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

Kevin Mitnick has died

dignitymemorial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 666 posts

Re: Kevin Mitnick has died

#611

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

jhugo wrote: post #378
gabereiser wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He used the CEO’s voice to access AN account, I don’t think it was the CEO’s specifically. But just an account, verified by the CEO’s voice, to his.

I doubt the bank’s authentication system is built to allow the CEO’s voice to authenticate a transfer out of any account …

When you do pen testing you're given a limited list of valid targets.

I imagine that the mission parameters were that he take a check and remove money from the account.

It would also make sense that this is the CEO's account, or one he also controls, because he's in on the test and can give informed consent. Also, probably the CEO doesn't have any special access so breaking into his identity wouldn't impact the bank the way breaking into the IT manager's account might.

If this was a fake account (one with no real user) then they wouldn't have discovered this flaw because Mitnick couldn't have called the user. Having a real person be exploitable is essential to proper discovery of the full scope of the problems.

Re: Kevin Mitnick has died

#612

Post by zirgs »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #584
zirgs wrote: post #570

From Wikipedia: "Mitnick also intercepted and stole computer passwords, altered computer networks, and broke into and read private emails." - what a nice guy he was.

Would you want someone to pop up after you're dead to remind people of your misdeeds?

His misdeeds are the only reason why people are talking about him now.

Re: Kevin Mitnick has died

#613

Post by BringerOfChaos »

mekoka wrote: post #497
eduction wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has the CEO’s number and successfully calls him, and through some miracle gets through directly to ask this trivial question — as opposed to getting the number from the assistant who answers his phone - sure ok but then under what pretense does he then ask him to repeat his phone number? “Please repeat the phone number I just dialed.” The phone number contains all the digits needed to recreate the bank account num…

I understood it as him (Mitnick) asking his own phone number back. "Did I give you my card earlier? Is it the new card? I don't recall. Which number does it have?" If you've already identified a security system that has this vulnerability you get a phone number with all these digits and begin shopping for any institutions that bough that system.

Prime social engineering.

Re: Kevin Mitnick has died

#614

Post by dang »

callalex wrote: post #243
hellyer wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

This is an extremely insensitive time and place to troll. Shame on you.

Just FYI, I don't think the other user was trolling. HN has a certain number of commenters coming from (let's say) distressed points of view. One can sometimes guess at this from the comment history. I don't mean to single anyone out, just to say that it's a regular if not a common pattern. It's not always easy to find a compassionate way to handle it but I think it's important to try.

Re: Kevin Mitnick has died

#615

Post by Aerbil313 »

WhackyIdeas wrote: post #552
Aerbil313 wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment you’re replying to was not serious. It’s irony highlighting the nonsensicality of the replied sentiment.

Can I ask how you are so sure of that? Fascinated by your confidence on this one - maybe even jealous actually… Curious!

I gave it a bit of thought, and remembered that there are people in the other side of the world (America) who are deep down in modernism (esp. feminism in this instance) who can really believe in that (abuse cancels all other good qualities). You're right, my mistake to assume people are as mentally healthy as they're in my country.

Re: Kevin Mitnick has died

#616

Post by dang »

hellyer wrote: post #42

[dead]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36795360 and marked it off topic.

I'm sorry you've gone through such distressing experiences and definitely don't want to add to the distress, but I also don't want replies from HN commenters to add to it unintentionally.

Re: Kevin Mitnick has died

#618

Post by samstave »

kjs3 wrote: post #542
samstave wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I come from a long line of clinical/medical folks in my family - and me on the tech side of medicine... That said the following is me talking out my ass, but I have followed a very few number of pancreatic cases - jobs being one... and there is one anecdotal that I would hope people closer to such cases can chime into ; how much wine did these people drink (jobs was a prolific wine drinker) Im wondering if sulfates f…

Jobs famously didn't drink much alcohol; he was way more into exotic fruit juices and such. Where did you get the idea he did? And what's with the oddly narrow "must be the sulfates, in wine specifically". Why not tannins? Polyphenols? Organic acids? We already know alcohol contributes to a variety of cancers...what compelling evidence is there that sulfate need be involved?

His Sommelier. I cant go into it. (and still this is not first hand from me - just what I heard... so I accept being completely wrong)

And I didnt meant to narrow - it was the more famous of what you states, and thank you.

My money is on tannins, but that is just me...

Re: Kevin Mitnick has died

#619

Post by PostOnce »

dang wrote: post #610
PostOnce wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right; I could've said that without calling it "a BS sentiment".

Thanks for the kind reply. We got emails saying I was off base on this one so clearly it wasn't an obvious call!

That's interesting that people felt it worth the time to email.

I think what's going on here is that some people (myself included) find it extraordinarily offensive to question someone's right to procreate, whether they're "good enough" by some metric to have done so. Are you young enough, rich enough, smart enough, tall enough, moral enough, etc.

Of course, the offense can be a combination of being offended on behalf (of Mitnick in this case), and also projecting (what if we lived in a world where people questioned whether I should have children for reasons of age, wealth ... or worse reasons.)

I think we live in a world where we need all kinds of people from all kinds of parents; when we start to pick at who "should" have children, we risk losing something.

Re: Kevin Mitnick has died

#620

Post by arbitrage »

wanderingmoose wrote: post #567

There was something I always wanted to ask him: He was so meticulous is setting up new identities and moving to random places around the country to avoid the authorities. But would then log back into his previously compromised systems in a way that would expose his current geographic location. It always seemed like such a glaring hole in his otherwise well thought out personal opsec. I'm sure the story was more compl…

I believe that at first it was a game for him. Eventually he got tired of running, and this may have been a way of taunting his pursuers and forcing an end-game situation that he overestimated his chances against.

He was not prepared for four years of solitary and unconstitutional delaying of his trial. He did not ultimately have a game plan for what to do if his opponent cheated.

If the government had acted justly (that is, according to their own laws) he would have been found innocent and walked at his trial. However, the prosecutors lied, they cheated, corrupted the system they claimed to protect, and that was it. Game over, no redos.

Post reply on HN