71–80 of 308 posts
The title is misleading. He wasn't actually expelled for finding the flaw; he was expelled because, after reporting the flaw, he ran an exploit program on the school's server without permission, allegedly to see if it had been fixed. Had he only reported it, he would not have been subject to any disciplinary action.
I've said this before -- don't bother being a "white hat". The industry and the legal system doesn't have a pigeon hole for that. You'll be labeled as "hacker" (and not in a positive sense of it). Either disclose the vulnerability immediately to get recognition, hoping it is public enough they'll be ashamed of going after you, or or sell and profit from it. You are already treated as a criminal by these large institu…
In the second scenario, you probably are hurting innocent people.
So if you have a moral compass, you should maybe bother being an anonymous white hat.
To me this stinks of the "closed mind" problem.
I've said this before -- don't bother being a "white hat". The industry and the legal system doesn't have a pigeon hole for that. You'll be labeled as "hacker" (and not in a positive sense of it). Either disclose the vulnerability immediately to get recognition, hoping it is public enough they'll be ashamed of going after you, or or sell and profit from it. You are already treated as a criminal by these large institu…
I found something like this at my school. The administration reacted similarly. But fortunately, I was taking djb's Unix Security Holes at the time, and a harshly-worded note from djb to the Computer Center folks ended up getting me a thank you. Next semester, though, I refused to sign the new AUP (which included a clause allowing the computer center staff to seize any computer I was using, even at my off-campus home…
The title is misleading. He wasn't actually expelled for finding the flaw; he was expelled because, after reporting the flaw, he ran an exploit program on the school's server without permission, allegedly to see if it had been fixed. Had he only reported it, he would not have been subject to any disciplinary action.
Back in 1999 when I was a freshman in university, my school had a server for students to host their websites on and use Pine for email. The server did not give shell access... but then there was a security hole in Pine that would allow you to run chsh. So I did that, and got shell access. I think the worst thing I did (other than running ls in a few directories) was use it to connect to IRC. Since I wasn't really try…
Was MAC spoofing not doable in 1999?
Yes, even Google and Microsoft have bugs in their software. This isn't an excuse to bully people who tell you about the bugs in yours. The difference between you and Google is that Google pays people who find bugs in their software, especially serious security flaws, even if they aren't employed by Google, rather than threatening them with legal action.
Let's assume it was not SQLi but an authorization application logic bug ie: by changing parameter passed by browser allowed access to whole record set. He did the right thing and told the vendor -- but after the fact he ran a tool that probably simulated SQLi on every damn parameter! Like smashing a car window after telling the owner he has left it unlocked.
Even a brain dead sysadmin would notice it In the logs, and likely whatever SIEM would fire a high priority alert.
He did this without auth and the company did the right thing here. In this post aaronsw world we can't just assume that every n00b clown whitehat hacker is totally innocent of all crimes even if done with the best intentions. People need to take responsibility for their actions. An ignorant click can be just as criminally negligent as stabbing a dude in the face.