HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide)
Subject: Re: Fun things to do to RTM (was: Internet worm)
Organization: Motorola Ireland Ltd., Cork, Ireland.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:33:50 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Ok, one more time.  Look, dipshit, in case you're too stupid to figure
>it out, everyone who disagrees with your opinion doesn't fit into your
>little mold of what they must be like.  If your only response to
>someone disagreeing with you is to cast their motivations in the most
>extreme and insulting light possible, then you have a serious maturity
>problem and should probably consider simply not entering into
>discussions in the first place.

>That's right, but there ought to be minimums and reasonable things to
>do.  Sorry your head is so far up your ass that you can't bear to hear
>any opinions that differ with your own.  Perhaps you'll grow up one
>day and we can talk then.

Uh, pot, kettle, black, anyone? Mr. McCall [using his own tactic of addressing
the net instead of his antagonists] seems to be compelled to shout loudly
(sometimes even in *capital letters*!!) at anyone who sees holes in his
arguments or bothers to disagree with him.

Cool it, Fred. You're starting to look paranoid.

>-- 
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Donning an asbestos suit.....
-- 
Ronan Waide, Motorola Ireland                        waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a trailer-load of floppies" - ?
From: jpe@ee.egr.duke.edu (John P. Eisenmenger)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: Passwd traps?
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:26:57 GMT

ddv@unix.brighton.ac.uk (Domenico De Vitto     Hoopy unix frood) writes:

>Well I suppose you'd really want a proggy that runs all the time,
>checking that only processes of system accounts (ie root) and the actual
>user logged in on that tty (at that time), has processes with a open fd
>attatched to the inode that is attatched to a tty. (phew)

Unfortunately the password trap would look correct by this method since both
it and its tty would be owned by the "trapper".  I don't see much of a way to
prevent this type of thing if it is carried out by someone who covers all the
angles.  For example, someone mentioned a setup at a UCal. site where the 
login program catted the contents of a protected file in the users' home
directories.  This (and practically any other) machine-authentication scheme
could be attacked by having a program that opens a loopback telnet session
and simply watches the passing characters.  This removes the burden of
emulating the login program from trap.

-John

-- 
*************************************************************************
* John P. Eisenmenger			 Phone: (919) 660-5248		*
* Duke University			 FAX:   (919) 660-5293		*
* Department of Electrical Engineering	 Email: jpe@egr.duke.edu (pref)	*
* Box 90291				        jpe@cs.duke.edu		*
* Durham, NC 27708-0291							*
*									*
*  Reports of problems w/EE systems should go to problem@egr.duke.edu	*
*************************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
From: vulture@imperial.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau)
Subject: Re: Tripwire Question
Reply-To: cmaae47@imperial.ac.uk
Organization: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 18:34:45 GMT

In article <1g2padINNkko@phantom.gatech.edu>, drew@phantom.gatech.edu (Drew Gonzi) writes:
-
- 	Also, I've found that tripwire also tries to "realloc" a nil pointer.
- This should probably be fixed as well
- 
Aaaarrrgh, you are using SunOS.

Using realloc on a NULL pointer is specifically provided for in both the
POSIX and x/open standards.

"Tis the operating system that should be fixed.

                                   Thomas

-- 
*** This is the operative statement, all previous statements are inoperative.
*   email: cmaae47 @ ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau) (uk.ac.ic on Janet)
*   voice: +44 71 589 5111 x4937 or 4934 (day), or +44 71 823 9497 (fax)
*   snail: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
*   The Center for Computing Services, Kensington SW7 2BX, Great Britain
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
From: newsham@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Timothy Newsham)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystr
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 09:07:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.043113.24232@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> palmer@Trade_Zone.msfc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>
>We must be careful not to confuse rights with privilege.
>
>If while visiting a friend, I used his phone and he listened in on the
>conversation, I would not feel that my rights had been violated.  I
>would think him very rude and would not use his phone again.  Now if he
>were visiting me and listened in on my phone conversation, the
>situation would be different.
>
>I have a hard time understanding how guests can make demands of their
>hosts.
>
>It seems to be the human condition that after having been granted a
>privilege for a long time, we take it for granted and begin to assume
>that it is our right. ie. the "legal right" to:
>	- drive a car
>	- come and go as we please
>	- drink alcohol

ack!  if you think these are not rights I dont really know what
to say..
(1) drive a car - if it doenst infringe on the rights of others
then it is entirely your own business...

(2) come and go as we please  -  as long as we dont intrude on
other peoples "property".  

(3) drink alchohol, take drugs etc - again as long as it doesnt
intrude on other peoples rights.   

these are all rights,  the government has no place messing
with things like these, maybe they make rules to make things
easier for themselves and make sure other rights arent
bein trampled on by you.

government should not be in the business of protecting
people from theirselves...
ack.. this is getting way off topic, what is this
stuff even doing in comp.misc.sec ?

>
>That came out a little more like preaching than I had hoped...so in the
>interests of network bandwidth, if you strongly disagree with me, either
>ignore me or flame me via E-mail
>
>---
>Paul (Cliffy) Palmer
>E-Mail: palmer@trade_zone.msfc.nasa.gov
>


Xref: sparky comp.security.misc:2166 comp.org.eff.talk:7573
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Licence to Net? No! (was Re: Fun things to do to RTM)
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:26:41 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft math/inf, Uni Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: irau28.ira.uka.de

In article <BETSYS.92Dec10155821@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>This isn't such a bad analogy. Our dept. chair (previous) has used it
>before. On our system, we require either a student ID or a driver's
>license or other photo id before granting an account. We don't
>...
>handbook. Many PC BBS's do make users read (or at least scroll past)
>and agree to a policy statement before granting access. 

Which controls the net access of your/their users, but not the net
access of any person at a global scale. If they are rejected by you,
they may as well get an account elsewhere or set up their own net
node.

That's a bit of a difference.

Olaf
-- 
| Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student  |   o     | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address |
| univ. of karlsruhe - germany |  _>\ _  | s_titz@ira.uka.de   | is still    |
| +49-721-60439                | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc      | valid       |
  "My heart is human - my blood is boiling - my brain IBM" - Mr. Roboto
Xref: sparky comp.security.misc:2232 comp.org.eff.talk:7653
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Fun things to do to RTM (was: Internet worm)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:57:18 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Dec14.093350.15979@glas.rtsg.mot.com> waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide) writes:

>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>Ok, one more time.  Look, dipshit, in case you're too stupid to figure
>>it out, everyone who disagrees with your opinion doesn't fit into your
>>little mold of what they must be like.  If your only response to
>>someone disagreeing with you is to cast their motivations in the most
>>extreme and insulting light possible, then you have a serious maturity
>>problem and should probably consider simply not entering into
>>discussions in the first place.

>>That's right, but there ought to be minimums and reasonable things to
>>do.  Sorry your head is so far up your ass that you can't bear to hear
>>any opinions that differ with your own.  Perhaps you'll grow up one
>>day and we can talk then.

>Uh, pot, kettle, black, anyone? Mr. McCall [using his own tactic of addressing
>the net instead of his antagonists] seems to be compelled to shout loudly
>(sometimes even in *capital letters*!!) at anyone who sees holes in his
>arguments or bothers to disagree with him.

>Cool it, Fred. You're starting to look paranoid.

Ah, and here we see the standard net.tactic of editing out the thing
being responded to; we couple that with the 'mental illness' attack in
its classic form of accusations of paranoia.

Ah, yes.  I'm REALLY impressed now.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: ewilts@galaxy.gov.bc.ca (Ed Wilts)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: They forget rusers, was Re: reasons for
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:35:43 -0800
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

In article <1992Dec12.010422.20706@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov>, palmer@Trade_Zone.msfc.nasa.gov (Paul (Cliffy) Palmer) writes:
> In article Jyu@avalon.nwc.navy.mil, dejesus@archimedes.nwc.navy.mil (Francisco X DeJesus) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec9.173938.8706@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>
>>Still, doesn't rusers (and rup, rlogin, rsh, etc) require a hostname? If
>>they don't work with IP addresses (they way finger/telnet can) then their
>>use is restricted if the machine you are trying to "probe" isn't registered.
>>Anyone know of a way around this (other than making a local entry in your
>>hosts file)?
>>
> 
> rusers the program does require a hostname, although the rusers (RPC)
> protocol does not.  If you have written an RPC program it is fairly
> trivial to rewrite the rusers command to accept IP addresses.  I
> suspect that rlogin and rsh have a similar problem, although they are
> not RPC programs.  It should just be a simple matter of getting the
> source and modifying it to accept IP addresses.

This is implementation-specific information you are passing on here.  My
rusers, rlogin, and rsh programs will happily accept an IP address as well as
fully qualified domain names.

-- 

Ed Wilts, BC Systems Corp., 4000 Seymour Place, Victoria, B.C., Canada, V8X 4S8
EWilts@Galaxy.Gov.BC.CA     Office:  (604) 389-3430    Fax: (604) 389-3412
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
From: unclesam@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Sam C Chi)
Subject: Killer Cracker
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:28:57 GMT

	I understand that there's a program called 'Killer Cracker' that can
crack the encrypted password file on Unix.  Is there an another version/new
version of Killer Cracker that cracks BSD encryption?  How is the BSD
encrption different from the original encrption that came out when Unix was
first developed?  Sorry if I sound clueless, please enlighten me.

					- unclesam@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

-- 
==============================================================================
Speds 'R Us, "If you can't be first, you can be second."
We live for cheap porno music "piewch pee piewch tsch tsch"
                                -The Johns Hopkins Varsity Cross-Country 1992.
Xref: sparky comp.security.misc:2339 comp.org.eff.talk:7794
From: danodom@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dan Odom)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Licence to Net? No! (was Re: Fun things to do to RTM)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 09:39:22 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:

>Most commercial hardware and software differs in this respect, however.

Huh?  Like what?  I don't know about Unix (because I don't have copies
of the licenses for the Unx software I use), but I think that
EVERYTHING running on my 386 under MS-DOS has that 'not responsible'
thing in it.  Usually the whole warranty is limited to the replacement
of defective diskettes.  Examples that I have on hand:

DR-DOS 6.0:  "DRI shall not in any case be liable for special, incedental,
              consequential, indirect or other similar damages ..."

Borland C++:  "The entire and exclusive liability and remedy for breach
               of this Limited Warranty shall be limited to replacement
               of defective diskettes or documentation and shall not
               include or extend to any claim for or right to recover
               any other damages, including but not limited to (list
               of stuff, including 'loss of profit').

OS/2 2.0:  Big long paragraph which says that OS/2 will do what IBM
           says it will do, no more, no less.  Nowhere that I know
           of does IBM say that OS/2 will not cause damage to human
           life, etc.

-- 
Dan Odom
danodom@matt.ksu.ksu.edu

Xref: sparky comp.security.misc:2230 comp.org.eff.talk:7651
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Fun things to do to RTM (was: Internet worm)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:48:24 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1gfh4sINNb91@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) writes:

>fred j mccall writes:
>|> >I would still ask you why if someone gets busted for fraud using a telephone,
>|> >should his phone privs be taken away? 
>|> 
>|> No, but if the fraud involves things like wiretaps and such, I'd sure
>|> think twice about putting them into a position as a telephone
>|> maintenanceman or operator.

>robert's position was not "telephone maintenanceman or operator" or
>any sort of computer professional.  it was "graduate student."  is
>your argument that he should be kept out of graduate school?  that's
>in fact how cornell saw it; would you take that decision out of their
>hands and cast it into law?

He wasn't just "graduate student".  He was graduate student in a
particular discipline.  It is the discipline and not the student bit
of that that is germane.  I would take the decision out of their hands
to the point of saying that he wouldn't be able to study C.S. for a
while (because he wouldn't be able to do the computer bit for a
while).  

Can someone convicted of drug traficking become a doctor?  Can someone
convicted of felonious assault become a policeman (or legally buy a
weapon) in most states?  How is this so awfully different.

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to require him to pay the
damages, including denial of service costs, caused by his 'accident'?
I believe the law often requires this in cases of 'accident'.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
From: palmer@Trade_Zone.msfc.nasa.gov (Paul (Cliffy) Palmer)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystr
Reply-To: palmer@Trade_Zone.msfc.nasa.gov
Organization: New Technology, Inc.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:31:13 GMT


In article 3072@nntp.hut.fi, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>If you turn the paranoia knob clockwise, what you get is a login
>banner designed to get consent to any surveillance from each and every
>user by using "computer security" and "intruders" as smoke & mirrors.
>
>//Jyrki

We must be careful not to confuse rights with privilege.

If while visiting a friend, I used his phone and he listened in on the
conversation, I would not feel that my rights had been violated.  I
would think him very rude and would not use his phone again.  Now if he
were visiting me and listened in on my phone conversation, the
situation would be different.

I have a hard time understanding how guests can make demands of their
hosts.

It seems to be the human condition that after having been granted a
privilege for a long time, we take it for granted and begin to assume
that it is our right. ie. the "legal right" to:
	- drive a car
	- come and go as we please
	- drink alcohol

That came out a little more like preaching than I had hoped...so in the
interests of network bandwidth, if you strongly disagree with me, either
ignore me or flame me via E-mail

---
Paul (Cliffy) Palmer
E-Mail: palmer@trade_zone.msfc.nasa.gov

I would argue that when a society starts legislating courtesy,
it is a sure sign that it has started to collapse.




Newsgroups: comp.security.misc,comp.org.eff.talk
From: cmcurtin@bluemoon.use.com (Matthew Curtin)
Subject: Re: Fun things to do to RTM (was: Internet worm)
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 19:51:14 EST

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

> I strongly suggest, by the way, that folks interested in the Iernet
> Worm case read Hafner and Markoff's book CYBERPUNK, and Peter Denning's
> COMPUTERS UNDER ATTACK. It is difficult for those with actual knowledge
> about the case to obsess on punishing Morris.

I agree wholeheartedly, I have both books. I thought that the account in 
COMPUTERS UNDER ATTACK was a bit more informational, but CYBERPUNK's 
recollection was less dry and more enjoyable to read...

 __________________________________________________________________________
| C. Matthew Curtin             ! "But I am the enlightened one, they are  |
| P.O. Box 27081                ! but mere sheep, following each other in  |
| Columbus, OH 43227-0081       ! the name of compatibility." -B. Heineman |
| 614/365-3272 (voice mail)     !              Apple II Forever!           |
|_cmcurtin@bluemoon.use.com_____!_____________GNO_your_AppleIIGS!__________|
From: jpw@lorelei.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
Subject: Security Levels
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:22:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Drexel University, Philadelphia PA

Could somebody be kind enough to post (or mail) the definitions (with
examples, in clear english) of the NSCS security levels/criteria,
i.e. D, C1, C2, B1, ... etc.

If there are any gov't publications available, how would I get them?

Thanks!


-- 
Joseph P. Wetstein                  __|__          "I may be Captain by
jpw@coe.drexel.edu              ---o-(_)-o---       rank, but I never wanted
                                                    to be anything else but 
KA3VJY						    an engineer" - Scotty
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc,comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Fun things to do to RTM (was: Internet worm)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:51:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.160608.29674@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>What position, specifically, is that? Graduate student?
>
>I know you're not this stupid, Mike, so I have to assume that this is
>a deliberate 'cute but obfuscatory' tactic.  Color me unimpressed.
>And unconvinced.

It looks very much as if you are avoiding the question. If the issue
is whether Morris should be barred from the computer industry, it should
be noted that he was not a part of it at the time of the Internet Worm.

I strongly suggest, by the way, that folks interested in the Iernet
Worm case read Hafner and Markoff's book CYBERPUNK, and Peter Denning's
COMPUTERS UNDER ATTACK. It is difficult for those with actual knowledge
about the case to obsess on punishing Morris.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Everything one invents is true."
mnemonic@eff.org| 
(617) 864-0665  |                           --Flaubert
EFF, Cambridge  |                           
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
From: vulture@imperial.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau)
Subject: Re: New "official" motd
Keywords: motd
Reply-To: cmaae47@imperial.ac.uk
Organization: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 16:46:52 GMT

In article <jpe.723910551@ee.egr.duke.edu>, jpe@ee.egr.duke.edu (John P. Eisenmenger) writes:
- While we're on this subject of the MOTD notice.  Will that actually do
- the job? What if your have .hushlogin files so they don't see the motd
- messages when they login?  What if the account an unauthorized user has
- compromised has a .hushlogin?  Wouldn't this present the intruder with
- a legal loophole, or would s/he have given up their right to notification?
- If the former, should we start removing .hushlogin files from our users'
- home directories or what?

Probably not, as they would be "deemed to have had notice" - just as nobody
has yet gotten away from paying tax by claiming that they didn't know they
had to pay because the never read their (snail-) mail.

But maybe you display the notice BEFORE people log in, as we do here, viz:

====================================================
IRIX System V.3 (cscmgb)

Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

          Centre for Computing Services

    This computer system is operated on behalf of
                 Imperial College

Only authorised users are entitled to connect and/or 
log in to this computing system. If you are not sure 
  whether you are authorized, then you are not and 
          should DISCONNECT IMMEDIATELY.

====================================================

It also comes out for ftp connects, and is meant to rob hackers of the
excuse that they saw a "welcome to the xxxx system" and therefore assumed 
they were authorised to use it.

I don't know if it has any chance to stand up in court, but knowing what
the lege system is like, I believe anything is possible ....

                            Thomas

-- 
*** This is the operative statement, all previous statements are inoperative.
*   email: cmaae47 @ ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau) (uk.ac.ic on Janet)
*   voice: +44 71 589 5111 x4937 or 4934 (day), or +44 71 823 9497 (fax)
*   snail: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
*   The Center for Computing Services, Kensington SW7 2BX, Great Britain
Xref: sparky comp.security.misc:2328 alt.security:5126 comp.dcom.modems:18251
From: murakami@hac2arpa.hac.com (Gary A. Murakami)
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc,alt.security,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Looking for secure data link recommendations
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:48:09 GMT
Organization: Hughes Training Inc.

I have a requirement for secure (DOD Secret) data communications between
two sites.  Having been away from the market for while I don't know
what is currently available.  Using STU-III serial port is an option
but if there is something better (same ease of operations but maybe
faster data rates or designed solely for data comm) then I would be
interested in knowing about them.
----
Gary Murakami       |  murakami@hac2arpa.hac.com
Hughes Training Inc.|  murky@hti.hac.com
West Covina, Calif. |
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc