Slashdot Log In
Interview With MIT Subway Hacker Zack Anderson
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Aug 22, 2008 03:01 PM
from the clearly-a-terrorist dept.
from the clearly-a-terrorist dept.
longacre writes "In his most extensive interview since the DefCon controversy emerged, MIT subway hacker Zack Anderson talks with Popular Mechanics about what's wrong with the Charlie Card, what happened at DefCon, and what it's like to tango with the FBI and the MBTA. The interview comes on the heels of Tuesday's court ruling denying motions by the MBTA to issue a preliminary injunction aimed at keeping the students quiet for a further five months."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Massachusetts Sues to Halt Defcon Subway Hacking Talk 270 comments
According to CNET, "The state of Massachusetts has asked a federal judge for a temporary restraining order preventing three MIT students from giving a presentation on Sunday about hacking smartcards used in the Boston subway system." It'll be interesting to see whether Dutch-style openness or Soviet-style secrecy prevails in Las Vegas. Update: 08/09 20:57 GMT by T : "Too late," says reader Bluey: "Injunction was already granted."
[+]
Your Rights Online: MIT Students' Gag Order Lifted 160 comments
mytrip and several other readers let us know that a judge in Boston has lifted the gag order — actually let it expire — against three MIT students who discovered flaws in the security of the local transit system, the MBTA. We've discussed the case over the last 10 days. "Judge O'Toole said he disagreed with the basic premise of the MBTA's argument: That the students' presentation was a likely violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a 1986 federal law meant to protect computers from malicious attacks such as worms and viruses. Many had expected Tuesday's hearing to hinge on First Amendment issues and what amounts to responsible disclosure on the part of computer security researchers. Instead, O'Toole based his ruling on the narrow grounds of what constitutes a violation of the CFAA. On that basis, he said MBTA lawyers failed to convince him on two points: The students' presentation was meant to be delivered to people, and was not a computer-to-computer 'transmission.' Second, the MBTA couldn't prove the students had caused at least $5,000 damage to the transit system."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The battle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The battle (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately most peoples mind are stuck in the 20th century. And don't consider how quickly these things can spread now. Say 15 years ago this happened keeping it quite would have gave them a security advantage as it is easy to control the flow of information, so for someone else wanted to break in had to duplicate all the research again. However today once you try to silence someone the information flows faster, and it is harder to keep the information down, so when a problem is found it is best to fix it then put time in hushing it up. Sorry the world follows different dynamics now adapt or parish.
Parent
Re:The battle (Score:5, Funny)
adapt or parish.
That's right! Change, or we're sending you to... church!
Parent
Obligatory IANAL (Score:5, Insightful)
US Constitution, Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Did I miss something here?
Not that I want a security system compromised, because I don't... but the 1st Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall ... abridge free speech in instances where a subway system is hacked".
no, not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Grow up - your free speech rights aren't absolute.
There's the classic example of shouting fire in a crowded theater, for example. There's various laws against disclosing all kinds of information - medical records (go to a hospital, and you'll find signs in the elevators reminding staff to be careful when discussing patients), state secrets, etc.
And that's not getting into the realm of lawsuits. I mean, I could go on for hours about how you molest your children while smoking crack, but you can sue me for libel and I'll lose if I can't back up my claims. If you sign an NDA and then announce a press conference to disclose stuff covered under that NDA, I can get an injunction against you to prevent your holding that press conference.
In this case, the folks running the subway got an injunction to prevent the disclosure of the hack. And a judge looked at the evidence and decided that they didn't deserve a permanent injunction.
Parent
Re:no, not really (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, the old fire in the theater line... That's from the Holmes ruling in the Schenck case. Schenck was posting fliers bashing the draft for WWI and got swept up and jailed by the police. Holmes wrote for the Supreme Court majority that such speech was equivalent to shouting fire in a theater and Schenck (continued) his time in jail.
Remember kids: every time someone uses this line to define the limits on free speech, they are hearkening back to rulings that undercut the very purpose of the 1st amendment.
Parent
Re:no, not really (Score:5, Informative)
Very interesting. Further reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]
Parent
remember kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time someone picks a single item from among several used to make a point and rests their entire argument on it, you should be skeptical.
I noticed that you didn't mention the more applicable end of things, i.e., courts enjoining speech pursuant to a lawsuit, of the larger issue that free speech rights aren't absolute in the US, and never have been.
Also, Schenck vs. US was a bad decision, and fairly un-American in my view. But what Holmes said "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic," is fundamentally reasonable, even if that justification wasn't appropriate to the case.
Parent
Re:remember kids (Score:4, Insightful)
The keyword there is FALSELY. It is not "illegal" to shout fire in a theater. In fact, I would hope that someone would do just that in the event of a fire. The key issue of the MIT students is prior restraint of free speech simply because a party doesn't like what they believe they might hear.
Parent
You did miss something. (Score:5, Informative)
The US has tons of limits on free speech, including but not limited to restrictions with respect to
* perjury
* profanity
* sealed courtroom/trial
* threats
* slander and libel
* classified information
* treason
Parent
Re:You did miss something. (Score:5, Informative)
But no prior restraint here.
Most such restrictions get shot down in court; if it's about profanity in particular, they fall afoul not only of freedom of speech but of religion as well.
Again, no prior restraint here. And what constitutes a threat is reasonably narrowly defined, though prosecutors are always trying to stretch it
You have, perhaps, heard of the Pentagon Papers case? Where the Washington Post and the New York Times could not be enjoined from publishing classified information?
It's awfully hard to commit treason with public speech. Laws against sedition, on the other hand, have a long history of violating freedom of speech.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The students didn't hack a security system. They hacked the toll-collection system of the subway turnstiles. The MBTA made some whiny noise about the hack being a security risk but evidently the judge didn't believe their argument.
Re:Obligatory IANAL (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Obligatory IANAL (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Obligatory IANAL (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the right of free speech is about speech alone not being a crime for which one can be punished, or a source of harm for which one can be made liable. It's fairly obvious that freedom of speech is separate from the right to petition; just look at where the semicolons were placed. The amendment is addressing three different rights:
You wouldn't try to argue that freedom of religion is all about petitioning the government for redress, would you? The segment describing freedom of religion relates to the right of assembly in exactly the same way as the segment about freedom of speech.
Parent
The real question I want to know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did the MBTA learn a lesson here about making a mountain out of a molehill? They essentially took something that would have received almost no attention and turned it into a national news story and then publicly filed all the details in open court such that anyone with the wherewithal to defraud the MBTA now not only knew about the exploit but had the full details on how to do it.
Re:The real question I want to know... (Score:4, Insightful)
So? They *might* be exposing themselves to a higher frequency of short-term compromise but frankly the people with the know-how to do this and the equipment and the will dont exist in vast numbers.
The worst thing they could have done is 'play it cool' and downplay this. This would only encourage people to continue compromising their cards and give the MBTA little incentive to get off its collective ass.
As it stands now, this is so publicized that every transit organization around the world is freaking out about its level of encryption. This will have some pretty positive long-term consequences.
Im glad they didnt play it cool. The Streisand effect sometimes has unintended positive consequences.
Parent
Stored value cards are foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
Stored value cards are foolish.
They should only ever be used for identification and authentication.
The value being managed must always be stored and administered on the billing system itself.
This is why the responsible agencies (EZ-Pass, WMATA DC Metro, NYC Metrocard) should not, and usually do not, use stored value cards.
How naive of the MBTA to do this.
Cloning is still a problem with DC Metro and NYC Metrocard, but this is relatively easy to detect using database analysis and trending.
The security should lie with the central system.
Stored value cards are never secure--especially if you're depending on the obsolete version of MiFare Classic which should have only ever been used for authentication (serial numbers, keys, and scanned fingerprints).
Never for a so-called "digital purse" like MBTA used it for.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, but if you have RFID and a weak key, an id/auth-only system still has the problem where you can effectively copy someone's card with an antenna, and then use it until $0. You just can't refill it for free as in the stored value case.
I haven't thought about this much, but while the auth/central billing approach seem
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A system that must communicate with a central database isn't very useful for:
* buses
* trolleys
* the commuter rail
Where a network connection isn't necessarily available as the reader must reside on the vehicle itself.
I'd be interested to hear how the other cities who don't use stored value cards s
The FBI's role (Score:5, Interesting)
The FBI's role should have been to offer him and his buddies a lab, security clearance and a plush job to do this kind of work for them. Seriously, these are the kind of guys that the cops want working for them because every security hole in the infrastructure they find helps the cops do their job--and these guys are smart and educated enough to help the vendor fix the problem.
What it's like to tango with the MBTA (Score:5, Funny)
Having lived in Boston for five years, I don't need to RTFA to know what that was like.
-They arrived at court 45 minutes late without apologizing to the judge
-During oral arguments, the MBTA's attorney paused several times, each time for 5-10 minutes, for no apparent reason
-MBTA officials wore blazers acquired off the rack for $9,000 apiece; no immediate plans to purchase pants
-Despite earning one of the highest wages in the industry, the attorney was surly and lazy
And, after the judge denied the MBTA's request for an injunction against the hacker, GM Dan Grabauskas issued a press release trumping the agency's legal victory.
Prof Rivest (Score:4, Insightful)
It it were a lesser name in the field would their claim to have been studying the security of the system been taken so seriously ?
If it had been just some guy in charge of Mississippi state university's computer science curriculum they would likely all be in jail by now.
Re:the more I read about this.... (Score:4, Interesting)
the more it just seems someone at MBTA mistook their (MIT's)vulnerabilities rapport for the
scheduled Defcon talk that Friday and panicked.
quote/
"The FBI agent said, basically, this is not going to be an investigation. We don't have anything here. Don't worry about it.
So we told them we'd provide them a vulnerability report, going over what we found, and also methods that could fix these problems, and they said we could get that to them within two weeks. We had actually planned on getting it to them within the week, before business hours ended on Friday, so they'd have this in their hands before we gave the talk. We felt this was a courtesy we should give them.
This report was not going over what we were speaking about at DefCon, that wasn't the point. Some other people at MBTA have claimed that it was, but the point of the report was to go over the vulnerabilities, and go over ways that they could fix them. That's what we provided them, and we got it to them that Friday."
end quote/
and that's where it went wrong I think.
Had that report arrived monday nothing might have happened.
Parent
MBNA != MBTA (Score:5, Informative)
Parent