"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48cc0297@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > >   A security hole report does not cause waking up the sysadmin in the
> > > middle of the night and paying overtime wages or taking the system
> > offline.

> > Really? If I send you an e-mail listing all your financial and
confidential
> > information, won't you

>   No, because I don't read my email in the middle of the night, while
> sleeping.

You should. If you did, you'd only waste the rest of your night. If you read
your e-mail in the morning and get my e-mail, you'll waste the rest of the
day.

> > >   It causes the sysadmin to send a report to the software house with
which
> > > they have a software license so that they will fix the security hole.
At
> > > regular working hours.

> > Not all systems are such turnkey operations, and the vendor won't
himself
> > have a fix for every type of security breach even if they were.

>   And thus it's better for the sysadmins *not* knowing about the security
> hole?

It's best for the sysadmins to have fixed the hole before anybody hacked the
system. Next best is for them knowing about the hole and nobody having
hacked the system. Next best is for them to not know about the hole and
nobody having hacked the system... etc.

You are using the psychic defense: If I didn't hack the system, someone more
malicious than I would, so I'm doing the sysadmins a favour. Sorry, that's a
ridiculous argument .

Yes, crimes sometimes can have positive after effects. Had someone had shot
the engineer of the passenger train that crashed in California that morning,
everything would have turned out better, no? But can we base our legal
systems on possibilities?

Post a reply to this message

On 14-Sep-08 16:50, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 14-Sep-08 5:43, John VanSickle wrote:
>>> Doctor John wrote:
>
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=25110a8f-a73a-43a0-a2a5-1daa08d147d1
> 
>>> It is not substantively different from a situation where you live in an
>>> apartment for which the landlord has failed to install adequate door
>>> locks.  You cannot break into other people's apartments in order to
>>> demonstrate the inadequacy of the existing security.  You tell the
>>> landlord, advise the tenants, and if nothing happens, move out.
> 
>> It is the same sort of wrong comparison that 'somebody' made. The
>> difference is that this vulnerability is known and hacking a system
>> often involves a new exploit that is unknown to the owners. A better
>> comparison might be a house owner with a large fence around his house
>> with spikes on top. One day a guy walks up to him and says: 'You know
>> that large tree on your property, that has very long branches reaching
>> over the fence. I was walking past that and though it might be a easy
>> access to your property. I tried the largest low hanging branch and
>> indeed it could easily support me.' After which the house owner calls
>> the cops and have him arrested for breaking into his property.
> 
> Good for him. I'd call the cops too. What's it his business entering my
> property? "I was walking by" doesn't make sense either. Nobody walking by
> "accidentally" climbs a tree. And if he was really concerned for my safety,
> why not come point out to me the branch *without* violating the law?

1) if the branch is weak enough there is no danger, so no need to call
2) as you failed to notice, I never said he entered the property. You 
(and my fictional character) assume that he did, just as the assumption 
in our case here is that the student was doing something malicious. (yes 
I come to that later)

> 
> That it was easy to do or that the owner failed to perfectly secure
> something is not an excuse for breaking the law. Where do you draw the line?
> If the guy had to use a ladder to get to a branch, would you then willing to
> consider it a crime? If the guy had to use a helicopter to land on the tree
> or the property, would you consider that a crime now? See, there are always
> ways to compromise a property or a system if you have a criminal mind.
> Unless the suspect can show that he went into the property by mistake during
> his daily walk, and if the property owner did not draw a line around his
> property, then I'd let him go. Otherwise, if he's made an effort to climb a
> tree, use a ladder, use a helicopter... etc, it's clear what he intended to
> break the law, clear and simple.
> 
>>> Consider for a moment the results of allowing people to hack first, and
>>> then report the results of their hacking.  People who are hacking for
>>> criminal reasons will, if caught, claim that as a defense.
> 
>> Not necessary, the guy in question apparently had no criminal intentions
> 
> What do you call breaking the law?

The student had apparently no intention to cause harm to the system or 
gain himself or anybody else anything by the act. The only reason you 
may call him a criminal is that there is a law there that should have 
been different. As a student you may excuse him for not yet knowing that 
some laws don't make sense and can be used in perverse ways. In this 
case a law that was intended to prosecute malicious hackers is misused 
to protect an incompetent sysop at the expense of a naive student.

Aside: I don't know about your place, but here we consider somebody 
innocent until proven to have broken the law.

>> I can understand your position, but I also know that there is a large
>> group of systems that is not adequately protected. If the system will be
>> hacked mostly third persons will suffer the consequences. Protecting the
>> sysops with a law that prohibits hacking will increase the problem.
> 
> False dichotomy again. Why do you assume that the system will be hacked by a
> third person? It's a matter of opportunity, means and motive, and not all
> are present for anyone on the street. Clairvoyance defenses like that don't
> work, and with good reason. If you see someone speeding down the street, are
> you given a free pass to ram him? After all, he's going to get into an
> accident, right? And it's better that at least the other side anticipates
> the accident...
> 
Either you did not understand what I said, or you have absolute no idea 
how the world works.

BTW I consider this discussion closed as far as I am concerned. I feel 
very uncomfortable talking to a 'somebody' with an e-mail address of 
'x### [at] ycom'. Feel free to start a new tread on anonymity in our newsgroups.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:48cc0297@news.povray.org...
>>   No, because I don't read my email in the middle of the night, while
>> sleeping.
> 
> You should. If you did, you'd only waste the rest of your night. If you
> read your e-mail in the morning and get my e-mail, you'll waste the rest
> of the day.

o_O

Are you seriously suggesting I should read my email in the middle of the
night just in case somebody mailed me with my financial information?

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> and if nothing happens, move out.

And the problem remains unsolved.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:40:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
> I feel very uncomfortable talking to a 'somebody' with an e-mail address of 
>'x### [at] ycom'. Feel free to start a new tread on anonymity in our newsgroups.

I concur. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:48cd392c@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> > news:48cc0297@news.povray.org...

> >>   No, because I don't read my email in the middle of the night, while
> >> sleeping.

> > You should. If you did, you'd only waste the rest of your night. If you
> > read your e-mail in the morning and get my e-mail, you'll waste the rest
> > of the day.

> o_O
>
> Are you seriously

Well, you answered your own question there, didn't you?

> suggesting I should read my email in the middle of the
> night just in case somebody mailed me with my financial information?

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 14-Sep-08 16:50, somebody wrote:
> > "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...

> > Good for him. I'd call the cops too. What's it his business entering my
> > property? "I was walking by" doesn't make sense either. Nobody walking
by
> > "accidentally" climbs a tree. And if he was really concerned for my
safety,
> > why not come point out to me the branch *without* violating the law?

> 1) if the branch is weak enough there is no danger, so no need to call
> 2) as you failed to notice, I never said he entered the property. You
> (and my fictional character) assume that he did, just as the assumption
> in our case here is that the student was doing something malicious. (yes
> I come to that later)

But he did hack into the system and retrieve the passwords. If he didn't
enter the property, your analogy doesn't compute. If he did, then he did
violate the property rights. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

> >> Not necessary, the guy in question apparently had no criminal
intentions

> > What do you call breaking the law?

> The student had apparently no intention to cause harm to the system or

So if I go over the speed limit but have no intention to get into an
accident, I can expect to avoid a ticket?

> gain himself or anybody else anything by the act. The only reason you
> may call him a criminal is that there is a law there that should have
> been different.

You can argue that the law is unfair (it would be a bad argument, granted,
but laws are of course not set in stone). But so long as it's there, it's by
definition, a crime to break it.

> As a student you may excuse him for not yet knowing that
> some laws don't make sense and can be used in perverse ways.

Ignorance of the law is (almost always) unacceptable as a defense. Too much
room for abuse.

> Aside: I don't know about your place, but here we consider somebody
> innocent until proven to have broken the law.

True, but I'm not the judge or the jury, nor are we sentencing him here. I
can express my opinion based on what I have read so far.

> BTW I consider this discussion closed as far as I am concerned. I feel
> very uncomfortable talking to a 'somebody' with an e-mail address of
> 'x### [at] ycom'.

That's an ad hominem. Somebody (else) might claim he doesn't feel
comfortable with people with hotmail accounts. Nonetheless, be it so.

Post a reply to this message

>
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=25110a8f-a73a-43a0-a2a5-1daa08d147d1
>
> Can't make my mind up on this; is the university right in prosecuting or 
> are they overreacting to cover their own insecure *ssh*les?
> Right now I'm leaning in the direction of overreacting but I'm willing to 
> be convinced otherwise

Seems to me like he installed some keyloggers and card readers and simply 
skimmed off log in information.  Then he actually admitted doing this to the 
university - very clever...

He should have sent the 16-page report to the university without actually 
performing the illegal acts or sending the document to 37 of his mates.  If 
they had refused to improve security, then he could have gone to the local 
student papers etc and kicked up a fuss.

Post a reply to this message

>  No, he spotted a technical security flaw in the computer system, and
> pointed it out so that it could be fixed,

But his mistake was to go several steps further, and actually "demonstrate" 
the security floor by installing keyloggers and magnetic card readers, then 
accessing 32 different student accounts illegally and sending his findings 
to 37 of his mates.  Had he just written the document and sent it to the 
university, fine.

Post a reply to this message

On 15-Sep-08 4:14, somebody wrote:
> 
>> BTW I consider this discussion closed as far as I am concerned. I feel
>> very uncomfortable talking to a 'somebody' with an e-mail address of
>> 'x### [at] ycom'.
> 
> That's an ad hominem. 

- no, that was the point it is an ad inhominem
- it is also not one because I tell you what I feel, without even 
suggesting that what you did would make your points less valuable.
- over the years there were a few cases of people here in the newsgroups 
that, like you, tried to discredit other people by accusing them of 
rhetoric tricks. It is my impression that that said more about 
themselves than of the addressed person. Just an observation.

> Somebody (else) might claim he doesn't feel
> comfortable with people with hotmail accounts. 

Not the best attempt to return a compliment that I have seen. FYI I use 
a hotmail account in newsgroups for obvious reasons. I am not hiding 
behind a fictitious address. I will answer e-mails sent to that address 
and it reflects even my name IRL.

> Nonetheless, be it so.

It is your choice. I think of this group as a group of (mostly) friends. 
Your choice sort of spoils that idea for me. Many people here use 
aliases and many use e-mail addresses that are either invalid or 
mangled. Yet, because they have a recognizable identity I can think of 
them as a human being. To me you're more a ghost than a human being. So 
again, it is absolutely your own choice on whether you want to be part 
of this group or not, but I (and perhaps others) might not respond to 
anything you say. (Obviously, I make an exception for this metadicussion.)

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...

> FYI I use
> a hotmail account in newsgroups for obvious reasons. I am not hiding
> behind a fictitious address.

What would the purpose of a legitimate (or legitimate looking) e-mail
address be if I don't wish to receive any e-mails?

> I will answer e-mails sent to that address
> and it reflects even my name IRL.

I don't care, so long as there aren't two "andrel"s to confuse. Avoiding
confusion to me is the only reason d'etre of a name or a handle.

> It is your choice. I think of this group as a group of (mostly) friends.
> Your choice sort of spoils that idea for me. Many people here use
> aliases and many use e-mail addresses that are either invalid or
> mangled. Yet, because they have a recognizable identity I can think of
> them as a human being. To me you're more a ghost than a human being.

I'm well aware that had I called myself "Sebastian", "Zippy", or even "mtu",
I would automatically command more respect. It's quite interesting, really.

> So
> again, it is absolutely your own choice on whether you want to be part
> of this group or not, but I (and perhaps others) might not respond to
> anything you say. (Obviously, I make an exception for this metadicussion.)

I prefer to discuss and challenge ideas, rather than get on a personal
level. To that end, a reduced audience is not a big problem.

Post a reply to this message

On 15-Sep-08 22:43, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:48C### [at] hotmailcom...
> 
>> FYI I use
>> a hotmail account in newsgroups for obvious reasons. I am not hiding
>> behind a fictitious address.
> 
> What would the purpose of a legitimate (or legitimate looking) e-mail
> address be if I don't wish to receive any e-mails?

none at all.

> 
>> I will answer e-mails sent to that address
>> and it reflects even my name IRL.
> 
> I don't care, so long as there aren't two "andrel"s to confuse. Avoiding
> confusion to me is the only reason d'etre of a name or a handle.

It may be something more than that. If you know that I am a real person 
with a real background (and not a group or a 15 yo pretending to be 
someone else) it may indicate that what I write is probably sincere and 
that I am not trolling.

>> It is your choice. I think of this group as a group of (mostly) friends.
>> Your choice sort of spoils that idea for me. Many people here use
>> aliases and many use e-mail addresses that are either invalid or
>> mangled. Yet, because they have a recognizable identity I can think of
>> them as a human being. To me you're more a ghost than a human being.
> 
> I'm well aware that had I called myself "Sebastian", "Zippy", or even "mtu",
> I would automatically command more respect. It's quite interesting, really.

I know, I find that interesting too. One of the factors seems to be that 
'somebody' invokes not the image of a specific person, but of one that 
deliberately hides everything personal. We all hide things, but 
'somebody' is advertising to want only to take and does not intend to 
share. You could have called yourself 'antisocial' of 'psychopath' but 
even that would not have the same effect as nobody would take that 
serious. Even 'nobody' would be different as we can take that as a 
reference that you at least know your classics. I can only assume that 
you chose this alias to get a certain effect. Well congratulations, you 
achieved your goal.

>> So
>> again, it is absolutely your own choice on whether you want to be part
>> of this group or not, but I (and perhaps others) might not respond to
>> anything you say. (Obviously, I make an exception for this metadicussion.)
> 
> I prefer to discuss and challenge ideas, rather than get on a personal
> level. To that end, a reduced audience is not a big problem.

Let's hope that makes sense to you.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  No, he spotted a technical security flaw in the computer system, and
> > pointed it out so that it could be fixed,

> But his mistake was to go several steps further, and actually "demonstrate" 
> the security floor by installing keyloggers and magnetic card readers, then 
> accessing 32 different student accounts illegally and sending his findings 
> to 37 of his mates.  Had he just written the document and sent it to the 
> university, fine.

  Yes, that caused tons of expensive damage, so he must be punished. That
will teach him to never tell about his hacking again. Next time he will
just hack and don't tell anyone. That way everybody will be happy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:48cd392c@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>> > You should. If you did, you'd only waste the rest of your night. If you
>> > read your e-mail in the morning and get my e-mail, you'll waste the
>> > rest of the day.
> 
>> o_O
>>
>> Are you seriously
> 
> Well, you answered your own question there, didn't you?
> 
>> suggesting I should read my email in the middle of the
>> night just in case somebody mailed me with my financial information?

Huh?!

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:48cef56a@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> >> somebody wrote:

> >> > You should. If you did, you'd only waste the rest of your night. If
you
> >> > read your e-mail in the morning and get my e-mail, you'll waste the
> >> > rest of the day.

> >> o_O
> >>
> >> Are you seriously

> > Well, you answered your own question there, didn't you?

> Huh?!

I was of course not serious. Can one not indulge in non-emoticonated levity
any more?

Post a reply to this message

>> But his mistake was to go several steps further, and actually 
>> "demonstrate"
>> the security floor by installing keyloggers and magnetic card readers, 
>> then
>> accessing 32 different student accounts illegally and sending his 
>> findings
>> to 37 of his mates.  Had he just written the document and sent it to the
>> university, fine.
>
>  Yes, that caused tons of expensive damage, so he must be punished.

Would you be happy if your details had been sent to 37 of his mates?  I 
guess those 32 students that had their data published had to go and change 
all their details, and the university had to go and check all their accounts 
with them to see if there was anything on their debit cards that shouldn't 
have been.  SO yes, I'm sure a lot of people are having to waste a lot of 
time now that they shouldn't have done, and yes he should be punished so 
that others don't do the same.

> That
> will teach him to never tell about his hacking again.

No, that will teach him to actually go ahead and carry out an illegal 
security hack on 32 students, rather than informing the authorities about 
it.  How on Earth can you say that installing a disguised magnetic card 
reader to skim cards does not deserve to be punished?

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:48cf65d4$1@news.povray.org...

> > That
> > will teach him to never tell about his hacking again.

> No, that will teach him to actually go ahead and carry out an illegal
> security hack on 32 students, rather than informing the authorities about
> it.  How on Earth can you say that installing a disguised magnetic card
> reader to skim cards does not deserve to be punished?

Forget punishment, that's not even the point. Warp and some others think
that *reporting* of the incident was wrong, and that the hacker should have
been rewarded instead, which is an order of magnitude harder to understand.

Post a reply to this message

> Forget punishment, that's not even the point. Warp and some others think
> that *reporting* of the incident was wrong, and that the hacker should 
> have
> been rewarded instead, which is an order of magnitude harder to 
> understand.

Yeh, I didn't really understand why Warp said:

"That will teach him to never tell about his hacking again."

When the *telling* about the security hole is not the problem, the problem 
is when he actually *did* the hacking on 32 students, and even much worse, 
distributed the data to lots of people (and not just the system owners).

I know for sure that I could install a keylogger on my colleagues computer 
and get his password.  Does that mean that I should be allowed to do it 
without permission from the system owners and send the results to my 
friends, "for the sake of improving security"?  Absolutely no way, not in a 
million years.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Warp and some others think
> that *reporting* of the incident was wrong,

  That's not what I have said. When I have said something like that it has
been pure sarcasm.

> and that the hacker should have
> been rewarded instead

  I never talked about rewards (except sarcastically), and that sentence
of yours doesn't even make sense with the firt one.

  You are badly twisting what I have said.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Yeh, I didn't really understand why Warp said:

> "That will teach him to never tell about his hacking again."

  Do you understand what the concept "sarcasm" means?

> I know for sure that I could install a keylogger on my colleagues computer 
> and get his password.  Does that mean that I should be allowed to do it 
> without permission from the system owners and send the results to my 
> friends, "for the sake of improving security"?  Absolutely no way, not in a 
> million years.

  And exactly what are you doing to prevent some malicious person from
doing so? Are you simply taking a "not my problem" stance?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48cfc9e8@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > Warp and some others think
> > that *reporting* of the incident was wrong,

>   That's not what I have said. When I have said something like that it has
> been pure sarcasm.

> > and that the hacker should have
> > been rewarded instead

>   I never talked about rewards (except sarcastically), and that sentence
> of yours doesn't even make sense with the firt one.
>
>   You are badly twisting what I have said.

At different times, you said

"No good deed goes unpunished."

"Finding a security weakness and then *not* exploiting it for your own
selfish purposes but instead reporting the weakness so that they will
patch it justifies it."

"Basically the situation is that the sysadmins *benefited* from the
hacking, and as a reward, the university sues the person who performed
the hacking."

...etc

If there's sarcasm, and there seems to be, it's in the opposite direction
(ie directed at the expense of the university administration, for their
"mishandling" of the situation). It's of course possible that I'm reading it
all wrong and you in fact believe that the hacker did a bad thing, in which
case I apologize and take back what I said, but interpreting those quotes as
something other than suggesting that he did a good deed, it was a favour to
sysadmins, and if anything, he should have been rewarded, sounds like a
stretch.

Post a reply to this message

>> I know for sure that I could install a keylogger on my colleagues 
>> computer
>> and get his password.  Does that mean that I should be allowed to do it
>> without permission from the system owners and send the results to my
>> friends, "for the sake of improving security"?  Absolutely no way, not in 
>> a
>> million years.
>
>  And exactly what are you doing to prevent some malicious person from
> doing so? Are you simply taking a "not my problem" stance?

Pretty much, yes, IT know the risk of the above and they have decided it's 
not worth doing anything extra, like putting bars on the windows, CCTV in 
all the offices, or reformatting the hard discs every night.  If I came 
across another security hole I didn't think they were aware of, of course I 
would inform them about it.

Like when someone nearly got their laptop stolen and I kept on about getting 
them all encrypted.  I didn't go and actually steal someones laptop then 
email confidential data to IT, I just informed them about the hole.  Now 
it's fixed and I didn't need to do anything illegal.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> IT know the risk of the above

  Well, that's one fundamental difference.

  What if you discovered a security hole which your IT staff doesn't know of?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> At different times, you said

> "No good deed goes unpunished."

  That's not the same thing as "his deed should have been rewarded".

> "Finding a security weakness and then *not* exploiting it for your own
> selfish purposes but instead reporting the weakness so that they will
> patch it justifies it."

  Still nothing about rewards.

> "Basically the situation is that the sysadmins *benefited* from the
> hacking, and as a reward, the university sues the person who performed
> the hacking."

  Sarcasm. Doesn't mean "they should have rewarded him with something
positive".

> If there's sarcasm, and there seems to be, it's in the opposite direction
> (ie directed at the expense of the university administration, for their
> "mishandling" of the situation).

  What I meant was that IMO the lawsuit was probably an exaggeration.

> It's of course possible that I'm reading it
> all wrong and you in fact believe that the hacker did a bad thing

  No, you said that in my opinion "the hacker should have been rewarded
instead". I never said anything like that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> IT know the risk of the above
>
>  Well, that's one fundamental difference.
>
>  What if you discovered a security hole which your IT staff doesn't know 
> of?

You should learn to read the whole post before replying ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> and if nothing happens, move out.
> 
> And the problem remains unsolved.

The person who does as I advise solves his own problem.  Believe it or 
not, you do not have the right to solve other people's problems; it is a 
privilege obtained with their consent.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message