RE: Vulnerabilites in new laws on computer hacking
Hello,
First on the trespass angle. In reality this would equate to more of a
break and enter violation. The UK and EU laws in this respect have a
good grounding in fitting the sentence to the crime. The range is based
on the resultant effect.
In the UK, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c.18) has a variant scale from
6months and/or fine to 5 years and/or fine. This allows for a range of
punishments from a suspended sentence to gaol.
Canada in the "Criminal Code (RS 1985, c. C-46), Part XI: Wilful and
Forbidden Acts in respect of Certain Property" Mischief in relation to
data (s. 430(1.1)) uses a sliding scale from 2 years max imprisonment
and/or fine to life where the action causes actual danger to life. Again
this is not fixed. This offers judicial review and possible leeway in
exceptional cases.
Many of the acts also require that ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT
REA (The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty
intent) to be in effect. In effect there are defences against either
severity or the charge in many cases.
Many of the so called valid acts mentioned however mirror "real world"
crimes in a number of ways. As an example, an attacker going to a site
owner and stating they have probed the site and found a number of
vulnerabilities. That they will tell the site owner what they are for a
fee breaks several non-online rules of law.
First, many jurisdictions have a requirement to give aide. There is no
defence to a charge of "failure to provide assistance" in I offered for
a price but they would not pay.
Next there is a general expectation of property rights in most of the
western world that is well defined and understood. In many places (eg
some of Canada) a large number of people still leave their doors
unlocked. This is their right. By going into the from door and looking
around the house you are violating the property rights of the owner of
the property. This can get you several years in gaol.
IGNORANTIA JURIS NEMINEM EXCUSAT (Ignorance of the law excuses no one).
Not understanding the law in general is no excuse to apply this to the
online world.
Regards
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: dave [mailto:fla.linux@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 17 February 2006 11:36
To: bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Vulnerabilites in new laws on computer hacking
Marcus,
You use the analogy of trespassing to describe unauthorized access to a
computer system or it's resources. I agree with you but I think a point
was missed...
The laws being passed today against *cyber crime* far exceed the basic
property laws. If someone gains access to a system he does not have
permission to access yes he has broken a law. But the punishment should
fit the crime. To use your analogy: If I wandered into your field and I
was caught and prosecuted I would face charges for basic trespassing...I
would pay a fine and go about my business. If I was a repeat offender I
might do 30 days. Let's say I cut a small hole in the fence so I could
easily return (that pond of your has some great fish!) I would also be
made to pay for the fence to be repaired etc... Now, If I cracked your
server and poked around a bit (yea...in the wee hours of the morning)
let's say I even set up a small backdoor so I could return again...If
prosecuted what kind of punishment should I receive? Would you be
content if i payed the court a 150 dollar fine? Also, can this act be
classified as *cyber terrorism*? Too many this seems to be the direction
the government will and is taking...even towards minor criminal offenses
such as simple trespassing.
I think what the poster was saying is this, "If a teenager could face
possible *cyber terrorism* (or any serious felony) charges for trying to
break into computer networks simple to learn then things have gone too
far". Yes it is wrong and unethical but there is a ring of truth to his
thought process (even if his post was ridiculous overall)...hey you
might not care of the intentions of the trespasser but I do! To me there
is a big difference between someone cracking my server to look around
and more or less do nothing and someone looking to set up a warez site
or use my server to host a phishing scam etc...
Unauthorized access is unauthorized access and is never ok from a
legitimate security (white hat) point of view. But whether or not the
intruder had malicious intentions should weigh in too. I do NOT think it
is ok to *cross the line*. But in the past I have played a prank or two
that could probably be refered to as *crossing the line* but I am
certainly no criminal.
just my two cents...
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
>self-destruction@xxxxxxxxxxx apparently writes:
>
>
>>"Advanced societies" are updating computer crime laws faster than the
>>rest of the world. This means that new generations of these more
>>"advanced societies" will have no clue about how remote computer
>>attacks are carried out. Future generations of security "experts" will
>>be among the most ignorant in the history of computer security.
>>
>>
>
>This is an interesting assertion: Legislation causes ignorance. I'll
>get to that in a moment but let me comment on the "advanced societies"
>issue and offer a different perspective.
>
>Advanced societies (as you call them) are the technological and
>economical fast-movers; the ones that have invested heavily across
>their economies in high tech, which means IT. One way of looking at the
>tightening of legislation in those societies is that it is a reaction
>to the disproportionate pain that technologically advanced societies
>suffer as a consequence of cyber-crime. As a society becomes
>increasingly dependent on computing, the cost of protecting those
>computers becomes a large item in the "expense" column. So perhaps you
>might look at it from this perspective:
>The reaction of the technologically advanced societies to cyber-crime
>is a harbinger of how EVERY society will react to cyber-crime as they
>move up the economic chain. The reason the rest of the world is not
>reacting as the advanced societies are is because they can still afford
>not to.
>
>Put differently - if you think it's bad (from your perspective) now,
>you ain't seen nothin' yet!
>
>
>
>>New generations of teenagers will be scared of doing online
exploration.
>>
>>
>
>This is a ridiculous assertion - if you were correct that legislation
>significantly stifles criminal activity, then the US would be winning
>the "War On Drugs" right? After all, drugs are broadly illegal in the
>US and - well - are teenagers scared of exploring dope? Hmmm...
>Maybe not.
>
>Let's look at another aspect of that: I know of no society that is
>placing serious restrictions on an individual's ability to explore
>his/her own systems. I worded that carefully because the DRM and "Super
>DMCA" have gotten a lot of press over the implication that a user might
>not be able to "explore" data that they bought and paid for (i.e.: an
>application or a DVD) but actually the debate there is whether the user
>actually owns the data or merely owns the right to access the data, and
>that's a contract law question more than anything else. However, I know
>of no advanced society that says I can't buy a bunch of computers and
>copies of VMWare or honeyd or whatever and build myself a lab LAN/WAN
>and hammer it however I please, destructively "test" the software on
>it, etc. Perhaps I might not be motivated to go to the trouble of
>setting up my own test LAN, or I might not have the financial or
>intellectual resources to do so - but those are not a result of fear.
>There is nothing to stop groups of teen agers (to stick with your
>example) from playing capture the flag LAN parties with their own
>machines, as long as they're consenting - they're welcome to have at it
>as long as their electricity and caffeine supply holds out!!
>
>So - unlike the situation with drugs - there's STILL a perfectly
>legitimate avenue for socially sanctioned exploration. And we have seen
>that the "War On Drugs" hasn't exactly had a very great cooling effect
>on dope use - so I simply can't accept your assertion that teen agers
>are somehow going to be terrified to explore computers.
>
>... but is that what you're talking about, really? I don't think so.
>
>
>
>>I'm not talking about damaging other companies' computer systems. I'm
>>talking about accessing them illegally *without* revealing private
>>information to the public or harming any data that has been accessed.
>>
>>
>
>*Aha*
>
>So you're talking about "exploring" someone's computer without their
>permission.
>
>In virtually every society (not just the advanced ones) that have a
>notion of property, there is a notion of property rights. The very
>notion of property rights argues that _I_ have the right to control how
>_MY_ property is used. In fact, property rights make up the core of the
>social contract and the rule of law - i.e.: trespassing is a very, very
>old crime. "Exploring" someone's computer without their permission is a
>violation of their property rights, pure and simple. In any society
>under the rule of law, under virtually any moral and legal system I
>have encountered, there are protections that govern intrusion into
>another's property.
>
>So, I believe you're being intellectually dishonest calling such
>actions "exploring" - "trespassing" might be a better word, as a
>starting point for further dialog.
>
>It sounds like you're adopting the position that I've often heard
>voiced by trespassers, namely, "I didn't do any harm" or "I was passing
>through" etc - which is not a tenable position in the face of ANY
>attempt by the property owner to give notice that intrusion is
>unwelcome. For example, in most US States, ignoring a "No Trespassing"
>sign is a criminal act. I would argue that there's an exact mapping
>between the circumstance of my posting a "No Trespassing" sign on my
>property and my installing a firewall on my Internet connection. It
>gets more complex when you consider that in some jurisdictions it is
>not even necessary to post a "No Trespassing" sign to assert your
>property rights. Indeed, I am not required to post a "No Stealing" sign
>on my car when I park it, NOR am I required to lock it in order to
>assert the full protection of the law. This maps exactly to the
>situation in which I have an internet connection with no firewall at
>all; the fact that I do not have a "No Exploring"
>sign is NOT an implicit invitation to explore. Never mind complex moral
>philosophies - common courtesy requires that one ask permission before
>going where they are not invited.
>
>
>
>>To
>>me, there is a big difference between these two types of attacks but I
>>don't think that judges feel the same way. Furthermore, I don't even
>>think that judges understand the difference.
>>
>>
>
>In most of the "advanced societies" you are referring to, it is not a
>judge who makes this determination - it is a jury.
>
>Whether a jury understands or does not understand, or respects or does
>not respect, a distinction YOU choose to make is irrelevant. You are
>playing self-serving semantic games. By asserting that you feel there
>is a difference between one type of trespassing (the kind you deem
>harmful) and another type of trespassing (the kind you deem harmless)
>you are creating a distinction of convenience only to yourself.
>Does the law recognize such a distinction? I submit to you that unless
>the laws recognize "harmless trespass"
>versus "harmful trespass" then you are on shaky ground.
>
>Put differently, if you trespass on my property, I do not have to care
>about your intent. I merely have to care that you violated my property
>rights. Your "I meant no harm"
>argument is part of your plea for clemency once you've been convicted
>and it's time to pass sentence.
>
>
>
>>Now, I'm not saying that I support accessing computer systems
illegally.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, you do appear to be saying that. Or, more precisely, you
>appear to be saying that by enforcing our existing property rights over
>our computers, we (the computer owners of the world) are going to
>somehow increase the level of ignorance about computer security.
>
>That's a ridiculous position!
>
>
>
>>All I'm saying is that by implementing very strict laws on "hacking",
>>we will create a generation of ignorant security professionals. I
>>think to myself, how the hell will these "more advanced societies"
>>protect themselves against cyber attacks in the future?
>>
>>
>
>Those more "advanced societies" will protect themselves quite well, for
>a number of reasons. First off, because they have more at stake, they
>will be obligated to (waste) invest more time preparing to stave off
>trespassers. As your stake increases your motivation to preserve it
>increases accordingly.
>This is part of the tyranny of the cyber-criminal: the cost they force
>the innocent to incur is disproportionate. An E-banking company may
>spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to build a defensible network
>whereas my grandmother might begrudge $19.95 for an antivirus package.
>Disproportionate spending will result in, unfortunately, a
>disproprtionate demand for defensive expertise.
>
>What does that mean? That means you'll be dealing with guys like me. :)
>Folks from an engineering/system design/ architecture background, who
>treat this "cyber-crime" as a serious problem that can be managed
>effectively using engineering and design disciplines. Security is
>nothing more than extending a failure analysis forward into a
>predictive failure analysis model (formally or ad hoc) and checking
>your implementations against past experiences of failure. This is
>exactly the same design discipline that civil engineers use when they
>build bridges: they understand that a bridge will be exposed to wind,
>rain, corrosives dropped on the road surface, vibration, metal fatigue,
>etc. These failure paradigms are extrapolated from past experience and
>taxonomized as aspects of a discipline.
>You will not find a bridge designer who has not heard of the Tacoma
>Narrows Bridge or metal fatigue or rust-oleum (or stainless steel, for
>that matter!). Software is only on the verge of becoming an engineering
>discipline, but eventually, I hope, you will not find a designer of
>mission critical software who does not know what a buffer overflow is,
>or who does not understand component testing.
>
>So, as much as you may not like it, there are plenty of folks out there
>who understand that software security is a design and architecture
>issue - not a process of slapping band-aids on bad code until it's,
>well, bad code covered with band-aids. What you'll find is that
>engineers who understand engineering discipline find bug-hunting to be
>an utterly boring process; well-designed and implemented systems don't
>need "pen testers" - they cross-check themselves. The only reason the
>industry is in the horrible condition it's in today is because the vast
>majority of code that's been fielded to date is crap. That will have to
>change. And when it does, "pen testers"
>will become peons in the quality assurance department.
>
>
>
>>These new tougher computer laws will, in my opinion, have a tremendous
>>negative impact in the defense of these "advanced societies". It
>>almost feels to me like we're destroying ourselves.
>>
>>
>
>I think you're kidding yourself.
>
>
>
>>I know what you're thinking. You can learn about security attacks by
>>setting up you're own controlled environment and attacking it
yourself.
>>Well, what I say is that this approach *does* certainly make you a
>>better attacker, but nothing can be compared to attacking systems in
>>real world scenarios.
>>
>>
>
>Who cares if someone is a good attacker?
>
>Let me try that differently. What is a "good attacker"? (By good I
>assume you mean "skilled") A skilled attacker is someone who has
>internalized a set of failure analysis of past failures, and can
>forward-project those failures (using imagination) and hypothesize
>instances of those failures into the future. Put concretely - a skilled
>attacker understands that there are buffer overruns, and has a good
>grasp of where they usually occur, and laboriously examines software to
>see if the usual bugs are in the usual places. This is a process that,
>if the code was developed under a design discipline, would be replaced
>trivially with a process of code-review and unit testing (a little
>design modularization wouldn't hurt, either!).
>
>But it's not actually rocket science or even interesting.
>What's so skilled about sitting with some commercial app and
>single-stepping until you get to a place where it does network I/O,
>then reviewing the surrounding code to see if there's a memory size
>error? (Hi, David!) Maybe YOU think that's security wizardry but, to
>me, that's the most boring clunch-work on earth. It's only interesting
>because right now there's a shockingly huge amount of bad code being
>sold and the target space for the "hit space bar all night, find a bug,
>and pimp a vulnerability" crowd to play with.
>
>
>
>>Now, I personally know many pentesters and I can say that most of them
>>*do* cross the line sometimes when doing online exploration in their
>>own free time. However, these guys would *never* harm anything or leak
>>any sensitive information to the public. That's because they love what
>>they do, and have very strong ethical values when it comes to privacy.
>>
>>
>
>Your understanding of ethics appears to be shakier than your
>understanding of software engineering.
>
>You're trying to excuse the trespasser that "never harms anything"
>from having done wrong, but you cannot do that because you never asked
>the victim's opinion. Indeed, the very fact that the victim may have
>already gone to expense to try to prevent the trespass merely means
>that the trespasser has added insult to injury! The trespasser is still
>morally culpable.
>
>Suppose a property owner has a 250 acre property they want to keep
>private. After all, it's theirs, they have the right to want to keep it
>private, and they want to enjoy it without having strangers wandering
>about in their land. So our property owner spends $400 on 500 "No
>Trespassing" signs and nails and spends 2 days nailing signs to trees
>around the perimeter of their property. Now, a stranger comes along,
>ignores the signs, becomes a trespasser, and leaves.
>Has the property owner been wronged? Absolutely. Whether the trespasser
>"never harmed anything" or not, they ignored the property owner's moral
>rights, and additionally the property owner has now spent 2 days
>nailing and $400 on signs - and it was wasted. Obviously, you can't
>assign the entire cost of the signs and the wasted time to a single
>trespasser, but it's certainly insult to injury. The trespasser has no
>moral right to claim that their assessment of "not harming anything"
>superceeds the property owner's -- after all, by placing "No
>Trespassing" signs, the property owner has explicitly informed the
>trespasser that trespass in and of itself is harmful. This is why
>trespassing is a crime, and aggravated trespass is a felony (aggravated
>trespass would be if the trespasser decided to tear down a few of the
>signs, just to show that stupid land-owner that he "knows better" and
>"means no harm")
>
>Obviously, you can map these values to IP networks - the fact that a
>system has ANY form of security enabled AT ALL is analogous to a "No
>Trespassing" sign. Though I question the moral underpinnings of an
>Internet society in which the prospective victim has to put a "NO
>STEALING" sign on their car and a "NO RAPING" sign on their backside
>and a "NO SPYING" sign in their window, and a "NO WIRETAPPING"
>sign on their phone, etc.
>
>In other words, in the real world, property rights are an ingrained
>concept in virtually all societies. The movement of "advanced
>societies" to tighted up cybercrime laws is simply a reflection of
>those advanced societies rationally extending the moral values of
>property rights into cyber-space.
>
>The view you espouse, in which you arrogate to yourself the right to
>decide what constitutes harmless trespass versus harmful trespass --
>that's a view that probably will not last very long, IF IT EVER EXISTED
>AT ALL. Let me be frank with you, since you seem to want to be an
>apologist for the cyber-trespasser: the fact that $6 billion annually
>is spent on firewalls, IDS, antispyware, antivirus, vulnerability
>management, etc -- is a VERY LOUD STATEMENT that society as a whole
>DOES NOT APPROVE OF CYBER TRESPASSING. On the internet, virtually every
>tree has a "No trespassing" sign nailed to it. You choose to pretend
>not to see it at your own risk.
>
>
>
>>I would say that most pentesters are "grey hats", rather than "white
>>hats".
>>
>>
>
>I agree with you. I would say that most pentesters are failed security
>analysts who do not understand engineering discipline and have chosen
>to engage in the war of band-aids instead of learning how to build
>correct systems. And then there are the pentesters who really are
>cybertrespassers at heart, who have found a financial and moral
>justification for doing something for money that they'd otherwise do
>anyhow, for free, in the wee hours of the night.
>
>Put differently: either way you slice it, pentesters aren't worth a
>bucket of warm spit as far as I am concerned.
>
>
>
>>In fact, I believe that the terms white and black hat are completely
>>artificial because we all have different sides. The human mind is not
>>binary, like black or white, it's something fuzzy instead, with many
>>layers. The terms white and black hat were, in my opinion, created by
>>business people to point out who the "good guys" and "bad buys" are.
>>
>>
>
>I belive that you are seeing to create moral ambiguity because if you
>don't have that ethical grey area to work in, you've lost your
>playground.
>
>You're right, though - black/white hat is probably poor terminology. As
>a property owner (both in the real world and in cyberspace) there are
>only two kinds of people on my land:
>- Invited Guests
>- Trespassers
>There is no room there for moral ambiguity.
>
>
>
>>If I was the technical director of a computer security testing company
>>I would try to find pentesters that are not malicious, but that do
>>cross the line sometimes but at the same time, know when it's a good
>>time to stop exploring.
>>
>>
>
>I am glad you are not the technical director of a computer security
>testing company then. In fact, I hope you are not employed in the field
>of computer security at all, if you would be trying to recruit, as
>professionals, people who
>"cross the line." In fact I am extremely glad that you're
>also not the director of a day-care facility, and that you don't want
>to hire employees that "occasionally grope the children" (but not TOO
>much!) or that you aren't the director of a bank, who'd want to hire
>tellers that "only occasionally pocket (small denomination) bills."
>
>
>
>>If you hire someone that has never broken into a system, this guy will
>>not be able to produce valuable reports for customers because he will
>>not be able to find vulnerabilities that can't be found running a
>>scanner.
>>
>>
>
>If you're trying to understand the security properties of a system by
>breaking into it, you not producing valuable reports, anyhow. All you
>are doing is telling them where to put the next band-aid.
>
>
>
>>In summary, I'd like governments of the world to rethink their
>>strategy when fighting computer crime. Extremism never worked and
never will.
>>
>>
>
>In summary; the views you expressed typify, to me, the negative effect
>of accepting a moral grey area into our profession. You speak of ethics
>and, in the next breath, you show that you don't even know what ethics
>ARE. You speak of learning, and, in the next breath, you show that you
>don't understand how to apply learning in a disciplined and predictable
>manner.
>
>
>
>>Remember, many of today's script kiddies will be the infosec
>>professionals of tomorrow.
>>
>>
>
>Ironically, I am the person who first coined the expression "script
>kiddie" (back in 1994 I think it was...) - but I originally used the
>term not to apply to the ankle-biter cybercriminals, I was using the
>term "script kiddy" to describe the first-generation security auditors!
>Back in the early 90's, when the "big 6"
>first got into the security audit game, they used to send these
>ignorami right out of college, with checklists, who'd go around
>customer sites looking to see if the /etc/passwd file on Windows
>machines had the correct permissions - and they'd write a report saying
>that the "passwd file is missing!"
>
>In the sense that I originally coined the expression "script kiddy" I
>was referring to those of you who now proudly call yourselves
>"pentesters"
>
>Ironic, huh?
>
>mjr.
>
>
>
>
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
in respect of matters arising within those States and Territories of Australia
where such legislation exists.
DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disclose the
information. If you have received this email in error, please inform us
promptly by reply email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please delete the
email and destroy any printed copy.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. You may
not rely on this message as advice unless it has been electronically signed by
a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter or fax signed by a
Partner of BDO.
BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments
due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unauthorised access.