Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Contractor admits planting logic bombs in his software

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: Contractor admits planting logic bombs in his software

#131

Post by perl4ever »

ufmace wrote: post #110
mgleason_3 wrote: post #37

Wow, does 6-months in jail seem a little severe? How does one even get someone prosecuted for this crime? We hired a licensed plumber on 2 occasions - to install a sink and later a shower. We just had a different plumber out because the sink was plugged up. He pointed out that the prior plumber had installed the sanitary-t upside down basically guarantying it would eventually become clogged. We also had him look at t…

It seems the specifically designed logic to fail at a certain date is the reason. If stuff breaks because of a screwup, or at least something that people can be convinced is a routine screwup, that's one thing. Actually creating a new module to make something fail is something else. It's like if the plumber designed, built, and installed a device specifically to make your plumbing leak or clog or something at a speci…

"It's like if the plumber designed, built, and installed a device specifically to make your plumbing leak or clog or something at a specific point in the future, instead of just installing a normal and expected device incorrectly."

Intent is what matters. The distinction you're describing just affects whether it's deniable.

Re: Contractor admits planting logic bombs in his software

#132

Post by perl4ever »

rustybolt wrote: post #22

Shows the importance of code reviews. I wonder why this is illegal but it's legal for hardware to deny service or even break stuff when they detect you're using something they don't like (I'm referring to printers, but I also remember a case where a microcontroller would try to brick something when it detected a counterfeit cable).

Isn't it pretty common for a laptop to complain about a non-OEM power supply these days? Not to mention batteries, probably.

Re: Contractor admits planting logic bombs in his software

#133

Post by manfredo »

perl4ever wrote: post #129
manfredo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is not the deliberate introduction of malfunctions, it is the engineering tradeoff between longevity and other characteristics. For example, Apple noticed that most customers replaced their phones within 2-3 years. A lithium ion battery's lifetime is determined by its charging and d…

"Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence" Perhaps, but it's two points on the same continuum.

No they are not. One is intentionally, secretly, and illegally introducing flaws to defraud an employer. The other is managing tradeoffs based on technical constraints.

Re: Contractor admits planting logic bombs in his software

#134

Post by mythrwy »

manfredo wrote: post #101
taxidump wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds similar to planned obsolescence, so the moral is if you design it that way, as a manufacturer, you are ok. Definitely a grey area here. Edit: After some thought, I feel a precedent. My car has parts that don't become obsolete, they flat break requiring never ending service. Surely I can sue for fraud as the auto company has the ability to use another means. (Devils advocate)

Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is not the deliberate introduction of malfunctions, it is the engineering tradeoff between longevity and other characteristics. For example, Apple noticed that most customers replaced their phones within 2-3 years. A lithium ion battery's lifetime is determined by its charging and d…

Weren't there some printer manufacturers doing almost exactly that with ink cartridges?

Re: Contractor admits planting logic bombs in his software

#135

Post by oakwhiz »

orev wrote: post #67
elldoubleyew wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the case of the microcontroller detecting the counterfeit cable? I don't think I've ever heard of this.

APC does this on UPSes. It’s an extremely bad practice that drives people crazy. They use a standard connector, like serial, RJ45, or USB, but with a non-standard pinout and give you a custom cable. God help you if you throw that cable in a box with other standard cables. And if you plug a standard cable into this non-standard port, the UPS panics and completely shuts down, including anything you have connected to it…

I think they call this cable an RJ50 cable, although I'm not sure if it's the same one that you're referring to.

Re: Contractor admits planting logic bombs in his software

#136

Post by lioeters »

bjornsing wrote: post #105
mgleason_3 wrote: post #37

Wow, does 6-months in jail seem a little severe? How does one even get someone prosecuted for this crime? We hired a licensed plumber on 2 occasions - to install a sink and later a shower. We just had a different plumber out because the sink was plugged up. He pointed out that the prior plumber had installed the sanitary-t upside down basically guarantying it would eventually become clogged. We also had him look at t…

That age-old saying comes to mind: “Never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by incompetence.”

Also known as: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

However, I tend to disagree with this approach when the final result is that the "incompetent" one stands to profitably gain from their alleged incompetence or ignorance.

Re: Contractor admits planting logic bombs in his software

#137

Post by perl4ever »

manfredo wrote: post #133
perl4ever wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence" Perhaps, but it's two points on the same continuum.

No they are not. One is intentionally, secretly, and illegally introducing flaws to defraud an employer. The other is managing tradeoffs based on technical constraints.

I don't think that planned obsolescence is unintentional. If it's not completely secret, it's not admitted to either, and it's not illegal because it's not illegal.

Is it particularly that you think that there isn't a continuum from legal actions to illegal actions? Isn't it possible and common that two instances of similar actions can be on the right and wrong sides of the law?

Re: Contractor admits planting logic bombs in his software

#138

Post by manfredo »

perl4ever wrote: post #137
manfredo wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they are not. One is intentionally, secretly, and illegally introducing flaws to defraud an employer. The other is managing tradeoffs based on technical constraints.

I don't think that planned obsolescence is unintentional. If it's not completely secret , it's not admitted to either, and it's not illegal because it's not illegal. Is it particularly that you think that there isn't a continuum from legal actions to illegal actions? Isn't it possible and common that two instances of similar actions can be on the right and wrong sides of the law?

Planned obsolescence is not at all unintentional, it is highly deliberate. Every product needs to plan for it's intended lifespan, from phones to nuclear reactors.

Planned obsolescence and what this contractor did are not on any sort of continuum. This contractor was not making a trade-off, he deliberately sabotaged his work. This is not on any sort of continuum with optimizing phone's battery life for a certain number of years, or making similar tradeoffs.

Re: Contractor admits planting logic bombs in his software

#139

Post by rumanator »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #114
auggierose wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Must have been a brain freeze moment to hand over that password.

Sounds to me like they used Tinley being out of state as an opportunity to push for the password. I’m sure they were suspecting something at that point.

My guess is that they started suspecting something when he refused to hand over the password the first time, or at most the first time a problem occurred and he was the only person capable of fixing it.

Re: Contractor admits planting logic bombs in his software

#140

Post by rumanator »

perl4ever wrote: post #129
manfredo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is not the deliberate introduction of malfunctions, it is the engineering tradeoff between longevity and other characteristics. For example, Apple noticed that most customers replaced their phones within 2-3 years. A lithium ion battery's lifetime is determined by its charging and d…

"Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence" Perhaps, but it's two points on the same continuum.

> Perhaps, but it's two points on the same continuum.

They really aren't. All engineered products are designed to meet a target service life. Even today's houses are designed with a design lifespan of 50 years. A consumer product is not different.

Post reply on HN