The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud343.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 39.0 KB | 822 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun, Dec 1, 1991   Volume 3 : Issue 43

       Moderators: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail])

CONTENTS, #3.43 ( Dec 8, 1991)
File 1--Moderators' Corner
File 2--You can help build the National Public Network.  Here's how.
File 3--#3.41--Bill Cook's opening statement in the Neidorf trial
File 4-- Two Juveniles arrested in BBS Extortion case
File 5--Law Enforcement and Rights
File 6--Townson's reply to Neidorf (in Cu Digest, #3.42)
File 7--"High-Tech Watergate" (Inslaw reprint by E. Richardson)
File 8--Software Piracy
File 9--Hacker Convicted
File 10--"Teens Tapped Computers of U.S. Military"
File 11--Canada: Police Seize BBS, Software Piracy Charges Expected 11/25/91
File 12--Here's something you might find of interest
File 13--24 Year Old Cracks NASA

Issues of CuD can be found in the Usenet alt.society.cu-digest news
group, on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG,
and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM, on Genie, on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414)
789-4210, and by anonymous ftp from ftp.cs.widener.edu (147.31.254.132),
chsun1.spc.uchicago.edu, and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au.  To use the U. of
Chicago email server, send mail with the subject "help" (without the
quotes) to [e-mail].

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.  CuD material may  be reprinted as long as the source
is cited.  Some authors do copyright their material, and they should
be contacted for reprint permission.  It is assumed that non-personal
mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified.
Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to the
Computer Underground.  Articles are preferred to short responses.
Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

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

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 91 9:39:58 EST
From: Moderators <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moderators' Corner

In CuD 3.41 (the Bill Cook opening statement), the Moderators' Corner
file was garbled on some systems. In that file, we indicated that Bill
Cook is now in private practice in Chicago. We will reprint his new
address when we print Sheldon Zenner's opening statement in a few
weeks.

We are often asked why we re-publish occasional material from the nets
or other old news. About one-quarter of CuD readers do not have access
to usenet and obtain it from BBSs or other non-net sources. For them,
this is the only source to some of the net debates. In addition, some
readers keep files of news stories for research or reference, so if an
old story comes across that we think would be useful as a resource, we
will occasionally reproduce it to enable researchers to track down
additional information more easily. We apologize for those who find
this mundane, but our goal is to make information available to a wide
audience, so not all files will be of equal interest to all readers.

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

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 21:24:58 -0500
From: [e-mail](Gerard Van der Leun)
Subject: You can help build the National Public Network.  Here's how.

     THE NATIONAL PUBLIC NETWORK BEGINS NOW. YOU CAN HELP BUILD IT.

Telecommunications in the United States is at a crossroads.  With the
Regional Bell Operating Companies now free to provide content, the
shape of the information networking is about to be irrevocably
altered.  But will that network be the open, accessible, affordable
network that the American public needs?  You can help decide this
question.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently presented a plan to
Congress calling for the immediate deployment of a national network
based on existing ISDN technology, accessible to anyone with a
telephone connection, and priced like local voice service.  We believe
deployment of such a platform will spur the development of innovative
new information services, and maximize freedom, competitiveness, and
civil liberties throughout the nation.

The EFF is testifying before Congress and the FCC; making
presentations to public utility commisions from Massachusetts to
California; and meeting with representatives from telephone companies,
publishers, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders in the
telecommunications policy debate.

The EFF believes that participants on the Internet, as pioneers on the
electronic frontier, need to have their voices heard at this critical
moment.

To automatically receive a description of the platform and details,
send mail to [e-mail], with the following line:

send documents open-platform-overview

or send mail to [e-mail].

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

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 05:22:52 +0200
From: Jyrki Kuoppala <[e-mail]>
Subject: #3.41--Bill Cook's opening statement in the Neidorf trial

In article <[e-mail]> you write:

>     JURORS: Good morning.
>
>     MR. COOK: My name is Bill Cook. I'm an Assistant United States
>Attorney. I am going to be substantially aided in this prosecution
>by Colleen Coughlin, who is an Assistant United States Attorney, and
>Dave Glockner, who is also an Assistant United States Attorney. We
>will be having Special Agent Tim Foley of the United States Secret
>Service working with us. He is sitting at the trial table with us.

Wow!  This is really fascinating - Bill Cook appears to have a very
good imagination and talent to present things.  Sad that's there
doesn't seem to be a desire to represent things objectively or
truthfully.

This concept of thinking of information as something which can be
stolen and even as something which is something not for 'all to have'
as Don Ingraham (sp?) said about Craig Neidorf is really a fascinating
idea.  It's a bit like saying that he owns the sunshine and others
have no right to sunshine unless he says so.

Another thing I find fascinating is the absurdness of the accusations
- it's really weird to find out that such ridiculousness and total
contempt for the civil liberties of individuals can be presented at a
court of law.  Guilt by association to a group which is painted by
stereotypes and imagination - accusing someone of printing a magazine
- accusing someone of publishing technical information - accusing
someone of sharing information with others.  If these acts can be
considered to be fraud, then you in the USA are in worse than trouble.
I hope it's just argument by vigorous handwaving.

Also, the description of the E911 system shows that 1984 is here.  Very
scary stuff.  In Finland I heard that they use caller id at hospitals
and the police uses it - someone said that all telephone exchanges
have good hooks for telephone surveillance and detailed recording of
all calls going thru the exchanges.  It's easy to imagine what can be
done with the information when combined with all the various of other
source governments have.  The Helsinki area has a high-tech radio cab
system - and it keeps detailed logs of where cabs were called, at what
time, where people travelled etc. and I hear they are checked by the
police.

Thanks for the excellent work you're doing by publishing CuD.  If you
need a place for archives, I think nic.funet.fi could provide space -
I think I once ftp'd a lot from some archives (including the Phrack
archives with the E911 'document') but it could perhaps be useful to
have a prime archive also routinely updated here.  Makes it more
difficult for oppressive governments to come after people when the
information is published internationally.

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

Date:     24 NOV 91 23:53:02 CST
From:     ROBERT ERVIN JONES <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Two Juveniles arrested in BBS Extortion case

TWO JUVENILES ARRESTED IN BBS EXTORTION CASE
(April 26)

Two 15-year-olds have been arrested by California authorities on
charges they made death threats and tried to extort money from at
least three computer bulletin board operators.

As reported in Online Today yesterday, Encino, Calif., BBS sysop John
Sands went to police after receiving demands for money and threats on
his life in messages left on his board in March and the first part of
this month.

Police now say that the two suspects -- both reportedly sophomores at
Seaside High School near Monterey, Calif. -- also are accused of
making similar computerized threats on a Fort Ord-based Army staff
sergeant and his teen-age son, and on another student at a private
high school in the Pebble Beach, Calif., area.

The juveniles were arrested at their homes in Marina by investigators
who seized computer equipment allegedly used to transmit the threats,
according to United Press International reporter Michael D. Harris.

Authorities say the teen-agers, who allegedly demanded payments
ranging from $50 to $350 from at least the three BBS sysops
identified, were turned over to their parents while authorities decide
how and where they should be prosecuted.

The case came to light yesterday after reports surfaced that legal
complaints had been filed by Sands, who is the chief electronics
engineer for Capitol records. Sands, 43, said the visitors to his
private BBS demanded $350 from him and threatened violence if he
didn't pay.

The computer message instructed Sands to leave the money at a drop
site in San Jose. During the investigation, Los Angeles police
prepared a phony drop but never carried it out because they
subsequently received tips that led them to the youths, said police Lt.
Fred Reno.

Following the arrests, Sands told Harris, "It was a little scary
because even though I suspected they were juveniles, I felt they were
probably capable of carrying out their threats. I%m sorry to see any
young person get in trouble, but I'm relieved that they were
arrested."

Meanwhile, according to Judy Smagula Farah of the Associated Press,
the youths and Sands once belonged to the same computer club and used
a code that have them access to Sands' bulletin board.

Reno said that if the suspects decide to plead guilty to the likely
charges of accessing a computer system to extort money, their
sentencing will occur in Monterey County. If they decide to fight the
charges, the case -- the first of its kind in Los Angeles County --
will be prosecuted in Southern California.  Supplied by Frosty ---*
GCMS - MechWarriors

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

Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 16:07:40 EST
From: [e-mail](Lee S. Parks)
Subject: Law Enforcement and Rights

It is important in a free society that the pursuit of legitimate law
enforcement activities does not trample the rights of individual
citizens.  There is a long history of various branches of our
government overstepping the bounds of valid inquiry and turning their
investigations into witch-hunts.  Several examples come quickly to
mind, including the covert surveillance by Army intelligence (among
others) of Vietnam protest groups, attempts by the FBI to gain copies
of the membership list of the NAACP and other civil rights
organizations, and McCarthy era hunt for communists in entertainment,
schools and government service.  Has our society and our government
learned nothing from these regretable incidents?

Consider the Secret Service investigations of alleged illegal computer
hacking.  Several of the activities which the Secret Service has been
alleged to conduct appear to fall outside the bounds of proper
investigatory procedure.  I do not think that anyone contends that
reading a public digest on the internet is wrong; however, attempting
to determine who are the contributors to the digest or who subscribes
to the digest are actions which impinge upon our freedom of
association.  Similarly, covert surveillance of ostensibly legal
assemblies is not permitted in the absence of specified cause.

We live today in an environment of fear of computer hackers
endangering innocent lives or harming important computational
resources through illegal "hacking" activities.  Some of the present
concerns, such as the danger posed by computer viruses, may be well
grounded, but panic and over reaction arising from ignorance and
misunderstanding is harmful both to resolving the real problems and to
maintaining our civil rights.  As history has repeatedly shown, it is
most important for us to guard against infringement of our rights by
government in difficult times.  The actions of the CPSR and the EFF in
helping to assure that our civil rights are protected should be
applauded and supported.

In response to certain recent messages which suggest that agencies of
the government have the same rights as private groups or individuals,
let me add a final note.  While an activity may be public or a
document freely circulated to any individual or group, the
participation by government in such an activity, especially on a
covert basis, is fundamentally different than participation by
individuals or private groups.  Our courts have recognized such
distinctions in the past.  We must not lose cite of the fact that
government has enforcement powers not available to individuals or
private groups.  It is these powers which can exert a chilling effect
on the exercise of our rights in a unique fashion.  It is impossible
to maintain free and open debate about government policy if that same
government by threat and innuendo frightens people from the legitimate
expression of their rights.

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

Date: Tue, 3 Dec 91 15:38:55 est
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Townson's reply to Neidorf (in Cu Digest, #3.42)

Patrick Townson shows his usual servile naivete when it comes to the
government.  You'd think this guy had never heard of Red Squads or of
the harassment of Central-America activists, unionists, etc.  He
either misses (or deliberately ignores) the implication that the
Secret Service does not read TELECOM digest because of its love for
debate about cellular phones but rather because it is monitoring the
activities and speech of individuals.

Back in the past, when we had a Bill of Rights, the courts used to
consistently rule that federal agents could not simply attend "open"
meetings in their official capacity because this created an atmosphere
of intimidation which interfered with others' First Amendment rights
of free speech and free association.  Especially forbidden were
recording activities like taping and photographing license plates.
Townson is wrong when he asserts that visual observation and
photographing by government agents are equivalent -- the courts have
held otherwise.  If we still had any civil rights, one might assume
that recording TELECOM or CU Digests would fall under the same
prohibition.

Townson's assertion about the government "owning" the Internet is both
specious and false.  The government "owns" the interstate highway
system --it still has to respect peoples' rights on the highways.

Townson's toadying attitude only makes me happier I don't read
TELECOM.

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 91 8:21:44 EST
From: Anonymous <[e-mail]>
Subject: "High-Tech Watergate" (Inslaw reprint by E. Richardson)

                            A High-Tech Watergate

                       By Elliot L. Richardson
           (Source: New-York Times, Oct. 21, 1991, p. A-15)
            Elliot L. Richardson, a Washington lawyer, was
            Attorney General in the Nixon Administration.

Washington--As a former Federal prosecutor, Massachusetts attorney
general and U.S. Attorney General, I don't have to be told that the
appointment of a special prosecutor is justified only in exceptional
circumstances.  Why, then, do I believe it should be done in the case
of Inslaw Inc., a small Washington-based software company?  Let me
explain.

Inslaw's principal asset is a highly efficient computer program that
keeps track of large numbers of legal cases.  In 1982, the company
contracted with the Justice Department to install this system, called
Promis, in U.S. Attorneys' offices.  A year later, however, the
department began to raise sham disputes about Inslaw's costs and
performance and then started to withhold payments.  The company was
forced into bankruptcy after it had installed the system in 19 U.S.
Attorneys' offices. Meanwhile, the Justice Department copied the
software and put it in other offices.

As one of Inslaw's lawyers, I advised its owners, William and Nancy
Hamilton, to sue the department in Federal bankruptcy court.  In
September 1987, the judge, George Bason, found that the Justice
Department used "trickery, fraud and deceit" to take Inslaw's
property.  He awarded Inslaw more than $7 million in damages for the
stolen copies of Promis.  Soon thereafter, a panel headed by a former
department official recommended that Judge Bason not be reappointed.
He was replaced by a Justice Department lawyer involved in the Inslaw
case.

An intermediate court later affirmed Judge Bason's opinion.  Though
the U.S. Court of Appeals set that ruling aside in May of this year on
the ground that bankruptcy courts have no power to try a case like
Inslaw's, it did not disturb the conclusion that "the Government acted
willfully and fraudulently to obtain property that it was not entitled
to under the contract."  Inslaw, which reorganized under Chapter 11,
has asked the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision.

After the first court's judgment, a number of present and former
Justice Department employees gave the Hamiltons new information.
Until then, the Hamiltons thought their problems were the result of a
vendetta by a department official, C. Madison Brewer, whom Mr.
Hamilton had dismissed from Inslaw several years before.  How else to
explain why a simple contract dispute turned into a vicious campaign
to ruin a small company and take its prize possession?

The new claims alleged that Earl Brian, California health secretary
under Gov. Ronald Reagan and a friend of Attorney General Edwin Meese
3d, was linked to a scheme to take Inslaw's stolen software and use it
to gain the inside track on a $250 million contract to automate
Justice Department litigation divisions.

(In Mr. Meese's confirmation fight, it was revealed that Ursula Meese,
his wife, had borrowed money to buy stock in Biotech Capital
Corporation, of which Dr. Brian was the controlling shareholder.
Biotech controlled Hadron Inc., a computer company that aggressively
tried to buy Inslaw.)

Evidence to support the more serious accusations came from 30 people,
including Justice Department sources.  I long ago gave the names of
most of the 30 to Mr. Meese's successor as Attorney General, Dick
Thornburgh.  But the department contacted only one of them, a New York
judge.

Meanwhile, the department has resisted Congressional investigations.
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations staff reported
that its inquiry into Inslaw's charges had been "hampered by the
department's lack of cooperation" and that it had found employees "who
desired to speak to the subcommittee, but who chose not to out of fear
for their jobs."

The department also hindered the interrogation of employees and
resisted requests for documents by the House Judiciary Committee and
its chairman, Representative Jack Brooks.  Under subpoena, Mr.
Thornburgh produced many files but the department said that a volume
containing key documents was missing.

In letters to Mr. Thornburgh in 1988 and 1989, I argued for the
appointment of an independent counsel.  When it became obvious that
Mr. Thornburgh did not intend to reply or act, Inslaw went to court to
order him to act.  A year ago, the U.S. District Court ruled,
incorrectly I think, that a prosecutor's decision not to investigate,
no matter how indefensible, cannot be corrected by any court.

In May 1988, Ronald LeGrand, chief investigator for the Senate
Judiciary Committee, told the Hamiltons, and confirmed to their
lawyers, that he had a trusted Justice Department source who, as Mr.
LeGrand quoted him, said that the Inslaw case was "a lot dirtier for
the Department of Justice than Watergate had been, both in its breadth
and its depth."  Mr. LeGrand now says he and his friend were only
discussing rumors.

Then, in 1990, the Hamiltons received a phone call from Michael
Riconosciuto, an out-of-fiction character believed by many
knowledgeable sources to have C.I.A. connections.  Mr. Riconosciuto
claimed that the Justice Department stole the Promis software as part
of a payoff to Dr. Brian for helping to get some Iranian leaders to
collude in the so-called October surprise, the alleged plot by the
Reagan campaign in 1980 to conspire with Iranian agents to hold up
release of the American Embassy hostages until after the election.
Mr. Riconosciuto is now in jail in Tacoma, Wash., awaiting trial on
drug charges, which he claims are trumped up.

Since that first Riconosciuto phone call, he and other informants from
the world of covert operations have talked to the Hamiltons, the
Judiciary Committee staff, several reporters and Inslaw's lawyers,
including me.  These informants, in addition to confirming and
supplementing Mr. Riconosciuto's statements, claim that scores of
foreign governments now have Promis.  Dr. Brian, these informants say,
was given the chance to sell the software as a reward for his services
in the October surprise.  Dr. Brian denies all of this.  The reported
sales allegedly had two aims.  One was to generate

revenue for covert operations not authorized by Congress.  The second
was to supply foreign intelligence agencies with a software system
that would make it easier for U.S. eavesdroppers to read intercepted
signals.  These informants are not what a lawyer might consider ideal
witnesses, but the picture that emerges from the individual statements
is remarkably detailed and consistent, all the more so because these
people are not close associates of one another.  It seems unlikely
that so complex a story could have been made up, memorized all at once
and closely coordinated.

It is plausible, moreover, that preventing revelations about the theft
and secret sale of Inslaw's property to foreign intelligence agencies
was the reason for Mr. Thornburgh's otherwise inexplicable reluctance
to order a thorough investigation.

Although prepared not to believe a lot they told him, Danny Casolaro,
a freelance journalist, got many leads from the same informants.  The
circumstances of his death in August in a Martinsburg, W.Va., hotel
room increase the importance of finding out how much of what they have
said to him and others is true.  Mr. Casolaro told friends that he had
evidence linking Inslaw, the Iran-contra affair and the October
surprise, and was going to West Virginia to meet a source to receive
the final piece of proof.

He was found dead with his wrists and arms slashed 12 times.  The
Martinsburg police ruled it a suicide, and allowed his body to be
embalmed before his family was notified of his death.  His briefcase
was missing.  I believe he was murdered, but even if that is no more
than a possibility, it is a possibility with such sinister
implications as to demand a serious effort to discover the truth.

This is not the first occasion I have had to think about the need for
an independent investigator.  I had been a member of the Nixon
Administration from the beginning when I was nominated as Attorney
General in 1973.  Public confidence in the integrity of the Watergate
investigation could best be insured, I thought, by entrusting it to
someone who had no such prior connection to the White House.  In the
Inslaw case the charges against the Justice Department make the same
course even more imperative.

When the Watergate special prosecutor began his inquiry, indications
of the President's involvement were not as strong as those that now
point to a widespread conspiracy implicating lesser Government
officials in the theft of Inslaw's technology.

The newly designated Attorney General, William P. Barr, has assured me
that he will address my concerns regarding the Inslaw case.  That is a
welcome departure.  But the question of whether the department should
appoint a special prosecutor is not one it alone should decide.  Views
>from others in the executive branch, as well as from Congress and the
public, should also be heard.

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

Date: 17 Nov 91 10:19:30 EST
From: Gordon Meyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Software Piracy

We recently received these brief summaries of stories that appeared in
the 11/11/91 issue of the Wall Street Journal.   The contributor did
not provide additional information.  It is unclear from the summary if
'software makers' (presumably the ASP) are going after CU-type
software pirates who trade software, or 'bootleggers' that sell
counterfeit or home-made copies.  After reading the full text of the
article it seems that the reporter is unaware of the the distinction
as both types of activity are alluded to without explanation.  It is
disappointing that errors such as this continue to be made.  Nobody
benefits when issues such as there are clouded by misuse of terms and
descriptions.

As for the second article, about one year ago we ran a similar story
that the Army was developing such viruses in-house.  Perhaps they have
now turned to outside sources?

                       +++++++++++++++++++++++

Software makers, cracking down on piracy, are secretly prowling
electronic bulletin boards in search of purloined products.
Electronic bulletin boards, which can be reached by computer over the
phone, offer a way for people with common interests to share ideas.
But, in rare cases, bulletin board operators offer illegal copies of
popular computer programs for sale.  Callers can buy the programs for
a fraction of the normal price.


The Army is looking for a few good computer viruses.  Computer
viruses, rogue programs that "infect" a network and render machines
inoperative, are most often dispatched by pranksters with a flair for
programming who consider it a sport to gum up a computer system.  With
computers playing a growing role in battle, the Army wants to know
whether viruses can attack war-fighting hardware.

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

Date: 27 Nov 91 12:45:25 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Hacker Convicted

(Reprinted from X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 973, Message 6 of 12)

I read an article in today's {Newsday} about a person convicted of
computer crime.  The entire article is:

                       "Hacker Pleads Guilty"

"A 24-year-old Denver hacker who admitted breaking into a sensitive
NASA computer system pleaded guilty to a felony count of altering
information.

In exchange for the plea Monday, federal prosecutors dropped six
similar counts against Richard G. Wittman Jr., who faced up to five
years in prison and a $250,000 fine.  Authorities said the government
will seek a much lighter penalty when Wittman is sentenced Jan. 13.

Both sides have agreed on repayment of $1,100 in collect calls he
placed to the computer system, but they differ on whether Wittman
should be held responsible for the cost of new software.

Wittman told U.S. District Judge Sherman Finesilver that it took him
about two hours on a personal computer in his apartment to tap into
the space agency's restricted files.  It took NASA investigators
nearly 300 hours to track Wittman and an additional 100 hours to
rewrite the software to prevent a recurrence, prosecutors said."

Well, I guess computer crime pays.  Wittman will spend no more than
$1,100; the government paid hourly salaries of the investigators and
programmers working on the problem.  A very, very conservative
estimate of the final cost would be over $20,000 when one stops to
consider that the word "investigators" was used which implies more
than one person.  They gave away the store.

I could probably say more but I'm too disgusted.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 91 12:01:37 CST
From: Anonymous <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Teens Tapped Computers of U.S. Military"

              "Teens Tapped Computers of U.S. Military"
          From: _Chicago Tribune_, November 21, 1991: p. 3.

WASHINGTON--Four years after the federal government adopted a
computer security law, a group of Dutch teenagers was able to tap
sensitive information in Defense Department computers, a congressional
committee was told Wednesday.

Federal auditors said the interlopers entered some computer systems
without even using passwords. Among the data available at the 34
defense installations they penetrated were personnel performance
reports, weapons development information, and descriptions of the
movements of equipment and personnel.

At least one of the systems cracked by the teenagers, who operated
between April 1990 and May 1991, directly supported Operation Desert
Storm.

Jack L. Brock. director of government information for the General
Accounting Office, declined to give specifics about that system, but
said operations against Iraq were in no way compromised.

"It is not clear that these hackers had the level of sophistication
needed to use what they obtained," Brock told a subcommittee of the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Nevertheless, he said, "this
type of information could be very useful to a foreign intelligence
operation."

A Defense Department spokeswoman said security procedures are being
reviewed, but noted that the hackers only gained access to unclassified
information.

The hackers' activities were first disclosed by Dutch television in
February, when camera crews filmed an unnamed individual tapping what
he said was U.S. military missile test information. But little was
known at the time about the extent of the intrusions or the methods
used. Brock's testimony provided the first details, sketchy though
they were.

Law-enforcement officials are seeking to prosecute the Dutch
teenagers, but officials declined to comment Wednesday on the progress
of their efforts.

Brock and congressional critics sought to use the case of the Dutch
hackers to illustrate their contention that federal agencies have
failed to follow the federal Computer Security Act of 1987.

A GAO review last year indicated that only one of 23 federal agencies
reviewed had instituted the security measures and training the act
requires.

The Dutch hackers used a variety of methods to crack Defense
Department computers--all of them simple.

In some cased, they copied files containing coded passwords, then
scoured those files for the names of users who had no passwords.

Brock said the Defense Department failed to detect the intruders
because it does not tightly manages its computer systems.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1991 16:55:40 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Canada: Police Seize BBS, Software Piracy Charges Expected 11/25/91

(Reposted from Article 1209 of info.academic-freedom)

[Reposted from alt.bbs]
: From: [e-mail] ()
: From: [e-mail]
: Date: 26-NOV-1991 02:12:56
: Canada: Police Seize BBS, Software Piracy Charges Expected 11/25/91
:
:
: MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA, 1991 NOV 25 (NB) -- The Federal
: Investigations Section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has
: seized components of a bulletin board system (BBS), known as 90
: North, from a home in the West Island area of Montreal. Charges of
: commercial distribution of pirated software may be laid this week.
:
: The RCMP seized 10 personal computers, seven modems, and
: software, worth about C$25,000 altogether. A statement released
: through the Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft (CAAST), a
: group of major software vendors, said a four-month investigation
: had found that the BBS was charging its subscribers C$49 per year
: for access to an assortment of software that included copies of
: commercial programs and beta-test versions of unreleased
: packages.
:
: The software available on the BBS included WordPerfect 5.0, DOS
: 5.0, Windows 3.0, Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows, Borland C++ 2.0,
: Borland's Quattro Pro 3.0 spreadsheet package, dBase IV 1.1, the
: Santa Cruz Operation's SCO Xenix for DOS, Novell Netware 3.11,
: and Clipper 5.0, the CAAST statement said.
:
: Alan Reynolds, a spokesman for CAAST, said the name of the BBS
: system operator has not been released and formal charges had not
: been laid at Newsbytes' deadline. However, he said, charges are
: expected to be laid within days.
:
: Under the Canadian Copyright Act, anyone convicted of distributing
: pirated commercial software can face imprisonment for up to five
: years, a fine of as much as C$1 million, or both.
:
: The Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft is an alliance of the
: Canadian arms of major software vendors Ashton-Tate (now owned
: by Borland International), Lotus Development, Microsoft, Novell, and
: Quarterdeck Office Systems.
:
: (Grant Buckler/19911125/Press Contact: Allan Reynolds, CAAST, 416-
: 598-8988)

My question/comment about this concerns the legality of confiscating
the computer along with the software.

Namely, if the charge is distributing copyrighted materials, then why
was the entire system taken?  The computer itself, once unplugged, is
not terribly capable of providing evidence.

An idea occured to me that the perpetrator of this act, the sysop, could
more easily communicate his plight to others if he had a computer, and,
by taking it away, the RCMP has made it more difficult for him to clear
himself of the charges against him.

Although I don't agree with many of the antipornography laws, I do feel
that the general principle of taking the incriminating material, rather
than taking _everything_ is the more legal way to proceed.

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

Date: Sun,  1 Dec 91 16:06:13 CST
From: [e-mail](wires wildhack)
Subject: Here's something you might find of interest

CompuServe not responsible party for allegedly offensive messages [by
Lisa Picarille, InfoWorld]

A court ruling that held CompuServe could not be held responsible for an
allegedly libelous statement posted on its bulletin board service is
being hailed as a precedent-setting case involving free speech in the
electronic information age.

In Cubby vs. CompuServe, a New York federal judge ruled that CompuServe
was not legally responsible for information disseminated over its
network.

The ruling comes at a time when other on-line service providers, such as
Prodigy, are also being accused of acting as conduits for potentially
libelous statements.

"The winners are the public and the people who use computer networks,"
said Bruce Sanford, a lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues for
the Washington firm of Baker & Hostetler.  "It says that the computer
networks do not exercise editorial control over their products and,
therefore, don't have a liability for defamation."

Others agree.  "I think the decision correctly reinforces the idea that
CompuServe shouldn't be obligated for everything on their systems," said
Mike Godwin, staff council for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a
Cambridge, Massachusetts, group that is concerned with the civil
liberties of computer users over a network.

"This is a very important first in trying to understand a brand-new
medium," said Robert Charles, a New York lawyer who has been following
this issue for several years.

Cubby vs. CompuServe, being heard in the U.S. District Court in New York,
is not over, however.  Although CompuServe has been eliminated as a
defendant and deemed not liable for any damages, an independently
contracted systems operator for CompuServe remains under fire.

Don Fitzpatrick, who runs CompuServe's forum for journalists -- called
Rumorville -- remains accused of allegedly posting defamatory remarks
about Skuttlebutt, a rival forum.

Judge Peter K. Leisure of the U.S. District Court compared the
responsibility of CompuServe to that of the owner of a bookstore, saying
that the owner couldn't possibly be responsible for the editorial content
of every book he sold.

CompuServe described the ruling as a major victory for freedom of speech
on a network.

"We see this case as an endorsement of our operating philosophy," said
David Kishler, a spokesman for CompuServe.

According to Kishler, the systems operators actually control the content
of the forums, not CompuServe.

"If the case had been decided differently, it might have had a chilling
effect on our relationships with information providers."

The results of the CompuServe case are expected to have little effect on
Prodigy, which has a practice of screening public messages posted by its
users. Prodigy is accused of allowing anti-Semitic messages to go out
over the network, but not allowing responses to be posted.

After a Prodigy member filed a complaint with the Anti-Defamation League,
Prodigy maintained it did not screen messages and, therefore, was not
responsible for the anti-Semitic comments.  Prodigy later said it did, in
fact, screen messages and that is why no response was allowed.

"I'm disappointed in Prodigy's decision not to become a free expression
forum," Godwin said.  "Prodigy should let both the original offensive
message and the response appear.  The best cure for offensive speech is
more speech."

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

Date: 03 Dec 91 18:08:48 EST
From: Gordon Meyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: 24 Year Old Cracks NASA

 A 24 year-old Denver man, Richard G. Wittman Jr., has admitted breaking
 into a NASA computer system. In a plea bargain, Wittman plead guilty to
 a single count of altering information - a password - inside a federal
 computer.

 According to reports, it took NASA investigators nearly 300 hours to
 track down Wittman and an additional 100 hours to rewrite the software
 to prevent a recurrence of his feat.  Wittman not only broke into 118
 systems within the NASA network, he also acquired "super user" status,
 allowing him to review the files and electronic mail of other users.


  -- Canadian Police Seize BBS

 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has seized parts of a BBS known
 as "90 North" from a house in Montreal.  The RCMP seized 10 pc's, seven
 modems and assorted copyrighted software.  The BBS was charging its mem-
 bers C$49 per year for access.

 Under the Canadian Copyright Act, anyone convicted of distributing
 pirated commercial software can face imprisonment for up to five years,
 a fine of as much as C$1 million, or both.

============
Reprinted with permission from STReport No.7.4.47  November 29, 1991

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


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

End of Computer Underground Digest #3.43
************************************