From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Policy regarding Crack
    <1992Aug26.170825.29391@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:40:17 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>>    Does anyone have in thier usage policy mention of Crack, or COPS,
>>or other programs that could be used for unnacceptable purposes?
>>    Does anyone not allow possesion of Crack? How about running it?
>[...]
>
>I would think that it would violate the general free expression and
>privacy policies of most universities to ban possession of legal
>material. I assume Columbia doesn't ban student and professor
>possession of legal books?
>
>Banning the running of such programs doesn't seem so bad. But any
>such ban should have an authorization mechanism.

A simple question:

If I allow source code for cracking programs, but ban the running of
such programs, how will I know that the programs have been run?  After
all, I don't live in front of a terminal! 8)

Seriously, let's look at the possibilities:

	- I could (as the admin) sweep through all the user files,
	  looking for Crack source/binaries.  This is unacceptable.

	- I could check the monthly accounting reports and examine
	  every program that burned more than X minutes of CPU time.
	  This, too, is unacceptable.

	- I could remove (or place a lock upon) /usr/dict/words (the most
          commonly used word file for Crack).  This would conflict with 
	  other system programs, so it's unacceptable as well.

	- I could write an automated shell script that examines every
	  text file on the system, reporting the names of any files which
	  are in /etc/passwd format (i.e. Crack food).  This borders on the 
	  unacceptable.

	- I could just cease to care about it, and wait for something to happen.
	  This, too, is unacceptable; we've already had several cracking inci-
	  dents, and I don't need those headaches.

OR.......

	- I can set a simple policy that says "this system is not to be used
	  for the development or use of password cracking software".  My users
	  are Engineering students; they have no curricular need to develop
	  such software on our systems.  

	  This approach benefits everyone (in theory).  The users don't have
	  to worry about admins (or Crack users) rooting through their files, 
	  and I don't have to worry about Crack fanciers.......

(If I were running systems for a Computer Science or Mathematics department,
 I might set aside a particular machine for use by cryptography enthusiasts;
 perhaps this could serve as the 'authentication mechanism' Carl mentioned.)

It's important to realize that "academic freedom" does not imply automatic
organizational support of any endeavor a student (or faculty member) may
wish to undertake.  

For example, I doubt that an Engineering faculty member would receive 
university support for work in clay sculpture or political science.  At 
most universities, the faculty/staff/student communities work within a 
(fairly) well-defined conceptual framework for their area of interest.  

Computing resources are usually assigned/allocated within this framework.
However, assignments/allocations of these resources for purposes outside
of the framework can (and should) be limited.  A Mechanical Engineering 
student may wish to write a Japanese text parser; while that is a laudable
project, can we justify the allocation of Engineering resources to that
goal?  

"Academic freedom" is not equivalent to "a blank check".

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy