Talk About A Security Hole, Go To Jail? 472
Nu11.org writes "According to a SecurityFocus article, 'Federal prosecutors in California went too far when they put a man in prison for disclosing a website security hole to the people at risk from it.'" According to the article, "...by explaining how the vulnerability worked, and why customer data was at risk, prosecutors asserted, the security specialist 'impaired the integrity' of the affected network", citing the case of Bret McDanel and his former employer, Tornado Development, Inc. We've discussed the disclosure of software exploits recently.
Compulsory jail joke (Score:2, Funny)
Guess whose hole will need tight security now ?
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:3, Funny)
Another Compulsory jail joke (Score:2)
The Sad Tale of a Security Whistleblower
Timeline of Events by Tornado Employee (Score:5, Informative)
Jan 13, 2000 Development has written a fix and tested the fix (cgi redirect and code to cause all urls in the email to go through this redirect, nothing big).
Feb 1, 2000 McDanel quit (gave 2 weeks notice) because of problems with managment dealing with another employee.
Aug 24, 2000 McDanel contacts customer support (he is friends with this person) and asks if the problem is ever going to get fixed (McDanel was allowed to keep his account free after quitting, which shows that he didnt leave on horrible terms, and maintained friendships with many people in the company, infact some people in the company tossed work to his fiancees company).
Aug 27, 2000 McDanel was told no they were not going to fix the problem (unknown at that time was that the QA person closed this bug report months ago without applying the fix).
Aug 30, 2000 email from one of the managers at Tornado to McDanel regarding his web page
Aug 31, 2000 McDanel sent emails to the customers at the rate of 6.67/sec (10 rcpt's per body (so the body is effectivly 10% the size) delay 1.5 seconds between each body). The system logs showed NO impairment during this time.
Later the system was shut down (sendmail, web server, etc) *then* the system load went up (resumably when they were deleting the emails, which in itself is a crime).
McDanel was on the phone with admins just prior to sending and continued talking to one admin for 20 minutes, then called others and helped this company fix their system when it broke (turns out it broke cause they were deleting the emails, but none the less McDanel did whatever he could to try to help them, including spending several hours on the phone with them the night the emails were being sent).
In every instance that he sent emails (6.67/sec to a 8 cpu UE 4500 with a gig of ram, that in no way is a DoS) there was no downtime, the xdelay in the mail headers was 1 second or less, it was not suffering at all. The queue stayed below 30 mails most of the time (once for less than 1 minute it went over 30 mails but it quickly processed that and the queue was below 30 again).
Sendmail (which they used) will automatically queue the emails if the load is too high. The mere fact that the queue was empty (or nearly so they do not log if there is less than 30 in the queue) indicates that the system was not overloaded.
The fact that the cpu load reports (HP Openview) indicated that the load did not go up until AFTER services were shut down (if you kill sendmail, sendmail cannot cause load - period!) also shows that it was not a DoS.
What is worse is that McDanel was charged under the 1998 version of 18 USC 1030. The new version (patriot act) makes it tons easier for them to convict you. If you attempt to impair the integrity and are unsuccessful, you can still be guilty (before you actually had to do something, now you just have to attempt/intend to do it, and presumption of intent is easy for them to prove, they just have to say it).
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess whose hole will need tight security now ?
Ha ha, prison rape is funny! I'm so glad this country is civilized enough that we can not only condone it, but we can laugh at his humiliation!
Ha ha!
Man, I can't wait until society evolves to the point where we can laugh at normal rapes too, especially violent gang rape and child molestation. Ha ha, you got raped at gunpoint while walking to you car, maybe you have AIDS now! Ha ha, your uncle made you stick his little friend in your mouth when you were five, hopefully you are scared for life!
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Prison rape jokes on Slashdot, or in the pub, is perfectly acceptable, and maybe even funny...
What's not funny, is that prison rape jokes are considered great material for prime time family entertainment in the US. That's not only disgusting, but fucking scary.
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that almost everything has become politically incorrect, but that doesn't lessen the vulgarity of rape jokes.
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Man in prison = criminal, deserving of punishment.
And if the man gets his conviction turned over on appeal, then it's no longer funny if he's raped in prison? Or if the woman secretly got away with stealing from the office or whatever then her rape is now riotously funny?
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Understand your effing Constitution! Jail inmates have no legal role in deciding how much punishment their fellow prisoners get. Jail rape and other jail abuse (up to and including murder!) is plain evil. It is patently illegal, unjust and should be stamped out. Anyone who thinks otherwise has obviously not thought through the issues.
If you really think jail rape is a just punishment, lobby your Congressman to pass a law which allows a Judge to impose it as a sentence. And you'll probably need to get your Constitution (which outlaws "cruel and unusual punishment") ammended too ...
Re:Compulsory jail joke (Score:4, Interesting)
If you've got a younger brother or cousin or son who ever happens to spend time locked up, I'm sure you'll laugh your ass off when he gets brutalized.
Really, would you chuckle at the thought of, say, Susan Smith being gang raped?
Sorry for the disjointedness... longest post ever from my Zaurus...
Gee, thats swell (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, can you have holes within holes?
Re:Gee, thats swell (Score:2)
Of course! You just can't have a bag of holding [hexgrid.com] in one.
Convicted for spamming not for the bug report (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI says that: "COMPUTER SPAMMER SENTENCED TO FEDERAL PRISON". Yes, they advertise the conviction of Bret McDanel as a spammer sent to jail:
http://www.fbi.gov/fieldnews/march/la03250
The San-Diego union tribune(?) writes that:
"Prosecutors allege that McDanel hacked into his former employer's server and sent thousands of e-mail messages at practically the same time, forcing the company to shut down its computer system in August and September 2000." Link:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/busines
In the FBI note there was no mention of the security bug at all they said:
"Additionally, the emails he sent contained a link to a web site he had created where he revealed confidential information about Tornado technology that McDanel had learned while employed there."
Now that is such a selective disclosure of information that I am inclined to equate it with telling an untruth. (Just like printing that some John Doe killed several people in 1967 in he is still not behind bars, omitting that he was acting in war...)
What alarms me that he was found guilty on spamming charges which damaged the mail server while that seems not to be the basis of his ex-employers discontent. I guess the prosecutor was not interested in bringing out the truth but rather just have a conviction based on the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" on his resume.
Note that the company (Tornado) went out of business.
Re:Convicted for spamming not for the bug report (Score:5, Interesting)
Bret was not prosecuted for revealing a security vulnerability. He was prosecuted for DOS'ing our server. He sent 14,000 emails to our system, and it overloaded and stopped accepting mail. He did this several times, and knew it overloaded the system when he did it, and knew the FBI had been called after the first time, so nobody needs to feel sorry for him. Holding him up as a martyr or hero is just asinine, but it speaks volumes about how our media works these days.
Of course, there's plenty of culpability to go around...the main server was a Sun Enterprise 4500 with 4x450 CPU and 4Gb RAM. A machine like that should swallow 14,000 emails without a trace. Of course, Tornado's brain-dead custom system implementation meant that every single incoming email spawned off an SQL script to take the message apart and inject it into the database, and a shell process to control the SQL script. The system load went over 100. I had to write a script to kill off all the processes. Since the load was so high, sendmail stopped accepting incoming mail and the rest of the spam piled up on the backup server, where it was rm'd. So, it was Bret's fault for spamming us, but it was Tornado's fault for such a painfully bad email processing method. This actually raises the most interesting question of all, is it a crime to knock down a system that was incompetently implemented?
Of course, the email system was not the only part of the system that was breakable...we had system outages several times a week from different causes, and really, the Bret thing was not that bad, being in that it was easily identifiable and fixable.
Another fun thing was that Tornado initially claimed $300,000 in losses from the incident. This is important because the FBI will not get involved with anything under $50,000. This figure was later reduced (much, much later) to $9,000. Oh yeah, what else...Tornado's great email implementation also meant that we had to run an open relay, which was frequently abused. We sent out hundreds of thousands of nigerian bank account emails. A manager who took a stand and turned off the relaying one weekend was demoted and ultimately fired. Basically Tornado was a bunch of Windows developers who couldn't use Windows to implement their custom email/fax/paging application because Windows wouldn't scale to the sizes they needed. So they had to use Unix, and they didn't know anything about Unix, and they made just about all of the predictable errors that the ignorant make.
In conclusion, it's scary that every time this story comes up, there's a different (wrong) angle on it.
Re:Convicted for spamming not for the bug report (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, he sent a lot of mails. Would he have received the same sentence if he was a garden variety spammer?
Clearly it has something to do with the content of the mail or with the intent of the "attack".
If it disclosed some confidential information, it could be tried in a civil court I guess, if there was a confidentiality clause in his contract which was still in effect. But even then, he could be considered a whistleblower.
The only thing
Re:Gee, thats swell (Score:5, Interesting)
But it is the center hole that makes is useful.
Shape clay into a vessel, it is the space within that makes it useful.
Cut doors and windows for a house, it is the emptiness that makes them useful.
Therefore, profit comes from what is there,
usefulness from what is not there.
~Lau Tsu, Tao te Ching
Re:Gee, thats swell (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So, in other words (Score:5, Funny)
Not quite...
4. Sell next version w/fix and new holes
5. Profit (Again)
6. Repeat as needed.
This post is an attempt at humor. If you are lacking in humor and have mod points please see parent post.
Re:Gee, thats swell (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is different than telling how people could gain access as root through slashcode. This would be more comprable to Slashdot advertising secure posting and moderation and then neglecting to fix a bug that would let people easily log on as someone else and post to their journal.
I've figured this sort of thing would happen (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I've figured this sort of thing would happen (Score:5, Interesting)
WEP is encryption. I think you meant to say they had unencrypted networks, or networks without WEP.
Why do I get the feeling that your 'security audits' involve looking for an open connection with which to connect to Kazaa?
Re:I've figured this sort of thing would happen (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, he had done a lot of consulting work for Intel, and they gave him permanent free accounts on some machines to use as he wished when not on a contract. He saw a new company doc about how to deal with poor passwords. So he thought he'd help them out by nabbing a few password crackers off the Net and applying them to nearby machines. He found that some company VPs had easily-guessed passwords. While he was writing up a report, the sheriff showed up at his door with an arrest warrant. He is now a conviced felon.
Reading between the lines, it seems pretty clear that the people in the legal system think this is ridiculous, and it's really Intel who should be convicted and punished. But there seems to be little that can be done about it. As the judges read the laws, following the company's published guidelines and testing security is a felony, no matter how stupid that sounds. Telling people in the company that their VPs are violating the company's own security rules is also a crime.
So if you find problems, the best practice is to keep quiet about it.
Re:I've figured this sort of thing would happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Running password crackers on a company network without written authorization is Criminally stupid.
Re:I've figured this sort of thing would happen (Score:5, Informative)
This case is similar. Yes, the prison sentence is crazy for the crime, however what this guy did was stupid. He was clearly going after the reputation of his former employer: if he'd been motivated only by the good of the customer, he would have sent the email while on the job. Also, he could have just warned folks without publishing exploit details.
This is a problem many geeks have -- getting nailed for doing something technically correct but socially unnacceptable. Most of the rules that run the world aren't written down and never will be. You can be technically correct and still wrong wrong wrong.
Re:Keep Quiet? How about tell the right people? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to check your neighbor's security, you ASK YOUR NEIGHBOR and then TELL YOUR NEIGHBOR what weaknesses you found.
Um, you're not very good at analogies.
It's more like an apartment building, and this guy was the Super. He knew that the locks on all the apartments could be opened with a butter knife, but the landlord said he'd fix it- then fired him.
6 months later, the super checks- still butterknifable. He distributes leaflets throughout the apartment complex by sliding them under the doors.
The Landlord starts busting into people's apartments and taking the leaflets away and has the Super arrested not for breaking and entering (which *maybe* he's guilty of), but for telling the tenants that their own (and by extension, their neighbors) apartments are unsafe due to the negligence of the landlord, so they should guard their stuff until the situation is resolved.
Re:I've figured this sort of thing would happen (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW, the moderation on this post is amazing. Interesting?!?! Insighftull?!?! He can't fucking spell, and it's obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about. But all hail the script kiddie that's ready with a glib comment! Mod him up!
*grumbles* where are my metamod points when I need them...
Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
He reported it to management, like he should have. He should have left it alone there.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
He could have explained to the customers that their information was at risk, without revealing quite so much detail. But according to the government's theory of liability, this would not have prevented his prosecution. Moreover, as is frequently the case with security vulnerabilities, this likely would have prompted a quick denial by Tornado that any such bug existed -- and they may or may not have fixed them.
It looks like just saying that there was a flaw would have gotten the guy thr
You're forgetting a few things (Score:5, Interesting)
b) They continued to advertise their webmail services as secure despite knowing that they were vulnerable.
He should get all of the users of the service together and class-action sue Tornado for knowingly lying to them about the security of their service.
Re:You're forgetting a few things (Score:4, Insightful)
Simply call the State Attorney General and try to open a fraud case. They are advertising a secure service while knowingly ignoring large security holes. It's simple fraud. And are you going to go to jail for talking to the Attorney General? Who exactly is going to prosecute you? It's the safe choice.
Nevertheless, I believe he had the absolute right to do what he did. He just could have chosen a safer, smarter path.
Re:You're forgetting a few things (Score:5, Insightful)
In the same way that you can't work at a company, learn it's trade secrets, and then jump ship to another company, and disclose all of their trade secrets (similiar to an NDA except this pretty much applies anywhere you work) you also can't gain knowledge of security exploits while you're under their employment, leave, and then tell the entire world about it.
THe feds were completely right in going after this guy. Some of you are being blinded by the security aspects of this, and I would argue differently if he had never worked at the company in question and discovered this exploit as an outsider, but that is not the case.
He got what he deserved. I've worked at tons of companys where to this day I could tell you any number of ways to get back into their networks. Am I going to do that? Hell no. My best course of action is to alert the company of the exploit, and walk away.
That's exactly what he should have done. He didn't, and he paid the price.
Re:You're forgetting a few things (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds very much like a civil matter. An NDA would definitely be a civil matter. Why would the feds be involved at all?
Re:You're forgetting a few things (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that the guy's actions sounded malicious, but when it comes down to it, he was a whistle blower. He demonstrated that the company continued to advertise its services as secure even while they knew about a blatant security flaw which they did nothing to fix for six months.
Re:You're forgetting a few things (Score:3)
Why not?
And contacting all of the companys customers? That was just malicious.
I don't really like what he did, but the customers were the victims of the company's willfull deception. In a certain sense, they could be construed as the most important people to be contacted.
And secure is such a vague term as well, any piece of software can be compromised, especially if you worked on said particular piece of
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Define the "system" for purposes of interpreting the law in virtual terms, as a data-space. Consider that primary rights in that space belong to whoever leases it. If you break into a business office, the breakin is against the occupant of that office, not the landlord. And if you discover that the landlord has left the master key to the building's offices where thieves can make copies, your moral responsibility is to the tenants, to warn them the locks are insecure, rather than to the landlord, to help cover up the collusion with thieves.
Excuse me sir, but I notice that. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you know that the entire password system can be aborted by simply hitting escape?
Have I just commited a federal crime, and if so, why?
KFG
Re:Hmmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
it's wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:it's wrong (Score:4, Informative)
I say that if a company does not actively seek to fix a security hole within a reasonable amount of time, they deserve to be humiliated before their customers like this. The guy was only trying to put the customer first, and not the company's reputation. Hell, the customers could probably sue the company since they knew they weren't secure but kept advertising that they were. Damn marking droids.
Anonymous security listings then... (Score:5, Interesting)
Intereting indeed. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Intereting indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
They have to cache some indentifiable data somewhere. If they cache a false MAC address then the only thing they can prove is it came from your connection to their network. Now if you have a wireless AP on your network or any other form of anonymous access, then you're innocent until proven guilty.
You're still the number 1 suspect, tho, which is why I recommend posting anonymou
I can see how this could make sense (Score:3, Funny)
USA ... (Score:2, Funny)
Scared corparations and governments kill the good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this going a little too far. I thought a suggestion box was always welcome, or even a public message board where people could leave suggestions was A Good Thing(TM).
I may have been wrong. But this isn't right. no sir, it is not.
He whouldn't have e-mailed the customers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone have any ideas as to what alternative third parties would be good for this kind of whistle blowing?
Re:He whouldn't have e-mailed the customers. (Score:4, Interesting)
This guy didn't do anything wrong. If you're not revealing classified information you can say whatever the hell you want. What we're dealing with is a vicious, stupid, unethical prosecution, if the facts in the security focus article are accurate.
Re:He whouldn't have e-mailed the customers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He whouldn't have e-mailed the customers. (Score:4, Interesting)
He was paid by the company to (amongst other things) find out wether or not the site was secure.
He was paid to leave it at that.
He didn't.
Corporations don't care about you, they don't care about people stealing your data. They DO care about employees telling people bad things about the company ("your data can be stolen when it's with us", I'm sure you understand why they'd want to contain this), and they will use the legal system to prevent it.
Big surprise. Now change the law or stop whining.
Publicity is needed in order to correct that (Score:3, Insightful)
But major case is really needed in that part, otherwise, lonely suckers will just get screwed.
Email address database (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Email address database (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Email address database (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Email address database (Score:4, Insightful)
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Man, 90% of Microsoft's employees must be working out of prison...
Stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so stupid. If we were to leave the finding and patching of security holes, etc. to the companies in question, attacks, virii, etc. would be even more prevalent then they are today. By increasing the number of sources for reporting these flaws to basically the population of the world, we significantly increase the chances that these problems will be discovered before they can be exploited.
The DMCA (which IIRC correctly makes pointing out security flaws illegal) needs to be severely looked over or things like the MS Blaster virus are only going to be the beginning of a much larger, nastier problem. Thankfully, it's only applicable in the U.S.
Re:Stupid! (Score:2)
Not trying to be a quibbler... (Score:2)
Kjella
1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Obligatory 1984 paraphrase:
This is doubleplusungood.
Also, to quote Winston Smith:
Re:1984 (Score:2, Funny)
In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Officer! Arrest this man! He has figured out a way to steal my stereo!"
Sign. Some people are just too stupid to live.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
-"Mr. Locksmith, your locks suck, they can be opened with a straw"
-"grumble grumble*snooze* yeah whatever"
-> 6months.
-"Mr. Locksmith, your locks still suck and you advertise them as secure! I can't stand it anymore, I must tell your clients that they can't trust your locks!"
-"ah lad, you're going to prison then!"
actually.. the company itself did something illeagal as well(deleted mails, which, can be in some places much higher crime than telling how to get to those mails because it is in effect breach of communications secrecy the customers expected). speaking of the vulnurability to anyone else than the customers would have been more malicious as well(posting on a security webpage or similar). i'd be making investigation requests(on why they manipulated the mail) if i was customer of that said company..
Re:In other words... (Score:3, Interesting)
summary (Score:5, Funny)
customer: "yes, that's correct"
guy: "well that's a huge security hole!"
customer: "no way! we have to keep this secret! come on Jeff, let's put this guy in jail before he tells anyone else!"
This is the perfect interpretation ... (Score:4, Insightful)
No more of these disruptive "warnings" of vulnerabilities. If you warn people about the real dangers they face instead of giving them vague color-coded faux-warnings, then the terrorists win.
RTFA. (Score:5, Informative)
This is a Serious Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is a Serious Problem (Score:3, Informative)
Good deeds... (Score:2)
Everybody wants something. Apparenlty the company wanted to be left alone, even in its broken state, and it wanted more money.
I don't understand the reasoning... (Score:2)
This is a non-cyber version, but is it different?
I suppose there are a couple of possible things that might happen:
Re:I don't understand the reasoning... (Score:2)
Pasta Security Hole? Sounds yummy.
Re:I don't understand the reasoning... (Score:2)
Pasta Security Hole? Sounds yummy.
Sounds like what Mafia Boy used.
Re:I don't understand the reasoning... (Score:2)
If you notice the door open, you quietly tell the bank manager.
What this guy did after telling the manager was, in effect, to put up a big sign explaining that the bank doors were always accidentally left open at night and oh, by the way, the cash is in the safe at the rear left of the bank, which is may also unlocked if you 'd like to look. He then contacted all the bank's customers to tell them where to find the sign explaining all this. And, the sign was actually put up right along a rather large
Re:I don't understand the reasoning... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a bright light. (Score:2)
...the message was incorrect.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The government argued that the message was incorrect, useful to would-be attackers, and was intentionally designed to give Tornado trouble.
Either the message was incorrect (which would render it useless to would be attackers), OR the message was CORRECT if indeed the message could be useful to would be attackers. I see a real contradiction in the government's arguement here (yes I know, big surprise eh?).
Does this mean that when Microsoft issues a report warning of a vulnerability in their software and exactly where it is and what the vulnerability can cause along with a security advisory that they are breaking the law?
This, IMHO sets a very dangerous precedent. It reminds me of another reuters article I read today concerning corporate whistle blowers having trouble continuing their careers in other companies after exposing illegal activity.
The Matrix is real... but I'm only visiting!
So basically (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, more and more nowadays you read about people being incarcerated for defying authority, the government, of worse: corporations. Real crime is being pardoned, especially corporate white-collar criminals, while the jails are being filled with people just trying to exercise their rights.
America strikes me as a very odd country. There, you have a right to bear arms, based on the revolution against the government sometime ago. Yet somehow, say one wrong thing, against the government, or against their sleazy funders (big business) and your screwed. Give us another 10-15 years, and the crime for whistleblowing with be more than murder - and you'd be better off solving your problems with a gun than making an honest attempt at helping your fellow countrymen.
California? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:California? (Score:4, Insightful)
and while this is not a happy precedent, the guy didnt handle it in the coolest way possible.
IT vrs other professions (Score:5, Interesting)
As a physician, if I find that a patient presents a danger to another person (for example, a man has a psychotic break and intends to kill his wife), I have a legal and ethical obligation to inform that person (whom I have never met.) If I fail to do so, I can be thrown in jail.
Its not hard to envision a future scenario in information security where one could have legal obligations both to inform and _not_ inform -- thus finding a security hole would guarentee punishment no matter the road taken.
the obligatory analogy (Score:2)
In both cases, making a general alert -- while maybe not the best thing to do (a private note to the owner would always be a better idea) -- still doesn't amount to anyth
Isn't think protected (Score:2, Interesting)
only in the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to disclose security holes is by letting big corps do it, or by doing it as anon as possible. Currently, europe is a tad better, but I expect this evil practice to fly our way in no time, as DRM is apparently doing. Sigh. It's so sad to see capitalism failing. I guess this must be a bit how the commies felt after they were proven wrong. Our only hope is that the future will come up with something better.
jail (Score:5, Funny)
Management will learn. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that non-technical managers simply don't care how their systems work. They think in strategic and tactical terms. Buffer overflows are just an excuse why things can't get done. Managers hate those things. But there has to be a balance somewhere. Geeky technical issues cannot be ignored by managers. Granted, they don't need to personally learn the technical details. That's why they have tech guys working for them. But they need to invest the time, effort and resources into an ongoing technical systems maintenance program. This includes everything from cleaning dust out of computer chassis to maintaining security from the strategic level to the bits and bytes level. It is the technical department's duty to ensure that management understands the risks, like it or not. It is the management's responsibility to make sure the technical department is doing its job.
In nearly all businesses today, it is necessary to be on the Internet. Being on the Internet entails certain risks. In the course of its business, the company will need to address these risks on an ongoing basis. For these reasons, it is important that all but the smallest companies refrain from outsourcing their "IT" departments.
To make a long story short, corporate management unaware of the implications of their lack of attention to technical matters. This applies to computers as well as manufacturing processes. Since they fail to gain an understanding of the implications and since they fail to respect the technical field enough to invest the necessary time and effort into it, they should be subject to the consequences of their irresponsibility. Therefore, if you are aware of a security hole, you should do the following: Nothing. Let a black hat cracker break in, steal data and wreak havoc on their network. This is the only way they will learn.
Want to insist on doing "the right thing?" Send an anonymous letter to the company's IT department and to their management. State that if the vulnerability is not fixed within 48 hours, it will be posted on all the public disclosure sites. Do not include any identifying information.
Capitalism thwarted (Score:5, Informative)
For capitalism to work, it requires consumers to be able to make informed choices about the goods and services they purchase. By criminalizing the distribution of security information, the federal courts are preventing consumers from making truly informed decisions regarding security, which is arguably an important element of a purchase decision. If it were not, then why would Tornado be so miffed? Two end results, if this decision runs its course. First, security will fall through the floor as companies realize that they do not need to invest in it to get customers. Second, consumers will only be able to choose based on who presents the best front; advertising wins. I'm fine with advertising, but it should not replace informed discourse in the marketplace.
As Usual, The Morons Dominate The Posts (Score:5, Insightful)
The morons complain that the guy "spammed" the ISP's customers. He sent ONE email, staggered out over three days to different people, so he wouldn't overload the email servers. Sounds responsible to me. How much spam do these customers get from Tornado anyway? You don't know, do you? I get spam from Yahoo occasionally just because I have SBC DSL.
They complain he was "irresponsible" because he didn't use "other channels". Like what? If he posts it ANYWHERE in public, he gets hit with the same charge. What PRIVATE channels are there that would work if talking directly to the ISP management did not work? Does he call Ahh-nold and get him to pressure the ISP?
Face it, you right-wing, statist-worshipping geek pussies. The guy did the right thing. HE BLEW THE WHISTLE. The government did the wrong thing. THEY PUT HIM IN JAIL FOR WHISTLE-BLOWING.
Now fuck off.
What an amateur (Score:5, Funny)
Perverse Incentive, AKA Reward the Black hats (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why Information Security is Hard - An Economic Perspective."
http://www.acsac.org/2001/abstract
"In a survey of fraud against autoteller machines [4], it was found that the patterns of fraud depended on who was liable for them. In the USA, if a customer disputed a transaction, the onus was on the bank to prove that the customer was mistaken or lying; this gave US banks a motive to protect their systems properly. But in Britain, Norway and the Netherlands, the burden of proof lay on the customer: the bank was right unless the customer could prove it wrong. Since this was almost impossible, the banks in these countries became careless. Eventually, epidemics of fraud demolish their complacency. US banks, meanwhile, suffered much less fraud; although they actually spent less money on security then their European counterparts, they spent it more effectively [4]."
If the government's goal is a more secure Internet, the government should encourage actions via incentive that result in more secure systems. It is clear that if Bret McDanel had not informed Tornado Development's customers of the security problem, Tornado would have done nothing to repair it.
If you subscribe to Ross Anderson's theories, the government's actions provide incentive for security technicians to take the following actions on the discovery of a security vulnerability:
1. Don't talk or write about it without obscuring the publishers identity.
2. Exploit the vulnerability for personal gain.
Heavy handed prosecution of people like Bret McDanel will lead to a less secure internet.
What if this extended to cars? (Score:3, Insightful)
I hardly think so. In this case, it's something far less "deadly." It's only privacy (something 'they' don't want us to have anyway) and potentially identity fraud and theft. These are growing into huge issues.
According to the article, the man has already served his time but he wants his conviction reversed. I believe justice should be served by reversing this conviction... and in the future possibly preventing any such "backlash" from companies in the future for "felony embarassment."
What the...? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can it be wrong and useful to attackers? Man, the prosecution lawyers must have had fun with that one:
"Your Honour, the security flaw described here does not exist. You can see how dangerous it would be for hackers to know about this non-existent flaw."
Misinterrpretation by the revengeful... (Score:5, Interesting)
While I don't agree with what he did, I certainly don't think he did anything illegal. Why isn't the government going after Tornado for exposing their customers to a risk that could breach the confidentiality of their emails?
This is another example of "Security through obscurity". Someone makes a broken piece of code, doesn't want to bother to fix it, and then gets pissed off when someone forces their hand.
If the U.S. eventually passes a law that makes software publishers liable for these flaws, there will probably be a huge backlash from sloppy programmers because it interferes with their Consitutional rights for the "Pursuit of Happiness", since they are stuck at work fixing their unsecure code.
Isn't it nice (Score:3, Insightful)
Correctly, but the problems the legislation was intended to address were the problems of keeping problems secret from the users so they wouldn't have to be fixed.
That is the corporate security problem.
Protecting user privacy is something for a marketing department to use in advertising.
Re:Not an entirely balanced story (Score:4, Interesting)
He didn't breach the security of the network. He tried to inform the people who could fix it, they did nothing. He then informed the people affected. He didn't do it in a nice way, but it needs to be legal.
Re:This says it all... (Score:3, Informative)
They gave McDanels secrets to this company too. See McDanel was competing with this company (and the company found out like a month before this release that he was working on his own software in his spare time). Its not just email its unified messaging, integration of email, voicemail, fax, paging, etc. So it isnt something that you can just get