dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed

TechGeek191

join:2009-06-13
Center Valley, PA

1 edit
reply to r81984

Re: The Greedy Hacker

These are all valid points but...

When a company like Microsoft developed Windows they know its not 100% secure. It will have exploits. No system is 100% secure. What happens and what makes something illegal is intentionally breaching a security measure put in place.

What you are saying basically is if a hacker hacks into a bank and transfers funds into a private account for his/her personal gain its perfectly okay. Because the bank should have measures in place to know about it and either stop or reverse what just took place with no punishment to the hacker that hacked their way through the already secure measures already in place. That makes a lot of sense.

There have been arguments over using an "open" wifi network setup by a residential customer saying its illegal. Thats like leaving the front door open on a house and not expecting anyone to come in and raid the fridge or any other goodies in the house.

I do agree with the free speech claim. But he did exploit the network of his cable company and made it available to everyone. That might be what he is getting the book thrown at him for.

Just my 2 cents



r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

said by TechGeek191:

These are all valid points but...

When a company like Microsoft developed Windows they know its not 100% secure. It will have exploits. No system is 100% secure. What happens and what makes something illegal is intentionally breaching a security measure put in place.

What you are saying basically is if a hacker hacks into a bank and transfers funds into a private account for his/her personal gain its perfectly okay. Because the bank should have measures in place to know about it and either stop or reverse what just took place with no punishment to the hacker that hacked their way through the already secure measures already in place. That makes a lot of sense.

There have been arguments over using an "open" wifi network setup by a residential customer saying its illegal. Thats like leaving the front door open on a house and not expecting anyone to come in and raid the fridge or any other goodies in the house.

I do agree with the free speech claim. But he did exploit the network of his cable company and made it available to everyone. That might be what he is getting the book thrown at him for.

Just my 2 cents

Nope. Another case of scope creep to the argument.

-Harris did not hack, modify, exploit, or change anything owned by the cable company or anything on cable company property nor did he instruct anyone on how to hack, modify, exploit, or change anything owned by the cable company.
Your bank argument is completely different.

-Open wifi also makes no sense as any signal you pick up in public or private that approves you is fair game. Remember the AP has to approve your computer and if you use Open wifi you set your router to approve everyone.
That is completely different.

-Open door on a house. Completely different.

Remember Harris did not actually commit the crimes, his customers did.

The cable companies in these cases were sloppy. They left all the control of the connection up the end users equipment and their cable system would approve whatever settings the users had on the modem.
They had no security in place to control the connection from their end.
So when users changed settings on their own equipment (which is 100% legal) the cable company systems still approved the connections.

Also the same with the mac cloning. The cable companies system knew two mac addresses were on the network, but still approved both devices with the same mac address and allowed the connection.

MAC address filtering IS NOT security.
If you rely on customer owned equipment to regulate your network then you cant complain when the customer changes settings on their owned device.

Eitherway the case is not about if what the modem owners did was legal or not.
This case is about if someone writing books, posting on internet forums, and writing software that COULD be used for illegal activity is protected by the constitution or not.

I say it is clearly free speech.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by r81984:

This case is about if someone writing books, posting on internet forums, and writing software that COULD be used for illegal activity is protected by the constitution or not.
I say it is clearly free speech.

And almost everyone else and the courts say you are wrong.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

said by FFH:

And almost everyone else and the courts say you are wrong.

"Everybody else" isn't necessarily right. Neither are the courts necessarily right.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

TechGeek191

join:2009-06-13
Center Valley, PA
reply to r81984

But I still make the argument that if the cable modem is leased to a subscriber that modem does belong to the cable company. Modifying it is against company policy and illegal.

Purchasing a separate modem is a completely different story however. But it is the intentional act of connecting it to the already active cable line by paying for a subscription service.

True, MAC address filtering is not security. The cable network worked fine if everyone used their company owned or customer modem as the cable company originally intended.

Basically these hacked modems are designed to clone a MAC or use a MAC that has not been provision on the cable network and the CMTS allows it on the network to get internet connectivity.

There are other functions in the modem designed to get around BPI and certificates which authenticate modems for what they really should be as well as what config file it should be running.

Again, I have not read the book but I have an idea of who Ryan Harris is or was. He made it easy for anyone really to exploit the system that was put in place by the cable providers which was controlled by a device on customer property (but not necessarily owned by them in all cases). He did this with techniques he found and made it available for a price. That is really what the industry is all up in arms about.

Are they right, is he right? Opinions will vary but the law is incredibly twisted.



Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

said by r81984:

This case is about if someone writing books, posting on internet forums, and writing software that COULD be used for illegal activity is protected by the constitution or not.
I say it is clearly free speech.

And almost everyone else and the courts say you are wrong.

Read the indictment. It really is surprising he got 3 years in jail for publishing how to hack a cable modem, providing support to people who were hacking their cable modems, and selling that material to people. In the end, he was just providing information.

I am really surprised he got 3 years. I bet his lawyer sucked a big one.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


not

@comcast.net

said by Nightfall:

Read the indictment. It really is surprising he got 3 years in jail for publishing how to hack a cable modem, providing support to people who were hacking their cable modems, and selling that material to people. In the end, he was just providing information.

I am really surprised he got 3 years. I bet his lawyer sucked a big one.

Wait, so if I tell someone how to commit a crime and that crime happens I'm not guilty as an accessory to that crime? lol OK. Try and get out of that one in a court of law.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

said by not :

Wait, so if I tell someone how to commit a crime and that crime happens I'm not guilty as an accessory to that crime? lol OK. Try and get out of that one in a court of law.

There is a world of difference between telling someone how to commit a crime (every author of detective stories does that!) and encouraging, or otherwise inciting criminal acts.

I expect that this case hinged on whether the publications just explained "how", or actively encouraged criminal behavior.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


pog4
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI

said by NormanS:

I expect that this case hinged on whether the publications just explained "how", or actively encouraged criminal behavior.

According to the indictment, he sold 5 already-hacked modems to an FBI agent. Under his own alias on his forum, he also solicited valid customer MACs that others sniffed using his software and hinted he would pay for this info.
--
My Site


Twaddle

@sbcglobal.net
reply to FFH

There was a time when the courts and just about everyone else said that woman couldn't vote or that the ownership of slaves was legal. Just because a judge ruled does not make it acceptable or right? Laws must change when they are no longer valid in society. Not knowing the "details" of this case, it seems to smack of first amendment rights to free speech. The hacker only provided "information". The big money boys made it happen(the conviction). Its the 21st Century "Golden Rule" Those who got the gold make the rules at play here.I personally doubt if this would evr get to the Supreme Court because too much money is behind it. All the Supreme Court has to do is say we're not allowing htis to be brought to the Court for judgement- end of story-come back when you have something taht we can/will approve to rule on.



Twaddle

@sbcglobal.net
reply to pog4

If he actually sold hacked modems that was the property of the cable company then it's a different situation or If he sold modems he owned and modified then provided the information on how to use said devices to steal services he's in trouble as an accessory to a crime. This where he ran into trouble in my opinion along with charging for said hacked modems and information- he was profiting from items and information that reasonable could be expected to defraud a cable company.