove the point.

    4. Re:Who wrote this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stealing from your startup employer would also get you fired.

    5. Re:Who wrote this? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

      2. Unplugging the network cable doesn't count as hacking.

      Sure it does! Look, I'm going to hack my computer right n{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re: Who wrote this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure they have machine intelligence, to figure out the best way to rotate the spool in there to drop the products out. No way that could be done with a simple stepper motor, uh uh, no way. Has to have machine intelligence.

      By these standards I guess back in high school we were hacking the vending machines in our cafeteria because we figured out if you put the money in to buy a soda and hit the buttons really fast you could get multiple cans (sometimes up to 10) to drop.

    7. Re: Who wrote this? by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      why would anyone settle for snacks when the cc info is there...

    8. Re: Who wrote this? by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If somebody is willing to steal a $1 candy bar, do you really want to trust them with information if unauthorized disclosure of that information can cause exceptionally grave damage to the nation's security?

    9. Re:Who wrote this? by pahles · · Score: 2

      It would in the UK. A man was prosecuted here for adding a couple of "../" to a URI, which then provided him access to the root file system. I'm trying to find a reference to it.

      What does that have to do with unplugging a cable?

      --
      Sig?
    10. Re:Who wrote this? by rhazz · · Score: 1

      what they really mean is "we want innovators/bold thinkers/unconventional thinkers/people who think outside the box but who also remain within the strict policies/structures/conventions of the organization."

      Having morals and thinking outside the box aren't mutually exclusive. The CIA might be an exception, but most businesses subcontract the handling of vending machines to other companies. If the same is true for the CIA, then these idiots were stealing from another company. The CIA's rep is bad enough without that.

    11. Re: Who wrote this? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 2

      You hacker you!

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    12. Re: Who wrote this? by gnick · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't have secrets that dangerous.

      Are you suggesting that those secrets be made public or that we eliminate everything dangerous?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    13. Re:Who wrote this? by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The CIA or any organization like it wants unicorns. They want the tiny subset of the Venn diagram where people are bold thinkers AND organizationally compliant rule followers.

      Like high-end spec-ops, not only do they want really tough super-athletes, they want high intelligence, independent thinkers AND chain of command rule followers.

      It's a small subset of people that match all those qualities.

    14. Re:Who wrote this? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      The same people who are dumb and cheap enough to steal snacks are the same ones most likely to sell out your state secrets for money.

      Anyone who's willing to risk their career and a criminal record for a $1 bag of junk food is not someone who you want working with sensitive information.

    15. Re: Who wrote this? by c · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If somebody is willing to steal a $1 candy bar, do you really want to trust them with information...

      Yeah. My immediate thought is that it might even be intentional; having known and and easy-to-exploit vulnerability in a non-essential system would be a really great way to weed out these kinds of idiots. I don't think it's unreasonable for intelligence agencies to test their employees in one form or another.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    16. Re:Who wrote this? by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

      Are you really that dense or are you trolling? They were stealing. That shows a lack of character. I'd fire them as well, even if I were running a startup.

    17. Re:Who wrote this? by houghi · · Score: 1

      I add /. to my daily browsing. I am the L33T hax0r known as 4Chan. (How do you do the reverse L and 7 again?)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    18. Re: Who wrote this? by knightghost · · Score: 1

      Except that a candy bar has nothing to do with secret information. A candy bar is an minuscule cost and a low cost challenge to keep a flexible mind.

    19. Re: Who wrote this? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      It couldn't have been that easy - these machines have MACHINE INTELLIGENCE.

      A machine is only as smart as the human programming it, and is only as secure as the budget that funds it. Reference "IoT Security" for more detail.

      AND they're bolted to the floor!

      And hacking used to require this kind of effort. Now it seems all you have to lift is a network cable.

    20. Re: Who wrote this? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      If the CIA can't discourage petty theft ...

      They DID act to discourage that petty theft. By firing the people who did it. You know, making them lose their jobs and of course as a result their security clearances. Not that you think that has any impact because you have no idea how the actual world works.

      We shouldn't have secrets that dangerous.

      Like I said, you have no idea how the actual world works. There are, for example, entire groups of people - organized at various scales from families up through governments that own nukes - that want you to be dead. You, personally, dead. It's helpful to try to find out how those groups think, what they are capable of, when and how they will conduct certain actions. How we figure those things out can involve a certain amount of secrecy. I know, you'd like the person living in or near those groups to have to have their identity out in the open even as they provide the rest of the world information about how their boss uses poison gas to attack villages. You consider transparency so important that you think that person should die as a result of providing that helpful information. Because you're a sociopathic virtue-signalling troll.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    21. Re: Who wrote this? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not about the candy bar. It's about how the willingness to steal something that cheap tells you what you need to know about the value system and ethics of the person who does it. How is this not clear to you?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    22. Re:Who wrote this? by WhiplashII · · Score: 2

      Nope, its even worse:

      They also want to pay below market rates.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    23. Re:Who wrote this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Par for the course for clickbait mills.

      The summary even states it's from Buzzfeed.

    24. Re: Who wrote this? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The type security professionals working for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) might conjure up, according to journalists Jason Leopold and David Mack, who first broke the story A Bunch Of CIA Contractors Got Fired For Stealing Snacks From Vending Machines.

      It was written by someone who doesn't know a complete sentence from their asshole.

    25. Re: Who wrote this? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      No surprise considering this is the same shithole where it's illegal to injure an assailant...

    26. Re: Who wrote this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no CC card... It's a pre-paid card system - reloaded with cash ... thus using a card when it has $0, and the device is off-net, the device trusts the user (as we're in a trusted location) and will debit the acct when it comes back online. This can't even be seen as a weakness as its in a secure location, but to actually exploit the organizations trust is something different. (by stealing)

    27. Re: Who wrote this? by infolation · · Score: 2

      They're bolted to the floor BECAUSE they have machine intelligence.

      Imagine the havok a sentient CIA snax machine could cause!!!

    28. Re:Who wrote this? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The amount that they stole was pretty small. A rational manager (still on the endangered species list), after firing these people, would look at the cost of operating the vending machines, look at the lost productivity when workers have low blood sugar, look at the time wasted interacting with annoying vending machine interfaces, and replace them with a table stocked with snacks and a sign saying 'please help yourself'.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    29. Re: Who wrote this? by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "If somebody is willing to steal a $1 candy bar, do you really want to trust them with information if unauthorized disclosure of that information can cause exceptionally grave damage to the nation's security?"

      Depends. If it were limited to "let's try this," and they got a $1 candy bar and it ended there, so what? At that point they should point it out to the vending company. And I would't have any problem with them "stealing" that $1 candy bar.

      But it didn't end there. Not only didn't they report the vulnerability, they continued to abuse it to the tune of $3000. Them, I wouldn't trust.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    30. Re:Who wrote this? by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      Posted by BeauHD - what do you expect? If it isn't an anti-conservative hit piece that has nothing to do with technology, she doesn't know what to do with it.

    31. Re: Who wrote this? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Except what they do is essential. You know it, and you're just trying to wish it away because you see the world as being some sort of comic book.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    32. Re:Who wrote this? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      The machine shouldn't accept electronic payment if the network cable is unplugged.

      So if a cable fails, no one should be able to buy food?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    33. Re:Who wrote this? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with unplugging a cable?

      It is an example of something absurd that has nothing to do with hacking, in reference to the GP's post.

    34. Re: Who wrote this? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If somebody is willing to steal a $1 candy bar, do you really want to trust them with information if unauthorized disclosure of that information can cause exceptionally grave damage to the nation's security?

      That depends on the motivation. If someone is so desperate that $1 makes a difference to it that they breach their own moral sense by stealing it, then no I don't. These people would be easily corruptible by any kind of money.

      If they are stealing $1 because they don't give a shit about others, also pirate the occasional movie due to a lack of soft moral conviction but wouldn't steal something bigger, then yes. Yes I would. Trust and morals are not absolute. They aren't unilaterally given to everyone.

      And in the spy industry that last part is critically important. After all we know one famous person who considered it his moral obligation to share secret information, and he's now in hiding in Russia. Not the type of person you want in the spy industry.

    35. Re:Who wrote this? by guises · · Score: 1

      This is the world we now live in. Activation is ubiquitous in software, why not food?

    36. Re: Who wrote this? by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      Further, basic economics applies - when cost goes to zero, demand approaches infinity.

    37. Re: Who wrote this? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Eliminate all secrets. Transparency and sunlight for all. If our society can't function without deep dark secrets something is wrong.

      Please show me where you can find such a society you are talking about? It is an ideal but will never happen in real life because humans are humans.

    38. Re:Who wrote this? by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      Lawyers like to law, teach them to law better, and they are going to law all over the place.

      Wrestlers like to wrestle, teach them to wrestle better, and will wrestle all over the place.

      Brewers brew......

      Soldiers soldier....

      Politicians politic.... ....and hackers hack.

      And for the record, if unplugging the network cable after a secure handshake allows you to force a target to do something specifically opposite to what it was designed to do, such as dispense free candy, then it very much is a hardware exploit. Even if you left you Guy Fawkes mask at home.

      This should have been a team building exorcise, and it would have been, had the suspects not been contractors, or it was up (down?) a few floors.

      Hell, I bet they only really noticed when the machine stopped sending pictures and audio to c&c on the 13th floor.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    39. Re: Who wrote this? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Except what they do is essential.

      Just gotta find the right people to do it. Fact is, Trump is stealing paperclips right now, as we speak.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    40. Re: Who wrote this? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't steal anything not valuable enough to be worth skipping the country over. $1 million, no. But give me a chance at $100million and you'd never see me again.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    41. Re: Who wrote this? by davester666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, it sneaks up on you and goes "Here, have a Snickers bar." Pretty soon, everyone is too fat to move.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    42. Re: Who wrote this? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It couldn't have been that easy - these machines have MACHINE INTELLIGENCE.

      AND they're bolted to the floor!

      Right, that is why these guys got caught. When the network cable was reconnected and the transactions couldn't be processed, the machine intelligently wrote down the information and notified the appropriate authority.

      Same as any human retail clerk, these machines aren't instructed to try to prevent all cases of fraud, instead they're trained to follow strict procedures and write down any exceptions or oddities for auditing at another layer.

      In the old days when the machines were stupid, you could just rock it back and forth until some cookies bounced over the wire, and the machine wouldn't even know anything had happened. It certainly wouldn't write it down in case somebody wanted to do an audit.

    43. Re:Who wrote this? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      He thinks "hacking" means "getting charged with computer crimes," so he missed the point.

    44. Re:Who wrote this? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      They were stealing. That shows a lack of character. I'd fire them as well, even if I were running a startup.

      If you were running a startup, you'd be giving them free candy bars.

      So I hear. I've never worked for a startup that had venture capital...

    45. Re:Who wrote this? by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      While you are correct on both counts, what this story illustrates is the irony of large organizations (in commercial industry and government alike) that say "we want innovators/bold thinkers/unconventional thinkers/people who think outside the box" (or similar feel-good sounding things) when what they really mean is "we want innovators/bold thinkers/unconventional thinkers/people who think outside the box but who also remain within the strict policies/structures/conventions of the organization."

      Is it any wonder that people who perceive themselves as truly talented tend to want to go work for startups or perhaps create their own startup? The type of people places like the CIA and big companies claim to be seeking are precisely the type of people who look at places like that and say "no way am I going subject myself to all that bureaucracy." Stories like those sort of prove the point.

      One or two free candy bars, to see how the thing works would be "innovators/bold thinkers". Taking $3,000 of snacks is stealing. I can hack the cafeteria at work. If I go in late afternoon when there's only one worker, I can wait for them to go on a smoke break when the place is deserted, and load up my backpack with all sorts of free snacks. But I don't. Because it's stealing.

    46. Re: Who wrote this? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I have no idea about the CIA, but most federal offices do not get an appropriation for "staff snacks", so it would be unconstitutional (under the Appropriations Clause) and illegal (under various statutes) and against policy (depending on branch of government) for them to buy snacks for employees or contractors.

      The same is true of coffee, creamer, sugar, etc. -- the government facilities I have seen have "coffee messes" where any consumables are bought by the employees, with a jar or something similar for others to chip in their dollar per week or whatever it is.

      It's not quite as bad as in Snow Crash, though: US government employees don't -- as far as I know -- have to provide their own toilet paper.

      It would also be impractical for the contractor to supply snacks for their employees in a customer facility: They probably couldn't bill for the time their administrative staff spend restocking, they'd have a hell of a time keeping other people from grabbing goodies, and letting anyone except their own employees take goodies would violate federal acquisition regulations (meant to prohibit bribery, kickbacks, and other forms of graft).

    47. Re:Who wrote this? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Thanks - I knew I read about it on The Register, but I couldn't figure out the keyword to find it the archive.

    48. Re: Who wrote this? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In some cases of inadvertant mishandling of classified information, the security clearance has been revoked temporarily or indefinitely. In others, the security clearance remains intact. Clinton got about the same treatment anyone else would have in her situation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    49. Re:Who wrote this? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They were stealing.

      In other words, they should be considered for jobs as field agents.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    50. Re: Who wrote this? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      "A" fucking candy bar? Was it a $3000 candy bar? You are fucking stupid.

    51. Re: Who wrote this? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      That's not a startup, asshole.

  2. ...Or a hacksaw [Re:Who wrote this?] by XXongo · · Score: 5, Funny

    2. Unplugging the network cable doesn't count as hacking.

    Possibly they disconnected it with a hachet, making it literally hacking.

    1. Re:...Or a hacksaw [Re:Who wrote this?] by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      The proper term for that is haxing a computer.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re: ...Or a hacksaw [Re:Who wrote this?] by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Or possibly a HACKsaw.

    3. Re:...Or a hacksaw [Re:Who wrote this?] by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Only if the axe were wielded by a script kiddie.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  3. Liars, Cheats and Criminals at the CIA? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Funny

    How did they not get a promotion?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Liars, Cheats and Criminals at the CIA? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      They were supposed to hack the vending machines inside the Russian embassy.

    2. Re:Liars, Cheats and Criminals at the CIA? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      How did they not get a promotion?

      Believe it or not... It seams the CIA apparently has issues with stealing from vending machines... So there are some morals and ethics left.... Leaking classified data is A OK, putting classified information on a private E-mail server is A OK, spying on US citizens with abandon is fine, but don't you dare steal from the vending machine in the break room down the hall.. Who knew?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Liars, Cheats and Criminals at the CIA? by yorgasor · · Score: 1

      Because they were caught. The CIA only wants employees smart enough to not get caught doing these things. Honestly, if you're dumb enough to get caught stealing from a !@#$ vending machine, how can they trust you to steal from the Russians?

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
  4. Is this what goes for 'hacking' nowadays? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    Disconnecting the network cable. Really?

  5. Re:Boston subway by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    And, you know from previous reports, that the real reason gag orders and such are necessary is because the hacked (MTA in this case) are UNABLE to fix the problem in a timely manner.

    Sad, but too many organizations employ technology solutions they are unable to maintain.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  6. Re:Thieves and computer experts - lose a hand by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Amputation for stealing food.

    That's moral. Compassionate. A measured response.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  7. Fed Contractors vs Fed Employees by acoustix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If these were federal employees they wouldn't have been fired. They would have been reassigned. Or asked to take early retirement. Of course this would have happened after being suspended with pay.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Fed Contractors vs Fed Employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If these were federal employees they wouldn't have been fired. They would have been reassigned. Or asked to take early retirement. Of course this would have happened after being suspended with pay.

      Not saying I *necessarily* agree or disagree with the practice, but isn't that the whole reason to use contractors in the first place? No long-term retirement liabilities and all that.

    2. Re:Fed Contractors vs Fed Employees by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      If these were federal employees they wouldn't have been fired. They would have been reassigned. Or asked to take early retirement. Of course this would have happened after being suspended with pay.

      ...for three years...

    3. Re:Fed Contractors vs Fed Employees by rhazz · · Score: 1

      That's the difference between being a unionized employee versus temporary labour.

  8. Cause... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...it's easier to eat the evidence?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  9. Doesn't require special knowledge. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    I suppose someone found out about this little trick by accident and then they kept using it.

    A hacker, on the other hand, uses skill and knowledge, usually in creative and unusual ways, to achieve his goal.

  10. FreedomPay by tangent3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Contractors did not realize the "free" in FreedomPay means free speech not free beer.

    1. Re:FreedomPay by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Contractors did not realize the "free" in FreedomPay means free speech not free beer.

      They do a much better job explaining that to contractors at the NSA.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  11. Risking your job for fifty cents by biggaijin · · Score: 2

    Throughout my working life I have amazed that people with good jobs would be willing to jeopardize them for nickels and dimes -- stealing stationery, fudging expense vouchers, and now, apparently, cheating a company vending machine. Don't these people realize that they are putting their livelihoods at risk by stealing from their employer?

    1. Re:Risking your job for fifty cents by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Depends on where the company have their focus. I did a PC refresh project eBay and had to take a drug test before I got hired in 2011. Management was afraid that the contractors would steal their new Dell workstations. The funny thing was that management had no concern about employees stealing the old workstations. Unlike other PC refresh projects, we weren't required to pull the hard drives out. Security went ballistic when they found some of these old workstations with asset tags and hard drives on the eBay website for sale. A couple of engineers got fired and security got us a 40' storage container in the parking lot to lock up the old workstations.

    2. Re:Risking your job for fifty cents by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      So why did they get fired exactly?

      Stealing company property. They might have gotten away with it if they had scrubbed the hard drives, remove the asset tags and didn't post pictures with the Dell service tags. A recycler was supposed to pull the hard drive, create a disk image for the legal department, destroy the hard drive and provide a certificate of destruction.

    3. Re:Risking your job for fifty cents by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Decades ago, a friend 'somehow came into possession' of two of the new (Large Car company) monster aluminimum V8s/transmissions, out of prototypes that had been destroyed before the (Large Car company) reps eyes. Two years before they were to be put into production.

      Long story short, he sold one set...standard computer, so called (Large Car Company) for support, gave serial#...Secret Service...denied everything, denied, denied, denied...got away with it, no 'double secret' motors found at his locations.

      Some details omitted to avoid incriminating anybody.

      Honestly the dude had two projects of his own, so he was just (stupid/loyal to rival large car company and his own plans). Should have sold them to a Chinese car company, that would have been maximizing revenue, didn't have the right connections.

      Moral to the story: Deny everything!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  12. Re:should be thanked not sacked by Pascoea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A supermarket left open but unstaffed all day with no security would suffer amazing amounts of loss. But whose fault would this be?

    [emphasis mine]

    The people who stole the stuff. It's ALWAYS the fault of the person who stole the stuff. 100% of the time. If I don't lock my door and people clean out my house that makes me an idiot, but the person that cleaned it out is still the guilty party. (The insurance company may exercise their "idiot clause" and not reimburse me for my stuff because of my negligence. But that's not relevant to the conversation, the thief is still a thief, and should get the appropriate punishment if caught.)

    So why reward the incompetent by expecting an unrequired level of honesty from users?

    I agree, this is terrible programming. There are definitely ways around spotty connectivity, and FreedomPay has most definitely let their customer down by not adequately protecting their interest. I'm sure you wouldn't have to hunt around too long for a civil lawyer that would be willing to sue FreedomPay for their negligence, but that doesn't excuse the workers who exploited that negligence.

  13. Re:Thieves and computer experts - lose a hand by Pascoea · · Score: 1

    Agreed. Eye for an Eye may be appropriate in some cases, but this certainly isn't it. I think losing a cushy Government job, with a "got caught stealing" on their permanent record is probably punishment enough. With theft on their record they likely couldn't get a cashier job at WalMart, much less any high security job, for a long time.

  14. Re:should be thanked not sacked by geekmux · · Score: 2

    It is inexcusable not to have the card broadcast its current credit to a disconnected machine. What possible circumstances would excuse this? And even if you have cards that can start a credit account, yhe machine would remember the card's number and transaction so the data could be updated when the machine was reconnected.

    Regardless of how bad the system was designed, the truly inexcusable activity here was not reporting it.

    The end result was abusing the shit out of the vulnerability to the tune of $3000+ worth of stolen goods.

    The line between a consultant and a criminal is often defined by ethics.

  15. Honest Summary. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    CIA hires break laws then the CIA covers it up.

  16. Re:CIA Employee Screening by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Really? Except for stealing and getting caught, this activity actually was quite clever, even if it was a crime.

    I think I'd be smiling at their cleverness while I was yanking their clearances, badges and escorting them out of the building....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  17. Hiring contractors seems inherently risky. by hey! · · Score: 1

    Think about it. Intelligence agencies routinely do things which violate norms of civilized behavior. Suborning treason (in other countries' nationals) and invading privacy are standard operating procedure. Yet you depend on your employees to scrupulously follow the rules and norms when it comes to your own agency.

    So you give people symbols, rituals and training which ground them in the traditions and identity of your service. I expect this works pretty well, because pride and belonging are powerful motivators. You can count on people to obey the meta-rules; like fouling in basketball. It's technically against the rules, but it's also part of the game, something you do to advance the interests of your team. Nobody intentionally fouls their own team.

    Except contractors aren't really part of the team, are they? The agency is just a cash cow for them. This leaves the agency vulnerable to honorable people who feel a higher loyalty that lies elsewhere, like Snowden, as well as borderline anti-social people whose not-quite-sociopatic tendencies fly under the radar because they're mainly directed at outsiders.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  18. Re:same as pay per view early 2000s by green1 · · Score: 1

    That's not how most of them worked. Maybe you found a particularly poorly designed one, but the vast majority wouldn't allow you to watch PPV at all if it couldn't make the phone call to confirm.
    The only way to watch PPV without the phone line connected to the box was to phone in to the customer service people and get a code and punch it in on the remote.

    Of course the fact that Hollywood's garbage is locked down harder than other items is no surprise.

  19. Where's the vendor safety checks? by locotx · · Score: 1

    Why in the HELL are there IoT vending machines in the CIA? Even I know IoT devices are not secure especially if they are coming from a vendor. If anything, the vending machine company should be held responsible for not providing enough security on their device that could have allowed rogue elements to access it and use it for breaking into internal network resources based on it being on-site. WTF!?

  20. Re: should be thanked not sacked by comrade1 · · Score: 2

    -A supermarket left open but unstaffed all day with no security would suffer amazing amounts of loss. Sure, if you live in a shitty country. Here in Switzerland there are vegetable stands on the roadside by farms where you take your groceries and drop your money into a box, often just a wooden box.

  21. The suspects ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... attempted to make a run for it. But they were pursued and apprehended quickly.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  22. Story is DISAPPOINTING by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Here I expected the story to detail how they analyzed the network traffic and devised a MitM attack to trick the machine into thinking it was getting paid, or discovering an administrative backdoor they managed to crack the root password for, or 3:00am hacking into the firmware through a JTAG connection, decompilation of the firmware, then substituting doctored firmware to enable a secret button-press sequence to enable all selections to be $0.00.. but no! They disconnected a network cable! BORING! I don't think they got fired for stealing from vending machines. I think they got fired for lack of creativity!

  23. Stealing is a CRIME by hjames · · Score: 1

    They were fired for Theft. Stealing is such a low level sleazy crime
    they need to go work in a fast food joint to work off the debt!
    "Hacking" is HARDLY what they did - its just theft

  24. They also want that brilliance on the cheap by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I know folks in the defense industry who constantly complain about talent, go on and on about their $100k salaries and ignore Wallstreet's payiing 3-5 times that for these same guys to make High Freq Trading work.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They also want that brilliance on the cheap by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      But the benefits, and job security on the Government payroll is exceptional.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  25. They're suppose to cheat the working class by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Most Vending machine companies are owned by big corps now.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  26. More than one person at fault by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

    A supermarket left open but unstaffed all day with no security would suffer amazing amounts of loss. But whose fault would this be?

    [emphasis mine]

    The people who stole the stuff. It's ALWAYS the fault of the person who stole the stuff. 100% of the time. If I don't lock my door and people clean out my house that makes me an idiot, but the person that cleaned it out is still the guilty party. (The insurance company may exercise their "idiot clause" and not reimburse me for my stuff because of my negligence. But that's not relevant to the conversation, the thief is still a thief, and should get the appropriate punishment if caught.)

    It's very common for more than one person to be at fault in a situation. The person who stole the stuff is criminally liable, but the person who left the door unlocked is still negligent. Both are at fault.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
  27. Re: should be thanked not sacked by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    That's true in many parts of the USA too - just not the eastern and western coasts.

  28. satellite systems let you buy a bit before shuttin by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    satellite systems let you buy a bit before shutting down PPV if it could not make a call maybe at most $10-$20

  29. Re:satellite systems let you buy a bit before shut by green1 · · Score: 1

    None of the systems that I have worked with. They all allow for zero purchases without authentication.

  30. Update or Die by sizzlinkitty · · Score: 1

    The CIA should be providing these snacks and beverages for free, no wonder they have talent leaks. Every company I've worked for since 2011 has provided free drinks, snacks and catered meals. Before anybody asks, I'm not working in the valley or any where near it.

  31. Re:satellite systems let you buy a bit before shut by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    in the past after at least making a few calls you can unhook the phone line / pick up the phone and other some ppv and it will not dial out or say you need a phone to buy this ppv movie now an $29.99 or more event may need to call in right away. Also back then they had the hacked cards.

  32. Is this really what passes for hacking these days? by hackel · · Score: 1

    > Severing communications to the FreedomPay server by disconnecting the vending machine's network cable allows purchases to be made using unfunded FreedomPay cards.

    Is this really what passes for "hacking" these days?

  33. Firing them not the brightest idea by e3m4n · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming they were hired specifically for this sort of out-of-the-box workarounds. You cannot turn someone into something they are not and telling them to be anything other than what they are impedes them from performing at their best when you need them to. If I was the supervisor that had been made aware of this, I would have found a way to expense payments to the vendor without letting the employee's know. 1) it keeps skills from workers you may need solidly in the 'asset' category, 2) it keeps their focus broader than the specifics of daytoday work, allowing for versatility when the times comes, and 3) this information could even be used later as leverage and blackmail.. this IS the CIA people.... lying, stealing, cheating, backstabbing is par for the course.

  34. Also credit and bank debit cards in the '80s by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Back in the '80s or so I tried to pay for a car repair with a perfectly valid credit card and had it declined. A call to the credit card company disclosed the reason:

    When the database was offline the authorization servers would approve charges up to $300 (1980ish dollars) and refuse those above that. This kept them from making all their cards stop working, on one hand, limited the losses to savvy crooks, and only inconvenienced those making the relatively rare high-sticker purchases. (Like me, trying to get my car back from the mechanic. He was willing to accept $300 on the card and other payment for the balance, so it worked out.)

    Similarly, the bank machines trusted balance on the mag-stripe card if the server was offline. In the Detroit area this was for a couple of shifts over the weekend. This meant that if you re-wrote the card you could pull out more money, or money from a closed account. I heard that when losses were around $10,000 per weekend they just absorbed it as a cost of business. But when the crooks got organized and losses climbed to $100,000 per weekend they added a shift and kept the servers up 24/7.

    Nowadays the cards have a secure chip with rewritable memory, so it's possible for the programmers of the machines to put some trust in the card. But it looks like FreedomPay's system was using the older approach - in an environment where its vulnerability was an issue.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  35. Re:satellite systems let you buy a bit before shut by green1 · · Score: 1

    Hacked cards definitely did exist.
    But the ability to purchase ANYTHING without connecting to the phone network most certainly did not.

    Sure you can unhook the phone cord, and watch normal television, but the only way you'd watch PPV is either with the hacked card, or by calling in and having them set it up remotely.

  36. Re:should be thanked not sacked by steveha · · Score: 2

    It's ALWAYS the fault of the person who stole the stuff. 100% of the time.

    But maybe not 100% of the fault. More than one person can be at fault.

    In college I took an accounting class, and the teacher's favorite subject was "Internal Controls", systems and rules set up to make sure that people can't just steal money. He gave an example:

    Suppose a small company has an accounting department with poor internal controls, and the head accountant knows that if he/she just edited one spreadsheet, he could steal a whole bunch of money and the company wouldn't realize. This person shows up for work every day for 20 years and never steals anything, and then one day suddenly snaps and steals the money. Who's to blame?

    Clearly the person who stole the money is to blame for stealing the money, but my accounting teacher maintained that the company is also partially to blame for putting him in that position. It's a kind of stress, to have to resist temptation all the time, and it's unfair to put people in the position of resisting it.

    Similarly, I put the blame in this case on the guys who stole the vending machine food, but the vending machine should not have been so easy to cheat.

    P.S. Presumably they were paid well enough that they could afford to pay for vending machine food, so I'm not very sympathetic. And people who could entrap themselves by serially stealing petty things from a vending machine would seem to be high risks for being suborned by outside parties, so it's probably for the best if they aren't working in the CIA anymore.

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  37. Re:satellite systems let you buy a bit before shut by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Don't forget MITMing the cards with old PCs, 'dead' cards, unloopers, soldering serial cables to the receiver's card connectors etc. Good times.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  38. Let me guess by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    The CIA probably asked for the option that these vending machines still work if there are network outages, on the basis that it's employees and contractors should be trusted enough not to steal shit and they're the only ones with physical access to the machines.

    The other options are: No network, no food. Pay with cash.

    The last think you want is a hungry IT department trying to fix your broken network.

  39. Re:boots by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    When I was about 10, my dad caught me emptying two rows of candy out of vending machines, my arm was just skinny enough and long enough. I was up in that candy hole like a vet fertilizing a prize heffer.

    He hung around till I got the last of it, then we ran for it.

    I haven't seen that model machine in a while, still look for it, though my arm has been too big for decades. I had little bothers though, we got about six years free gum and lifesavers all told, there were years with three of us expropriating.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  40. STALE, repost by apraetor · · Score: 1

    This story ran weeks ago and was already on /. once before. STALE!