💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › phreak › telecom.txt captured on 2023-11-14 at 11:27:43.
View Raw
More Information
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-16)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Telecommunications Digest
The following files are taken from numerous sources regarding
telecommunications, infringement issues, and numberous other issues.
Some of the material contained herein is of a "sensitive" nature
in that the subjects are often misinterpreted.
This information has been carefully reviewed by members of Doc's
House BBS for content and compliance with applicable Federal Regulations
and we decided it appropriate to release to educate and enlighten the
computer hobbist community.
In one article, you will note that the U.S. Government has dropped
all charges regarding certain "defendants" in what has been previously
reported as: The 911 Affair.......we will attempt to see if further articles
exist on that case and others herein regarding improper interception of
E-Mail, hardware, or electronic media by agencies which appear to be
outside the normal "balance" of legal investigative authority versus
individual and civil Constitutional and Federal rights.
DISCLAIMER: THIS INFORMATION HAS ALREADY APPEARED IN THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL, BUSINESS MAGAZINES, AND NUMEROUS PRINT AND
ELECTRONIC MEDIA SOURCES. None of the information is
known nor marked proprietary, nor is any of the informa-
tion of a nature which would cause improper actions or
illegal actions by any party. Further, none of these
articles would, to our knowledge, allow a reader to
improperly gain access to another's electronic system.
Released 06/01/91 Doc's House BBS (614) 855-3114
350meg HST V.42bis 2400 - 19200
Concerning Hackers Who Break into Computer Systems
Dorothy E. Denning
Digital Equipment Corp., Systems Research Center
130 Lytton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301
415-853-2252, denning@src.dec.com
Abstract
A diffuse group of people, often called ``hackers,'' has been
characterized as unethical, irresponsible, and a serious danger to
society for actions related to breaking into computer systems. This
paper attempts to construct a picture of hackers, their concerns,
and the discourse in which hacking takes place. My initial findings
suggest that hackers are learners and explorers who want to help
rather than cause damage, and who often have very high standards
of behavior. My findings also suggest that the discourse surrounding
hacking belongs at the very least to the gray areas between larger
conflicts that we are experiencing at every level of society and
business in an information age where many are not computer literate.
These conflicts are between the idea that information cannot be owned
and the idea that it can, and between law enforcement and the First
and Fourth Amendments. Hackers have raised serious issues about
values and practices in an information society. Based on my findings,
I recommend that we work closely with hackers, and suggest several
actions that might be taken.
1. Introduction
The world is crisscrossed with many different networks that are used
to deliver essential services and basic necessities -- electric power,
water, fuel, food, goods, to name a few. These networks are all
publicly accessible and hence vulnerable to attacks, and yet virtually
no attacks or disruptions actually occur.
The world of computer networking seems to be an anomaly in the
firmament of networks. Stories about attacks, breakins, disruptions,
theft of information, modification of files, and the like appear
frequently in the newspapers. A diffuse group called ``hackers''
is often the target of scorn and blame for these actions. Why are
computer networks any different from other vulnerable public networks?
Is the difference the result of growing pains in a young field?
Or is it the reflection of deeper tensions in our emerging information
society?
There are no easy or immediate answers to these questions. Yet it
is important to our future in a networked, information-dependent
world that we come to grips with them. I am deeply interested in
them. This paper is my report of what I have discovered in the early
stages of what promises to be a longer investigation. I have
concentrated my attention in these early stages on the hackers
themselves. Who are they? What do they say? What motivates them?
What are their values? What do that have to say about public policies
regarding information and computers? What do they have to say about
computer security?
From such a profile I expect to be able to construct a picture of
the discourses in which hacking takes place. By a discourse I mean
the invisible background of assumptions that transcends individuals
and governs our ways of thinking, speaking, and acting. My initial
findings lead me to conclude that this discourse belongs at the very
least to the gray areas between larger conflicts that we are
experiencing at every level of society and business, the conflict
between the idea that information cannot be owned and the idea that
it can, and the conflict between law enforcement and the First and
Fourth Amendments.
But, enough of the philosophy. On with the story!
2. Opening Moves
In late fall of 1989, Frank Drake (not his real name), editor of
the now defunct cyberpunk magazine W.O.R.M., invited me to be
interviewed for the magazine. In accepting the invitation, I hoped
that something I might say would discourage hackers from breaking
into systems. I was also curious about the hacker culture. This
seemed like a good opportunity to learn about it.
The interview was conducted electronically. I quickly discovered
that I had much more to learn from Drake's questions than to teach.
For example, he asked: ``Is providing computer security for large
databases that collect information on us a real service? How do
you balance the individual's privacy vs. the corporations?'' This
question surprised me. Nothing that I had read about hackers ever
suggested that they might care about privacy. He also asked: ``What
has (the DES) taught us about what the government's (especially NSA's)
role in cryptography should be?'' Again, I was surprised to discover
a concern for the role of the government in computer security. I
did not know at the time that I would later discover considerable
overlap in the issues discussed by hackers and those of other computer
professionals.
I met with Drake to discuss his questions and views. After our
meeting, we continued our dialog electronically with me interviewing
him. This gave me the opportunity to explore his views in greater
depth. Both interviews appear in ``Computers Under Attack,''
edited by Peter Denning (DenningP90).
My dialog with Drake increased my curiosity about hackers. I read
articles and books by or about hackers. In addition, I had discussions
with nine hackers whom I will not mention by name. Their ages ranged
from 17 to 28.
The word ``hacker'' has taken on many different meanings ranging
from 1) ``a person who enjoys learning the details of computer systems
and how to stretch their capabilities'' to 2) ``a malicious or
inquisitive meddler who tries to discover information by poking around
... possibly by deceptive or illegal means ...'' (Steele83). The
hackers described in this paper are both learners and explorers who
sometimes perform illegal actions. However, all of the hackers I
spoke with said they did not engage in or approve of malicious acts
that damage systems or files. Thus, this paper is not about malicious
hackers. Indeed, my research so far suggests that there are very
few malicious hackers. Neither is this paper about career criminals
who, for example, defraud businesses, or about people who use stolen
credit cards to purchase goods. The characteristics of many of the
hackers I am writing about are summed up in the words of one of the
hackers: ``A hacker is someone who experiments with systems...
(Hacking) is playing with systems and making them do what they were
never intended to do. Breaking in and making free calls is just
a small part of that. Hacking is also about freedom of speech and
free access to information -- being able to find out anything. There
is also the David and Goliath side of it, the underdog vs. the system,
and the ethic of being a folk hero, albeit a minor one.''
Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation who calls
himself a hacker according to the first sense of the word above,
recommends calling security-breaking hackers ``crackers''
(Stallman84). While this description may be more accurate, I shall
use the term ``hacker'' since the people I am writing about call
themselves hackers and all are interested in learning about computer
and communication systems. However, there are many people like
Stallman who call themselves hackers and do not engage in illegal
or deceptive practices; this paper is also not about those hackers.
In what follows I will report on what I have learned about hackers
from hackers. I will organize the discussion around the principal
domains of concerns I observed. I recommend Meyer's thesis (Meyer89)
for a more detailed treatment of the hackers' social culture and
networks, and Meyer and Thomas (MeyerThomas90) for an interesting
interpretation of the computer underground as a postmodernist rejection
of conventional culture that substitutes ``rational technological
control of the present for an anarchic and playful future.''
I do not pretend to know all the concerns that hackers have, nor
do I claim to have conducted a scientific study. Rather, I hope
that my own informal study motivates others to explore the area
further. It is essential that we as computer security professionals
take into account hackers' concerns in the design of our policies,
procedures, laws regulating computer and information access, and
educational programs. Although I speak about security-breaking hackers
as a group, their competencies, actions, and views are not all the
same. Thus, it is equally important that our policies and programs
take into account individual differences.
In focusing on what hackers say and do, I do not mean for a moment
to set aside the concerns of the owners and users of systems that
hackers break into, the concerns of law enforcement personnel, or
our own concerns as computer security professionals. But I do
recommend that we work closely with hackers as well as these other
groups to design new approaches and programs for addressing the
concerns of all. Like ham radio operators, hackers exist, and it
is in our best interest that we learn to communicate and work with
them rather than against them.
I will suggest some actions that we might consider taking, and I
invite others to reflect on these and suggest their own. Many of
these suggestions are from the hackers themselves; others came from
the recommendations of the ACM Panel on Hacking (Lee86) and from
colleagues.
I grouped the hackers' concerns into five categories: access to
computers and information for learning; thrill, excitement and
challenge; ethics and avoiding damage; public image and treatment;
and privacy and first amendment rights. These are discussed in
the next five subsections. I have made an effort to present my
findings as uncritical observations. The reader should not infer
that I either approve or disapprove of actions hackers take.
3. Access to Computers and Information for Learning
Although Levy's book ``Hackers'' (Levy84) is not about today's
security-breaking hackers, it articulates and interprets a ``hacker
ethic'' that is shared by many of these hackers. The ethic includes
two key principles that were formulated in the early days of the
AI Lab at MIT: ``Access to computers -- and anything which might
teach you something about the way the world works -- should be
unlimited and total,'' and ``All information should be free.'' In
the context in which these principles were formulated, the computers
of interest were research machines and the information was software
and systems information.
Since Stallman is a leading advocate of open systems and freedom
of information, especially software, I asked him what he means by
this. He said: ``I believe that all generally useful information
should be free. By `free' I am not referring to price, but rather
to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one's own
uses.'' By ``generally useful'' he does not include confidential
information about individuals or credit card information, for example.
He further writes: ``When information is generally useful,
redistributing it makes humanity wealthier no matter who is
distributing and no matter who is receiving.'' Stallman has argued
strongly against user interface copyright, claiming that it does
not serve the users or promote the evolutionary process (Stallman90).
I asked hackers whether all systems should be accessible and all
information should be free. They said that it is OK if some systems
are closed and some information, mainly confidential information
about individuals, is not accessible. They make a distinction between
information about security technology, e.g., the DES, and confidential
information protected by that technology, arguing that it is the
former that should be accessible. They said that information hoarding
is inefficient and slows down evolution of technology. They also
said that more systems should be open so that idle resources are
not wasted. One hacker said that the high costs of communication
hurts the growth of the information economy.
These views of information sharing seem to go back at least as far
as the 17th and 18th centuries. Samuelson (Samuelson89) notes that
``The drafters of the Constitution, educated in the Enlightenment
tradition, shared that era's legacy of faith in the enabling powers
of knowledge for society as well as the individual.'' She writes
that our current copyright laws, which protect the expression of
information, but not the information itself, are based on the belief
that unfettered and widespread dissemination of information promotes
technological progress. (Similarly for patent laws which protect
devices and processes, not the information about them.) She cites
two recent court cases where courts reversed the historical trend
and treated information as ownable property. She raises questions
about whether in entering the Information Age where information is
the source of greatest wealth, we have outgrown the Enlightenment
tradition and are coming to treat information as property.
In a society where knowledge is said to be power, Drake expressed
particular concern about what he sees as a growing information gap
between the rich and poor. He would like to see information that
is not about individuals be made public, although it could still
be owned. He likes to think that companies would actually find it
to their advantage to share information. He noted how IBM's disclosure
of the PC allowed developers to make more products for the computers,
and how Adobe's disclosure of their fonts helped them compete against
the Apple-Microsoft deal. He recognizes that in our current political
framework, it is difficult to make all information public, because
complicated structures have been built on top of an assumption that
certain information will be kept secret. He cites our defense policy,
which is founded on secrecy for military information, as an example.
Hackers say they want access to information and computing and network
resources in order to learn. Both Levy (Levy84) and Landreth
(Landreth89) note that hackers have an intense, compelling interest
in computers and learning, and many go into computers as a profession.
Some hackers break into systems in order to learn more about how
the systems work. Landreth says these hackers want to remain
undiscovered so that they can stay on the system as long as possible.
Some of them devote most of their time to learning how to break the
locks and other security mechanisms on systems; their background
in systems and programming varies considerably. One hacker wrote
``A hacker sees a security hole and takes advantage of it because
it is there, not to destroy information or steal. I think our
activities would be analogous to someone discovering methods of
acquiring information in a library and becoming excited and perhaps
engrossed.''
We should not underestimate the effectiveness of the networks in
which hackers learn their craft. They do research, learn about
systems, work in groups, write, and teach others. One hacker said
that he belongs to a study group with the mission of churning out
files of information and learning as much as possible. Within the
group, people specialize, collaborate on research projects, share
information and news, write articles, and teach others about their
areas of specialization. Hackers have set up a private system of
education that engages them, teaches them to think, and allows them
to apply their knowledge in purposeful, if not always legal,
activity. Ironically, many of our nation's classrooms have been
criticized for providing a poor learning environment that seems to
emphasize memorization rather than thinking and reasoning. One hacker
reported that through volunteer work with a local high school, he
was trying to get students turned on to learning.
Many hackers say that the legitimate computer access they have through
their home and school computers do not meet their needs. One student
told me that his high school did not offer anything beyond elementary
courses in BASIC and PASCAL, and that he was bored by these. Hans
Huebner, a hacker in Germany who goes by the name Pengo, wrote in
a note to the RISKS Forum (Huebner89) : ``I was just interested in
computers, not in the data which has been kept on their disks. As
I was going to school at that time, I didn't even have the money
to buy my own computer. Since CP/M (which was the most sophisticated
OS I could use on machines which I had legal access to) didn't turn
me on anymore, I enjoyed the lax security of the systems I had access
to by using X.25 networks. You might point out that I should have
been patient and waited until I could go to the university and
use their machines. Some of you might understand that waiting was
just not the thing I was keen on in those days.''
Brian Harvey, in his position paper (Harvey86) for the ACM Panel on
Hacking, claims that the computer medium available to students, e.g.,
BASIC and floppy disks, is inadequate for challenging intellectual
work. His recommendation is that students be given access to real
computing power, and that they be taught how to use that power
responsibly. He describes a program he created at a public high school
in Massachusetts during the period 1979-1982. They installed a
PDP-11/70 and let students and teachers carry out the administration
of the system. Harvey assessed that putting the burden of dealing
with the problems of malicious users on the students themselves was
a powerful educational force. He also noted that the students who
had the skill and interest to be password hackers were discouraged
from this activity because they also wanted to keep the trust of
their colleagues in order that they could acquire ``superuser'' status
on the system.
Harvey also makes an interesting analogy between teaching computing
and teaching karate. In karate instruction, students are introduced
to the real, adult community. They are given access to a powerful,
deadly weapon, and at the same time are taught discipline and
responsibility. Harvey speculates that the reason that students
do not misuse their power is that they know they are being trusted
with something important, and they want to live up to that trust.
Harvey applied this principle when he set up the school system.
The ACM panel endorsed Harvey's recommendation, proposing a
three-tiered computing environment with local, district-wide, and
nation-wide networks. They recommended that computer professionals
participate in this effort as mentors and role models. They also
recommended that government and industry be encouraged to establish
regional computing centers using donated or re-cycled equipment;
that students be apprenticed to local companies either part-time
on a continuing basis or on a periodic basis; and, following a
suggestion from Felsenstein (Felsenstein86) for a ``Hacker's League,''
that a league analogous to the Amateur Radio Relay League be
established to make contributed resources available for educational
purposes.
Drake said he liked these recommendations. He said that if hackers
were given access to powerful systems through a public account system,
they would supervise themselves. He also suggested that Computer
Resource Centers be established in low-income areas in order to help
the poor get access to information. Perhaps hackers could help run
the centers and teach the members of the community how to use the
facilities. One of my colleagues suggested cynically that the hackers
would only use this to teach the poor how to hack rich people's
systems. A hacker responded by saying this was ridiculous; hackers
would not teach people how to break into systems, but rather how
to use computers effectively and not be afraid of them.
In addition, the hackers I spoke with who had given up illegal
activities said they stopped doing so when they got engaged in other
work.
Geoff Goodfellow and Richard Stallman have reported that they have
given hackers accounts on systems that they manage, and that the
hackers have not misused the trust granted to them. Perhaps
universities could consider providing accounts to pre-college students
on the basis of recommendations from their teachers or parents.
The students might be challenged to work on the same homework problems
assigned in courses or to explore their own interests. Students
who strongly dislike the inflexibility of classroom learning might
excel in an environment that allows them to learn on their own, in
much the way that hackers have done.
4. Thrill, Excitement, and Challenge
One hacker wrote that ``Hackers understand something basic about
computers, and that is that they can be enjoyed. I know none who
hack for money, or hack to frighten the company, or hack for anything
but fun.''
In the words of another hacker, ``Hacking was the ultimate cerebral
buzz for me. I would come home from another dull day at school,
turn my computer on, and become a member of the hacker elite. It
was a whole different world where there were no condescending adults
and you were judged only by your talent. I would first check in
to the private Bulletin Boards where other people who were like me
would hang out, see what the news was in the community, and trade
some info with people across the country. Then I would start actually
hacking. My brain would be going a million miles an hour and I'd
basically completely forget about my body as I would jump from one
computer to another trying to find a path into my target. It was
the rush of working on a puzzle coupled with the high of discovery
many magnitudes intensified. To go along with the adrenaline rush
was the illicit thrill of doing something illegal. Every step I made
could be the one that would bring the authorities crashing down on
me. I was on the edge of technology and exploring past it, spelunking
into electronic caves where I wasn't supposed to be.''
The other hackers I spoke with made similar statements about the
fun and challenge of hacking. In SPIN magazine (Dibbel90), reporter
Julian Dibbell speculated that much of the thrill comes from the
dangers associated with the activity, writing that ``the technology
just lends itself to cloak-and-dagger drama,'' and that ``hackers
were already living in a world in which covert action was nothing
more than a game children played.''
Eric Corley (Corley89) characterizes hacking as an evolved form of
mountain climbing. In describing an effort to construct a list of
active mailboxes on a Voice Messaging System, he writes ``I suppose
the main reason I'm wasting my time pushing all these buttons is
simply so that I can make a list of something that I'm not supposed
to have and be the first person to accomplish this.'' He said that
he was not interested in obtaining an account of his own on the system.
Gordon Meyer says he found this to be a recurring theme: ``We aren't
supposed to be able to do this, but we can'' -- so they do.
One hacker said he was now working on anti-viral programming. He
said it was almost as much fun as breaking into systems, and that
it was an intellectual battle against the virus author.
5. Ethics and Avoiding Damage
All of the hackers I spoke with said that malicious hacking was morally
wrong. They said that most hackers are not intentionally malicious,
and that they themselves are concerned about causing accidental
damage. When I asked Drake about the responsibility of a person
with a PC and modem, his reply included not erasing or modifying
anyone else's data, and not causing a legitimate user on a system
any problems. Hackers say they are outraged when other hackers cause
damage or use resources that would be missed, even if the results
are unintentional and due to incompetence. One hacker wrote ``I
have ALWAYS strived to do NO damage, and to inconvenience as few people
as possible. I NEVER, EVER, EVER DELETE A FILE. One of the first
commands I do on a new system is disable the delete file command.''
Some hackers say that it is unethical to give passwords and similar
security-related information to persons who might do damage. In
the recent incident where a hacker broke into Bell South and downloaded
a text file on the emergency 911 service, hackers say that there
was no intention to use this knowledge to break into or sabotage
the 911 system. According to Emmanuel Goldstein (Goldstein90), the
file did not even contain information about how to break into the
911 system.
The hackers also said that some break-ins were unethical, e.g.,
breaking into hospital systems, and that it is wrong to read
confidential information about individuals or steal classified
information. All said it was wrong to commit fraud for personal
profit.
Although we as computer security professionals often disagree with
hackers about what constitutes damage, the ethical standards listed
here sound much like our own. Where the hackers' ethics differ from
the standards adopted by most in the computer security community
is that hackers say it is not unethical to break into many systems,
use idle computer and communications resources, and download system
files in order to learn. Goldstein says that hacking is not wrong:
it is not the same as stealing, and uncovers design flaws and security
deficiencies (Goldstein89).
Brian Reid, a colleague at Digital who has spoken with many hackers,
speculates that a hacker's ethics may come from not being raised
properly as a civilized member of society, and not appreciating the
rules of living in society. One hacker responded to this with ``What
does `being brought up properly' mean? Some would say that it is
`good' to keep to yourself, mind your own business. Others might
argue that it is healthy to explore, take risks, be curious and
discover.'' Brian Harvey (Harvey86) notes that many hackers are
adolescents, and that adolescents are at a less advanced stage of
moral development than adults, where they might not see how the effects
of their actions hurt others. Larry Martin (Martin89) claims that
parents, teachers, the press, and others in society are not aware
of their responsibility to contribute to instilling ethical values
associated with computer use. This could be the consequence of the
youth of the computing field; many people are still computer illiterate
and cultural norms may be lagging behind advances in technology and
the growing dependency on that technology by businesses and society.
Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce (HollingerLanza-Kaduce88) speculate that
the cultural normative messages about the use and abuse of computer
technology have been driven by the adoption of criminal laws in the
last decade. They also speculate that hacking may be encouraged
during the process of becoming computer literate. Some of my
colleagues say that hackers are irresponsible. One hacker responded
``I think it's a strong indication of the amount of responsibility
shown that so FEW actually DAMAGING incidents are known.''
But we must not overlook that the differences in ethics also reflect
a difference in philosophy about information and information handling
resources; whereas hackers advocate sharing, we seem to be advocating
ownership as property. The differences also represent an opportunity
to examine our own ethical behavior and our practices for information
sharing and protection. For example, one hacker wrote ``I will accept
that it is morally wrong to copy some proprietary software, however,
I think that it is morally wrong to charge $6000 for a program that
is only around 25K long.'' Hence, I shall go into a few of the ethical
points raised by hackers more closely. It is not a simple case of
good or mature (us) against bad or immature (hackers), or of teaching
hackers a list of rules.
Many computer professionals such as Martin (Martin89) argue the moral
questions by analogy. The analogies are then used to justify their
judgment of a hacker's actions as unethical. Breaking into a system
is compared with breaking into a house, and downloading information
and using computer and telecommunications services is compared with
stealing tangible goods. But, say hackers, the situations are not
the same. When someone breaks into a house, the objective is to
steal goods, which are often irreplaceable, and property is often
damaged in the process. By contrast, when a hacker breaks into a
system, the objective is to learn and avoid causing damage. Downloaded
information is copied, not stolen, and still exists on the original
system. Moreover, as noted earlier, information has not been
traditionally regarded as property. Dibbel (Dibbel90) says that
when the software industries and phone companies claim losses of
billions of dollars to piracy, they are not talking about goods that
disappear from the shelves and could have been sold.
We often say that breaking into a system implies a lack of caring
for the system's owner and authorized users. But, one hacker says
that the ease of breaking into a system reveals a lack of caring
on the part of the system manager to protect user and company assets,
or failure on the part of vendors to warn managers about the
vulnerabilities of their systems. He estimated his success rate
of getting in at 10-15%, and that is without spending more than an
hour on any one target system. Another hacker says that he sees
messages from vendors notifying the managers, but that the managers
fail to take action.
Richard Pethia of CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) reports
that they seldom see cases of malicious damage caused by hackers,
but that the break-ins are nevertheless disruptive because system
users and administrators want to be sure that nothing was damaged.
(CERT suggests that sites reload system software from secure backups
and change all user passwords in order to protect against possible
back doors and Trojan Horses that might have been planted by the
hacker. Pethia also noted that prosecutors are generally called
for government sites, and are being called for non-government sites
with increasing frequency.) Pethia says that break-ins also generate
a loss of trust in the computing environment, and may lead to adoption
of new policies that are formulated in a panic or management edicts
that severely restrict connectivity to outside systems. Brian Harvey
says that hackers cause damage by increasing the amount of paranoia,
which in turn leads to tighter security controls that diminish the
quality of life for the users. Hackers respond to these points by
saying they are the scapegoats for systems that are not adequately
protected. They say that the paranoia is generated by ill-founded
fears and media distortions (I will return to this point later),
and that security need not be oppressive to keep hackers out; it
is mainly making sure that passwords and system defaults are
well chosen.
Pethia says that some intruders seem to be disruptive to prove a
point, such as that the systems are vulnerable, the security personnel
are incompetent, or ``it's not nice to say bad things about hackers.''
In the N.Y. Times, John Markoff (Markoff90) wrote that the hacker
who claimed to have broken into Cliff Stoll's system said he was
upset by Stoll's portrayal of hackers in ``The Cuckoo's Egg''
(Stoll90). Markoff reported that the caller said: ``He (Stoll)
was going on about how he hates all hackers, and he gave pretty much
of a one-sided view of who hackers are.''
``The Cuckoo's Egg'' captures many of the popular stereotypes of
hackers. Criminologist Jim Thomas criticizes it for presenting a
simplified view of the world, one where everything springs from the
forces of light (us) or of darkness (hackers) (Thomas90). He claims
that Stoll fails to see the similarities between his own activities
(e.g., monitoring communications, ``borrowing'' monitors without
authorization, shutting off network access without warning, and lying
to get information he wants) and those of hackers. He points out
Stoll's use of pejorative words such as ``varmint'' to describe
hackers, and Stoll's quote of a colleague: ``They're technically
skilled but ethically bankrupt programmers without any respect for
others' work -- or privacy. They're not destroying one or two
programs. They're trying to wreck the cooperation that builds our
networks,'' (Stoll90, p. 159). Thomas writes ``at an intellectual
level, it (Stoll's book) provides a persuasive, but simplistic, moral
imagery of the nature of right and wrong, and provides what -- to
a lay reader -- would seem a compelling justification for more statutes
and severe penalties against the computer underground. This is
troublesome for two reasons. First, it leads to a mentality of social
control by law enforcement during a social phase when some would
argue we are already over-controlled. Second, it invokes a punishment
model that assumes we can stamp out behaviors to which we object
if only we apprehend and convict a sufficient number of violators.
... There is little evidence that punishment will in the long run
reduce any given offense, and the research of Gordon Meyer and I
suggests that criminalization may, in fact, contribute to the growth
of the computer underground.''
6. Public Image and Treatment
Hackers express concern about their negative public image and
identity. As noted earlier, hackers are often portrayed as being
irresponsible and immoral. One hacker said that ``government
propaganda is spreading an image of our being at best, sub-human,
depraved, criminally inclined, morally corrupt, low life. We need
to prove that the activities that we are accused of (crashing systems,
interfering with life support equipment, robbing banks, and jamming
911 lines) are as morally abhorrent to us as they are to the general
public.''
The public identity of an individual or group is generated in part
by the actions of the group interacting with the standards of the
community observing those actions. What then accounts for the
difference between the hacker's public image and what they say about
themselves? One explanation may be the different standards. Outside
the hacking community, the simple act of breaking into systems is
regarded as unethical by many. The use of pejorative words like
``vandal'' and ``varmint'' reflect this discrepency in ethics. Even
the word ``criminal'' carries with it connotations of someone evil;
hackers say they are not criminal in this sense. Katie Hafner notes
that Robert Morris Jr., who was convicted of launching the Internet
worm, was likened to a terrorist even though the worm did not destroy
data (Hafner90)
Distortions of events and references to potential threats also create
an image of persons who are dangerous. Regarding the 911 incident
where a hacker downloaded a file from Bell South, Goldstein reported
``Quickly, headlines screamed that hackers had broken into the 911
system and were interfering with emergency telephone calls to the
police. One newspaper report said there were no indications that
anyone had died or been injured as a result of the intrusions. What
a relief. Too bad it wasn't true,'' (Goldstein90). In fact, the
hackers involved with the 911 text file had not broken into the 911
system. The dollar losses attributed to hacking incidents also are
often highly inflated.
Thomas and Meyer (ThomasMeyer90) say that the rhetoric depicting
hackers as a dangerous evil contributes to a ``witch hunt'' mentality,
wherein a group is first labeled as dangerous, and then enforcement
agents are mobilized to exorcise the alleged social evil. They see
the current sweeps against hackers as part of a reaction to a broader
fear of change, rather than to the actual crimes committed.
Hackers say they are particularly concerned that computer security
professionals and system managers do not appear to understand hackers
or be interested in their concerns. Hackers say that system managers
treat them like enemies and criminals, rather than as potential helpers
in their task of making their systems secure. This may reflect
managers' fears about hackers, as well as their responsibilities
to protect the information on their systems. Stallman says that
the strangers he encounters using his account are more likely to
have a chip on their shoulder than in the past; he attributes this
to a harsh enforcer mentality adopted by the establishment. He says
that network system managers start out with too little trust and
a hostile attitude toward strangers that few of the strangers deserve.
One hacker said that system managers show a lack of openness to those
who want to learn.
Stallman also says that the laws make the hacker scared to communicate
with anyone even slightly ``official,'' because that person might
try to track the hacker down and have him or her arrested. Drake
raised the issue of whether the laws could differentiate between
malicious and nonmalicious hacking, in support of a ``kinder, gentler''
relationship between hackers and computer security people. In fact,
many states such as California initially passed computer crime laws
that excluded malicious hacking; it was only later that these laws
were amended to include nonmalicious actions (HollingerLanza-Kaduce88).
Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce speculate that these amendments and other
new laws were catalyzed mainly by media events, especially the reports
on the ``414 hackers'' and the movie ``War Games,'' which created
a perception of hacking as extremely dangerous, even if that perception
was not based on facts.
Hackers say they want to help system managers make their systems
more secure. They would like managers to recognize and use their
knowledge about system vulnerabilities. Landreth (Landreth89)
suggests ways in which system managers can approach hackers in order
to turn them into colleagues, and Goodfellow also suggests befriending
hackers (Goodfellow83). John Draper (Cap'n Crunch) says it would
help if system managers and the operators of phone companies and
switches could cooperate in tracing a hacker without bringing in
law enforcement authorities.
Drake suggests giving hackers free access in exchange for helping
with security, a suggestion that I also heard from several hackers.
Drake says that the current attitude of treating hackers as enemies
is not very conducive to a solution, and by belittling them, we only
cause ourselves problems.
I asked some of the hackers whether they'd be interested in breaking
into systems if the rules of the ``game'' were changed so that instead
of being threatened by prosecution, they were invited to leave a
``calling card'' giving their name, phone number, and method of
breaking in. In exchange, they would get recognition and points
for each vulnerability they discovered. Most were interested in
playing; one hacker said he would prefer monetary reward since he
was supporting himself. Any system manager interested in trying
this out could post a welcome message inviting hackers to leave their
cards. This approach could have the advantage of not only letting
the hackers contribute to the security of the system, but of allowing
the managers to quickly recognize the potentially malicious hackers,
since they are unlikely to leave their cards. Perhaps if hackers
are given the opportunity to make contributions outside the
underground, this will dampen their desire to pursue illegal activities.
Several hackers said that they would like to be able to pursue their
activities legally and for income. They like breaking into systems,
doing research on computer security, and figuring out how to protect
against vulnerabilities. They say they would like to be in a position
where they have permission to hack systems. Goodfellow suggests
hiring hackers to work on tiger teams that are commissioned to locate
vulnerabilities in systems through penetration testing. Baird
Info-Systems Safeguards, Inc., a security consulting firm, reports
that they have employed hackers on several assignments (Baird87).
They say the hackers did not violate their trust or the trust of
their clients, and performed in an outstanding manner. Baird believes
that system vulnerabilities can be better identified by employing
people who have exploited systems.
One hacker suggested setting up a clearinghouse that would match
hackers with companies that could use their expertise, while
maintaining anonymity of the hackers and ensuring confidentiality
of all records. Another hacker, in describing an incident where
he discovered a privileged account without a password, said ``What
I (and others) wish for is a way that hackers can give information
like this to a responsible source, AND HAVE HACKERS GIVEN CREDIT
FOR HELPING! As it is, if someone told them that `I'm a hacker, and
I REALLY think you should know...' they would freak out, and run
screaming to the SS (Secret Service) or the FBI. Eventually, the
person who found it would be caught, and hauled away on some crazy
charge. If they could only just ACCEPT that the hacker was trying
to help!'' The clearinghouse could also provide this type of service.
Hackers are also interested in security policy issues. Drake expressed
concern over how we handle information about computer security
vulnerabilities. He argues that it is better to make this information
public than cover it up and pretend that it does not exist, and cites
the CERT to illustrate how this approach can be workable. Other
hackers, however, argue for restricting initial dissemination of
flaws to customers and users. Drake also expressed concern about
the role of the government, particularly the military, in
cryptography. He argues that NSA's opinion on a cryptographic standard
should be taken with a large grain of salt because of their code
breaking role.
Some security specialists are opposed to hiring hackers for security
work, and Eugene Spafford has urged people not to do business with
any company that hires a convicted hacker to work in the security
area (ACM90). He says that ``This is like having a known arsonist
install a fire alarm.'' But, the laws are such that a person can
be convicted for having done nothing other than break into a system;
no serious damage (i.e., no ``computer arson'') is necessary. Many
of our colleagues, including Geoff Goodfellow (Goodfellow83) and
Brian Reid (Frenkel87), admit to having broken into systems in the
past. Reid is quoted as saying that because of the knowledge he gained
breaking into systems as a kid, he was frequently called in to help
catch people who break in. Spafford says that times have changed,
and that this method of entering the field is no longer socially
acceptable, and fails to provide adequate training in computer science
and computer engineering (Spafford89). However, from what I have
observed, many hackers do have considerable knowledge about
telecommunications, data security, operating systems, programming
languages, networks, and cryptography. But, I am not challenging
a policy to hire competent people of sound character. Rather, I
am challenging a strict policy that uses economic pressure to close
a field of activity to all persons convicted of breaking into
systems. It is enough that a company is responsible for the behavior
of its employees. Each hacker can be considered for employment based
on his or her own competency and character.
Some people have called for stricter penalties for hackers, including
prison terms, in order to send a strong deterrent message to hackers.
John Draper, who was incarcerated for his activities in the 1970's,
argues that in practice this will only make the problem worse. He
told me that he was forced under threat to teach other inmates his
knowledge of communications systems. He believes that prison sentences
will serve only to spread hacker's knowledge to career criminals.
He said he was never approached by criminals outside the prison,
but that inside the prison they had control over him.
One hacker said that by clamping down on the hobbyist underground,
we will only be left with the criminal underground. He said that
without hackers to uncover system vulnerabilities, the holes will
be left undiscovered, to be utilized by those likely to cause real
damage.
Goldstein argues that the existing penalties are already way out
of proportion to the acts committed, and that the reason is because
of computers (Goldstein89). He says that if Kevin Mitnick had
committed crimes similar to those he committed but without a computer,
he would have been classified as a mischief maker and maybe fined
$100 for trespassing; instead, he was put in jail without bail
(Goldstein89). Craig Neidorf, a publisher and editor of the electronic
newsletter ``Phrack,'' faces up to 31 years and a fine of $122,000
for receiving, editing, and transmitting the downloaded text file
on the 911 system (Goldstein90). (Since the time I wrote this, a new
indictment was issued with penalties of up to 65 years in prison.
Neidorf went on trial beginning July 23. The trial ended July 27
when the government dropped all charges. DED)
7. Privacy and the First and Fourth Amendments
The hackers I spoke with advocated privacy protection for sensitive
information about individuals. They said they are not interested
in invading people's privacy, and that they limited their hacking
activities to acquiring information about computer systems or how
to break into them. There are, of course, hackers who break into
systems such as the TRW credit database. Emanuel Goldstein argues
that such invasions of privacy took place before the hacker arrived
(Harpers90). Referring to credit reports, government files, motor
vehicle records, and the ``megabytes of data piling up about each
of us,'' he says that thousands of people legally can see and use
this data, much of it erroneous. He claims that the public has been
misinformed about the databases, and that hackers have become
scapegoats for the holes in the systems. One hacker questioned the
practice of storing sensitive personal information on open systems
with dial-up access, the accrual of the information, the methods
used to acquire it, and the purposes to which it is put. Another
hacker questioned the inclusion of religion and race in credit records.
Drake told me that he was concerned about the increasing amount of
information about individuals that is stored in large data banks,
and the inability of the individual to have much control over the
use of that information. He suggests that the individual might be
co-owner of information collected about him or her, with control
over the use of that information. He also says that an individual
should be free to withhold personal information, of course paying
the consequences of doing so (e.g., not getting a drivers license
or credit card). In fact, all Federal Government forms are required
to contain a Privacy Act Statement that states how the information
being collected will be used and, in some cases, giving the option
of withholding the information.
Goldstein has also challenged the practices of law enforcement agencies
in their attempt to crack down on hackers (Goldstein90). He said
that all incoming and outgoing electronic mail used by ``Phrack''
was monitored before the newsletter was shutdown by authorities.
``Had a printed magazine been shut down in this fashion after having
all of their mail opened and read, even the most thick-headed
sensationalist media types would have caught on: hey, isn't that
a violation of the First Amendment?'' He also cites the shutdown
of several bulletin boards as part of Operation Sun Devil, and quotes
the administrator of the bulletin board Zygot as saying ``Should
I start reading my users' mail to make sure they aren't saying anything
naughty? Should I snoop through all the files to make sure everyone
is being good? This whole affair is rather chilling.'' The
administrator for the public system The Point wrote ``Today, there
is no law or precedent which affords me ... the same legal rights
that other common carriers have against prosecution should some other
party (you) use my property (The Point) for illegal activities.
That worries me ...''
About 40 personal computer systems and 23,000 data disks were seized
under Operation Sun Devil, a two-year investigation involving the
FBI, Secret Service, and other federal and local law enforcement
officials. In addition, the Secret Service acknowledges that its
agents, acting as legitimate users, had secretly monitored computer
bulletin boards (Markoff90a). Markoff reports that California
Representative Don Edwards, industry leader Mitchell Kapor, and civil
liberties advocates are alarmed by these government actions, saying
that they challenge freedom of speech under the First Amendment and
protection against searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.
Markoff asks: ``Will fear of hackers bring oppression?''
John Barlow writes ``The Secret Service may actually have done a
service for those of us who love liberty. They have provided us
with a devil. And devils, among their other galvanizing virtues,
are just great for clarifying the issues and putting iron in your
spine,'' (Barlow90). Some of the questions that Barlow says need
to be addressed include ``What are data and what is free speech?
How does one treat property which has no physical form and can be
infinitely reproduced? Is a computer the same as a printing press?''
Barlow urges those of us who understand the technology to address
these questions, lest the answers be given to us by law makers and
law enforcers who do not. Barlow and Kapor are constituting a
foundation to ``raise and disburse funds for education, lobbying,
and litigation in the areas relating to digital speech and the
extension of the Constitution into Cyberspace.''
8. Conclusions
Hackers say that it is our social responsibility to share information,
and that it is information hoarding and disinformation that are the
crimes. This ethic of resource and information sharing contrasts
sharply with computer security policies that are based on authorization
and ``need to know.'' This discrepancy raises an interesting question:
Does the hacker ethic reflect a growing force in society that stands
for greater sharing of resources and information -- a reaffirmation
of basic values in our constitution and laws? It is important that
we examine the differences between the standards of hackers, systems
managers, users, and the public. These differences may represent
breakdowns in current practices, and may present new opportunities
to design better policies and mechanisms for making computer resources
and information more widely available.
The sentiment for greater information sharing is not restricted to
hackers. In the best seller, ``Thriving on Chaos,'' Tom Peters
(Peters87) writes about sharing within organizations: ``Information
hoarding, especially by politically motivated, power-seeking staffs,
has been commonplace throughout American industry, service and
manufacturing alike. It will be an impossible millstone around the
neck of tomorrow's organizations. Sharing is a must.'' Peters argues
that information flow and sharing is fundamental to innovation and
competitiveness. On a broader scale, Peter Drucker (Drucker89) says
that the ``control of information by government is no longer possible.
Indeed, information is now transnational. Like money, it has no
`fatherland.' ''
Nor is the sentiment restricted to people outside the computer security
field. Harry DeMaio (DeMaio89) says that our natural urge is to
share information, and that we are suspicious of organizations and
individuals who are secretive. He says that information is exchanged
out of ``want to know'' and mutual accommodation rather than ``need
to know.'' If this is so, then some of our security policies are
out of step with the way people work. Peter Denning (DenningP89)
says that information sharing will be widespread in the emerging
worldwide networks of computers and that we need to focus on ``immune
systems'' that protect against mistakes in our designs and recover
from damage.
I began my investigation of hackers with the question, who are they
and what is their culture and discourse? My investigation uncovered
some of their concerns, which provided the organizational structure
to this paper, and several suggestions for new actions that might
be taken. My investigation also opened up a broader question: What
conflict in society do hackers stand at the battle lines of? Is
it owning or restricting information vs. sharing information -- a
tension between an age-old tradition of controlling information as
property and the Englightenment tradition of sharing and disseminating
information? Is it controlling access based on ``need to know,''
as determined by the information provider, vs. ``want to know,''
as determined by the person desiring access? Is it law enforcement
vs. freedoms granted under the First and Fourth Amendments? The
answers to these questions, as well as those raised by Barlow on
the nature of information and free speech, are important because
they tell us whether our policies and practices serve us as well
as they might. The issue is not simply hackers vs. system managers
or law enforcers; it is a much larger question about values and
practices in an information society.
Acknowledgments
I am deeply grateful to Peter Denning, Frank Drake, Nathan Estey,
Katie Hafner, Brian Harvey, Steve Lipner, Teresa Lunt, Larry Martin,
Gordon Meyer, Donn Parker, Morgan Schweers, Richard Stallman, and
Alex for their comments on earlier versions of this paper and helpful
discussions; to Richard Stallman for putting me in contact with
hackers; John Draper, Geoff Goodfellow, Brian Reid, Eugene Spafford,
Dave, Marcel, Mike, RGB, and the hackers for helpful discussions;
and Richard Pethia for a summary of some of his experiences at CERT.
The opinions expressed here, however, are my own and do not necessarily
represent those of the people mentioned above or of Digital Equipment
Corporation.
References
ACM90
``Just say no,'' Comm. ACM, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 1990, p. 477.
Baird87
Bruce J. Baird, Lindsay L. Baird, Jr., and Ronald P. Ranauro, ``The
Moral Cracker?,'' Computers and Security, Vol. 6, No. 6, Dec. 1987,
p. 471-478.
Barlow90
John Barlow, ``Crime and Puzzlement,'' June 1990, to appear in Whole
Earth Review.
Corley89
Eric Corley, ``The Hacking Fever,'' in Pamela Kane, V.I.R.U.S.
Protection, Bantam Books, New York, 1989, p. 67-72.
DeMaio89
Harry B. DeMaio, ``Information Ethics, a Practical Approach,''
Proc. of the 12th National Computer Security Conference, 1989,
p. 630-633.
DenningP89
Peter J. Denning, ``Worldnet,'' American Scientist, Vol. 77, No. 5,
Sept.-Oct., 1989.
DenningP90
Peter J. Denning, Computers Under Attack, ACM Press, 1990.
Dibbel90
Julian Dibbel, ``Cyber Thrash,'' SPIN, Vol. 5, No. 12, March 1990.
Drucker89
Peter F. Drucker, The New Realities, Harper and Row, New York, 1989.
Felsenstein86
Lee Felsenstein, ``Real Hackers Don't Rob Banks,'' in full report on
ACM Panel on Hacking (Lee86).
Frenkel87
Karen A. Frenkel, ``Brian Reid, A Graphics Tale of a Hacker
Tracker,'' Comm. ACM, Vol. 30, No. 10, Oct. 1987, p. 820-823.
Goldstein89
Emmanuel Goldstein, ``Hackers in Jail,'' 2600 Magazine, Vol. 6, No. 1,
Spring 1989.
Goldstein90
Emmanuel Goldstein, ``For Your Protection,'' 2600 Magazine, Vol. 7,
No. 1, Spring 1990.
Goodfellow83
Geoffrey S. Goodfellow, ``Testimony Before the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Aviation, and Materials on the Subject of
Telecommunications Security and Privacy,'' Sept. 26, 1983.
Hafner90
Katie Hafner, ``Morris Code,'' The New Republic, Feb. 16, 1990,
p. 15-16.
Harpers90
``Is Computer Hacking a Crime?" Harper's, March 1990, p. 45-57.
Harvey86
Brian Harvey, ``Computer Hacking and Ethics,'' in full report on
ACM Panel on Hacking (Lee86).
HollingerLanza-Kaduce88
Richard C. Hollinger and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, ``The Process of
Criminalization: The Case of Computer Crime Laws,'' Criminology,
Vol. 26, No. 1, 1988, p. 101-126.
Huebner89
Hans Huebner, ``Re: News from the KGB/Wiley Hackers,'' RISKS Digest,
Vol. 8, Issue 37, 1989.
Landreth89
Bill Landreth, Out of the Inner Circle, Tempus, Redmond, WA, 1989.
Lee86
John A. N. Lee, Gerald Segal, and Rosalie Stier, ``Positive
Alternatives: A Report on an ACM Panel on Hacking,'' Comm. ACM,
Vol. 29, No. 4, April 1986, p. 297-299; full report available from
ACM Headquarters, New York.
Levy84
Steven Levy, Hackers, Dell, New York, 1984.
Markoff90
John Markoff, ``Self-Proclaimed `Hacker' Sends Message to Critics,''
The New York Times, March 19, 1990.
Markoff90a
John Markoff, ``Drive to Counter Computer Crime Aims at Invaders,''
The New York Times, June 3, 1990.
Martin89
Larry Martin, ``Unethical `Computer' Behavior: Who is Responsible?,''
Proc. of the 12th National Computer Security Conference, 1989.
Meyer89
Gordon R. Meyer, The Social Organization of the Computer Underground,
Master's thesis, Dept. of Sociology, Northern Illinois Univ., Aug.
1989.
MeyerThomas90
Gordon Meyer and Jim Thomas, ``The Baudy World of the Byte Bandit:
A Postmodernist Interpretation of the Computer Underground,'' Dept.
of Sociology, Northern Illinois Univ., DeKalb, IL, March 1990.
Peters87
Tom Peters, Thriving on Chaos, Harper & Row, New York, Chapter VI, S-3,
p. 610, 1987.
Spafford89
Eugene H. Spafford, ``The Internet Worm, Crisis and Aftermath,''
Comm. ACM, Vol. 32, No. 6, June 1989, p. 678-687.
Stallman84
Richard M. Stallman, Letter to ACM Forum, Comm. ACM, Vol. 27,
No. 1, Jan. 1984, p. 8-9.
Stallman90
Richard M. Stallman, ``Against User Interface Copyright'' to appear
in Comm. ACM.
Steele83
Guy L. Steele, Jr., Donald R. Woods, Raphael A. Finkel, Mark R.
Crispin, Richard M. Stallman, and Geoffrey S. Goodfellow, The
Hacker's Dictionary, Harper & Row, New York, 1983.
Stoll90
Clifford Stoll, The Cuckoo's Egg, Doubleday, 1990.
Thomas90
Jim Thomas, ``Review of The Cuckoo's Egg,'' Computer Underground
Digest, Issue #1.06, April 27, 1990.
ThomasMeyer90
Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer, ``Joe McCarthy in a Leisure Suit:
(Witch)Hunting for the Computer Underground,'' Unpublished
manuscript, Department of Sociology, Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb, IL, 1990; see also the Computer Underground Digest, Vol.
1, Issue 11, June 16, 1990.
_______________________________________________________________________________
==Phrack Classic==
Volume Three, Issue 32, File #4 of 12
- **** T H E A R T O F I N V E S T I G A T I O N *****
- **** *****
- **** *****
- **** Brought to You By *****
- **** *****
- **** The Butler *****
- **** *****
- **** 10/31/90 *****
- **** *****
- **** *****
There are many ways to obtain information about individuals. I am going to
cover some of the investigative means of getting the low down on people whom
you wish to know more about.
Some of the areas I will cover are:
Social Security Checks
Driving/Vehicular Records
Police Reports
FBI Records
Insurance Records
Legal Records
Credit Bureau Checks
Probate Records
Real Estate Records
Corporate Records
Freedom Of Information Act
Governmental Agency Records
Maps
Tax Records
To obtain information from some organizations or some individuals one must be
able to "BULLSHIT"!!! Not only by voice but in writing. Many times you must
write certain governmental bodies requesting info and it can only be done in
writing. I can't stress enough the need for proper grammer and spelling.
For you to obtain certain information about another person you must first
get a few KEY pieces of info to make your investigation easier. The persons
Full Name, Social Security Number, Date & Place of Birth will all make your
search easier and more complete.
First of all in most cases you will know the persons name you want to invest-
igate. If not you must obtain it any way you can. First you could follow them
to their home and get their address. Then some other time when they are gone
you could look at their mail or dig through their trash to get their Full Name.
While in their trash you might even be able to dig up more interesting info
like: Bank Accout Numbers, Credit Card Numbers, Social Security Number, Birth
Day, Relatives Names, Long Distance Calls Made, etc.
If you can't get to their trash for some reason take their address to your
local library and check it against the POLKS and COLES Directories. This
should provide you with their Full Name, Phone Number, Address, and how long
they have lived at the current location.
You can also check the Local Phone Book, Directory Assistance, City Directories,
Post Office, Voter Registration, Former Neighbors, Former Utilities (water, gas,
electric, phone, cable, etc.)
If you know someone who works at a bank or car dealer you could have them run
a credit check which will reveal all of their credit cards and if they have
ever had any late payments or applied for any loans. If you are brave enough
you could even apply for a loan impersonating the individual under investigation
The Credit Bureau also has Sentry Services that can provide deceased social
security numbers, postal drop box address and known fraudulent information.
You can get an individuals driving record by sending a letter to your states
Department of Revenue, Division of Vehicles. You can also get the following:
Driver Control Bureau
For Driving Record send Name, Address, Date of Birth and usually a $1 process-
ing fee for a 5 year record.
Titles & Registration Bureau
For ownership information (current and past).
Driver License Examination Bureau
To see what vision was rated.
Motor Carrier Inspection & Registration Bureau
To check on licensing and registration of trucks/trucking companies.
Revocation Dept
Can verify if someone's driver's license has ever been suspended or revoked.
You can even obtain a complete vehicle history by sending the vehicle descrip-
tion, identification # for the last registered owner, and a small fee. Send
this info to your states Dept of Vehicles. It is best to contact them first
to get their exact address and fees. I would advise using a money orders and
a P.O. Box so they cannot trace it to you without a hassle.
Police Records
All Police and Fire Records are Public record unless the city is involved.
You can usually get everything available from the police dept including:
Interviews, maps, diagrams, misc reports, etc.
FBI Records
If the individual you are inquiring about is deceased the FBI will provide
some info if you give them Full Name, SSN, Date & Place of Birth. Contact
you local FBI office to get the details.
Real Estate Records
Recorder of Deeds offices in each county maintain land ownership records.
Most are not computerized and you have to manually search. Then you must
review microfilm/fiche for actual deeds of trust, quit claim deeds,
assignments, mortgage, liens, etc.
A title company can run an Ownership & Equity (O&E) search for a fee ($80-$100)
which will show ownership, mortgage info, easements, taxes owned, taxes
assessed, etc.
Most county assessors will provide an address and value of any real property
if you request a search by name.
Social Security Records
Social Security Administrator
Office of Central Records Operations
300 North Greene Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
301-965-8882
Title II and Title XVI disability claims records, info regarding total earnings
for each year, detailed earnings information show employer, total earnings, and
social security paid for each quarter by employer.
Prices are approximately as follows:
1st year of records $15.00
2nd-5th year of records $ 2.50 per person
6th-10th year of records $ 2.00 per person
11th-15th year of records $ 1.50 per person
16th-on year of records $ 1.00 per person
- * Call for verification of these prices. **
Social Security records are a great source of information when someone has
been relatively transient in their work, or if they are employed out of a
union hall.
If you want to review a claim file, direct your request to the Baltimore
office. They will send the file to the social security office in your city
for you to review and decide what you want copies of.
The first three digits of a social security number indicate the state of
application.
The Social Security Number
SSA has continually emphasized the fact that the SSN identifies a particular
record only and the Social Security Card indicates the person whose record is
identified by that number. In no way can the Social Security Card identify
the bearer. From 1946 to 1972 the legend "Not for Identification" was printed
on the face of the card. However, many people ignored the message and the
legend was eventually dropped. The social security number is the most widely
used and carefully controlled number in the country, which makes it an
attractive identifier.
With the exception of the restrictions imposed on Federal and some State and
local organizations by the Privacy Act of 1974, organizations requiring a
unique identifier for purposes of controlling their records are not prohibited
from using (with the consent of the holder) the SSN. SSA records are
confidential and knowledge of a person's SSN does not give the user access to
information in SSA files which is confidential by law.
Many commercial enterprises have used the SSN in various promotional efforts.
These uses are not authorized by SSA, but SSA has no authority to prohibit
such activities as most are not illegal. Some of these unauthorized uses are:
SSN contests; skip-tracers; sale or distribution of plastic or metal cards;
pocketbook numbers (the numbers used on sample social security cards in
wallets); misleading advertising, commercial enterprises charging fees for SSN
services; identification of personal property.
The Social Security Number (SSN) is composed of 3 parts, XXX-XX-XXXX, called
the Area, Group, and Serial. For the most part, (there are exceptions), the
Area is determined by where the individual APPLIED for the SSN (before 1972)
or RESIDED at time of application (after 1972). The areas are assigned as
follows:
000 unused 387-399 WI 528-529 UT
001-003 NH 400-407 KY 530 NV
004-007 ME 408-415 TN 531-539 WA
008-009 VT 416-424 AL 540-544 OR
010-034 MA 425-428 MS 545-573 CA
035-039 RI 429-432 AR 574 AK
040-049 CT 433-439 LA 575-576 HI
050-134 NY 440-448 OK 577-579 DC
135-158 NJ 449-467 TX 580 VI Virgin Islands
159-211 PA 468-477 MN 581-584 PR Puerto Rico
212-220 MD 478-485 IA 585 NM
221-222 DE 486-500 MO 586 PI Pacific Islands*
223-231 VA 501-502 ND 587-588 MS
232-236 WV 503-504 SD 589-595 FL
237-246 NC 505-508 NE 596-599 PR Puerto Rico
247-251 SC 509-515 KS 600-601 AZ
252-260 GA 516-517 MT 602-626 CA
261-267 FL 518-519 ID *Guam, American Samoa,
268-302 OH 520 WY Northern Mariana Islands,
303-317 IN 521-524 CO Philippine Islands
318-361 IL 525 NM
362-386 MI 526-527 AZ
627-699 unassigned, for future use
700-728 Railroad workers through 1963, then discontinued
729-899 unassigned, for future use
900-999 not valid SSNs, but were used for program purposes
when state aid to the aged, blind and disabled was
converted to a federal program administered by SSA.
As the Areas assigned to a locality are exhausted, new areas from the pool are
assigned. This is why some states have non-contiguous groups of Areas.
The Group portion of the SSN has no meaning other than to determine whether or
not a number has been assigned. SSA publishes a list every month of the
highest group assigned for each SSN Area. The order of assignment for the
Groups is: odd numbers under 10, even numbers over 9, even numbers under 9
except for 00 which is never used, and odd numbers over 10. For example, if the
highest group assigned for area 999 is 72, then we know that the number
999-04-1234 is an invalid number because even Groups under 9 have not yet been
assigned.
The Serial portion of the SSN has no meaning. The Serial is not assigned in
strictly numerical order. The Serial 0000 is never assigned.
Before 1973, Social Security Cards with pre-printed numbers were issued to
each local SSA office. The numbers were assigned by the local office. In 1973,
SSN assignment was automated and outstanding stocks of pre-printed cards were
destroyed. All SSNs are now assigned by computer from headquarters. There
are rare cases in which the computer system can be forced to accept a manual
assignment such as a person refusing a number with 666 in it.
A pamphlet entitled "The Social Security Number" (Pub. No.05-10633) provides
an explanation of the SSN's structure and the method of assigning and
validating Social Security numbers.
Tax Records
If you can find out who does the individuals taxes you might be able to get
copies from them with the use of creative social engineering.
If you want to run a tax lien search there is a service called Infoquest.
1-800-777-8567 for a fee. Call with a specific request.
Post Office Records
If you have an address for someone that is not current, always consider writing
a letter to the postmaster of whatever post office branch services the zip code
of the missing person. Provide them the name and the last known address and
simply ask for the current address. There might be a $1 fee for this so it
would be wise to call first.
City Directory, Polk's, Cole's, etc.
Information in these directories is contained alphabetically by name,
geographically by street address, and numerically by telephone number, so if
you have any of those three pieces of info, a check can be done. The Polk's
directory also shows whether the person owns their home or rents, their marital
status, place of employment, and a myriad of other tidbits of information.
However, these books are not the be-all and end-all of the information as they
are subject to public and corporate response to surveys. These directories are
published on a nationwide basis so if you are looking for someone outside of
your area, simply call the public library in the area you have an interest and
they also can perform a crisscross check for you.
You can also call a service owned by Cole's called the National Look up Library
at 402-473-9717 and either give a phone number and get the name & address or
give the address and get the name and phone number. This is only available to
subscribers, which costs $183.00 dollars for 1991. A subscriber gets two free
lookups per day and everyone after that costs $1.25. A subscriber can also mail
in a request for a lookup to:
National Look Up Library
901 W. Bond Street
Lincoln, NE 68521-3694
A company called Cheshunoff & Company can, for a $75 fee, obtain a 5-year
detailed financial analysis of any bank.
505 Barton Springs Road
Austin, Texas 78704
512-472-2244
Professional Credit Checker & Nationwide SSN-locate.
!Solutions! Publishing Co.
8016 Plainfield Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45236
513-891-6145
1-800-255-6643
Top Secret Manuals
Consumertronics
2011 Crescent Drive
P.O. Drawer 537-X
Alamogordo, New Mexico 88310
505-434-0234
Federal Government Information Center is located at
1520 Market Street
St. Louis, Missouri
1-800-392-7711
U.S. Dept of Agriculture has located aerial photos of every inch of the United
States.
2222 West 2300 S.
P.O. Box 36010
Salt Lake City, Utah 84130
801-524-5856
To obtain general information regarding registered agent, principals, and good
standing status, simply call the Corporate Division of the Secretary of State
and they will provide that information over the phone. Some corporate divisions
are here:
Arkansas Corporate Division 501-371-5151
Deleware Corporate Division 302-736-3073
Georgia Corporate Division 404-656-2817
Indiana Corporate Division 317-232-6576
Kansas Corporate Division 913-296-2236
Louisiana Corporate Division 504-925-4716
Missouri Corporate Division 314-751-4936
New York Corporate Division 518-474-6200
Texas Corporate Division 512-475-3551
Freedom Of Information
The Freedom of Information Act allows the public to request information
submitted to, or generated by, all executive departments, military departments,
government or government controlled corporations, and regulatory agencies. Each
agency, as described above, publishes in the Federal Register, descriptions of
its central and field organizations and places where and how requests are to be
directed. Direct a letter to the appropriate person designated in the Federal
Register requesting reasonably described records be released to you pursuant to
the Freedom of Information Act. Be sure to follow each agency's individually
published rules which state the time, place, fees, and procedures for the
provisions of information. The agency should promptly respond.
How to Find Information About Companies, Ed. II, 1981, suggests, "Government
personnel you deal with sometimes become less helpful if you approach the
subject by threatening the Freedom of Information Act action - it's best to ask
for the material informally first." While this will probably enable you to find
the correct person to send your request to, be prepared to spend at least half
an hour on the phone talking to several people before you find the person who
can help you. The book also has a brief description of what each governmental
agency handles.
If you want to see if someone you are trying to locate is a veteran, has a
federal VA loan, or receives some sort of disability benefit, use Freedom
of Information and provide the person's SSN.
You will get a bill but you can ask for a fee waiver if this contributes to a
public understanding of the operation of the government. You can also request
an opportunity to go through the files yourself and then decide what you want
copied.
Insurance Records
PIP carrier records (may contain statements, medical records, new doctors/
hospital names, records of disability payments, adjuster's opinions,
applications for insurance coverage, other claim info, etc.)
Health insurance records (may contain medical records, record of bills, new
doctors/hospital names, pre-existing conditions information, info regarding
other accidetns/injuries, etc.)
Often you will have to go through the claims office, the underwriting dept, and
the business office to get complete records as each individual dept maintains
its own seperate files.
Workers Compensation
Some states will let you simply request records. Just submit your request
including the SSN and Birthdate, to the Department of Human Resources, Division
of Worker's Compensation. They will photocopy the records and send you the
copies. Other states require an authorization to obtain these records.
You can always call your local Private Investigator pretending you are a
student doing a research paper on the methods of getting personal information
about people or even trash his place to find tips on tracking down people.
I hope this PHILE helps you in one way or another, if not, maybe a future PHILE
by The Butler will...........
Till Next Time,
The Butler...
_______________________________________________________________________________
==Phrack Classic==
Volume Three, Issue 32, File #7 of 12
13th Annual National Computer Security Conference
October 1-4, 1990
Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, D.C.
A "Knight Lightning" Perspective
by Craig M. Neidorf
Dr. Dorothy Denning first hinted at inviting me to take part on her panel
"Hackers: Who Are They?" in May 1990 when we first came into contact while
preparing for my trial. At the time I did not feel that it was a very good
idea since no one knew what would happen to me over the next few months. At
the conclusion of my trial I agreed to participate and surprisingly, my
attorney, Sheldon Zenner (of Katten, Muchin, & Zavis), accepted an invitation
to speak as well.
A few weeks later there was some dissension to the idea of having me appear at
the conference from some professionals in the field of computer security. They
felt that my presence at such a conference undermined what they stood for and
would be observed by computer "hackers" as a reward of sorts for my notoriety
in the hacker community. Fortunately Dr. Denning stuck to her personal values
and did not exclude me from speaking.
Unlike Gordon Meyer, I was unable to attend Dr. Denning's presentation
"Concerning Hackers Who Break Into Computer Systems" and the ethics sessions,
although I was informed upon my arrival of the intense interest from the
conference participants and the reactions to my now very well known article
announcing the "Phoenix Project."
Not wishing to miss any more class than absolutely necessary, I arrived in
Washington D.C. late in the day on Wednesday, October 4th. By some bizarre
coincidence I ended up on the same flight with Sheldon Zenner.
I had attended similar conventions before such as the Zeta Beta Tau National
Convention in Baltimore the previous year, but there was something different
about this one. I suppose considering what I have been through it was only
natural for me to be a little uneasy when surrounded by computer security
professionals, but oddly enough this feeling soon passed as I began to
encounter friends both old and new.
Zenner and I met up with Dorothy and Peter Denning and soon after I met Terry
Gross, an attorney hired by the Electronic Frontier Foundation who had helped
with my case in reference to the First Amendment issues. Emmanuel Goldstein,
editor of 2600 Magazine and probably the chief person responsible for spreading
the news and concern about my indictment last Spring, and Frank Drake, editor
of W.O.R.M. showed up. I had met Drake once before. Finally I ran into Gordon
Meyer.
So for a while we all exchanged stories about different events surrounding our
lives and how things had changed over the years only to be interrupted once by
a odd gentleman from Germany who inquired if we were members of the Chaos
Computer Club. At the banquet that evening, I was introduced to Peter Neumann
(who among many other things is the moderator of the Internet Digest known as
"RISKS") and Marc Rotenberg (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility).
Because of the great interest in the ethics sessions and comments I had heard
from people who had attended, I felt a strange irony come into play. I've
hosted and attended numerous "hacker" conventions over the years, the most
notable being "SummerCon". At these conventions one of the main time consuming
activities has always been to play detective and attempt to solve the mystery
of which one of the guests or other people at the hotel were there to spy on us
(whether they were government agents or some other form of security personnel).
So where at SummerCon the youthful hackers were all racing around looking for
the "feds," at the NCSC I wondered if the security professionals were reacting
in an inverse capacity... Who Are The Hackers? Despite this attitude or maybe
because of it, I and the other panelists, wore our nametags proudly with a
feeling of excitement surrounding us.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
October 4, 1990
Dorothy Denning had gathered the speakers for an early morning brunch and I
finally got a chance to meet Katie Hafner in person. The panelists discussed
some possibilities of discussion questions to start off the presentation and
before I knew it, it was time to meet the public.
As we gathered in the front of the conference room, I was dismayed to find that
the people in charge of the setting up the nameboards (that would sit in front
of each panelist) had attended the Cook school of spelling and labeled me as
"Neirdorf." Zenner thought this was hysterical. Luckily they were able to
correct the error before we began.
Hackers: Who Are They?
Dr. Denning started the presentation by briefly introducing each panelist and
asking them a couple of questions.
Katie Hafner disputed the notion that her work has caused a glorification
of hacking because of the severe hardships the people she interviewed had to
endure. I found myself sympathizing with her as I knew what it was like to
be in their positions. Many people commented later that her defense of Mitnick
seemed a little insincere as he had indeed committed some serious acts. Not
knowing all of the details surrounding Mitnick's case and not relying on the
general newsmedia as a basis for opinion I withheld any sort of judgment.
Emmanuel Goldstein and Frank Drake appeared to take on the mantle of being the
spokespersons for the hackers, although I'm unsure if they would agree with
this characterization. Drake's main point of view dealt with the idea that
young hackers seek to be able to use resources that they are otherwise excluded
from. He claimed to once have been a system intruder, but now that he is in
college and has ample computing resources available to him, he no longer sees a
need to "hack."
Goldstein on the other hand sought to justify hacking as being beneficial to
society because the hackers are finding security holes and alerting security to
fix these problems before something catastrophic occurs.
Gordon Meyer tried to explain the hacker mind-set and how the average hackers
does not see using corporate resources as having a real financial burden to
today's companies. Some people misunderstood his remarks to be speaking from a
factual position and took offense, stating that the costs are great indeed.
He also explained the differences between Phrack and the Computer Underground
Digest. Most notable is that CuD does not print tutorials about computer
systems.
Sheldon Zenner focused on the freedom of the speech and press issues. He also
spoke about technical details of the U.S. v. Neidorf case and the court rulings
that resulted from it. One major point of interest was his quite reasonable
belief that the courts will soon be holding companies financially liable for
damages that may occur because of illegal intrusion into their systems. This
was not to suggest that a criminal defense strategy could be that a company did
not do enough to keep an intruder out, but instead that the company could be
held civilly liable by outside parties.
Zenner and Denning alike discussed the nature of Phrack's articles. They found
that the articles appearing in Phrack contained the same types of material
found publicly in other computer and security magazines, but with one
significant difference. The tone of the articles. An article named "How to
Hack Unix" in Phrack usually contained very similar information to an article
you might see in Communications of the ACM only to be named "Securing Unix
Systems." But the differences were more extreme than just the titles. Some
articles in Phrack seemed to suggest exploiting security holes while the
Communications of the ACM concentrated more on fixing the problem. The
information in both articles would be comparable, but the audiences reading and
writing these articles were often very different.
I explained the concept and operation of Phrack and wandered into a discussion
about lack of privacy concerning electronic mail on the Internet from
government officials, system managers, and possibly even by hackers. I went on
to remark that the security professionals were missing the point and the
problem. The college and high-school students while perhaps doing some
exploration and causing some slight disturbances are not the place to be
focusing their efforts. The real danger comes from career criminals and
company insiders who know the systems very well from being a part of it. These
people are the source of computer crime in this country and are the ones who
need to be dealt with. Catching a teenage hacker may be an easier task, but
ultimately will change nothing. To this point I agreed that a hacker gaining
entry and exposing holes on computer systems may be a service to some degree,
but unlike Goldstein, I could not maintain that such activity should bring
prosecutorial immunity to the hacker. This is a matter of discretion for
security personnel and prosecutors to take into consideration. I hope they do.
To a large degree I was rather silent on stage. Perhaps because I was cut off
more than once or maybe even a little stagefright, but largely because many of
the questions posed by the audience were wrong on their face for me to answer.
I was not going to stand and defend hacking for its own sake nor was I there to
explain the activities of every hacker in existence.
So I let Goldstein and Drake handle questions geared to be answered by a system
intruder and I primarily only spoke out concerning the First Amendment and
Phrack distribution. In one instance a man upset both by Drake's comments
about how the hackers just want to use resources they can't get elsewhere and
by Goldstein's presentation of the Operation Sun-Devil raids and the attack on
"Zod" in New York spoke up and accused us of being viciously one sided.
He said that none of us (and he singled me out specifically) look to be age 14
(he said he could believe I was 18) and that "our" statement that its ok for
hackers to gain access to systems simply because they lacked the resources
elsewhere meant it was ok for kids to steal money to buy drugs.
I responded by asking him if he was suggesting that if these "kids" were rich
and did not steal the money, it would be ok to purchase drugs? I was sure that
it was just a bad analogy so I changed the topic afterwards. He was right to a
certain extent, all of the hackers are not age 14 or even in highschool or
college, but is this really all that important of a distinction?
The activities of the Secret Service agents and other law enforcement officials
in Operation Sun-Devil and other investigations have been overwhelming and very
careless. True this is just their standard way of doing business and they may
not have even singled out the hackers as a group to focus excess zeal, but
recognizing that the hackers are in a worst case scenario "white-collar
offenders," shouldn't they alter their technique? Something that might be
important to make clear is that in truth my indictment and the indictments on
members of the Legion of Doom in Atlanta had absolutely nothing to do with
Operation Sun-Devil despite the general media creation.
Another interesting point that was brought out at the convention was that there
was so much activity and the Secret Service kept so busy in the state of
Arizona (possibly by some state official) concerning the hacker "problem" that
perhaps this is the reason the government did not catch on to the great Savings
& Loan multi-Billion dollar loss.
One gentleman spoke about his son being in a hospital where all his treatments
were being run by computer. He added that a system intruder might quite by
accident disrupt the system inadvertently endangering his son's life. Isn't
this bad? Obviously yes it is bad, but what was worse is that a critical
hospital computer system would be hooked up to a phoneline anyway. The main
reason for treatment in a hospital is so that the doctors are *there* to
monitor and assist patients. Could you imagine a doctor dialing in from home
with a modem to make his rounds?
There was some discussion about an editor's responsibility to inform
corporations if a hacker were to drop off material that he/she had breached
their security. I was not entirely in opposition to the idea, but the way I
would propose to do it was probably in the pages of a news article. This may
seem a little roundabout, but when you stop and consider all of the private
security consultants out there, they do not run around providing information to
corporations for free. They charge enormous fees for their services. There
are some organizations that do perform services for free (CERT comes to mind),
but that is the reason they were established and they receive funding from the
government which allows them to be more generous.
It is my belief that if a hacker were to give me some tips about security holes
and I in turn reported this information to a potential victim corporation, the
corporation would be more concerned with how and from whom I got the
information than with fixing the problem.
One of the government's expert witnesses from U.S. v. Neidorf attended this
session and he prodded Zenner and I with questions about the First Amendment
that were not made clear from the trial. Zenner did an excellent job of
clarifying the issues and presenting the truth where this Bellcore employee
sought to show us in a poor light.
During the commentary on the First Amendment, Hafner, Zenner, and I discussed a
July 22, 1988 article containing a Pacific Bell telephone document copied by a
hacker and sent to John Markoff that appeared on the front page of the New York
Times. A member of the audience said that this was ok, but the Phrack article
containing the E911 material was not because Phrack was only sent to hackers.
Zenner went on to explain that this was far from true since private security,
government employees, legal scholars, reporters, and telecom security personnel
all received Phrack without discrimination. There really is a lot that both
the hackers and security professionals have to learn about each other.
It began to get late and we were forced to end our session. I guess what
surprised me the most were all of the people that stayed behind to speak with
us. There were representatives from NASA, U.S. Sprint, Ford Aerospace, the
Department of Defense, a United States Army Lt. Colonel who all thanked us
for coming to speak. It was a truly unique experience in that a year ago I
would have presumed these people to be fighting against me and now it seems
that they are reasonable, decent people, with an interest in trying to learn
and help end the problems. I also met Mrs. Gail Meyer for the first time in
person as well.
I was swamped with people asking me how they could get Phrack and for the most
part I referred them to Gordon Meyer and CuD (and the CuD ftp). Just before we
went to lunch I met Donn Parker and Art Brodsky, an editor from Communications
Daily. So many interesting people to speak with and so little time. I spent a
couple hours at the National Gallery of Art with Emmanuel Goldstein, flew back
to St. Louis, and returned to school.
It was definitely an enLightening experience.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A very special thank you goes to Dorothy Denning, a dear friend who made it
possible for me to attend the conference.
:Craig M. Neidorf a/k/a Knight Lightning
C483307 @ UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU
C483307 @ UMCVMB.BITNET
_______________________________________________________________________________
F R O M T H E W I R E
HEADLINE Thirteen Arrested For Breaking Into University Computer
Byline: PAT MILTON
DATE 08/16/90
SOURCE The Associated Press (ASP)
Origin: FARMINGDALE, N.Y.
(Copyright 1990. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
- FARMINGDALE, N.Y. (AP) _ Thirteen computer hackers ranging in age from 14 to
32 were charged Thursday with breaking into the mainframe computer at a
university in Washington state and causing costly damage to the files. One of
the suspects is a 14-year-old high school student from New York City who is
also a suspect in last November's break-in of an Air Force computer in the
Pentagon, according to Senior Investigator Donald Delaney of the New York State
Police. The student, who used the name "Zod" when he signed onto the computer,
is charged with breaking into the computer at the City University of Bellevue
in Washington in May by figuring out the toll-free telephone number that gave
students and faculty legitimate access to the system.
"Zod," who was not identified because he is a minor, maintained control over
the system by setting up his own program where others could illegally enter the
system by answering 11 questions he set up.
More than 40 hackers across the country are believed to have gained illegal
access to the system since May, Delaney said. As a result of the break-in,
university files were altered and deleted, and consultants must be hired to
reprogram the system, Delaney said. In addition to the arrests, search
warrants were executed at 17 locations on Thursday where officers confiscated
$50,000 worth of computers and related equipment. Three more arrests were
expected. Two of the 13 arrested were from Long Island and the rest were from
the New York boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan and the Bronx.
Farmingdale is on Long Island. The 13 were charged with computer tampering,
computer trespass, unauthorized use of a computer and theft of services. The
juveniles will be charged with juvenile delinquency.
The investigation began two months ago after a technician at the university
noticed "error message" flashing on the computer screen, indicating someone had
entered the system illegally. The suspects were traced through subpoenaed
telephone records. * Many hackers break into private computer systems for the
pure satisfaction of cracking the code, and also to obtain sometimes costly
computer programs, Delaney said.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE US Sprint helps business customers battle PBX fraud
DATE 09/25/90
SOURCE BUSINESS WIRE (BWR)
KANSAS CITY, Mo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--US Sprint Wednesday announced its corporate
security department will help the company's business customers battle PBX
fraud. After producing significant results in fighting code abuse US Sprint is
directing their efforts to help their business customers in identifying and
preventing computer hackers from infiltrating their business customer's owned
or leased telephone switching equipment. ``Unauthorized use of our
long-distance service has been greatly reduced through increased detection,
prevention, investigation and prosecution efforts,'' said Bob Fox, US Sprint
vice president corporate security.
``Now rather than attacking a long-distance carrier's network in * an attempt
to steal authorization codes, computer hackers are attacking private companies'
and governmental agencies' Private Branch Exchanges (PBX's). Computer
hackers break into private telephone switches in an attempt to reoriginate
long-distance calls, which are then billed to the businesses. Fox says a
business may not discover its telephone system has been ``hacked'' until their
long-distance bill is received and then it may be too late. Help is on the way
however. US Sprint has started a customer support program to help the
company's business customers to combat the situation. Del Wnorowski, US Sprint
senior vice president-general counsel said, ``The new program is customers
about the potential for telecommunications fraud committed through their owned
or leasesd switching equipment and to assist them in preventing this type of
illegal activity.'' US Sprint is a unit of United Telecommunications Inc., a
diversified telecommunications company headquartered in Kansas City.
CONTACT:
US Sprint, Kansas City.
Phil Hermanson, 816/276-6268
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE Fax pirates find it easy to intercept documents
DATE 09/10/90
SOURCE Toronto Star (TOR)
Edition: METRO
Section: BUSINESS TODAY
Page: B4
(Copyright The Toronto Star)
--- Fax pirates find it easy to intercept documents ---
TOKYO (Special) - Considering that several years ago enthusiastic hackers began
breaking into computer systems worldwide to steal valuable information, it
could only have been a matter of time before the same problem surfaced for
facsimile machines. Now, officials of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Public
Corp. report evidence that this has been happening, not only in their own
country but around the globe. Apparently, anyone with just a little knowledge
of electronics can tap fax messages being sent from one of these relatively
unsophisticated machines to another, with the duplication printed out on the
pirate's facsimile machine. Both the sender and the receiver of the faxed
document remain completely unaware that they have been bugged. "I shudder to
think of some of the business documents which only recently moved over my
company's fax machines being examined by our competitors," one Tokyo executive
nervously admits when informed that there has been a proliferation of tapping.
"You don't think the tax people are doing it too?" he then asks in mock terror.
It is certainly a frightening thought. The technique involves making a
secret connection with the telephone line of the party whose fax messages are
to be intercepted. That is all too easy to accomplish, according to officials
of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone. Apart from a few special cases, very little
has been done to guard against outside tapping. As a result, one of the most
vulnerable areas - and one most businessmen and women now should begin to feel
unsure of - is the privacy or security of the facsimile machine. Technical
attention to this problem is in order.
"The idea that somewhere out there is 'Conan the Hacker' who is reading my
fax correspondence as readily as I do sends chills up my spine," says one
American businesswoman here. "There could be a lot of trouble for me and up to
now I didn't even realize it was possible." It is not only possible, but easy.
Ordinary components available at any electronics store can be used. With these
in hand, tappers can rig up a connection that sets off a warning signal,
without the sender or receiver realizing it, whenever a fax message passes
along the telephone line. Considering the growing volume of highly
confidential material being sent and received via fax equipment, the resulting
leaks can be considered highly dangerous to the security of corporate
information.
In Japan alone it is estimated that there are 3.7 million
machines in operation. Given the nature of these tapping operations, it would
appear to be extremely difficult for companies to determine whether they are
suffering serious damage from this process. In addition, it is clear that a
great many corporations have yet to realize the extent of the threat to their
privacy. "If more business executives recognized what is going on," suggests
one Japanese security specialist, "they would move now to halt the opportunity
for leaks and thus protect their corporations from this type of violation." He
went on to note that third parties mentioned in fax messages also can be badly
hurt by these interceptions. Fortunately, manufacturers are producing machines
capable of preventing hackers from tapping into the system. In some cases,
newly developed fax machines use code systems to defend information
transmitted. But these tap-proof facsimile machines are not yet in general
use. Makers of the new "protected" facsimile machines predict that once the
business communities around the globe become aware of the threat they will
promptly place orders for replacements and junk their old equipment as a simple
matter of damage control. The market could prove extremely large. Those few
leak-proof fax machines now in operation depend upon scrambling messages, so
that even if a pirate taps into the telephone line leading to the unit, the
intercepted message is impossible to read.
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, for example, claims that it would require
a hacker using a large computer more than 200,000 years to crack the codes used
in its own pirate-proof fax. This ultimately may prove to be something of an
exaggeration. Although in Japan and many other countries this kind of tapping
clearly is illegal, it remains nearly impossible to track down electronic
eavesdroppers. As far as is known, none of these snoopers have been identified
and dragged into court. Security specialists in Japan claim that there may be
thousands of fax hackers who get their kicks out of intercepting and reading
other people's business mail, with few using the information for illegal
purposes or actively conveying it to third parties.
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE Inmate behind scams
Byline: JOHN SEMIEN
DATE 09/11/90
SOURCE THE BATON ROUGE SUNDAY ADVOCATE (BATR)
Section: NEWS
Page: 1-B
(Copyright 1989 by Capitol City Press)
There wasn't much inmate Lawrence "Danny" Faires couldn't buy, sell or
steal with a telephone call from his jail cell in Miami when his million-dollar
fraud ring ran afoul of the U.S. Secret Service in 1989. That was the year
Faires used a portable computer with an automatic dialing program to "hack out"
access codes to the long-distance lines of Telco Communications Inc., a Baton
Rouge-based phone company. Telco officials were alarmed when they spotted
1,500 attempts at gaining unauthorized access to the company's long-distance
service in a single 12-hour period in January 1989.
Convinced that an organized fraud scheme was at work, Telco called
Resident Agent Phil Robertson, who heads the service's Baton Rouge office.
"They told me they felt they were being attacked by hackers who had discovered
their long-distance access lines and who were hacking out personal
identification numbers belonging to their customers," Robertson said Monday.
"You are billed based on your pin (access) number. The computer hacker had
located several of their 800 numbers and had entered digits hoping it would be
a valid pin number." Using computer records, Robertson said agents were able to
isolate 6,000 fraudulent Telco calls that were made during a three-week period
of January. More than a third of those calls were traced to a cell block in
the Dade County Interim Detention Center that has been home for Faires for the
past four years. Faires is awaiting trial in Miami on first-degree murder
charges. "As it turned out, all of the inmates in this cell block are awaiting
trial," Robertson said. "One of the inmates, Danny Faires, had a computer in
his cell attached to a modem, and he turned out to be the hacker."
"All he had to do was plug his modem in, let it make the calls and check his
printout for the numbers that came back good," the agent said. In checking out
the other bogus Telco calls, agents uncovered a massive credit card scam. A
federal grand jury in Milwaukee, Wis., linked both scams to Faires and alleged
associates of the inmate across the country in a Feb. 27 indictment of six
people on federal wire and access device fraud. Fairies, an unindicted
co-conspirator in the case, last week said he has spent the past three years
applying his previous experience as a computer systems analyst and programmer
to a lap-top, portable computer provided by one of the prison guards. He
describes the results as "doing business with America" at the expense of large
credit card and telecommunications companies. Faires said he attacked Telco's
system by chance after receiving one of the company's access numbers in a group
of assorted access codes acquired by his associates. "It was just their
misfortune that we became aware that they had a system there that was easily
accessible," Faires said in a telephone interview.
"I was given their access number, along with Sprint and MCI, I guess
virtually every company in America we got." Faires said he used the stolen,
long distance phone time and other stolen credit card numbers to access
networks with credit information from major department stores and mail order
businesses. "You come up to the door and the door is locked," he said. "You
have to buy access. Well, I bought access with credit cards from another
system. I had access codes that we had hacked. "I could pull your entire
credit profile up and just pick the credit card numbers that you still had some
credit in them and how many dollars you had left in your account and I would
spend that," Faires said. "My justification was, I don't know the creditor and
he had no knowledge of it so he won't have to pay it." However, Faires said he
now thinks of the trouble the illegal use of the credit cards has caused his
victims in their efforts to straighten out damaged credit records. "I remember
I took a course once that was called computer morality about the moral ethics
to which we're morally bound," he said. "It's like a locksmith. Even though
he can open a lock, he's morally bound not to if it's not his lock. I violated
that."
The vulnerability of credit card companies to hackers is the subject of an
unpublished book that Faires said he has written. Faires said his book
includes tips on how businesses and others can safeguard access to their
credit, but added that there may be no way to be completely safe from
hackers. "It's untitled as yet," he said about the book. "We're leaving that
open. I'm waiting to see if they electrocute me here, then I'm going to put
something about "I could buy it all but couldn't pay the electric bill.' "
[This guy is a real toon -DH]
While Faires has not been formally charged in connection with the scheme,
last week he said he was sure charges will be forthcoming because "there is no
question about my involvement." The other six alleged conspirators are John
Carl Berger and George A. Hart Jr. of Milwaukee, Wis.; Charles Robert McFall
and Victor Reyes of San Antonio, Texas; Steven Michael Skender Jr. of West
Allis, Wis.; and Angelo Bruno Bregantini of Marshville, N.C. All six men are
charged with conspiracy to commit access device and wire fraud. Berger,
Skender, Reyes and Bregantini also are charged separately with multiple counts
of wire fraud.
The indictments are the first criminal charges generated by Operation
Mongoose, an ongoing Secret Service probe of credit card and long-distance
telephone access fraud. The charges allege that Faires has had access to a
telephone since his arrest and imprisonment in Miami in 1986, an allegation
that has prompted a separate probe by Miami authorities. That phone was used
to make frequent calls to a building on Brookfield Road in Brookfield, Wis.,
where another alleged unindicted co-conspirator, Fred Bregantini, operates
various businesses, according to the indictment. The indictment said Faires
and Fred Bregantini were "at the hub" of the telephone and credit card scam.
The two men are accused of collecting credit card numbers and telephone access
codes from other defendants in the case and using the numbers to purchase
merchandise, services and "other things of value." Robertson said agents
believe the members of the ring copied many of these stolen numbers from credit
card receipts retrieved from the trash cans of various businesses. He said the
practice, commonly called "dumpster diving," is a widely used method in credit
card fraud. [`dumpster diving' eh? -DH]
While some of the defendants helped make purchases on the stolen cards,
the indictment alleges that others provided addresses used for the shipment of
the stolen goods. The goods included gold coins, plane tickets, computer
equipment, tools and stereo equipment. Robertson said agents are still
tallying the cost of the scam to Telco and other companies but that the damage
has already climbed past $1 million. Herbert Howard, president of Telco, on
Friday said the company lost from $35,000 to $40,000 in revenues from illegal
calls and in additional expenses for researching Faires' use of access codes.
"It was really a learning experience for us because this is the first time this
has happened," Howard said about his 2-year-old company. "I think it's a fear
of all long-distance companies. It's very fortunate that we caught it as
quickly as we did."
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE No, I'm not paranoid, but who is No. 1?
Byline: DENISE CARUSO
Column: INSIDE SILICON VALLEY
DATE 08/21/90
SOURCE SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER (SFEX)
Edition: FIFTH
Section: BUSINESS
Page: D-16
(Copyright 1989)
THOUGH I didn't plan it that way, this week proved to be a perfect time to
start renting old episodes of "The Prisoner" - that very dark, very paranoid
British spy series from the early '60s which foresaw a bleak future in which
"een-formation" was of paramount importance, no matter whose "side" you were
on. Every well-paid company representative from every telephone service
provider in North America earned his or her keep this week, fielding calls from
blood-thirsty members of the press corps who also wanted "een-formation" about
whether or not the huge long-distance snafu with AT&T was a "hack" (an illegal
break-in) or some form of computerized germ warfare.
I'm happy that the answer was "no," but of course the event opens a rather
nasty can of worms: has AT&T's problem tipped off the hacker community that
the phone network is vulnerable? "That's a very good question," said one
network engineer I spoke with last week. But, he assured me, his network was
totally secure and had all kinds of safeguards built in to prevent either
outside penetration or the introduction of a software virus to the system. I
hope he's right, but I must admit, I've heard that song before.
Here, for example, is an excerpt from an anonymous piece of electronic
mail I received last week, slightly edited to correct grammatical
imperfections: "It may be of interest to you to know, if I wanted to have
"fun," "evil" deeds could be done by remote control, up to and including
shutting down every ESS (electronic switching station) office in North America.
"Less evil and more fun might be to shut down the stock market for a day,
scramble all transactions, or even send it down in a tail spin! Banks aren't
immune either. This may sound very darkside, but people must have what is
needed to fight back if things go bad!" Not disturbing enough? Try this one on
for size: Back in July of '89, I wrote of a story in the premier issue of the
magazine Mondo 2000 that detailed how one might set about hacking automatic
teller machines (ATMs). That story contained everything but the blueprints for
the device, which the magazine's editors didn't print because they thought it
would be irresponsible to do so. But now, a student-owned Cornell University
publication called "Visions Magazine" - for which Carl Sagan is creative
adviser - has asked the article's author, Morgan Russell, for rights to reprint
the article in its entirety, including device blueprints.
These kinds of stories are disturbing, yet somehow I've always expected
they would happen, a reaction that's similar to the way I feel when I watch
"The Prisoner." No. 6, as he's called, cries out at the beginning of every
episode, "I am not a number! I am a free man!" His will to resist is
sufficient to fend off the authorities who believe their need for the
"een-formation" in No. 6's head gives them the right to try to control his
movements and thoughts, using - of course - only the most impressive
technology.
Of course, the science-fiction fantasy of impressive technology in the
'60s, when "The Prisoner" was created, was as authoritarian and centralized as
the governments using it. Not many faceless authorities back then were
predicting a near-future where all classes of people had access to, could
afford and knew how to use powerful technology. (I'm sure it would have ruined
their supper if they had.) Neither did they envision today's growing class of
technological sophisticates - whether self-taught PC hackers or trained
computer scientists - who, by virtue of their knowledge, could cripple,
disable, or otherwise confound the system which spawned them. Have any opinion
you'd like about the right or wrong of it. Fact is, whether it's the phone
network or a bank teller machine, the more we rely on technology, the less we
can rely on technology.
Though this fact can make life unpleasant for those of us who are
victimized by either the machines we trust or the people who know how to fidget
with them, there is something strangely comforting about knowing that, after
all, a computer is still only as trustworthy as the humans who run it. Write
CONTACT:
Denise Caruso, Spectra, San Francisco Examiner
P.O Box 7260
San Francisco, CA 94120. (Denise
MCI Mail (Denise Caruso) - CompuServe (73037,52) - CONNECT (Caruso)
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE US Sprint to Supply Soviet Venture With Switches
DATE 09/17/90
SOURCE WALL STREET JOURNAL (WJ)
WASHINGTON -- US Sprint Communications Corp. said it obtained U.S. government
approval to supply a Soviet joint venture with packet switches that can greatly
improve telecommunications services between the Soviet Union and other
countries. The imminent shipment of these switches was announced by William
Esrey, chairman and chief executive officer of United Telecommunications Inc.,
shortly after completing a visit to the Soviet Union with Commerce Secretary
Robert Mosbacher and the chief executives of other U.S. companies. United
Telecommunications is the parent of US Sprint.
The export license that US Sprint expects to obtain as early as this week
will be the first license for telecommunications equipment granted by the U.S.
under the new, relaxed regulations for shipping technology to the Soviet Union,
Esrey said. * The Soviet venture, Telenet USSR, will be owned by a US Sprint
subsidiary, Sprint International, and the Soviet Ministry of Post and
Telecommunications and the Larvian Academy of Sciences, a Soviet research
group. The Commerce Department doesn't discuss details of individual license
applications, but Mosbacher has publicly supported technology tie-ups between
the U.S. companies represented in his traveling group and potential Soviet
partners. US Sprint appears to be leading the race among American
telecommunications companies to establish solid ties in the Soviet Union. An
earlier proposal by U S West Inc. to lay down part of an international
fiber-optic line across the Soviet Union was rejected by U.S. authorities
because of the advanced nature of the technology.
US Sprint's packet switches, however, appear to be within the new
standards for permissible exports to the Soviet Union. The switches are used
to route telephone calls and control traffic in voice, facsimile and
digitalized data transmission. These eight-bit switches are one or two
generations behind the comparable systems in use in Western countries, but are
still good enough to sharply improve the ability of Sprint's Soviet customers
to communicate with other countries, Esrey's aides said. The company declined
to discuss the value of its investment or to disclose how many switches will be
sold. US Sprint said its venture will operate through new, dedicated satellite
lines that will augment the often-congested 32 international lines that
currently exist for Moscow-based businesses. Esrey said he expects the venture
to be in operation before the end of this year.
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE BT Tymnet Introduces Additional XLINK Services
DATE 09/09/90
SOURCE DOW JONES NEWS WIRE
SAN JOSE, Calif. -DJ- BT Tymnet Inc. said XLINK Express, a family of new,
bundled, port-based, synchronous X.25 (XLINKs) services, is available. The
XLINK service offers customers lower cost X.25 host access to its TYMNET
network, the company said in a news release. XLINKs are leased-line private
access port services for X.25 interfaces at speeds up to 19.2 bits per second
and supporting up to 64 virtual circuits.
XLINK Express includes port access, leased line, modems, software, and free
data transmission. Prior to XLINK Express, customers requiring a
9.6-bit-per-second leased line for standard X.25 host connectivity would
typically pay about $1,500 monthly for their leased line, modems and interface.
With XLINK, customers can now be charged a monthly rate of $900, the company
said.
BT Tymnet Inc. is a unit of British Telecom plc.
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE Hacker may be taunting the FBI; Whiz suspected of invading U.S. army
computer
Credit: PENINSULA TIMES TRIBUNE
DATE 04/10/90
SOURCE Montreal Gazette (GAZ)
Edition: FINAL
Section: NEWS
Page: F16
Origin: PALO ALTO, Calif.
(Copyright The Gazette)
--- Hacker may be taunting the FBI; Whiz suspected of invading
U.S. army computer ---
PALO ALTO, Calif. - The computer prodigy wanted on suspicion of invading a
U.S. army computer may be taunting FBI agents by defiantly talking to his
hacker buddies on electronic bulletin boards while he eludes a manhunt,
authorities said. The mysterious Kevin Poulsen, a former Menlo Park, Calif.,
resident described by many as a computer genius, is outsmarting the FBI and
apparently has the savvy to make this game of hide-and-seek a long contest.
No, investigators are not getting frustrated, FBI official Duke Diedrich
said. "It's just a matter of time. We've got our traps and hopefully one day
we'll be able to get the mouse." Authorities have issued an arrest warrant for
the former SRI International computer expert. He has been at large since at
least Jan. 18, when federal officials revealed allegations of a sensational
computer conspiracy. The FBI says Poulsen, 24, is the mastermind of a complex
computer and telephone-system invasion that included breaking into an
unclassified army computer network, snooping on the FBI and eavesdropping on
the calls of a former girlfriend. FBI agents believe he may be in southern
California, but because he is apparently still hooked up to a national network
of hackers, he could be using his friends to hide just about anywhere, Diedrich
said. Poulsen is adept at manufacturing false identification and knows how to
use the phone system to cover traces of his calls.
Agents believe his hacker talk on electronic bulletin boards is perhaps "a
way of taunting law enforcement officials," Diedrich said. Poulsen may be back
to his old tricks, but "he's not hiding with the usual bunch of hackers," said
John Maxfield, a computer security consultant and former FBI informant.
Maxfield, known nationally as a "narc" among young hackers, said he had
underground sources who said Poulsen was rumored to be living alone in a
southern California apartment. Poulsen's computer chatter could lead to his
downfall, Maxfield said. Many hackers are electronic anarchists who would be
happy to turn in a high-ranking hacker, thereby pushing themselves up the
status ladder, he said. But Poulsen probably has access to a steady flow of
cash, so he doesn't have to get a job that might lead to his arrest, Maxfield
said.
With his expertise, Poulsen could easily crack the bank computers that
validate cash transactions and then credit his own accounts, Maxfield said.
The FBI isn't desperate, but agents have contacted America's Most Wanted, a
television show that asks viewers to help authorities find fugitives.
Poulsen's mother, Bernadine, said her son called home just after police
announced there was a warrant for his arrest, but he had not called since.
During the brief call, "He just apologized for all the stress he was causing
us." The fugitive's motivation baffles Maxfield.
The self-described "hacker tracker" has conducted investigations that have
led to dozens of arrests, but the Poulsen-contrived conspiracy as alleged by
the FBI is strange, he said. Most teen-age hackers are thrill seekers, he
explained. The more dangerous the scam, the bigger the high. But Poulsen is
24. "Why is he still doing it?" Maxfield asked.
Poulsen, alias "Dark Dante" and "Master of Impact," was a member of an
elite hacker gang called Legion of Doom. [Poulsen was never a member of the
group -DH]
The 25 or so mischievous members are now being arrested one by one, Maxfield
said. They consider themselves misfits, but smart misfits who are superior to
the masses of average people who have so labelled them, he said. [Baha,
Maxfield really cracks me up -DH]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin recently had a 15 minute television debut on NBC's "Unsolved
Mystries". The program showed renactments of Kevin breaking into CO's and
walking around his apartment filled with computers and other 'listening'
devices (as the show called them).
I personally got a kick out of the photographs he took of himself holding
switching equipment after a break-in at a CO.
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE Amtrak Gets Aboard SDN
Byline: BETH SCHULTZ
DATE 10/25/90
SOURCE COMMUNICATIONS WEEK
Issue: 267
Section: PN
Page: 58
(Copyright 1989 CMP Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.)
WASHINGTON - Amtrak, always looking for ways to reduce the amount of government
funding it takes to keep it on track, has switched its long distance traffic
onto a virtual private network-taking advantage of an AT&T promotion that saved
the railroad $250,000. Though Amtrak realized the cost-savings potential of
AT&T's Software Defined Network (SDN) as early as May 1987, it took until last
spring for the company to move full-speed ahead with implementation of that
virtual private network service. "We had led the horse to water, but we
couldn't make it drink," said Jim West, an AT&T national systems consultant.
But in April of this year, AT&T removed the last obstacle in the
railroad's way, said Amtrak's chief network engineer Matt Brunk. At that time,
AT&T began running a special promotion that waived the installation fee for
connecting sites to the SDN. Until then, Amtrak, based here, could only afford
adding locations piecemeal.
Plagued by network abuse, Amtrak began tracking the potential of SDN as a
means of solving that problem as soon as AT&T announced its SDN rates in
December 1986. Describing the severity of its toll-fraud problem, Brunk told
of a seven-day stint in 1985 during which hackers tallied $185,000 in
unauthorized charges. By the end of that year, toll fraud on Amtrak's network
reached in excess of $1 million.
Before the days of the virtual private network, the only way to clean up
this abuse was through a toll-free "800" service configuration and PBX remote
access, which Amtrak implemented at the end of 1985. "We changed the policy
and procedures for all users, limiting the capabilities of remotaccess," Brunk
said.
But Amtrak needed to further patrol its network, and after studying AT&T's
SDN, as well as competitive offerings, the railroad ordered in May 1987 the
first portion of what would this year become a 300-site SDN. The initial order
included AT&T Accunet T1.5 circuits for just two stations, one in Chicago and
one here. Used to replace the 800 service, these 1.544-megabit-per-second
direct connections were used to "provide secure remote access to on-net numbers
for numerous users," Brunk said.
Equally important, Amtrak also signed up for the Network Remote Access
Fraud Control feature, which gives it a single point of control over the
network. "What Amtrak ordered then was not really a network, because it was
feature-specific," said AT&T national account manager Sharon Juergens.
The company has not billed back or dropped any toll fraud since it began
using the SDN remote access feature, Brunk said. "Anyone with PBX
remote-access capability and :heavy! volume not using SDN as a vehicle is
doing their company a disservice."
Originally a beta-test site for the SDN's security-report feature, Amtrak
has since come to rely heavily on that option, too. With the exception of some
group codes, a warning is sent if spending on any user code exceeds $60 per
month. "We begin investigating immediately," Brunk said. "We are now
proactive, instead of reactive."
Today, 40 Amtrak locations have switched-access connections to the SDN;
260 sites are linked through dedicated means, whether through voice-grade
analog circuits or high-speed T1s. "The users' traffic is discounted, on a
single billing statement, and in effect, :the SDN! links them to the company.
This is our corporate communications glue," Brunk said. "But this is only the
beginning. Not only have we provided a service, but also we have provided a
bright future. We have set ourselves up for competitive gain." Spending
Stabilized And the company has stabilized telecommunications expenditures. In
1985, Amtrak spent $26 million on telecom equipment and services. Four years
later, Brunk estimated the railroad will spend just $1 million more. He said
contributing factors to this will be the SDN, upgrading from outdated analog
PBXs to digital PBXs and replacing some PBX installations with local
Bell-provided centrex service. Network savings resulting from reduced
call-setup time alone, Brunk added, will reach $74,000 this year.
"In a nutshell, we have improved transmission quality, network management
and maintenance, and reduced costs," Brunk said. "The users have gained a
single authorization code accessing multiple applications, improved quality and
support."
Cost savings aside, Amtrak also took into consideration applications
available off the SDN. "At the time, of what was available, we really liked
everything about SDN," Brunk said.
The Amtrak network is supported by the dedicated access trunk testing
system. This system lets Amtrak test access lines, thus aiding the company in
activating and deactivating authorization codes. And Amtrak is testing the
AT&T Alliance dedicated teleconferencing service.
With the teleconferencing service, Amtrak can reduce internal travel
expenditures: Users can access the system remotely via an 800 number, or on
demand. Amtrak operators can connect teleconferencing calls at any time. "The
quality is fantastic, but the cost is even better because it's all connected to
the SDN," said Brunk.
_______________________________________________________________________________
KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL
K N I G H T L I N E
Issue 01/Part II of III
17th of November, 1990
Written, compiled,
and edited by Doc Holiday
KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL
---
F R O M T H E W I R E
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE ADAPTING DIGITAL SWITCH -- Fujitsu To Expand In U.S.
Byline: ROBERT POE
DATE 11/15/90
SOURCE COMMUNICATIONSWEEK (CWK)
Issue: 322
Section: PUBLIC NETWORKING
Page: 33
(Copyright 1990 CMP Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.)
RALEIGH, N.C.-Fujitsu Ltd. is boosting efforts to adapt its digital exchange
to the U.S. network, in anticipation of the $40 billion public switch
changeout expected in the United States over the next 10 to 15 years.
Fujitsu plans to increase the number of U.S. staff members in charge of
selling and engineering the Fetex-150 switch to 600 by 1994 from the current
100, officials at the Tokyo-based company said.
The increase will shift development of sophisticated switch features from Japan
to the United States, said one observer familiar with Fujitsu Network Switching
of America Inc., based here.
FILLING U.S. NEEDS
Most of the current staff there is working on testing the performance and
network conformance of software developed in Japan, the observer said. With
the expansion, the subsidiary will be responsible for developing functions and
capabilities required by U.S. customers.
The Fetex-150 is Fujitsu's export-model exchange switch, with more than 8.8
million lines installed or on order in 17 countries. None have been sold in
the United States, but the recently announced plans confirm longstanding
speculation that the Japanese manufacturer is planning a major push into the
U.S.
When Fujitsu won a major switch tender in Singapore last autumn, competitors
complained it was selling the equipment at cost to win a prestigious contract
that would serve as a stepping-stone to the United States.
WOOING THE BELLS
Fujitsu said its switch has passed Phase 1 and Phase 2 evaluations by Bell
Communications Research Inc., Livingston, N.J., the research arm of the seven
U.S. regional Bell companies. Although the Bellcore certification is
considered essential to selling to the Bells-which account for about 75 percent
of U.S. telephone lines-it may not be enough for the company to break into a
market dominated by AT&T and Nashville, Tenn.-based Northern Telecom Inc.
Those two manufacturers have more than 90 percent of the U.S. market. A share
like that, coupled with Bell company inertia in changing to new suppliers,
leaves foreign public switch manufacturers largely out in the cold, analysts
said.
The U.S. subsidiaries of Siemens AG, L.M. Ericsson Telephone Co., NEC Corp.
and GEC Plessey Telecommunications Ltd. have found the U.S. market tough to
crack, though each has had limited success and is further along than Fujitsu.
`INHERENT CONSERVATISM'
"There's an inherent conservatism on the part of their {U.S.} customer base,"
said Robert Rosenberg, director of analytical services at The Eastern
Management Group, Parsippany, N.J. "These are huge companies with billions of
dollars invested in their current equipment.
"Even if Fujitsu comes up with a switch that has all the bells and whistles
that an engineer could ever want, if all the support systems have to be rebuilt
in order to fit that switch into the network, his manager won't let him install
it," Rosenberg said.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Telephone Services: A Growing Form Of "Foreign Aid"
Keith Bradsher, {The New York Times}, Sunday, October 21, 1990
(Business section, page 5)
Americans who make international telephone calls are paying extra to
subsidize foreign countries' postal rates, local phone service, even
schools and armies.
These subsidies are included in quarterly payments that American
telephone companies must make to their counterparts overseas, most of
these are state-owned monopolies. The net payments, totaling $2.4
billion last year, form one of the fastest-growing pieces of the
American trade deficit, and prompted the Federal communications
Commission this summer to begin an effort that could push down the
price that consumers pay for an international phone call by up to 50
percent within three years.
The imbalance is a largely unforeseen side effect of the growth of
competition in the American long-distance industry during the 1980's.
The competition drove down outbound rates from the United States,
while overseas monopolies kept their rates high.
The result is that business and families spread among countries try
to make sure that calls originate in the United States. Outbound
calls from the United States now outnumber inbound calls by 1.7-to-1,
in minutes -- meaning American phone companies have to pay fees for
the surplus calls. The F.C.C. is concerned that foreign companies are
demanding much more money than is justified, given the steeply falling
costs of providing service, and proposes to limit unilaterally the
payments American carriers make.
Central and South American countries filed formal protests against
the F.C.C.'s plan on October 12. Although developed countries like
Britain and Japan account for more than half of United States
international telephone traffic, some of the largest imbalances in
traffic are with developing countries, which spend the foreign
exchange on everything from school systems to weapons. The deficit
with Columbia, for example, soared to $71 million last year.
International charges are based on formulas assigning per-minute
costs of receiving and overseas call and routing it within the home
country. But while actual costs have dropped in recent years, the
formulas have been very slow to adjust, if they are adjusted at all.
For example, while few international calls require operators, the
formulas are still based on such expenses.
Furthermore, the investment required for each telephone line in an
undersea cable or aboard a satellite has plummeted with technological
advances. A trans-Pacific cable with 600,000 lines, announced last
Wednesday and scheduled to go into service in 1996, could cost less
than $1,000 per line.
Yet the phone company formulas keep charges high. Germany's Deutsche
Bundespost, for example, currently collects 87 cents a minute from
American carriers, which actually lose money on some of the off-peak
rates they offer American consumers.
MORE CALLS FROM THE U.S. ARE GENERATING A GROWING TRADE DEFICIT
U.S. telephone companies charge less for 1980 0.3 (billions of
overseas calls than foreign companies 1981 0.5 U.S. dollars)
charge for calls the United States. So 1982 0.7
more international calls originate in the 1983 1.0
United States. But the U.S. companies pay 1984 1.2
high fees to their foreign counterparts for 1985 1.1
handling those extra calls, and the deficit 1986 1.4
has ballooned in the last decade. 1987 1.7
1988 2.0
1989 2.4 (estimate)
(Source: F.C.C.)
THE LONG DISTANCE USAGE IMBALANCE
Outgoing and incoming U.S. telephone traffic, in 1988, the latest year
for which figures are available, in percent.
Whom are we calling? Who's calling us?
Total outgoing traffic: Total incoming traffic:
5,325 million minutes 3,155 million minutes
Other: 47.9% Other: 32.9%
Canada: 20.2% Canada: 35.2%
Britain: 9.1% Britain: 12.6%
Mexico: 8.8% Mexico: 6.2%
W. Germany: 6.9% W. Germany: 5.4%
Japan: 4.4% Japan: 4.3%
France: 2.7% France: 3.4%
(Source: International Institute of Communications)
COMPARING COSTS: Price range of five-minute international calls between
the U.S. and other nations. Figures do not include volume discounts.
Country From U.S.* To U.S.
Britain $2.95 to $5.20 $4.63 to $6.58
Canada (NYC to $0.90 to $2.25 $1.35 to $2.26
Montreal)
France $3.10 to $5.95 $4.72 to $7.73
Japan $4.00 to $8.01 $4.67 to $8.34
Mexico (NYC to $4.50 to $7.41 $4.24 to $6.36
Mexico City)
West Germany $3.10 to $6.13 $10.22
- For lowest rates, callers pay a monthly $3 fee.
(Source: A.T.&T.)
WHERE THE DEFICIT FALLS: Leading nations with which the United States
has a trade deficit in telephone services, in 1989, in millions of
dollars.
Mexico: $534
W. Germany: 167
Philippines: 115
South Korea: 112
Japan: 79
Dominican Republic: 75
Columbia: 71
Italy: 70 (Source: F.C.C.)
Israel: 57
Britain: 46
THE RUSH TOWARD LOWER COSTS: The cost per telephone line for laying
each of the eight telephone cables that now span the Atlantic Ocean,
from the one in 1956, which held 48 lines, to the planned 1992 cable
which is expected to carry 80,000 lines. In current dollars.
1956 $557,000
1959 436,000
1963 289,000
1965 365,000
1970 49,000
1976 25,000
1983 23,000 (Source, F.C.C.)
1988 9,000
1992 5,400 (estimate)
_______________________________________________________________________________
A few notes from Jim Warren in regards to the CFP conference:
Greetings,
Some key issues are now settled, with some minor remain for resolution.
CONFERENCE DATES, LOCATION & MAXIMUM SIZE
We have finally completed site selection and contracted for the Conference
facility. Please mark your calendars and spread the word:
First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy
March 25-28,1991, Monday-Thursday
SFO Marriott, Burlingame, California
(just south of San Francisco International Airport;
on the San Francisco Peninsula, about 20 minutes from "The City")
maximum attendance: 600
PLEASE NOTE NAME CHANGE
We have found *ample* issues for a very robust Conference, limited only to
computer-related issues of responsible freedom and privacy. After questions
regarding satellite surveillance, genetic engineering, photo traffic radar,
wireless phone bugs, etc., we decided to modify the Conference title for
greater accuracy. We have changed it from "Technology, Freedom & Privacy" to
"Computers, Freedom & Privacy."
ONE MORE NIT TO PICK
Until recently, our draft title has included, "First International Conference".
We most definitely are planning for international participation, especially
expecting presentations from EEC and Canadian privacy and access agencies.
These will soon have significant impacts on trans-border dataflow and inter-
national business communications.
However, we were just told that some agencies require multi-month clearance
procedures for staff attending any event with "International" in its title.
- *Your input on this and the minor issue of whether to include "International"
in our Conference title would be appreciated.**
ATTRIBUTION (BLAME)
We are building the first bridge connecting the major, highly diverse villages
of our new electronic frontier. Such construction involves some degree of
exploration and learning.
These title-changes are a result of that learning process. Please attribute
all responsibility for the fluctuating Conference title to me, personally. I
am the one who proposed the first title; I am the one who has changed it to
enhance accuracy and avoid conflict.
Of course, the title will be settled and finalized (with your kind assistance)
before the Conference is formally announced and publicity statements issued --
soon!
Thanking you for your interest and continued assistance, I remain, Sincerely,
--Jim Warren, CFP Conf Chair
jwarren@well.ca.sf.us
_______________________________________________________________________________
[Reprented from TELECOM digest. --DH]
FROM: Patrick Townson <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
SUBJECT: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS
For several months now, Illinois Bell has been hawking CLASS. Brochures
in the mail with our bills and newspaper advertisements have told us about the
wonderful new services soon to be offered.
It was just a question, they said, of waiting until your central office had
been converted. The new features being offered are:
*66 Auto Call Back: Call back the last number which called you. No
need to know the number.
*69 Repeat Dial: If the number you dialed was busy, punching
this will keep trying the number for up to
30 minutes, and advise you when it can connect.
*60 Call Screening Enter:
# plus number to be screened out plus #
* plus number to be re-admitted plus *
# plus 01 plus # to add the number of the
last call you received, whether or not
you know the number.
1 To play a list of the numbers being screened.
0 For a helpful recording of options, etc.
Distinctive Ringing Up to ten numbers can be programmed in. When a
call is received from one of these numbers, your
phone will give a special ring to advise you.
Multi-Ring Service Two additional numbers can be associated with
your number. When someone dials one of these
two numbers, your phone will give a special ring.
With both Distinctive Ringing and Multi-Ring Service, if you have Call Waiting,
the Call Waiting tones will be different from the norm also, so that you can
tell what is happening. With Multi-Ring Service, you can have it programmed so
the supplementary numbers associated with your main number are forwarded when
it is forwarded, or do not observe forwarding, and 'ring through' despite what
the main number is doing.
Alternate Answer Can be programmed so that after 3-7 rings,
the unanswered call will be automatically sent
to another line *WITHIN YOUR CENTRAL OFFICE*.
If the number assigned as an alternate is
itself busy or forwarded OUTSIDE YOUR OFFICE
then Alternate Answer will not forward the
call and continue to ring unanswered.
Transfer on Busy/ This is just another name for 'hunt'. The
No Answer difference is that hunt is free; Transfer on
Busy/NA costs a couple bucks per month. Like
Alternate Answer, it must forward only to a
number on the same switch. Unlike hunt, it
will work on NA as well. Unlike Alternate
Answer, it works on busy as well.
Caller*ID will be available 'eventually' they say.
Now my story begins:
From early this summer to the present, I've waited patiently for CLASS to
be available in Chicago-Rogers Park. Finally a date was announced: October 15
the above features would be available. In mid-September, I spoke with a rep in
the Irving-Kildare Business Office. She assured me *all* the above features
would be available on October 15. My bill is cut on the 13th of each month,
and knowing the nightmare of reading a bill which has had changes made in
mid-month (page after page of pro-rata entries for credits on the old service,
item by item; pro-rata entries for the new service going in, etc) it made sense
to implement changes on the billing date, to keep the statement simple.
She couldn't write the order for the service to start October 13, since
CLASS was not officially available until the fifteenth. Well, okay, so its
either wait until November 13 or go ahead and start in mid-month, worrying
about reading the bill once it actually arrives.
I've been ambivilent about CLASS since it is not compatible with my
present service 'Starline', but after much thought -- and since all
installation and order-writing on Custom Calling features is free now through
December 31! -- I decided to try out the new stuff.
She took the order Wednesday afternoon and quoted 'sometime Thursday' for
the work to be done. In fact it was done -- or mostly done -- by mid-afternoon
Thursday. But I should have known better. I should have remembered my
experience with Starline three years ago, when it took a technician in the
central office *one week* to get it all in and working correctly. Still, I
took IBT's word for it.
I got home about 5:30 PM Thursday. *You know* I sat down right away at
the phone to begin testing the new features! :) The lines were to be equipped
as follows:
Line 1: Call Waiting Line 2: Call Forwarding
Three Way Calling Speed Dial 8
Call Forwarding Busy Repeat Dialing *69
Speed Dial 8
Auto Call Back *66 (second line used mostly by modem;
Busy Repeat Dialing *69 so Call Waiting undesirable)
Call Screening *60
Alternate Answer (supposed to be programmed to Voice Mail;
another CO; another area code ?708?;
even another telco ?Centel?).
Busy Repeat Dialing did not work on the second line (not installed) and
Alternate Answer worked (but not as I understood it would) on the first line.
Plus, I had forgotten how to add 'last call received' to the screening feature.
It is 5:45 ... business office open another fifteen minutes ... good! I
call 1-800-244-4444 which is IBT's idea of a new way to handle calls to the
business office. Everyone in the state of Illinois calls it, and the calls go
wherever someone is free. Before, we could call the business office in our
neighborhood direct ... no longer.
I call; I go on hold; I wait on hold five minutes. Finally a rep comes on
the line, a young fellow who probably Meant Well ...
After getting the preliminary information to look up my account, we begin
our conversation:
Me: You see from the order the new features put on today?
Him: Yes, which ones are you asking about?
Me: A couple questions. Explain how to add the last call received to
your call screening.
Him: Call screening? Well, that's not available in your area yet. You
see, it will be a few months before we offer it.
Me: Wait a minute! It was quoted to me two days ago, and it is on
the order you are reading now is it not?
?I read him the order number to confirm we had the same one.?
Him: Yes, it is on here, but it won't work. No matter what was written
up. Really, I have to apologize for whoever would have taken your
order and written it there.
Me: Hold on, hold on! It *is* installed, and it *is* working! I want
to know how to work it.
Him: No it is not installed. The only features we can offer you at
at this time are Busy Redial and Auto Callback. Would you like me
to put in an order for those?
Me: Let's talk to the supervisor instead.
Him: (in a huff) Gladly sir.
Supervisor comes on line and repeats what was said by the rep: Call
Screening is not available at this time in Chicago-Rogers Park.
At this point I am furious ...
Me: Let me speak to the rep who took this order (I quoted her by
name.)
Supervisor: I never heard of her. She might be in some other office.
Me: (suspicious) Say, is this Irving-Kildare?
Supervisor: No! Of course not! I am in Springfield, IL.
Me: Suppose you give me the name of the manager at Irving-Kildare
then, and I will call there tomorrow. (By now it was 6 PM; the
supervisor was getting figity and nervous wanting to go home.)
Supervisor: Here! Call this number tomorrow and ask for the manager of
that office, 1-800-244-4444.
Me: Baloney! Give me the manager's direct number!
Supervisor: Well okay, 312-xxx-xxxx, and ask for Ms. XXXX.
Me: (suspicious again) She is the manager there?
Supervisor: Yes, she will get you straightened out. Goodbye!
Comes Friday morning, I am on the phone a few minutes before 9 AM, at the
suggested direct number. Ms. XXXX reviewed the entire order and got the Busy
Repeat Dial feature added to line two ... but she insisted the original rep
was 'wrong for telling you call screening was available ..' and the obligatory
apology for 'one of my people who mislead you'. I patiently explained to her
also that in fact call screening was installed and was working.
Manager: Oh really? Are you sure?
Me: I am positive. Would you do me a favor? Call the foreman and have
him call me back.
Manager: Well, someone will call you later.
Later that day, a rep called to say that yes indeed, I was correct. It
seems they had not been told call screening was now available in my office. I
told her that was odd, considering the rep who first took the order knew all
about it.
I asked when the Alternate Answer 'would be fixed' (bear in mind I thought
it would work outside the CO, which it would not, which is why it kept ringing
through to me instead of forwarding.)
She thought maybe the foreman could figure that out.
Maybe an hour later, a techician did call me to say he was rather
surprised that call screening was working on my line. He gave a complete and
concise explanation of how Alternate Answer and Transfer on Busy/No Answer was
to work. He offered to have it removed from my line since it would be of no
value to me as configured.
One question he could not answer: How do you add the last call received
to call screening? He could find the answer nowhere, but said he would see to
it I got 'the instruction booklet' in the mail soon, so maybe I could figure it
out myself.
I got busy with other things, and put the question aside ... until early
Saturday morning when I got one of my periodic crank calls from the same number
which has plagued me for a couple months now with ring, then hangup calls on an
irregular basis.
For the fun of it, I punched *69, and told the sassy little girl who
answered the phone to quit fooling around. She was, to say the least,
surprised and startled by my call back. I don't think I will hear from her
again. :)
But I decided to ask again how to add such a number to call screening,
so I called Repair Service.
The Repair Service clerk pulled me up on the tube *including the work
order from two days earlier* and like everyone else said:
Repair: You don't have Call Screening on your line. That is not
available yet in your area. We are adding new offices daily,
blah, blah.
I *couldn't believe* what I was hearing ... I told her I did, and she
insisted I did not ... despite the order, despite what the computer said.
Finally it was on to her supervisor, but as it turned out, her supervisor was
the foreman on duty for the weekend. Like the others, he began with apologies
for how I 'had been misinformed' ... no call screening was available.
Me: Tell ya what. You say no, and I say yes. You're on the test
board, no? I'll hang up. You go on my line, dial *60, listen to
the recording you hear, then call me back. I will wait here. Take
your time. When you call back, you can apologize.
Foreman: Well, I'm not on the test board, I'm in my office on my own
phone.
Me: So go to the test board, or pick me up in there wherever it is
handy and use my line. Make a few calls. Add some numbers to the
call screening; then call me back with egg on your face, okay?
Foreman: Are you saying call screening is on your line and you have
used it?
Me: I have used it. Today. A few minutes ago I played with it.
Foreman: I'll call you back.
(Fifteen minutes later) ...
Foreman: Mr. Townson! Umm ... I have been with this company for 23
years. I'll get to the point: I have egg on my face. Not mine
really, but the company has the egg on the face. You are correct;
your line has call screening.
Me: 23 years you say? Are you a member of the Pioneers?
Foreman: (surprised) Why, uh, yes I am.
Me: Fine organization isn't it ...
Foreman: Yes, it certainly is. You know of them?
Me: I've heard a few things.
Foreman: Look, let me tell you something. I did not know -- nor *did
anyone in this office know* that call screening was now available. We
were told it was coming, that's all.
Me: You mean no one knew it was already in place?
Foreman: No, apparently not ... I think you are the only customer in
the Rogers Park office who has it at this time. Because the
assumption was it was not yet installed, the reps were told not to
take orders for it ... I do not know how your order slipped through.
Me: Will you be telling others?
Foreman: I have already made some calls, and yes, others will be told
about this on Monday.
Me: Well, you know the *81 feature to turn call screening on and off
is still not working.
Foreman: I'm not surprised. After all, none of it is supposed to be
working right now. You seem to know something about this business,
Mr. Townson.
Me: I guess I've picked up a few things along the way.
We then chatted about the Transfer on Busy/No Answer feature. I asked
why, if my cell phone on 312-415-xxxx had the ability to transfer calls out of
the CO and be programmed/turned on and off from the phone itself, my wire line
could not. 312-415 is out of Chicago-Congress ... he thought it might have to
do with that office having some different generics than Rogers Park ... but he
could not give a satisfactory answer.
Patrick Townson
_______________________________________________________________________________
The following article appeared in the U-M Computing Center News
(October 25, 1990, V 5, No 18, Pg 10)
[This article was also reprinted in TELECOM digest -DH]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NSFNET DEMONSTRATES INTERCONTINENTAL ISO TRANSMISSION
[Editor's note: The following article is reprinted, with modifications,
from the September 1990 issue of the Link Letter (Vol 3, No 4),
published by the Merit/NSFNET backbone project]
At the end of September, partners in the National Science Foundation Network
(NSFNET) announced a succesful demonstration of intercontinental data
transmission using the International Standards Organization Conectionless
Network Protocol (ISO CLNP). The international exchange of ISO CLNP packets
was demonstrated betweeen end systems at the NSFNET Network Operations Center
in Ann Arbor and in Bonn, West Germany, using the NSFNET backbone
infrastructure and the European Academic Supercomputer Initiative (EASInet)
backbone.
The prototype OSI implementation is intended to provide wide area connectivity
between OSI networks, including networks using the DECNet Phase V protocols.
The new software was integrated into the NSFNET's "packet switching" (data
transmission) nodes by David Katz and Susan Hares of the Merit Computer
Network, with support from IBM's software developement departments in Milford,
CT and Yorktown Heights, NY.
NSFNET is the first federally supported computer network to acheive
international ISO CLNP transmission on an operating network, according to
Merit's Hans-Werner Braun, Principle Investigator for the NSFNET Project.
The Prototype ISO implementation is being designed to coexist with NSFNET's
operational Internet Protocol (IP) network, and is a significant step towards
offering ISO services on the NSFNET backbone. Eric Aupperle, President of
Merit and acting director of ITD Network Systems, says that "the demonstration
shows that we're capable of transporting ISO traffic. Now we're working to
deploy this experimental service as fast as possible."
An implementation of CLNP was first demonstrated by Merit/NSFNET staff at the
InterOp '89 conference. That implementation of CLNP was originally developed
as part of the ARGO project at the University of Wisconsin, Madision, with the
support of the IBM Corporation.
by Ken Horning
DTD Network Systems.
_______________________________________________________________________________
{Middlesex News}, Framingham, Mass., 11/2/90
Prodigy Pulls Plug on Electronic Mail Service For Some
By Adam Gaffin
NEWS STAFF WRITER
Users of a national computer network vow to continue a protest against
censorship and a new charge for electronic mail even though the company kicked
them off-line this week.
Brian Ek, spokesman for the network, Prodigy, said the "handful" of users had
begun harassing other users and advertisers on the service and that some had
even created programs "to flood members' 'mailboxes' with (thousands of)
repeated and increasingly strident harangues," he said.
But leaders of the protest say they sent only polite letters -- approved by the
company's legal department -- using techniques taught by the company itself.
Up to nine of them had their accounts pulled hips week.
Protests began in September when the company said it would cut unlimited
electronic mail from its monthly fee -- which includes such services as on-line
airline reservations, weather and games -- and would charge 25 cents for every
message above a monthly quota of 30. Ek says the design of the Prodigy network
makes "e-mail" very expensive and that few users send more than 30 messages a
month.
But Penny Hay, the only organizer of the "Cooperative Defense Committee" whose
account was not shut this week, said she and others are upset with Prodigy's
"bait and switch" tactics: The company continues to promote "free" electronic
mail as a major feature. She said Prodigy itself had spurred use of e-mail by
encouraging subscribers to set up private e-mail ``lists'' rather than use
public forums and that the charges will especially hurt families, because the
quota is per household, not person.
Ek said relatively few members protested the rate chqange. Gary Arlen, who
publishes a newsletter about on-line services, called the controversy "a
tempest in a teapot."
Hay, however, said the group now has the backing of nearly 19,000 Prodigy users
-- the ones advertisers would want to see on-line because they are the most
active ones on the system and so more likely to see their ads.
The group is also upset with the way the company screens messages meant for
public conferences. Other services allow users to see "postings"
immediately.
"They are infamous for this unpredicible and unfathomable censorship," Hay
said.
"We feel what we are doing is not censoring because what we are essentially
doing is electronic publishing," Ek said, comparing the public messages to
letters to the editor of a family newspaper.
Neil Harris, marketing director at the competing GEnie service, said many
people would feel intimidated knowing that what they write is being screened.
He said GEnie only rarely has to deleted messages. And he said GEnie has
picked up several thousand new customers from among disgruntled Prodigy users.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Conversations with Fred," {Middlesex News}, Framingham, 11/6/90.
The story is bizarre but true, swears Herb Rothman. Seems Prodigy, the network
run as a joint venture by Sears and IBM, wouldn't let somebody post a message
in a coin-collecting forum that he was looking for a particular Roosevelt dime
for his collection. Upset, the man called "member services." The
representative told him the message violated a Prodigy rule against mentioning
another user in a public message. "What user?" the man asked. "Roosevelt
Dime," the rep replied. "That's not a person!" the man said. "Yes he is,
he's a halfback for the Chicago Bears," the rep shot back.
Rothman is one of those alleged compu-terrorists Prodigy claims is harassing
other users and companies that advertise on the service by sending out
thousands upon thousands of increasingly hostile messages in protest of a
Prodigy plan to begin charging users who send more than 30 e-mail messages a
month. Rothman and the others say they sent very polite messages to people
(Penny Hay of Los Angeles says her messages were even approved by the Prodigy
legal department) telling them about the new fees and urging them to protest.
What's really happening is that Prodigy is proving its complete arrogance and
total lack of understanding of the dynamics of on-line communication. They
just don't get it. People are NOT going to spend nearly $130 a year just to
see the weather in Oregon or order trips to Hawaii.
Even the computerphobes Prodigy wants to attract quickly learn the real value
of the service is in finding new friends and holding intelligent "discussions"
with others across the country.
But Prodigy blithely goes on censoring everything meant for public consumption,
unlike other nationwide services (or even bulletin-board systems run out of
some teenager's bedroom). Rothman's story is not the only one about capricious
or just plain stupid censoring. Dog fanciers can't use the word ``bitch'' when
talking about their pets, yet the service recently ran an advice column all
about oral sex. One user who complained when a message commenting on the use
of the term "queen bitch" on "L.A. Law" was not allowed on was told that
"queen b***h" would be acceptable, because adults would know what it meant
but the kiddies would be saved.
So when the supposed technology illiterates Prodigy thinks make up its user
base managed to get around this through the creation of private mail "lists"
(and, in fact, many did so at the urging of Prodigy itself!), Prodigy started
complaining of "e-mail hogs," quietly announced plans to levy charges for more
than a minute number of e-mail messages each month and finally, simply canceled
the accounts of those who protested the loudest!
And now we are watching history in the making, with the nation's first
nationwide protest movement organized almost entirely by electronic mail (now
don't tell Prodigy this, but all those people they kicked off quickly got back
onto the system -- Prodogy allows up to six users per household account, and
friends simply loaned their empty slots to the protest leaders).
It's truly amazing how little faith Prodigy has in the ability of users to
behave themselves. Other systems have "sysops" to keep things in line, but
rarely do they have to pull messages. Plus, Prodigy is just being plain dumb.
Rothman now has a mailing list of about 1,500. That means every time he sends
out one of his newsletters on collectibles, he sends 1,500 e-mail messages,
which, yes, costs more for Prodigy to send over long-distance lines and store
in its central computers. But if they realized their users are generally
mature, rather than treating them as 4-year-olds, Rothman could post just one
message in a public area, that everybody could see.
Is this any way to run an on-line system? Does Prodigy really want to drive
away the people most inclined to use the service -- and see all those ads that
pop up at the bottom of the screen? Prodigy may soon have to do some
accounting to the folks at IBM and Sears, who by most accounts have already
poured at least $750 million into "this thing."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
With your computer and modem, you can reach Fred the Middlesex News
Computer anytime, day or night, at (508) 872-8461. Set your parameters
to 8-1-N and up to 2400 baud.
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE Cops Say Hacker, 17, `Stole' Phone Service
Byline: By Joshua Quittner
DATE 10/31/90
SOURCE Newsday (NDAY)
Edition: NASSAU AND SUFFOLK
Section: NEWS
Page: 02
(Copyright Newsday Inc., 1990)
State Police arrested a 17-year-old computer hacker at his terminal yesterday
afternoon, and charged the Bethpage High School student with using his computer
to run up more than $1 million worth of long-distance telephone calls on credit
card numbers he deciphered.
State Police Senior Investigator Donald Delaney, who supervised the
investigation and arrest of John Farrell, of 83 S. Third St., said that the
case was among the first to rely on new technology developed by
telecommunications engineers to track long-distance telephone-service abusers.
Investigators believe that as early as December, 1989, Farrell was using his
computer and a homemade electronic device, known as a black box, to
sequentially dial telephone numbers, which double as credit card numbers. By
automatically calling the numbers in sequence, Farrell hoped to trigger a
signal indicating a valid credit card number.
However, AT&T, which recently developed software to detect such sequential
dialing, alerted Delaney's office in September of Farrell's alleged attempts.
In July, investigators surreptitiously placed a "pen register" - a device that
records all numbers dialed from a particular phone line - on Farrell's
telephone, Delaney said.
State Police and U.S. Secret Service agents - the federal agency has been
taking an active part in computer crimes and investigates credit card fraud -
staked out Farrell's house yesterday afternoon. Shortly after 3 p.m., when the
youth arrived home from school, technicians monitoring his telephone line
signaled the police that he had already turned on his computer and was using an
illegal credit card number to access an electronic bulletin board in Illinois,
police said. Officers, armed with a search warrant, then entered the house and
arrested Farrell.
Delaney said Farrell found over 100 long-distance credit card numbers, from
four long-distance carriers, and posted them on rogue electronic bulletins
boards in Virginia, Chicago, Denmark and France. Although he allegedly made
most of the illegal calls, other hackers also used the numbers. The majority
of the calls - more than $600,000 worth - were billed to four corporate card
numbers, said Delaney, who added that the phone company is responsible for such
losses. Farrell was arrested and charged with six felonies, including grand
larceny, computer trespass and criminal possession of stolen property. The
charges carry a maximum penalty of four years in prison. He was released into
the custody of his parents last night. Neither Farrell nor his parents could
be reached for comment yesterday. Farrell was associated with a group of
hackers who called themselves Paradox, Delaney said.
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE Menacing calls started out as prank, says participant
Byline: Katharine Webster and Graciella Sevilla
Credit: Staff Writer
Notes: Editions vary : Head varies
DATE 10/28/90
SOURCE The San Diego Union and Tribune (SDU)
Pub: UNION
Edition: 1,2,3,4,5,6
Section: LOCAL
Page: B-1
(Copyright 1990)
A three-year campaign of telephoned threats and ethnic slurs directed against
the Jewish owner of a National City pawn shop started out as a "stupid prank"
that grew to include more than 100 people, according to one of the young men
who participated in the harassment. "Little did I know when I started this
three years ago, that it would escalate into my brother calling (David Vogel)
10 times a day," said Gary Richard Danko, 21, of Chula Vista, who cooperated
with the FBI investigation that resulted in the indictment Wednesday of his
older brother and two other men on civil rights charges.
Michael Dennis Danko, 23, and Brett Alan Pankauski, 22, both of Chula Vista,
and Jeffrey Alan Myrick, 21, of Paradise Hills in San Diego, pleaded not guilty
in U.S. District Court yesterday to a six-count indictment charging them with
wire fraud and felony conspiracy to violate the civil rights of David Vogel, a
66-year-old Jewish immigrant who escaped the Holocaust.
Pankauski was released on $10,000 bail and admonished to avoid all contact with
Vogel. But Danko and Myrick were held without bail pending an Oct. 4
detention hearing after federal prosecutor Michael McAuliffe convinced
Magistrate Irma Gonzalez that they posed substantial flight risks.
On Wednesday, Gary Danko and a friend, Robert John Byrd, 21, also of Chula
Vista, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of conspiring to violate Vogel's
civil rights, according to a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office. The
two friends, who met while working at a 7-Eleven, were released and agreed to
testify at the trial of the remaining three defendants.
Though the arrests climaxed a five-month investigation involving the FBI, U.S.
attorney's office and the Department of Justice, Gary Danko said yesterday that
the menacing phone calls to numbers picked "at random" from the telephone book
began years ago.
The group of friends, most of whom have known each other since elementary
school, all used to make crank phone calls, Danko said, even to each other.
They also experimented with breaking codes for answering machines and changing
the outgoing message to something profane.
While he said he stopped making the calls to Vogel a couple of years ago, his
brother and others "took it out to a degree to torment the guy."
"I feel bad that it turned out this way," Danko said. "I wish there was some
way I could make it up to David (Vogel)."
"I know how he feels," Danko added. "Ever since I've had my own phone line
I've had harassing phone calls between 2 and 6 in the morning to the point
where I've changed my phone number three times." Danko denied that he, his
brother, or any of the other defendants in the case were racists or that they
had targeted Vogel for any particular reason. He said that the defendants made
crank calls to many people, and that the anti-Jewish nature of the calls to
Vogel was probably based on a "lucky guess" that he was Jewish.
According to the indictment, Michael Danko, Myrick, and Pankauski made phone
calls in which they referred to Nazi concentration camps and Hitler, while
threatening to harm Vogel and his pawn-shop business.
Vogel said he began receiving the phone calls -- which included racial slurs
and taunts about his wife -- in 1987. Sometimes he received up to 12 calls a
day, creating a "personal hell." Earlier this year, he finally hired a private
investigator, who then turned the case over to the FBI.
"It caused suffering for us like the concentration camps did for my family,"
Vogel said. "It was horrible."
Another relative of Gary and Michael Danko, who asked not to be identified,
said he thought the calls to Vogel continued only "because they got a reaction
out of him -- he screamed and yelled at them." But he said Vogel was probably
not the only Jew targeted in the phone calls.
The relative agreed with FBI agents, who described these incidents as isolated
and not connected with organized racist groups such as the Skinheads.
Instead, he said, the brothers thought they were doing "something funny." He
said he thought they still didn't realize they were doing something wrong, even
though he had "yelled and screamed at them" to stop.
Gary Danko is a computer "hacker" who works at a computer store, he said.
Michael Danko was unemployed.
FBI agents began investigating the calls in May, when they placed a tape
recorder on Vogel's phone. It only took a few moments before the first hate
call came in.
Agents traced the calls to a number of phone booths and then began putting
together the wire-fraud case.
In addition to the civil rights violations, the indictment alleges that the
three defendants conspired to obtain unauthorized AT&T long-distance access
codes to make long-distance phone calls without paying for them.
If convicted of the civil rights and wire-fraud charges, the defendants could
face up to 15 years in prison and $500,000 in fines. In addition, they face
various additional charges of illegally obtaining and using the restricted
long-distance access codes.
Yesterday, Vogel angrily rejected the notion that these callers were less than
serious in their intentions.
"They're full of baloney. They don't know what they are talking about," he
said.
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE SHORT-CIRCUITING DATA CRIMINALS
STEPS CAN BE TAKEN TO DETECT AND PREVENT COMPUTER SECURITY BREACHES,
BUT BUSINESSES HESITATE TO PROSECUTE
Byline: Mary J. Pitzer Daily News Staff Writer
Notes: MONDAY BUSINESS: COVER STORY THE PRICE OF COMPUTER
CRIME. Second of two parts
DATE 10/22/90
SOURCE LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS (LAD)
Edition: Valley
Section: BUSINESS
Page: B1
(Copyright 1990)
Along with other telecommunications companies, Pacific Bell is a favorite
target for computer crime.
"We're a victim," said Darrell Santos, senior investigator at Pacific Bell.
"We have people hacking us and trying to get into our billables. It seems like
a whole lot of people are trying to get into the telecommunications network."
But the company is fighting back. About seven employees in its investigative
unit work with different law enforcement agencies to track down criminals, many
of whom use the phone lines to commit computer crimes.
In cooperation with authorities Pacific Bell investigators collect evidence,
trace calls, interview suspects and testify in court. They even do their own
hacking to figure out what some of their chief adversaries are up to.
"We take a (telephone) prefix and hack the daylights out of it. We hack our
own numbers," Santos said. "Hey, if we can do it, think of what those brain
childs are doing."
Few companies are nearly so aggressive. For the most part computer crime is a
growing business that remains relatively unchecked. State and federal laws
against computer crime are in place, but few cases are prosecuted. Most
incidents go unreported, consultants say.
"We advise our clients not to talk about losses and security because just
talking about them in public is a breach," said Donn Parker, a senior managment
consultant at SRI International in Palo Alto. "Mostly companies handle
incidents privately or swallow the loss."
Most problematic is that few companies have tight enough security to protect
themselves.
"On a scale of one to 10, the majority of companies are at about a two," said
Jim Harrigan, senior security consultant at LeeMah Datacom Security Corp.,
which sells computer security products.
Current laws are strong enough to convict computer criminals, security experts
say. But they have been little used and sentences are rarely stiff, especially
because so many violators are juveniles.
Fewer than 250 computer crime cases have been prosecuted nationally, according
to Kenneth Rosenblatt, head of the Santa Clara County district attorney's high
technology unit. Rosenblatt co-authored California's recent computer crime
law, which creates new penalties such as confiscation of computer equipment.
Under a strengthened federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Cornell University
graduate student Robert T. Morris Jr. was convicted of unleashing a computer
virus in Internet, a large computer network tying universities and government
facilities. Though the virus was not intended to destroy programs, it infected
thousands of computers and cost between $100,000 and $10 million to combat,
according to author and hacking expert Cliff Stoll.
Morris was sentenced to three years probation and a $10,000 fine.
A major problem in policing computer crime is that investigators are
understaffed and undertrained, Rosenblatt said. While Los Angeles and other
police departments have computer crime units, most are not geared for it, he
said. And violent crimes take precedence.
Rosenblatt would like to see greater regional cooperation and coordination
among local law enforcement agencies.
Because investigators are understaffed, they must depend on their victims to
gather enough evidence to convict the culprits. And that can be fraught with
difficulties, Kenneth Weaver, criminal investigator in the San Diego district
attorney's office, said at a recent security conference in Newport Beach.
In one case a company's computer system crashed and its programs were erased 30
days after an employee left the firm. With six months of backup tapes, the
company was able to document what had happened. The District Attorney's office
asked to estimate how much money had been lost.
The total came to $3,850, well below the $5,000 in damages needed for a felony
case, Weaver said. And then the information was delayed 14 months. It needed
to be reported in 12 months for the D.A. to go forward with the case.
"We were prevented from prosecuting," Weaver said. In California, 71 percent
of the cases result in convictions once arrests are made, according to the
National Center for Computer Crime Data.
But when prosecutors do make a case, there can be more trouble. Some prominent
people in the computer industry have complained that a 2-year investigation by
the U.S. Secret Service infringed on civil rights.
The investigation, code-named Operation Sun Devil, was started to snare members
of the Legion of Doom, an elite hacker group. The Secret Service suspected
that they had broken into BellSouth Corp.'s telephone network and planted
destructive programs that could have knocked out emergency and customer phone
service across several states. Last spring, hacker dens in 13 cities were
raided. Two suspects have been charged with computer crimes, and more arrests
are expected.
But a group called EFF, formed in July by Lotus Development Corp. founder
Mitchell D. Kapor and Apple Computer Inc. co-founder Stephen Wozniak, has
objected to the crackdown as overzealous.
"The excesses of Operation Sun Devil are only the beginning of what threatens
to become a long, difficult, and philosophically obscure struggle between
institutional control and individual liberty," Kapor wrote in a paper with
computer expert and Grateful Dead lyricist John Perry Barlow.
So far, the foundation has granted $275,000 to Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility to expand its ongoing work on civil liberties protections
for computer users.
The foundation also is offering legal assistance to computer users who may have
had their rights infringed. For example, it provided legal support to Craig
Neidorf, publisher of an online hacking "magazine." Neidorf had been charged
with felony wire fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property for
publishing BellSouth network information.
Neidorf said he was not aware the information was stolen. EFF claimed that
Neidorf's right to free speech had been violated. The government dropped its
case after EFF representatives found that the apparently stolen information was
publicly available.
Companies that want to prosecute computer crime face other dilemmas.
"The decision to bring in public authorities is not always the best," said
Susan Nycum, an attorney at Baker & McKenzie in Palo Alto.
In a criminal case, the company loses control over what information is made
public in the trial. But companies can pursue civil remedies that enable them
to keep a lower profile. Suing for theft of trade secret, for example, would
be one avenue, Weaver said.
Many companies are reluctant to beef up security even if they know the risks
from computer crime. First, they worry that making access to computers more
difficult would lower productivity. There also is concern that their technical
people, who are in high demand, might leave for other jobs if security becomes
too cumbersome.
Expense is another factor. Serious security measures at a large installation
can cost an average of $100,000, though a smaller company can be helped for
about $10,000, said Trevor Gee, partner at consulting company Deloitte and
Touche.
"They hear all the rumors, but unless you illustrate very specific savings,
they are reluctant," Gee said.
Proving cost savings is difficult unless the company already has been hit by
computer crime. But those victims, some of whom have suffered losses in the
millions, are usually security experts' best customers, consultants say.
Much of the vulnerability to computer crime comes simply from lax security.
Access is not restricted. Doors are not locked. Passwords are easily guessed,
seldom changed and shared with several workers. And even these basic security
measures are easy to put off.
"You hear a lot of, `We haven't gotten around to changing the password because.
. .," Roy Alzua, telecommunications security program manager at Rockwell
International, told the security conference.
So what should companies do to plug the gaping security holes in their
organizations?
Consultants say that top management first has to make a commitment that
everyone in the operation takes seriously.
"I've seen companies waste several hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars
because management was not behind the program," Deloitte & Touche's Gee said.
"As a result, MIS (management information systems) professionals have a tough
time" pressing for more security.
Once top executives are convinced that there is a need for tighter security,
they must establish policies and procedures, consultants say. Gee suggests
that in addition to training programs, reminders should be posted. Such issues
as whether employees are allowed to use computers for personal projects should
be tackled.
Management also should decide what systems and information need to be secured.
"They need to zero in on the information they are really concerned about," said
Gregory Therkalsen, national director of information security services for
consultants Ernst & Young. "About 95 percent of the information in the average
company nobody cares about."
Before tackling complicated security systems, companies should pay attention to
the basics.
"Lock a door. It's as easy as that," Alzua said.
Companies should make sure that the passwords that come with their computers
are changed. And then employees should not use common words or names that are
easy to guess. Using a combination of numbers and letters, although difficult
to remember, is more secure.
Another basic measure is to have a system that automatically checks the
authorization of someone who dials into the company's computers from the
outside.
Then, companies should develop an electronic audit trail so that they know who
is using the system and when. And companies should always take the time to
make backups of their computer files and store them in a place safe from fire
and flood.
A wide variety of software is available to help companies protect themselves.
Some automatically encode information entered into the system. Others detect
viruses.
For a more sophisticated approach, LeeMah Datacom has a system that blocks a
computer tone from the telephone line until the correct access code is entered.
The company has held contests challenging hackers to break into its system. No
one has, the company said.
SRI is developing a system that would monitor computer activity around the
clock with the supervision of a security guard. SRI is implementing the system
for the FBI and plans to make it a commercial product.
No company would want to have a perfectly secure system, consultants say. That
would mean shutting out most employees and staying off networks that can make
operations more efficient.
While still balancing the need for openess, however, there is much that can be
done to prevent computer crime. And although there is no perfect solution,
companies don't need to stand by waiting to become the next victim.
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE BELL CANADA'S NEW LOOK TELEPHONE NUMBERS PUZZLE SOME CUSTOMERS
DATE 09/26/90
SOURCE CANADA NEWS-WIRE (CNW)
Contact: For further information, contact: Irene Colella (416)
581-4266; Geoff Matthews, Bell Canada (416) 581-4205. CO: Bell Canada
SS: IN: TLS
Origin: TORONTO
Language: ENGLISH; E
Day of Week: Wed
Time: 09:56 (Eastern Time)
(Copyright Canada News-Wire)
RE CN
--- BELL CANADA'S NEW LOOK TELEPHONE NUMBERS PUZZLE SOME
CUSTOMERS ---
TORONTO - Bell Canada's new look telephone numbers in Southern Ontario are
causing puzzlement among some customers in the 416 area code.
In late 1988 Bell found itself running short of telephone numbers in the Golden
Horseshoe because of rapid business and residential growth as well as the
increasing popularity of cellular telephones, fax machines and new services
like Ident-A-Call.
To accommodate continuing growth, the company had to come up with a means of
creating new number combinations. The solution was found by assigning local
exchanges made up of combinations which had previously been reserved as area
codes elsewhere in North America.
Until March of this year the three numbers (known as a central office code)
which begin a telephone number never had a zero or a one as the second digit.
Anything from two through nine could appear in that position, but combinations
with zero or one were used only as area codes. But with more than four million
telephone numbers in use throughout the Golden Horseshoe Bell was simply
running out of the traditional central office code combinations. By creating
new central office codes such as 502, 513, 602 and 612, the company has access
to up to one million new telephone numbers.
Some customers, however, have found the new numbers a little confusing. When
the new numbers were introduced last March, Bell mounted an extensive
advertising campaign telling customers throughout the 416 area code to dial 1
plus 416 or 0 plus 416 for all long distance calls within the area code in
order to ensure calls to these numbers could be completed.
Bell spokesman Geoff Matthews says that while the ad campaign was extremely
effective in changing dialing habits, a number of customers are scratching
their heads when they first see the new telephone numbers.
``In some cases we are finding that business customers have not programmed
their telephone equipment to permit dialing the new numbers,'' Matthews said,
``but some people think it is simply a mistake when they see a telephone number
beginning with 612 for example. Most are satisfied once they have received an
explanation.''
Creating the million new telephone numbers should see Bell Canada through
several years, Matthews said, after which a new area code will be introduced.
The 416 area code is the first in Canada to reach capacity. A number of U.S.
cities have faced a similar situation, Matthews said, and have introduced
similar number plans.
Bell Canada, the largest Canadian telecommunications operating company, markets
a full range of state-of-the-art products and services more than seven million
business and residence customers in Ontario, Quebec and part of the Northwest
Territories.
Bell Canada is a member of Telecom Canada -- an association of Canada's major
telecommunications companies.
For further information, contact: Irene Colella (416) 581-4266; Geoff
Matthews, Bell Canada (416) 581-4205.
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE Keeping The PBX Secure
Byline: Bruce Caldwell
DATE 10/15/90
Issue: 291
Section: TRENDS
Page: 25
(Copyright 1990 CMP Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Preventing toll fraud through the corporate PBX can be as simple, albeit
inconvenient, as expanding access codes from four digits to 14. "When we had
nine-digit codes, we got hurt bad," says Bob Fox of US Sprint Communications
Co., referring to the phone company's credit card numbers. "But when we moved
to 14-digit codes and vigorous prosecution, our abuse dropped off the table."
At most companies, the authorization code for remote access, used by employees
to place calls through the corporate PBX while away from the office, is only
four digits. Many companies are "hung up on the four-digit authorization
code," says Fox, mainly because it's easier for the executives to remember.
But all it takes a hacker to crack open a four-digit code is about 20 minutes.
To help their customers cope with PBX abuse, MCI Communications Corp. has
prepared a tip sheet describing preventative measures (see accompanying chart).
PBX fraud may display itself in a particular pattern: The initial stage will
show a dramatic increase in 950-outbound and 800-outbound services, which allow
a surreptitious user to "cover his tracks" by jumping from one carrier to
another-a technique known as "looping." In time, knowledge of the unsecured
system may become widespread, resulting in heavy use of services connected with
normal telecommunications traffic.
Customers are advised to audit systems for unusual usage and to change codes on
a regular basis. Steady tones used as prompts to input access codes should be
avoided, because that is what hacker-programmed computers look for. Instead,
MCI advises use of a voice recording or no prompt at all, and recommends
automatic termination of a call or routing it to a switchboard operator
whenever an invalid code is entered.
An obvious source of help is often overlooked. Explains Jim Snyder, an
attorney in MCI's office of corporate systems integrity, "The first thing we
tell customers is to contact their PBX vendor to find out what kind of
safeguards can be built into the PBX."
_______________________________________________________________________________
HEADLINE WATCH YOUR PBX
Column: Database
DATE 04/02/90
SOURCE COMMUNICATIONSWEEK (CWK)
Issue: 294
Section: PRN
Page: 24
(Copyright 1990 CMP Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Many managers of voice systems would be "horrified" if they realized the low
levels of security found in their PBXs, according to Gail Thackeray, an
assistant attorney general for the state of Arizona. Thackeray made her
comments to a group of financial users at a computer virus clinic held by the
Data Processing Management Association's Financial Industries chapter.
Thackeray, who investigates computer crimes, said that PBXs often are used by
network criminals to make free long distance phone calls at the expense of the
companies that own the PBXs. "PBX owners are often unaware that if $500,000
worth of fraud comes from your PBX, the local carrier is not going to absorb
that loss," she said.
The PBX also is often the first source of break-in by computer hackers, who use
the free phone service to get into a user's data system, she said. "PBXs are
the prime method for international toll fraud and hackers attacking and hiding
behind your corporate identity," Thackeray said.
Richard Lefkon, Citicorp's network planner and president of DPMA's financial
industries chapter, said users are more likely to take steps toward protecting
a PBX than a network of microcomputers. "A PBX is expensive, so if you add 15
to 20 percent to protect it, it's a justifiable expenditure," Lefkon said. "If
you have a PC which costs a couple of thousand dollars, unless you think you're
special, you are going to think twice before investing several hundred dollars
per PC to protect them."
_______________________________________________________________________________
KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL
K N I G H T L I N E
Issue 03/Part III of III
17th of November, 1990
Written, compiled,
and edited by Doc Holiday
KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL ^*^ KL
---
What is this? Information Society's new album is called "HACK"? Just
what do these guys know about hacking? How did they come up with the album
title? Why are they taking such an interest in the Computer Underground?
Knightline got the chance to ask Kurt Valaquen of InSoc about the new
album and his involvement with the CU.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RINGing New York .. .
KV: Hello
Me: Kurt?
KV: Yes, Doc ?
Me: Yea, you ready for the interview?
KV: Sure, shoot.
Me: Okay, this is DH with Phrack Classic--
TC: This is the Conflict
PH: And this is Pain Hertz
KV: I uh, hope you ask me what my hacker handle is..
Me: Ok, what's your handle?
KV: Because I believe that I have one of the coolest hacker's handles that I've
ever heard.
TC: uhh
Me: What is it?
KV: TRAPPED VECTOR.
Me: "Trapped Vector" ?
KV: yep
Me: How did you come up with that?
KV: What? You don't recognize it ?
Me: haha
KV: What.. . and you guys call yourselves hackers?
Me: ah
KV: My god. . you guys must be so young that you've never had to deal with
assembly language.
Me: Who would want to-- It was a sarcastic question..
Me: Now, Kurt..
KV: Trapped Vector is a term from deep deep down in the functioning's of a CPU.
Me: Right.
Me: Uh, uh What kind of involvement, if any, have you had in the
telecommunications field?
KV: In telecommunications what?
Me: In the telecommunications field.
KV: Uhh.. I majored in computer science at the University of Minnesota.. . Just
long enough to get interested and not long enough to get a degree.
Me: ah. So you didn't graduate?
KV: No. After my 5th year I finally gave up and went to Vienna.
Me: Uhh. Let's get into the new album .. uh now, what was the inspiration for
involving the "hacking" theme in your new album?
KV: Umm, well, it's not like we were inspired to do it -- and we sat around all
day and said "Hey, let's like put this hacker's moltese into it." -- it's
more like we just left all that stuff out on our first album because we
were trying to .. uh.. to not make any waves, since it was our first album.
And now were cocky and think we can do whatever we want. So we just did
whatever we wanted. And whenever we do whatever we want, some of that
stuff inevitably creeps in because .. were into it.
Me: uhh.. have you been following all of the recent hacking busts that have
plagued the country this year .. ?
KV: Hacking "buzz" that has plaged.. .
Me: BUSTS.. yea hacking busts..
KV: Oh, I haven't been following it, but I've been hearing a little bit about
it from my friends..
Me: Yea, because your album comming out titled "HACK" really does tie in
with this time period of hackers getting alot of press..
KV: Yea
Me: And I just thought that could have been one of the inspirations.. .
KV: Well, actually, believe it or not, we don't really know what it means to
title an album "HACK". We have a list of about nine different
interpretations that we thought we could leave open and anyone else could
decide which is the real one and strangley (Gruhm) the computer hacker
concept is pretty far down on our list. The first one we always think of
is uh.. the hack versus .. uh.. respected professional-- meaning-- like,
you know, their just hack, he's just a hack writer.. .
Me: Right.
KV: Their just hack musicians-- because uh, I guess we wanted to be
self-deprecating in a sarcastic and easily marketable way.
Me: Yea..
Me: What about your personal involvement in the Computer Underground? Is there
one? With hackers?
KV: Well, umm.. if I were not being a "pop tart" (which is our personal lingo
for rock star) I would probably be trying to make my money off of
programming.
Me: Aaah!
KV: Ummm, however.. that's not the case.. I am trying to be a "pop tart" so my
involvement is more limited that I would like it to be. I mean I do all my
work on IBM.. When I'm composing..
Me: Hm, Kurt, what are your thoughts and attitudes toward hackers and hacking?
KV: Umm, this is my thoughts and attitudes towards it: I am somebody who --
always. . always -- like when I had that telephone job, I just was, I
hardly did any work. I just spent the whole time trying to come up with
tricky things to do you know. Like I'd screw up other people's phone calls
and stuff and so like I'm way into it. And I understand why people want to
do it. BUT, I always kinda, knew that I just .. . shouldn't. Just because
it's stupid.. It was childish. And, I just wish that hackers could come up
with something better to do than get things without paying for them.
PH: Like something more productive?
KV: Yea, like .. uh.. umm, crash some sort of umm, killing organization's
computer system.
Me: Have you always had these thoughts or..just because of your popularity?
KV: Umm, I've had this attitude as I got older, because .. um, I'm just
becomming really bored with people devoting all this intelligence and
motivation into like avoiding paying their phone bill.
TC: Well, actually, that's getting away from the hacker as such. Because alot
of hackers are really into systems more than their into .. you know, toll
fraud.
KV: Well I sure hope so..
TC: Yea, I mean..
KV: My Idea of great hacking is gathering information that other people are
wronmgfully trying to withhold.
TC: Right.
KV: But, most hacking to me seems to be petty ways of getting things without
paying for them.. and that is just silly.
Me: That is the "90's hackers" Kurt.
PH: Yea, it's moving that way alot..
Me: It's in that direction.
Me: Tell us about the telephone job you mentioned?
KV: Well, I worked at a market research place. You all know what that is-- you
call up and say, "Hello, my name is Kurt and Im calling for marketing
incentives incorporated, and we are conducting a survey in your area
tonight... about toothpaste!"
PH: Hah
TC: ahha
Me: Bahaha
KV: "And I would like to know if I could ask you a few questions?" .. "What! I
don't wanna buy no toothpaste!" .. "No we were just going to ask a few
questions.." -- Ewwwwph..
KV: Like... you would try to come up with ways to not make the phone calls
because it was so painful to do.
TC: heh
KV: The best thing was when I umm. . this was a time when I didn't know much
about telephones.. or how they really worked.. umm. . but I managed to run
a little thing-- wires with alligator clips --uhh, from the phone that I
was at to the central switcher. And uhh, whenever I like got up to goto
the bathroom, or something, I'd go in there, and by connecting and shorting
the two wires out I'd break up someone's phone call.
PH: ha
KV: You know, but after a while, I thought to myself, WHY? I wish I could have
pulled something more creative like umm.. . installing a uhh.. a pitch
transposer on the outgoing signals, so that the people on the other end of
the phone would hear, "AND NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU: HOW DO YOU FEEL
ABOUT COLEGATE?"
Me: Bahaha
TC: ahha
PH: heh!
KV: That would have been funny-- aha.
KV: But, I never did that..
Me: Hmm, Do you know any other bands that are involved or interested in the
computer underground?
KV: No, I don't know that there are any-- most uh musicians are either
anti-tech or if they are into tech they arnt into it enough-- or they arn't
into it for it's own sake. Like, like hackers.
Me: Did you guys have any problems with the title of your new album?
KV: Like what do you mean?
Me: Well, do you find that most of your fans think you guys are into the
"hacking scene" because of the title?
KV: They can think of it anyway they want-- it a bunch of different meanings.
KV: Like uh, one member of the band thinks of it refering to him being a cook
and he likes to cut up meat.
Me: Hah
TC: heh
TC: What about like on the 12" with the "BlueBox 2600" mix and the
"Phone Phreakers" mix?
KV: What about it?
TC: Yea.. uh
KV: And the Virtual Reality mix?
TC: Yea, has that uh.. have you heard anything about that?
KV: Umm, no people in large just don't notice. I mean when your a hacker, I
mean you kind of forget how little people know. But it's unbelieveable how
much people don't know. And I'm sure one person in a thousand thinks that
those are anything other than, "Oh another wacky mix name!"
Me: Baha
KV: Most mix names are just inside jokes-- so most people don't bother trying
to understand them.
TC: Right.
KV: Umm, basically the only thing that has happened is that people have umm..
really responded to the concept of uhh.. us trying to tie into computer
hacking-- way more than we were really trying to. We just wanted it to be
a reference. And the people around us are kinda pushing us into it being a
theme. Were not really prepared for that. Because, while were into it, of
the three of us, Im the only one who can hold down a conversation about
tech. And even I have to move over and admit that I am not ane expert
hacker. I just dont know enough. Like.. Uh.. I know what an FAT is, but
I wouldn't know how to rewrite it.
TC: Well, that's another thing. Do you make a distinction between hacker as
someone who breaks into computers or a hacker who is an intense system
programmer?
KV: Do I make that distinction?
TC: Yea.
KV: Umm.. No.. Im not involved enough in the hacker world to make that
distinction.
Me: Do you have anything you want to say to the computer underground?
KV: Umm.. .yes let me think. . "Roller-skating is not a crime".
TC: Hah
PH: ah!
KV: You know that I live on skates don't you?
PH: Well on the album cover your wearing skates.. next to that car ... with
your..
KV: My teledestruction gear!
KV: And, I have to add a grain of salt to the phrase "Hackers of the world
unite" thats on our album cover..
PH: Right.
KV: We didn't actually intend it to be a huge banner.. it was suppose to be a
tiny little comment on the side.. and our label misunderstood our
intentions for that. We didn't think it was quite good enough to have it
be a huge .. in such huge print.
Me: Hmm
KV: Not a grain of salt.. A tounge and a cheek.
TC: hehe
<SILENCE>
Me: Well, I guess thats about it.. Do you have anything you wanna sum up with?
KV: Umm..
<SILENCE>
Me: Uh, Kurt, do you have an Email address somewhere?
KV: AH, well, Im embarrassed to say it but only on Prodigy.
TC: HAH
Me: Bahah!
PH: Heh
Me: Okay.. Well, if that's it..
KV: Wait. I do know something I can sum up with..
KV: Please.. In the case of our album try to overcome your instinct of hacker
tendancies and buy an original disk rather than just waiting for a copy..
KV: Ok?
Me: Hah
KV: We need the money.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[The following is a press release for InSoc's new LP. --DH]
INFORMATION
SOCIETY
"Hackers have no regard for conventional wisdom. We have no regard for
musical conventions..."
-- Paul Robb
"Hack has multiple meanings, some of them self-deprecating. You can't
take any of this too seriously or you've missed the point. It's about
a playful use of technology, about breaking codes. It's a post-modern
aesthetic that comes through in our music..."
-- James Cassidy
"After having devised, erased and blotted out many other names, we
finally decided to call our album _Hack_ -- a name that, in our
opinion, is lofty, sonorous and significant. It explains that we had
been only ordinary hacks before we had been raised to our present status
as first of all hacks in the world..."
-- Kurt Valaquen
There you have it...as complete a definition of the vision of _Hack_ as
you're likely to get short of actually listening to Information
Society's superb new album of the same name. And if, after reading the
trio's treatises on the term, you suddenly have a clear understanding of
what the meaning behind _Hack_ really is, then something's gone wrong.
_Hack_ is more than the definition. It's a way of life. With its own
soundtrack.
"We're musical hackers of the first order," continues InSoc's Paul Robb.
"What we do is similiar to computer hackers breaking into sophisticated
systems to wreak havoc."
"Our music is really different from other progressive styles," adds
James Cassidy. "It's funnier and scarier...a mix of pure pop and sub-
versive stuff underneath the surface."
TOMMY BOY MUSIC, INC. 1747 1ST AV. NY, NY 10128 (212) 722-2211
_______________________________________________________________________________
N E W S * B O L T S
{A - G}
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A> Four direct telephone circuits linking Seoul to Moscow were set to open
at midnight last night. South Korea's Communication Ministry said telephone
calls between South Korea and the Soviet Union have jumped from four calls in
all of 1987 to some 5,000 a month this year.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B> In the latest issue of IEEE Spectrum (November, 1990), on pages
117-119, there's an interesting article entitled "The Great Blue Box Phone
Frauds", subtitled "Until the phone company separated signaling information
from the voice signal, long-distance calls could be made without charge by
anyone who could whistle at 2600 hertz."
It even has the illustration from the June 1972 "Ramparts" magazine, showing
how to constuct a "black box" to prevent the calling party from being billed
for the call.
There's also a list of about five or six other references at the end
of the article which sound interesting.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C> Registering for AT&T Mail on-line: make a modem call to 1 800 624 5123
(2400, 1200, or 300 baud, 8 bit, no parity); give one (or more) <CR>'s; and at
the login prompt, type REGISTER followed by another <CR>. The system will walk
you through its on-line registration procedure. Have a creditcard number or
EFT number handy. You can back out at any time with a ^C (<cntrl>-C) and a
QUIT.
A couple further AT&T Mail features:
"Mail Talk" permits retrieval of messages w/o a terminal from any DTMF phone --
text messages get "spoken" by a synthesized voice; and there are "Autoanswer"
and "Autoresponse" options permitting fairly flexible automatic response to
either all or selected incoming messages.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D> Detroit, Michigan time 313-472-1212. May soon be replaced with
a 900 number that charges.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E> In Australia, the hacker known as Phoenix was charged with Defrauding
the Commonwealth, Conspiracy to Commit Treason, and Conspiracy to Commit
Murder. The United States has sent representatives from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) overseas to
help investigate the situation and aid in prosecution of Phoenix. In the
meantime, the "eccentric" Phoenix is maintaining ties to hacker friends in the
USA by use of the Internet.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F> Bellcore reports that we have only 9 unused area codes. The current
system of generating the codes was supposed to last 100-200 years. Not to
worry, a representative at the Bell organization says a new plan is already in
the works. The new system consists of replacing the 2nd digit (either 0 or 1)
with a number between 2 and 9. Bellcore says the new plan should last 200 more
years. Hm.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
G> A new BBS has been set up for a communication flow between hackers,
fed, and journalists. 713.242.6853 Instant validation for all. The BBS is
called FACE to FACE.
Distributed in Europe by:
Info Addict +46-498-22113 located just outside the coast of Sweden.
----> Largest Gfile Collection In Europe <----
Yet a new creature has risen to the mideastern sun....