Hacker 2/HACKER2.mdf/virus/virusl3/virusl3.18

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 12KB | 305 lines

VIRUS-L Digest   Tuesday, 23 Jan 1990    Volume 3 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:

Re: Internet worm writer to go to trial Jan 16th. (Internet)
the Internet Worm trial
Internet Worm
Internet Worm Trial
Internet Worm Trial (Ethics)
Internet Worm Trial
Re: Jury for Morris Trial
Internet Worm Trial

VIRUS-L is a moderated, digested mail forum for discussing computer
virus issues; comp.virus is a non-digested Usenet counterpart.
Discussions are not limited to any one hardware/software platform -
diversity is welcomed.  Contributions should be relevant, concise,
polite, etc., and sent to [e-mail] (that's
LEHIIBM1.BITNET for BITNET folks).  Information on accessing
anti-virus, document, and back-issue archives is distributed
periodically on the list.  Administrative mail (comments, suggestions,
and so forth) should be sent to me at: [e-mail].
 - Ken van Wyk

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    22 Jan 90 19:17:56 +0000
From:    [e-mail] (Gordon D. Wishon)
Subject: Re: Internet worm writer to go to trial Jan 16th. (Internet)

[e-mail] (Gene Spafford) writes:

>The reporters (and you) don't understand the situation.  I was there
>to testify as a witness and spoke at some length with the prosecutors
>and some others associated with the case.

Gene, in your report (_The Internet Worm Program:  An Analysis_), you
speculated that the code may have been written by more than one
person.  Has anything come out in the trial to support this?


------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 22 Jan 90 10:12:20 -0500
From:    EASTRA@morekypr
Subject: the Internet Worm trial

interesting how all the computer experts on this list are legal
experts as well since the posters to the list have already convicted
the defendent, they would clearly be ideal jurors after all, guilty
until proven innocent is clearly the attitude here

- -- ray easton


------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 22 Jan 90 00:00:00 +0000
From:    "Prof Arthur I. Larky" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Internet Worm

             Just a few comments on the Internet Worm and Mr.  Morris:

             The  number  of  challenges  available in Federal Court are
        more limited than those we have been led to expect from watching
        Perry Mason.  I just finished testifying in  a  patent  suit  in
        which  one  of the jury members was an inventor with a patent of
        his own.  He was not challenged even though it might  have  been
        better to have persons with no knowledge of patents or the field
        of  the  patent  on  the jury.  Juries are supposed to decide on
        FACTS,  which  depends  more  on   their   evaluation   of   the
        truthfulness  of  witnesses  than on the technical material.  In
        Morris' case, the jury probably has to decide on things such  as
        willfulness and whether the actions are proscribed under Federal
        laws.

             One  of the objections to "knowledgeable persons" on a jury
        is that they might stampede the jury  to  a  hasty  decision  by
        insisting that they understand the matter "better".  Lawyers use
        expert witnesses in an attempt to give the jury an understanding
        of  the  consequences  of the disputed facts.  I suspect that it
        really boils down to credibility  -  which  of  the  conflicting
        opinions does the jury believe?

             IMHO  if  all Morris wanted to do was to try out a worm, he
        could have isolated Cornell from  Internet  and  infected  their
        university-wide Ethernet LAN.  It would have been just as good a
        test   and   would   not   have   crashed   the  whole  country.
        Alternatively, he could have asked for permission to do a formal
        experiment on Internet; in which case, Internet sites could have
        protected themselves from a major  crash  and  would  have  been
        pre-warned of the steps to take to stop the beast.  Morris acted
        irresponsibly  and deserves to face the consequences of his acts
        just as a person which is accused of manslaughter has to face  a
        jury  and  possible  consequences.   No  doubt he is ready to be
        rehabilitated  since  he  seems  not  to  have  considered   the
        consequences  of  his  actions.   Without  having  heard all the
        evidence, I cannot make a judgement, so we have to wait and  see
        what the jury decides.  It would be interesting to know what was
        the charge to the jury; that is, what facts were they to decide?

             Obviously, these are my opinions, not those of my employer.


        Art Larky
        Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
        Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department
        Lehigh University

















------------------------------

Date:    22 Jan 90 22:49:52 +0000
From:    [e-mail] (Frederick L. Crabbe)
Subject: Internet Worm Trial

>>Can he be rehabilitated?
>
>There seems little doubt that young Morris can be rehabilitated.

Just a note: I found out from a rather reliable source that our friend
Morris infected the AT&T Bell Labs system when he was a high school
student.  They responded by hiring him for the summer.  So much for
one attempt of rehabilitation.

- -ric

- --
'I didn't know you had a perfect ass until you walked away.  Forgive me for not
falling in love with your face or your conversation.'
                                                       -Leonard Cohen
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 22 Jan 90 19:21:00 -0500
From:    [e-mail]
Subject: Internet Worm Trial (Ethics)

Ed Carp                 N7EKG/5 (28.3-28.5)     uunet!cs.utexas.edu!khijol!erc
Austin, Texas           [phone]

Writes:

>I must disagree.  If we held everyone to the same standard of conduct
>that you propose, half of the programmers and most of the managers in
>the DP arena would immediately lost their jobs.

It has not been my intention to propose any standard of conduct,
but rather to compare a particular piece of behavior to
alternative but possible standards.

>Everyone else, it seems, follows their own ethical
>code, so why expect someone else to uphold an ethical code in one
>area, while refusing to uphold a similar ethical code in another?

Indeed, they do not.  Most people behave in an orderly and polite
manner most of the time, at least to the extent that there is a
concensus about what it is.  What is at issue here is can we
reach one.

>He is not necessarily subject to professional sanctions, at
>least not those as harsh as would be assessed on yourself (or
>me, for that matter).

Clearly.

>A child is not assessed the same punishment as an adult for
>the same crime.  If a man drives his car down the street in a
>reckless manner, and in doing so runs over and kills someone,
>that man is liable for civil damages as well as severe criminal
>penalties.  A child who does the same thing has a much less
>strict penalty accrued to him.

Well it is certainly an interesting defense, but I doubt that
young Morris would subscribe to it.  In the case of the
automobile and the child, there is a presumption of ignorance,
lack of skill, and immature judgement.  While I grant that there
is evidence of all three things here, a twenty-four year old
doctoral candidate is not presumptively entitled to them.

>Even managers, who
>should know better, display immature, disorderly, impolite, and
>destructive behavior to a much higher degree than does the average
>programmer, because their position allows them to escape the
>consequences of their childish and irrational behavior.

However, we are not talking about all such behavior, but rather
that which may be in violation of legal or professional
standards.

>The Internet is generally regarded as an experimental media for
>the proliferation of experimental software and techniques by
>students (who are still learning), as well as professionals.

Nice people do not blot other peoples' copy books or interfere
with their experiments.  We do not tolerate students who trash
laboratories simply because they are students.  Indeed, one of
the things that we explicitly judge about a student is whether of
not he can be sufficiently socialized to be fit to work with.

>Some of the traffic carried by the network is of such low
>quality that one questions the professionalism of those
>proliferating such traffic.  However, *their* integrity is never
>questioned.

No doubt, but beside the point.  It is not the quality of the
traffic that is at issue here, but the purpose.  Morris may have
written the best code that he was capable of.  His ONLY defense
is that it was only an offense of poor quality.  That had it
performed as he intended it too, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CAUGHT.
Nonetheless, the code was risky at best and it never had a
legitimate purpose.

>If we insist on judging others, let us be measured by the standards the
>wish to impost (sic) upon others.

First,I have tried to avoid judging the individual and stick to
commenting upon the behavior.   Second, it is not my intention to
impose a standard of behavior, but rather to compare the behavior
to traditional norms.  Finally, I fully expect that abherent
behavior on my part is likely to be held to far more arbitrary
standards than those which I am trying to discuss here.  I will
not like it, but I can live with it.

I doubt that either the Justice Department or the profession take
any delight in having been put in the position where there is any
behavior to judge.  I certainly do not.

William Hugh Murray, Fellow, Information System Security, Ernst & Young
2000 National City Center Cleveland, Ohio 44114
21 Locust Avenue, Suite 2D, New Canaan, Connecticut 06840

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 23 Jan 90 08:14:00 -0500
From:    [e-mail]
Subject: Internet Worm Trial

Mr. William E. Johnston, a computer manager at LBL is quoted by John
Markoff in today's NY Times as saying "An appropriate sentence would be
public service in the field of computing."

Would this be punishment?

Would it deter others?

Would it be rehabilitative?

Anybody want to join me in nominating LBL as the place for such service?

How say you?

William Hugh Murray, Fellow, Information System Security, Ernst & Young
2000 National City Center Cleveland, Ohio 44114
21 Locust Avenue, Suite 2D, New Canaan, Connecticut 06840

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 23 Jan 90 15:13:36 +0000
From:    [e-mail] (Evelyn C Leeper)
Subject: Re: Jury for Morris Trial

[e-mail] (ROBERT M. HAMER) writes:
> lawyers (and unfortunately for our legal system) most people with
> education manage to get themselves excused from jury duty, leaving the
> jury pool composed of the unemployed, homemakers, and the retired.

I'm sure this is a slip of the keyboard here, since I know many educated
unemployed people, homemakers and retired people.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  [phone]  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  [e-mail]
- --
If I am not for myself, who is for me?  If I am only for myself what am I?
And if not now, when?  --Hillel

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 22 Jan 90 21:29:14 -0500
From:    Bridget Rutty <[e-mail]>
Subject: Internet Worm Trial

Morris has been convicted.

------------------------------

End of VIRUS-L Digest
*********************
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253