mitnick-digest Monday, December 7 1998 Volume 01 : Number 214 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 00:15:57 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] Today's New York Times On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:53:46 -0500, Arik Hesseldahl wrote: > > I don't think you, of all people, should go around using words like > "sensible" without first consulting a dictionary, and secondly, > applying the definition you find therein to yourself. See also: > civilized, thoughtful and mature. The only accurate part of your statement are the first three words. The rest is simply the opinion of a neophyte incapable of expression. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 03:41:39 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Re: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 10:05:05PM -0500, Phoenxknt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 98-12-06 19:25:53 EST, you write: > > << is it me or have people (mainly media) have been refering to kevin as a > cracker? Dont they realize if kevin were a cracker, he would have been > causing alot more trouble, kevin is a hacker, and he is a good one who > in my eyes goes along the old 'hacker ethics' >> > > Yes I've noticed, the ONE time they use that term, and its the wrong time! wired likes to use that word. so does markoff, coincidentally. it's mostly because of pressure from some of the older west coast crowd who thinks that use of the word 'hacker' has been subverted by today's young punks. to them, 'cracker' means criminal hacker. the way i see it, if someone becomes a criminal, then they're a criminal. do we have a special word for black criminals or truck driving criminals? no, we just call them criminals. the logic of this whole 'cracker' thing has always escaped me. emmanuel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 04:02:10 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Re: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker On Mon, Dec 07, 1998 at 01:38:20AM -0500, Aaron D. Ball wrote: > > It is important to me that you accept the view of mainstream hackers like > Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Eric Raymond (to drop a few names) > that `hacker' does not mean somebody who cracks security but doesn't break > stuff. You don't have to agree with it, just realize that it *isn't* just > some clueless reporters, or the Mainstream Media, or The Man, calling Kevin > a `cracker'. i don't think a true hacker has ever accepted the view of a mainstream anything. the word 'hacker' has genuine roots. the word 'cracker' is a derogatory term used by a clique in order to remain a clique. the word 'hacker' has evolved over the decades to encompass so much more than what the 'first ones' were involved in. much of this is positive. some is borderline and some is very negative. the latter is usually the result of generalization and ignorance on the part of the media which turns anyone using a computer into a hacker. if you say that mitnick wasn't a hacker, we're really not speaking the same language. > An entire community of people has been calling themselves hackers since > before there was security to break. These people call those who make a > practice of breaking security `crackers', and tend to think of them as > nuisances more than anything else. This isn't to say that a True Hacker > doesn't break security; he may well do so --- it's just that being a > peeping tom isn't his goal in life. 'these people' have some choice words to describe the community of people who came before them as well. all this serves to do is put up a gulf between two variations on a theme. it's totally unnecessary. emmanuel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 04:12:49 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Re: [mitnick] Shimomura, FBI this is completely nuts. in addition to not even being able to spell mitnick's name right, that transcript shows how even the fbi has no clue about the facts of this case. shimomura was in his thirties when this all started, far from 23. but to say he was hired, that comes in direct conflict with what i read in takedown. am i misremembering here or did shimomura claim to be working on his own *despite* the bumbling idiots at the fbi? come on guys, get your stories straight. the holes are really starting to show. (i wish i had seen this 18 months ago.) emmanuel On Mon, Dec 07, 1998 at 08:24:02AM +0000, kerry wrote: > "Today, also, they chase fugitives over cyberspace as well as over > fences. You may remember when we arrested Mr. Mitnik a year or so ago. > He was found by the FBI, but he was found because we hired a 23-year-old > computer specialist to locate exactly where he was and where he was > transmitting from. That was the basis of effecting that arrest. " > > from a speech by FBI director Louis J. Freeh, 1997 International > Computer Crime Conference, New York, New York, March 4, 1997. > > http://www.fbi.gov/dirspch/compcrim.htm > > I assume they're talking about Shimomura here - I can't think of anybody > else that "expert" might refer to. > > It's interesting that the director of the FBI says they "hired" > Shimomura, and gives him the credit for the whole thing. I had always > read that it was the FBI that did it, and they officially claimed they > didn't allow any civilians to participate. Altho they obviously did > that, at the very least. > > Did they or didn't they hire Shimomura? If they did, I guess that > justifies his use of illegal snooping equipment in the investigation (as > much as association with the FBI can justify anything, that is). I'm > just curious. > > kerry > > > > > > > > > *********************************************************** > FREE KEVIN bumperstickers http://www.mindspring.com/~jump0 > *********************************************************** > PO Box 17435 - Raleigh NC 27619 - email jump0@mindspring.com > checks/money orders payable to "Free Kevin Publicity Fund" > *********************************************************** > Stickers are sold at cost plus postage - we make no profit > from this effort - donations are split equally between > Kevin's Defense Fund and the Free Kevin Publicity Fund. > *********************************************************** > F R E E K E V I N http://www.KevinMitnick.com > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 04:33:02 -0500 From: "Brent Rockwood" Subject: RE: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Well...that's one way of looking at it. I agree with your whole west coast view of it. However, many of those that use the word "cracker" use it to mean anyone who gains access to a system outside of the usual channels (dare I say "improperly"). It's interesting, though, because among programmers a hacker used to be a term of endearment. However, nowadays I hear it being used more and more as a derogatory term. This is largely because of the huge codebases many of us work on. There just isn't room for the cowboy anymore. Cleverness often causes more problems than it's worth in professional programming. Too bad. ;) My two cents... - - -----Original Message----- From: owner-mitnick@2600.com [mailto:owner-mitnick@2600.com]On Behalf Of Emmanuel Goldstein Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 3:42 AM To: mitnick@2600.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 10:05:05PM -0500, Phoenxknt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 98-12-06 19:25:53 EST, you write: > > << is it me or have people (mainly media) have been refering to kevin as a > cracker? Dont they realize if kevin were a cracker, he would have been > causing alot more trouble, kevin is a hacker, and he is a good one who > in my eyes goes along the old 'hacker ethics' >> > > Yes I've noticed, the ONE time they use that term, and its the wrong time! wired likes to use that word. so does markoff, coincidentally. it's mostly because of pressure from some of the older west coast crowd who thinks that use of the word 'hacker' has been subverted by today's young punks. to them, 'cracker' means criminal hacker. the way i see it, if someone becomes a criminal, then they're a criminal. do we have a special word for black criminals or truck driving criminals? no, we just call them criminals. the logic of this whole 'cracker' thing has always escaped me. emmanuel - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNmugzqWeUscM8cnmEQLzrQCdGqwlRW1nOdAecfMaFTTULH9e2GAAnjLv d0CB0T8wiy3WsPbf9Js3TScE =U1T2 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 02:06:38 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] lamers on the loose On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Support Services wrote: > I recall an astute orator in my world literature class a long time > ago. His eloquent prose fully captivated the limited minds of his > audience. When he stood up and delivered his oratory to a group of > experienced professors, they immediately saw it for the empty shell > that it was. I think it was in an episode of Growing Pains, where Carol Seaver's professer said her work was "replete with stinkosity". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 03:33:31 PST From: "Kamikaze Kaze" Subject: [mitnick] chapters...2 They are held everywere. Go to www.hackerz.com and you`ll find out more. Kamikazen. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 05:44:08 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Heinkel Subject: Re: [mitnick] Evidence - ---kerry wrote: > > Well, now that the trial date has been moved back, Kevin will *only* > have to look at about 19,000 pages of evidence per day (as of now) in > order to review all the evidence by April 20. > I was wondering, what exactly is the information that Kevin has to review? How in the world can the gov't have accumulated that much evidence in the first place? Or is it just the unencrypted files from his hard disk that he is going to review? Plus logs of systems that he is accused of breaking into and transcripts of telephone conversations? Off Topic but doesn't Kevin have some sort of photographic memory too? _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:44:37 EST From: Temujin217@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Proof of existence? You can access the USDOJ public searchable database by simply going to www.usdoj.gov, and clicking on their search button in the upper right. Although there isn't much, the freedom of information act requires that they allow access to all data that is not "top secret", but since they designate what is "top secret" you won't find much in favor of Kevin there. Thanks for the understanding, TelePhrk. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 98 07:45:52 MST From: Maras Erlenic Subject: Re: [Re: [mitnick] No More a Hacker, now a cracker] im not trying to flame anyone or anything either, im just adding my two cents worth... true, we dont have words for truck driving criminals or black criminals, those terms refer to the types of people that these criminals are. it is a superficial idea for a term, that is why they are not used. but we do have different terms for criminals based on what their crime is. for instance, criminals who commit rape are rapists, criminals who commit murder are murderers, etc. this is where the term cracker comes in. a cracker is a criminal that breaks into systems and damages them. > On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 10:05:05PM -0500, Phoenxknt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 98-12-06 19:25:53 EST, you write: > > > > << is it me or have people (mainly media) have been refering to kevin as a > > cracker? Dont they realize if kevin were a cracker, he would have been > > causing alot more trouble, kevin is a hacker, and he is a good one who > > in my eyes goes along the old 'hacker ethics' >> > > > > Yes I've noticed, the ONE time they use that term, and its the wrong time! > > wired likes to use that word. so does markoff, coincidentally. it's mostly > because of pressure from some of the older west coast crowd who thinks > that use of the word 'hacker' has been subverted by today's young punks. > to them, 'cracker' means criminal hacker. the way i see it, if someone > becomes a criminal, then they're a criminal. do we have a special word > for black criminals or truck driving criminals? no, we just call them > criminals. the logic of this whole 'cracker' thing has always escaped me. > > emmanuel ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 00:03:46 +1000 From: Reeza! Subject: Re: [mitnick] Evidence At 05:44 AM 12/7/98 -0800, Joseph Heinkel wrote: >---kerry wrote: >> >> Well, now that the trial date has been moved back, Kevin will *only* >> have to look at about 19,000 pages of evidence per day (as of now) in >> order to review all the evidence by April 20. >> > >I was wondering, what exactly is the information that Kevin has to >review? How in the world can the gov't have accumulated that much >evidence in the first place? Or is it just the unencrypted files >from his hard disk that he is going to review? Plus logs of systems >that he is accused of breaking into and transcripts of telephone >conversations? Off Topic but doesn't Kevin have some sort of >photographic memory too? I think you are missing the point. 19,000 pages per day is just a little over 4.54 seconds per page. Kevin may or may not have a photographic memory, his memory is not at issue here. The memory of his lawyer, the ability to see areas of potential attack, to formulate a possible defense, and move on- all in 4.54 seconds per page, non-stop, beginning now and running straight through 24 hours a day- until the trial starts, is the issue. Oh yes, lets scrunch that down to 4 seconds per page, so he will have time to question witnesses and potential witnesses. You don't have to worry about retention 19,000 pages later, do you think you can read one page of 10 point type in 4.54 seconds??? Where the evidence came from isn't really at issue here, and it is loudly proclaimed at www.mitnick.com that Kevin has not surrendered the pass phrase for the encrypted data. The issue is that the gov't has held this evidence for some time- evidence they are required to share- but have withheld from the defense, until the last possible moment. The issue is that unreasonable allegations have been made that have resulted in the trampling of Kevins civil rights. Also at issue, is that there are to many people who know nothing about it at all, and to many who only know a little bit, and presume their take on the situation to be informed and correct. Some few of them ask questions they should already know the answers to. The acronym "RTFM" was not coined by accident. Go do your homework. Reeza! DH Key available on request "In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king, until the others find out he can see. Then they kill him" -- stolen from another cypherpunk sig ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:56:09 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Sissman Subject: Re: [mitnick] Shimomura, FBI On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, kerry wrote: > "Today, also, they chase fugitives over cyberspace as well as over > fences. You may remember when we arrested Mr. Mitnik a year or so ago. > > from a speech by FBI director Louis J. Freeh, 1997 International > Computer Crime Conference, New York, New York, March 4, 1997. I also find it interesting that Mr. Freeh described the period from February 1995 to March 1997 as "a year or so". What's an extra year when you're on the outside? Or perhaps he was making a conscious effort to downplay the length of "Mitnik's" pre-trial detention. Dan Sissman, amateur triviaphile Free Kevin Mitnick! http://www.albany.net/~dsissman http://www.kevinmitnick.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:34:54 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Shimomura, FBI #2 in re the louis freeh comment in a speech to a computer crime conference in nyc last year.... 1. freeh's reference to the age of the person hired may be a typo in the transcript of the speech, or they may be referring to the fellow who was working with shimomura, and who shimomura criticized relentlessly (and probably unfairly). 2. if the reference was, in fact, to shimomura, note that we would then have the situation of the Director of FBI contradicting official public statements of fbi representatives, as well as public statements by both shimomura *and* markoff that neither shim nor markoff were "officially" part of the fbi's investigatory efforts. excuse me for repeating myself, but explicit claims -- denials -- were made at the time (see the most recent edition of "fugitive game" for background) by fbi officials in press conferences held by fbi and in public statements by shim and markoff that neither one of them was a part of the fbi effort. note that if the defense can legally incorporate shim and markoff into the case as participants, this is a whole new ballgame. justification for the research, based on false public statements by the participants (shim and markoff), would then be jeopardized in dramatic fashion, as the credibility of the principals in the case would be damaged at a fundamental level. markoff's libelous and defamatory statements in three feature articles in the nytimes would then be central to the case. and *that*, my friends, would be major victory. just a reminder: if you think the fbi isn't monitoring this list *closely*, you're either naive, a fool, or both. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:35:08 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Evidence #2 someone recently wrote to the list... > The memory of his lawyer, the ability to see > areas of potential attack, to formulate a > possible defense, and move on [...] until > the trial starts, is the issue... and > The issue is that unreasonable allegations have > been made that have resulted in the trampling of > Kevins civil rights... although it may be seen as quibbling, the rights being trampled here are *Constitutional* rights, rather than civil rights. requirements of various bill of rights amendments are being violated by the government's treatment of km; at last count, km's treatment violates 5 of the 10 amendments of the bill of rights. not to worry, though: the supreme court has refused to hear any motions about km's case without comment. and even more sadly, km's case is not *that* unusual; what makes it unusual is that km is white, and is accused of non-violent crimes that weren't committed for profit. if you read the following docs - http://www.kevinmitnick.com/120298defreply.html and http://www.kevinmitnick.com/120298randecl.html - you'll see significant issues raised by the defense that were *not* discussed in the 12/3/98 hearing. note, especially, that defense counsel states in http://www.kevinmitnick.com/120298defreply.html... > The Court's Omnibus Discovery Order, as it is > currently written, requires that one of the defendant's > attorneys be present at all times while Mr. Mitnick is > reviewing the electronic discovery in this case. > I respectfully submit that absent relaxation of this requirement, > or Court authorization to hire an additional attorney to work on > this case, I will be unable to review the discovery and prepare for > trial. and > The defense must retain forensic expert(s) in > the field of computer security in order to review the > audit logs and other communications records of the various > computer systems from which the electronic evidence was obtained. > The defense has contacted candidates for this purpose but > did not seek CJA funds for the appointment of such expert due to > the significant costs which would be required. in english... the first quote means randolph isn't going to review the electronic evidence with defendant mitnick unless "an additional attorney" is hired. since the court has already used their control of the defense budget to limit the power of the defense, what's your guess on the effectiveness of the review that will result when the court refuses to grant added funds? the second quote means that the *defense* has essentially declined to hire computer experts "to review the audit logs and other communications records of the various computer systems", with said refusal based on "the significant costs which would be required". so. prediction: court refuses to grant funds to hire added attorney. court refuses to relax requirement that defendant may review evidence against him only in the presence of counsel (a ruling unprecedented in american law, to the best of this writer's knowledge). result: defendant mitnick unable to effectively assist in his defense. prediction: defense will likely not request the necessary funds, but if they do, the court refuses to grant the funds needed to hire expert(s) to "review the audit logs and other communications records of the various computer systems". result: defendant mitnick unable to effectively assist in his defense. summary ======= smells like a setup to me. any journalists or lawyers on the list care to comment from the unique perspective of your professions on the issues raised above? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 08:48:36 -0800 From: "Caliban Tiresias Darklock" Subject: Re: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker - -----Original Message----- From: Emmanuel Goldstein To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 1:19 AM Subject: Re: [mitnick] No More a Hacker,now a cracker >the word 'hacker' has genuine roots. the word 'cracker' is >a derogatory term used by a clique in order to remain a clique. It's interesting to note that there's a grey semi-clique in between the two which argues about which clique they're in. You have the obvious hackers, who do not break into systems, period. You have the obvious crackers, who break into systems and wreak havoc. And then you have this group of people that breaks into systems and *doesn't* wreak havoc. They say they're hackers, because they don't wreak havoc. The hackers say they're crackers, because they break into systems. The crackers don't care. Compare messianic Jews ("Jews for Jesus"). By definition, these are Christians. But they don't want to be Christians; they want to be Jews who believe in Jesus, and they're very indignant about being referred to as Christians. Mainstream Jews find this offensive. Christians could care less. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:13:52 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Sissman Subject: Re: [mitnick] Evidence Well, while we're on the subject of the evidence, I have a question. . . By now we've all heard about the 9.75 gigs of evidence, but do we have any indication of how much of that material is actual text (e-mail, activity logs, etc.), and how much of it is program binaries, libraries, and other files which presumably will not require the same kind of review? Dan Sissman, amateur triviaphile Free Kevin Mitnick! http://www.albany.net/~dsissman http://www.kevinmitnick.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:07:28 -0800 (PST) From: Douglas Thomas Subject: Re: [mitnick] Evidence On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Daniel Sissman wrote: > > > Well, while we're on the subject of the evidence, I have a question. . . > > By now we've all heard about the 9.75 gigs of evidence, but do we have any > indication of how much of that material is actual text (e-mail, activity > logs, etc.), and how much of it is program binaries, libraries, and other > files which presumably will not require the same kind of review? A significant portion is code. But one of the major questions is whether or not the code is proprietary, so all of it will need *some* kind of review, probably by experts who can render an opinion on such matters. Doug ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:51:22 -0800 From: "Caliban Tiresias Darklock" Subject: Re: [mitnick] lamers on the loose - -----Original Message----- From: Support Services To: mitnick@2600.com Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [mitnick] lamers on the loose >Caliban fits that bill. As long as he has an audience who is less >knowledgeable than he, his oratories are fascinating... at least as >fascinating as any well-produced science fiction. But try and make >him productive within the scope of reality, and you soon learn the >well is dry. On the other hand, this post basically says "Hey, he's full of it" which amounts to... nothing. How productive. If my reasoning is flawed, then presumably you can point out where it's flawed. If it's flawed, then it should be fixed. The logical thing to do is to either fix it yourself, or tell me it's broken and permit me the opportunity to fix it. Failing both of those, I don't think you have any room to complain about productivity. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 15:59:13 -0500 From: Emmanuel Goldstein Subject: Re: [mitnick] Shimomura, FBI #2 On Mon, Dec 07, 1998 at 11:34:54AM -0500, Bobwil623@aol.com wrote: > in re the louis freeh comment in a speech to a computer crime conference > in nyc last year.... > > 1. freeh's reference to the age of the person hired may be a typo in the > transcript of the speech, or they may be referring to the fellow who was > working with shimomura, and who shimomura criticized relentlessly (and > probably unfairly). it could also have been a typo in the speech he read which means that's what he said. or it could have been just a plain wrong fact. no matter what, it's being archived this way and it's incorrect. and if shimomura's assistant had been hired by the fbi, i can guarantee *nobody* knew about that, probably not even the assistant. > excuse me for repeating myself, but explicit claims -- denials -- were > made at the time (see the most recent edition of "fugitive game" for > background) by fbi officials in press conferences held by fbi and in > public statements by shim and markoff that neither one of them was a part > of the fbi effort. it would appear louis freeh has directly countered that. somebody's not telling the truth. emmanuel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:39:39 -0800 (PST) From: rOTTEN Subject: Re: [mitnick] Shimomura, FBI #2 On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 Bobwil623@aol.com wrote: > just a reminder: if you think the fbi isn't monitoring this list > *closely*, you're either naive, a fool, or both. They were in my house last week... Or SOMEONE was. Fox? Dana? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:22:58 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] Evidence On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:13:52 -0500 (EST), Daniel Sissman wrote: > By now we've all heard about the 9.75 gigs of evidence, but do we have > any indication of how much of that material is actual text (e-mail, > activity logs, etc.), and how much of it is program binaries, libraries, > and other files which presumably will not require the same kind of review? Without reviewing that evidence, how does Kevin know which is which? Let's say they hand him various directories with files such as... \raleigh\netcom\wp50.exe \singapore\netcom\wp50.exe etc... If I were Kevin, I'd rename my text files (and encrypted text files) into executables, to further mask them. Or I'd use steganography programs (freely available on the net!) to insert streams of text into exe files! Now, the only way Kevin is going to remember which is which, and what is what, is by actually examining the items... one at a time. http://iquest.net/~mrmil/stego.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 17:25:41 EST From: Bobwil623@aol.com Subject: Re: Re: [mitnick] Shimomura, FBI #3 > it would appear louis freeh has directly > countered that. somebody's not telling the > truth. precisely. except it's probably plural: more than a few of the government officials and media people involved in this case are lying. my guess ======== some are doing so (lying) wilfully, and some are just "going along with" the larger agenda. my second guess =============== that the fbi held hi-level emergency meetings with Scott Charney, Chief, and Martha Stansell-Gamm, Deputy Chief, Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice on the morning of july 4th, 1994 -- within hours of the appearance of markoff's first front page article on km. my third guess ============== that if charney and stansell-gamm didn't hold meetings on july 4th to *respond* to the article, then they held meetings *before* july 4th. said meetings would have had as their focus creating close cooperation between the editorial board of the nytimes, the fbi, and a willing journalist (namely, john markoff). a quite natural occurrence when one considers the written record that documents nytimes complicity in past propaganda events (tonkin gulf "incident"; sandinistas; the contras; etc.) justification for the guesswork shown above =========================================== the level of overcharging in this case is consistent with the fbi's stated desire to maintain surveillance capability on all digital information transactions worldwide. a conviction of km in this case would create a worldwide event that would fit the propaganda needs of fbi in this regard. kevin mitnick happened to represent a perfect candidate for a much larger agenda. as someone else has mentioned on the list, see "Europe is Listening", at http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/16588.html?wnpg=all for more information. whether markoff offered the idea, whether the fbi offered the idea, or whether it was just a "happy" confluence of events are all much less important than seeing the larger connections. recommended =========== for anyone interested in more background from the government's point of view, see http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ see especially http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/compcrime.html, and look at section... > B. Sample Cases > > Many cases have been prosecuted under the > computer crime statute, 18 U.S.C. sec 1030. A > few recent sample press releases from actual > cases in 1998 are available via links below: take special note of the *complete absence* of prosecution of others accused of computer-related crime in a manner even remotely approaching km's charges, even when those others were accused of -- and pled guilty to -- attempting to obtain enormous profits from their illegal activities. lastly, note that km has been charged under 18 U.S.C. sec 1030 (a)(4) and (a)(5), as well as other statutes. more on the implications of those additional charges to follow.... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:31:51 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] lamers on the loose On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 11:51:22 -0800, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote: > > If my reasoning is flawed, then presumably you can point out where > it's flawed. If it's flawed, then it should be fixed. The logical > thing to do is to either fix it yourself, or tell me it's broken > and permit me the opportunity to fix it. Failing both of those, I > don't think you have any room to complain about productivity. The fact that I choose to not engage in an exercise in futility does not obviate the possibility that I will take issue with your statements. In a human world, logic takes a back seat to feelings. Gossip always makes for interesting fodder. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 17:59:19 EST From: ExeRoy@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Evidence In a message dated 12/7/98 5:55:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, support@tspeed.net writes: << Without reviewing that evidence, how does Kevin know which is which? Let's say they hand him various directories with files such as... \raleigh\netcom\wp50.exe \singapore\netcom\wp50.exe etc... If I were Kevin, I'd rename my text files (and encrypted text files) into executables, to further mask them. Or I'd use steganography programs (freely available on the net!) to insert streams of text into exe files! Now, the only way Kevin is going to remember which is which, and what is what, is by actually examining the items... one at a time. >> well, changing the filenames could be used as tampering with evidence and they could use that against him. afterall, those files are 'evidence'. - - dangerz http://members.xoom.com/kevinribbon/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 00:10:09 +0000 From: kerry Subject: Re: [mitnick] Evidence ExeRoy@aol.com wrote: > well, changing the filenames could be used as tampering with evidence and they > could use that against him. afterall, those files are 'evidence'. Speaking of "tampering with the evidence", I've heard that the government feels no obligation return all the computer files to Kevin as they had been found. Imagine trying to go thru the contents of your hard drive, not having seen them for nearly 4 years, and someone else has gone through and completely disorganized them... kerry *********************************************************** FREE KEVIN bumperstickers http://www.mindspring.com/~jump0 *********************************************************** PO Box 17435 - Raleigh NC 27619 - email jump0@mindspring.com checks/money orders payable to "Free Kevin Publicity Fund" *********************************************************** Stickers are sold at cost plus postage - we make no profit from this effort - donations are split equally between Kevin's Defense Fund and the Free Kevin Publicity Fund. *********************************************************** F R E E K E V I N http://www.KevinMitnick.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 00:40:55 +0000 From: kerry Subject: [mitnick] Thomas' article Doug Thomas' latest article on WIRED, entitled "Mitnick: 'I am Tired of Delays", is linked from http://www.kevinmitnick.com/news.html - check it out; I think it's well done and offers a perspective the lawyers and media and the rest of us don't tend to think about -- how Kevin feels about the latest trial delay. *********************************************************** FREE KEVIN bumperstickers http://www.mindspring.com/~jump0 *********************************************************** PO Box 17435 - Raleigh NC 27619 - email jump0@mindspring.com checks/money orders payable to "Free Kevin Publicity Fund" *********************************************************** Stickers are sold at cost plus postage - we make no profit from this effort - donations are split equally between Kevin's Defense Fund and the Free Kevin Publicity Fund. *********************************************************** F R E E K E V I N http://www.KevinMitnick.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 15:51:10 -0800 (PST) From: GonzoGonzalez Subject: Re: [mitnick] Shimomura, FBI #2 > just a reminder: if you think the fbi isn't monitoring this list > *closely*, you're either naive, a fool, or both. > If I'm not mistaken the FBI palced an order for 100 Free Kevin serapes. Today is Pearl Harbor Day. Don't forget to go out to get bombed tonight. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:35:17 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] Evidence On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 17:59:19 EST, ExeRoy wrote: > > well, changing the filenames could be used as tampering with evidence > and they could use that against him. afterall, those files are 'evidence'. You have completely missed the point of what I was saying. If I were Kevin, I'd obfuscate my messages by using steganography, and embedding text sequences into executable files. How the fuck do you equate this with TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE? Open your brain for a change. How Kevin stores his information prior to arrest cannot be in any way construed as "tampering with evidence." Try waiting a few hours after the meth before responding next time. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:40:01 -0800 (PST) From: Support Services Subject: Re: [mitnick] Shimomura, FBI #2 > On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 Bobwil623@aol.com wrote: > > > just a reminder: if you think the fbi isn't monitoring this list > > *closely*, you're either naive, a fool, or both. I have seen several unmarked vehicles with "Free Kevin" stickers on them. These belong to federal agents trying to "fit in" and infiltrate this mailing list. I hear they've begun full surveillance on one of the main people on here, and are going through her school records in an effort to prove she has malicious intentions. Should they find any history of "bad behaviour," they will use it to demand exceptionally high bail for her. While its true that eventually, she will get out, there will be no recourse available for the time, trouble and money she will have forfeited in the process. Such is the state of the union. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:30:19 EST From: Sacrosantx@aol.com Subject: Re: [mitnick] Spelling 101 Is it me or is like every media source screwing up on Mitnick's spelling of his name. I included two other paragraphs coincidently or not, all three related. Also that they also call Kevin a "cracker" again and again...(decide on your own). Atleast they got it right that he is "Still awaiting trial" instead of 'convicted' of them like some media. example: from Windows Performance Secrets. The Crackers Kevin Mitnik. Mitnik, also known as Condor, is probably the world's best-known cracker. Mitnik began his career as a phone phreak. Since those early years, Mitnik has successfully cracked every manner of secure site you can imagine, including but not limited to military sites, financial corporations, software firms, and other technology companies. (When he was still a teen, Mitnik cracked the North American Aerospace Defense Command.) At the time of this writing, he is awaiting trial on federal charges stemming from attacks committed in 1994-1995. Kevin Poulsen Having followed a path quite similar to Mitnik, Poulsen is best known for his uncanny ability to seize control of the Pacific Bell telephone system. (Poulsen once used this talent to win a radio contest where the prize was a Porsche. He manipulated the telephone lines so that his call would be the wining one.) Poulsen has also broken nearly every type of site, but has a special penchant for sites containing defense data. This greatly complicated his last period of incarceration, which lasted five years. (This is the longest period ever served by a hacker in the United States.) Poulsen was released in 1996 and has apparently reformed. Justin Tanner Peterson Known as Agent Steal, Peterson is probably most celebrated for cracking a prominent consumer credit agency. Peterson appeared to be motivated by money instead of curiosity. This lack of personal philosophy led to his downfall and the downfall of others. For example, once caught, Peterson ratted out his friends, including Kevin Poulsen. Peterson then obtained a deal with the FBI to work undercover. This secured his release and he subsequently absconded, going on a crime spree that ended with a failed attempt to secure a six-figure fraudulent wire transfer. ------------------------------ End of mitnick-digest V1 #214 *****************************