Interviews: We Have 2! 1st, L0pht Heavy Industries 232
Yes, it's "year-end double-bonus interview week" on Slashdot. First, L0pht Heavy Industries. Yes, the world's most publicized infosec group, the one trotted out by TV and other mainstream media reporters whenever they want pithy (but authoritative) quotes about hacking and cracking and that sort of thing. The L0pht guys have heard all the (ho-hum) obvious questions already. They expect extra-smart ones from you, and we don't doubt for a second that you'll provide them. ;-) One question per post, please.
Shutting down the Internet (Score:3)
Y2k Hacking (Score:3)
"Those [filthy|pagan|heathen|whiny] americans, I'll show them....."
Re:Shutting down the Internet (Score:1)
Job offers (Score:1)
Which do you consider more dangerous (Score:5)
----
Um (Score:1)
Just out of curiosity... (Score:1)
Private wireless networks (Score:3)
L0phtCrack (Score:2)
Distributed Computing (Score:3)
Pronounciation (Score:2)
"low-fight" but somewheres I remember it being said as "loft" which would make more sense as
L=L
0=O
PH=F
T=T
LOFT
Re:Distributed Computing (Score:1)
Future Products (Score:1)
Re:Shutting down the Internet (Score:3)
The UK network's been crashed dozens of times, by this. Usually by poor network administration, or faulty software, but that's just details. What an admin can do through ignorance, I'm sure crackers could do by design.
advisories (Score:1)
Coagulation (Score:1)
As with any of the well-known infosec groups (you, cDc, &c), it's always a far-flung collective of folks who coalesce and make things happen. How did you meet and decide, "hey, we have common goals and interests, let's do this as a team"?
Rafe
V^^^^V
Re:Um (Score:1)
L 0 P H T : PH = F (in crazy english)
L0FT : 0 = O (in crazy 1337 5p33k)
loft
1 : an upper room or floor : ATTIC
2 a : a gallery in a church or hall b : one of the upper floors of a warehouse or business building especially when not partitioned c : HAYLOFT
3 a : the backward slant of the face of a golf-club head b : the act of lofting
4 : the thickness of a fabric or insulating material (as goose down)
--
The net: strip mall or unlimted human potential? (Score:5)
The halcyon days of the net are gone. With ubiquity - the underground vanishes. Is it well on its way, with people like the CEO of Amazon being worshipped by the mainstream press, to becoming an enormous cyber strip mall, marketing tool, PR exercise in control of perception...
Or is there still an underground? Does it still have a potential to be the one true medium with liberation? Will governments and coroporations end up controlling it? Cause they are winning small, important victories relentlessly...
,,, (Score:2)
IPSEC key debate (Score:1)
Re:Um (Score:2)
I've l0phted a couple monitors and cases from my ever so friendly ECE department before... It's a great way to get an eclectic computer collection for very little!
A quickish question (Score:3)
How do you see things evolving, from this unholy mess?
A question about L0pht constituents: (Score:3)
I suppose that this is a sort of "celebrety interview" question, but I'm curious.
Name Dropping Asswipes (Score:2)
Re:Um (Score:2)
Human interest stuff (Score:1)
Defensive Design Methodologies (Score:4)
"The difficulty with computer security is that programmers write code to allow a course of action, not to prevent another. In order
for computer security to become a reality, the design methodology must be changed."
Any programmer worth their check does program defensively. Certain languages support the writing of "safe code" more easily than others. It requires less fore-thought to program defensively in Java than it does in C. The results, however, will not be as fine tuned.
Any methodology for designing and producing safe code must take this, the experience of those implementing it, the environments the product could be used int, into account. L0pht has compromised many designs. Have you seen any design/impl (hardware or software) methodologies that yield more secure results than others? Could you give reference to them?
In my experience, it has always been a matter of refinement. Security is relative.
Windows API (Score:3)
A) Exploit every weakness from here to kingdom come, thereby propelling linux to the forefront.
B) fix everything and tell microsoft so they can make the changes show up in a new release
C) Do A) and grin real big and giggle lots
D) Other | Please Specify ___________________
Question: (Score:1)
Thanks
Scott
Scott
C{E,F,O,T}O
sboss dot net
email: scott@sboss.net
Re:advisories (Score:1)
Regret / Useful Software / Orwellian CPUs (Score:2)
What does L0pht mean? Maybe an answer (Score:1)
evolution of the network (Score:1)
How's the wireless 'net project going? (Score:3)
Re:I got one (Score:1)
Question (Score:1)
Security Lint (Score:3)
Welcome, our door is open (Score:2)
Internet Worm II (Score:4)
What are your thoughts on this prediction? (Timeline, reasonableness, etc.)
Regards,
Ben
Proper NT rootkit. (Score:3)
Any plans to write a proper Win2K/NT rootkit (the kind that was published on Phrack a while back - that replaces or adds to the actual calls in the win32 ring 0 system with its own) soon ?
Simple question (Score:1)
Prove your existence
(Now the real question)
How do we get back control of our information?
Security? (Score:1)
Rafe
V^^^^V
Slint (Score:2)
A while ago, this tool was not distributable, and closed source.
Do you plan on releasing Slint and/or other currently closed source L0pht tools in an open source license, or in some other freely distributable binary form ?
Questions (Score:1)
Re: Security Lint (Score:1)
Differences in interest (Score:1)
My question is this: do you feel the negative publicity and stereotypes of hackers and crackers rubs off on l0pht to some extent?
A Question of Principle (Score:2)
Do you see yourselves as this inaccessible except to people willing to fork over large dollars, or am I just living on the moon?
Capabilities in Linux (Score:1)
Do you think we'll see capabilities begin to replace root in Linux? What will that world be like? When will it happen?
Reply to this letter. (Score:5)
Letter to the editor: Opening windows could let bad guys do a lot of damage Saturday, December 25, 1999
I was amazed to see that the Clinton administration, in its initial victory over Microsoft, wants the source code to Windows to be made public. I'm sure it will follow up with a demand that all banks publish the combinations to their safes and freely distribute keys to both their front and back doors. Perhaps they will make banks install a large button so visitors can disable all alarms.
Making the world safe for bank robbers would be a lot better than making Windows' source code public. The year 2000 problem is nothing compared to what a hacker could do with the code to Windows.
The anti-virus software today depends on two primary tests to find a virus: the Cyclic Redundancy Checksum and file size. A virus attaches itself to a program and runs when the program runs.
Rather than get into a complex technical discussion, let us just say every computer file has a fingerprint. If a virus is attached, the file's fingerprint changes. An anti-virus program just looks for the fingerprints left by the virus. However, if one has the source code to Windows, a file with a virus can be made with the same fingerprint as a file without the virus.
Even worse, the operating system, instead of being the virus cop, becomes the virus enabler. Imagine a world where half the people in uniform are trying to rob you and where dialing 911 brings a band of serial killers to your door.
Such a virus would be very, very difficult to fight. Police try to catch such people by tracing who benefits. But when the goal is revenge and not profit, it gets tough to catch the bad guys. If you think catching the Unabomber was time consuming, this would make the search for the Unabomber look very fast, indeed.
So with the Windows source code, the hacker could write a program that on June 1, 2001, swaps all bank balances. Someone whose name starts with an A gets Z's balances. Throw credit cards into that mix, and there could be real fun. Maybe some hacker would find it fun to pay off everyone's property taxes. I'll bet everyone who had not paid his tax would tell the truth and pay up voluntarily, wouldn't they?
Every programmer I have ever met has always left himself a back door into every system he writes. Does anyone want to bet Microsoft does not have a back door to its software? Does anyone believe that if the judge makes Microsoft publish the source code, Bill Gates would remove the back door before publishing it? He would not dare. The judge might put him in jail for modifying the code. Couldn't have that now, could we?
If he would leave it in, every highly skilled programmer would have a key to everything running on Microsoft software. We can rest assured that every hacker is totally honest, can't we? And with the Internet, those hackers would all be in places where Americans are loved, such as Belgrade, Yugoslavia, and Baghdad, Iraq, for example.
Some hacker might even have fun with a newspaper, such as removing the names of everyone who is a subscriber and replacing them with the names of people who are not. Did I mention court records, employment records, child support records?
All Microsoft bashers in and out of government should beware. It looks like they are going to get what they wished for.
Ray Malone
MBS Software
Chillicothe, Ohio
L0phtcrack Registration (Score:1)
L0phtcrack Registration (Score:2)
One way in that L0phtcrack existence was justified in the community was that it had a limited use for the "Script kiddies", and only lasted 20 days (I think), but as with all tools it was cracked. In essence, your cracker was cracked.
While I highly respect L0phtcrack and find it very usefull on the job, I have to wonder how well you thought about your own key. You know you have a tool that is very much in demand, yet you dont seem to protect it in the way that one would have expected. I mean some would argue that are the "best" security experts around, yet you didn't even protect your own software.
I would like very much to know what you think about this.
-kamelkev
Question: Opinion on non-full-disclosure companies (Score:1)
Re:L0phtcrack Registration (Score:1)
my bad
What responsibilities come with publicity? (Score:1)
What are your thoughts on the reponsibilities you have as frontal figures for the "hacking community"? (For some non-disclosed definition of "hacker")
Do you feel such a responsibility to steer the young and naive hacker-wannabies into white-hat territory? - or are you more into "give them the knowledge, let them choose side for themselves"?
If you feel an obligation to inspire kids towards non-illegal, non-confrontational, non-disruptive hacking; how do you take on such a task? Your choice of a name that surely goes well within script-kiddie-hacker territory indicates to me either a wish to attract such a following, or perhaps it is just an indication of your history, coming from that background.
Enough rambling, I guess my question more or less boils down to "How do you install a sense of decency in your fan groups?"
By the way, thank you for all your good security work. It seems you appear in my bugtraq [securityfocus.com] and ntbugtraq [ntbugtraq.com] e-mail folder every other time I look... I hope I don't come across as insulting or demeaning in my question, I am seriously interested in your answer.
Future of Security (Score:2)
Okay, well two Q's.
largest barrier to secure computing/communications (Score:1)
What's good out there? (Score:1)
Guerrilla Network (Score:2)
How has the work progressed? Any notes, or better yet, a HOW-TO?
Bipolarity (Score:1)
Other groups you might work with? (Score:1)
guerilla net lasers (Score:2)
Actually it's http://www.freedom.net (Score:1)
ISP's (Score:1)
mac os as a web server (Score:1)
do you think the mac os is a viable platform to run http on?
what about mac os x
Re:A Question of Principle (Score:1)
Trouble (Score:1)
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
The Public's Perception of Hacking (Score:4)
Anyway, my question is, how do you deal with the way the public (including the media) percieves "hackers"? I've seen some clueless people use the term to describe *anyone* who does anything with a computer that they find objectionable. I've even heard the term applied to spammers!
Needless to say, the misue of the term makes my blood boil, because I feel a certain respect towards the real hackers, such as yourselves, because you guys do know what you're doing, unlike all of the script kiddies out that that either have the term applied by clueless reporters, or they use it on themselve.
So, I'd be interested in knowing how you cope with this sort of problem, as I've noticed this sort of perception of the hacking communtiy for some time.
Thanks!
"FAMOUS, adj. Conspicuously miserable." -BIERCE (Score:1)
-Spazimodo
Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
security of capability-based operating systems (Score:5)
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
Linux, the next Windows? (Score:1)
Null_Packet
Hybrid
(hybrid@ghettohackers.net)
Hm. (Score:1)
Adding to the hype (Score:1)
Were you accurately represented? Claims like this one are a little, um 'out there'. What's the skinny on this?
thanks
-nme!
December 20, 1999: In this transcript from ABC World News Tonight entitled "Computer Hackers Could Target Military," news reader Connie Chung stated:
"Computer experts have been worried for some time about a flood of viruses designed to disrupt the nation's computer systems over the new year. The systems may be at far greater risk than most people believe."
Chung continued: "ABC's Kevin Newman has been granted access to a group of elite hackers who usually operate in secret."
Yes, so secret, the well-known group -- The L0pht -- has a website, has appeared in the New York Times Magazine, has appeared before Congress, has appeared . . . well, you get the idea. For a secret group, they sure appear in the media a lot.
The purpose of the interview seemed to be aimed at convincing the viewing audience that "the L0pht" were the masters of the world.
Senator Fred Thompson appeared, acting as "the L0pht's" unpaid press agent: "I'm informed that you think that within thirty minutes the seven of you could make the Internet unusable for the entire nation. Is that correct?"
UNIDENTIFIED [L0pht] HACKER #1: "That's correct. It would definitely take a few days for people to figure out what was going on."
[Sound of Crypt Newsletter channel changer-switching to WWF pro wrestling, where the phonies and bluster are more entertaining.]
Security Through...Unpredictability? (Score:5)
Would you agree that security and stability are but different sides of the same coin? In other words, a security exploit is truly nothing more than a expertly controlled failure?
If so, how much stock can we put into the "metadesign" of limiting the damage an exploit can create by attacking the ability of a failure to be controlled? Should operating systems incorporate such "unpredictability engines" when being run in a production, non-debugging manner? Or is such a design not worth pursing, for various reasons?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
P.S. First poster to make a crack about modulating the shield harmonics is gonna get a pie in the face
Future of Hardware Hacking? (Score:4)
1) Wireless.
Lots of folks have been asking today about the wireless network project. "Me too"; the page has been up for years, it's a fascinating and extremely powerful idea, but for those of us who aren't RF engineers...
2) The future of hardware hacking.
With the trend towards more and more functionality becoming embedded into ASICs and single-chip solutions, the golden age of "just desolder this", or "reverse-engineer the schematics and jumper that", or "replace a [PROM|EPROM|EEPROM|PIC|FPGA] with one with the following special programming, and here's the [CPU|microcontroller]'s instruction set and a memory map of the embedded system" appears to be drawing to a close. Anyone can desolder a 24-pin DIP EPROM and hack it, but trying to desolder a 100-pin PQFP is a real bear without $500+ worth of specialized equipment, and knowing what to do with the chip after you've desoldered it is well-nigh impossible.
I suppose that's tangentially related to the wireless.net question - for mass distribution of the tools needed to build such a network, for instance, it seems to me that re-purposing cheap, widely-available stuff that others have junked is a better path than having to build things from scratch. But if the cheap, widely-available stuff of the future isn't gonna be re-usable... where does one go from there?
3) The future of l0pht.
(At least publicly), there's been a lot more activity on the software side of l0pht than on the hardware side.
Meanwhile, thanks for much great work on both the hardware and software sides of the equation, and best wishes for your continued good work. A couple of years ago, some of your tools saved an ex-employer's butt, and the look on my pointy-haired boss' face when I showed him where I got the tools that saved him was something I'll never forget. Y'all rule, and convincing a PHB of it takes work above and beyond the call of duty :-)
Who's more dangerous? (Score:3)
Eric
--
"Free your code...and the rest will follow."
Security Through Arbitrarity: libnc? (Score:2)
One of the most interesting applications to come out of the L0pht has been nothing but the immensely useful Netcat. Built to transfer arbitrary data at all costs, it's been used countless times when one needs your data to get from point A to B without interference by the various vagaries of the underlying content.
What's interesting about this, in my mind, is that instead of whipping up a new protocol to transport the independent units of whatever types of data one needs to send, netcat allows simple, unimpeded transport of whatever happens to go over the pipe--syslogs, files, shells, video.
Yet, while each of these custom protocols will toss over the data they were built to, the quality of the protocol design is often eroded by the content normally transfered over it such that only that content can effectively be transported using that protocol.
And thus lies the problem--whereas netcat is built to transfer anything, and is thus very unlikely to fail no matter what traffic enters the datastream, it's enough trouble to write custom protocol handlers that manage to read the data as intended, let alone possess the hands-off arbitrarity that you've designed into netcat.
Thus, my question: Should there be a libnc equivalent, one that security-conscious software coders could use to avoid the vagaries of raw socket code(and the obvious insecurity of shell pipes)? Or would this inspire a false sense of security and in fact make things worse?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Boston 2600 (Score:2)
Didya know? (Score:2)
Oops.
NT v. Linux (Score:2)
My thoughts run thus: I realize that NT has many security holes and needs somthing like 200 changes to be made secure, but for the average user who is *not* running a server, are these changes necessary? Contrast that with many versions of Linux, which out of the box for the average user can be hacked in 15 minutes on the net. I am talking out of the *box* not using updates from either linux sites or M$.
Re:netcat (Score:2)
Well, don't I feel foolish. Always assumed by the URL(http://www.l0pht.com/~weld/netcat/) that nc was their doing. I'd heard of hobbit, but for some reason assumed he was part of the l0pht.
*Feeling very, very, sheepish right now.*
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Antivirus software holes (Score:3)
Re:netcat (Score:2)
Yeah, I noticed. Feel pretty stupid about the whole thing. Duh.
--Dan
Crypto-Phreakishness (Score:3)
Specifically, do you think that advances in computer horsepower has weakened the security of the current generation of crypto, as it relates to finding BIG prime numbers for the purpose of factoring.
Is media attn. a fad, can hacking be incorporated? (Score:2)
Two, do you believe hacking can be incorporated? Packet Storm has been bought by Knoll-O'Gara as you know. Is it plausible that previously taboo security information repositories/experts will become obtained/retained by corporations in the future?
many thanks.
What engines/sites do you use to scour the 'Net? (Score:5)
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going."
The future of IT workers: domination? (Score:2)
--GAck
Re:Security? (Score:2)
How I'd go about giving it maximum security.
(Disclaimer: I've never actually set up a server running more than HTTP + FTP + POP3)
This should, at best, prevent anyone from messing with the machine at all. At worst, if someone does get in, they shouldn't be able to do anything - anything at all.
Re:Reply to this letter. (Score:3)
I was disappointed with Ray Malone's 12/25 letter to the editor. Speaking as a hacker and security enthusiast of 17 years, allow me to educate Mr. Malone on hacking and open source.
First of all, viruses have nothing at all to do with hacking. Virus writers are not hackers in any sense of the word, they're merely vandals. But semantics aside, virus scanners that look for virus "fingerprints" can't be fooled by making the virus appear to be something else. The virus' fingerprint still exists in the code. At any rate, Mr. Malone is discussing individual programs here and not the operating system, which is the part that would be open source.
Mr. Malone goes on to say, "So with the Windows source code, the hacker could write a program that on June 1, 2001, swaps all bank balances." Yes, if the hacker had a database full of bank balances to work with in the first place, I suppose. And his modified source would only run on his system and any other system whose owner was duped into installing it. Other systems wouldn't be affected.
The real fun begins with this gem from Mr. Malone: "Every programmer I have ever met has always left himself a back door into every system he writes." I find this an extremely interesting perspective, considering that every single programmer I know does NOT leave a back door in ANY code. Given that Mr. Malone works for MBS Software (according to his letter), I take his words to mean that MBS products contain security holes by way of programmed "back doors," and I will accordingly caution consumers not to purchase anything from MBS until such time as they secure their software.
Mr. Malone then warns "Microsoft bashers" to beware, lest they get what they wished for. I don't know about him, but I've been wishing for stable, secure products for years, and Microsoft has yet to deliver. I am fortunate that the open source movement--pioneered by such products as the 32-bit multitasking, multithreaded, stable-as-a-rock, open source operating system known as Linux--is making such a large impact on the computer industry. Otherwise, we'd have 10 more years of Microsoft "innovation" to look forward to.
L0pht BBS (Score:2)
Large Gov'ment Automated Keyword Scan System (Score:2)
Adaptive Pseudo-Biological Security (Score:3)
We've been working on network theory for a while and an idea which we've been working on recently is adaptive system and network security that models the identification and proaction of a biological immune system.
Basically, the security system all incoming and outgoing traffic, processes, etc. As it analyzes a network configuration, it 1) adapts to that network and covers potentials holes from the start, 2) learns from and builds immunity to network attacks, hostile processes, and general system errors such as buffer overflows. Many security systems are, to a point, adaptive to their environment, but I have yet to see a security design that is adaptive/intelligent enough to configure itself to "live" within an environment and to become intelligently symbiotic with that environment.
How much work have you done with highly adaptive security systems, and do you foresee adaptive security becoming a working reality within the next decade?
Accountability vs Privacy (Score:2)
With IPv6 on the horizon, and with a larger variety of software phoning home, this may soon become a large privacy issue. Most of the advances being made here are for the purpose of security (read "inspiring fear of being watched")and anti-piracy ("squeeze 'em for their last cent"). What immediate and/or long term effects do you see coming out of this?
Will it take a lawsuit? (Score:2)
What would happen if a large corporation sued another large corporation for a security weakness that was exploited and caused damage (loss of data / bad publicity / etc.)? Once other corporate lawyers begin to smell the blood, do you think this would force software manufactures to pay attention to security during the design stage?
Although various white-hat hacker groups (Oops! network security experts) continue expose design flaws and security weaknesses in numerous software products, government spokespersons and the media contine to blame "hackers" for all the nation's woes. Some news reports would have us believe that "hackers" can collapse etire economies with a single mouse-click.
Government agencies promise to prosecute "to the full extent of the law" a teenager that "hacks" into a non-classified, non-critical web site without even questioning the company that provides the flawed software. Operating systems and applications are purchased without a thought to security issues, yet companies are able to demand that those programs be "Y2K-compliant".
Imagine that a large company installed a security system in hundreds of banks across the country, but it was soon discovered (and widely publicized for years) that the alarms do not work from midnight to 1:00 a.m.! Suppose a criminal broke in and stole $249 dollars. Where would your efforts be expended? In prosecuting the the petty thief, the security company or both? Certainly not the thief alone?!
What will force a change in thinking? Money?
Re:Reply to this letter. (Score:2)
I'm sure this is the kind of in depth programming genius that helped them produce a completely DOS and Windows compatable operating system of their very own. And it even extends the functionality of Windows itself! This is a great country where two brothers working in a garage in Ohio can change the world...oh, sorry I was thinking of the Wright brothers...nevermind.
Question on your history (Score:2)
Random Numbers... (Score:2)
Do you see a potential increase in these random number "hacks" in the future, as more and more programmers use supposedly random numbers without a clue as to how they were generated and vulnerabilities in this process?
Re:Security Through Arbitrarity: libnc? (Score:2)
Well, speaking of snobbery, sniffing loudly that I used "arbitrarity" instead of "arbitrariness" is pretty f*cking high up there
Anyway, as long as we're having a rousing semantic discussion, check this out:
Security Through...
Obscurity, not Obscureness
Impossibility, not Impossibleness
Predictability, not Predictableness
That being said, I'd rather not my writing be interpreted as "dry". I'll work on that--last thing I want to do is bore or annoy people with something as relatively small as simple style.
Keep me posted, preferably through email.
--Dan
Security Hoaxes (Score:3)
Combine extreme paranoia about web site security, a money stream coming straight out of PR Maintenance, and a "get-rich-quick" mentality that infuses Internet businesses, and you get an environment rife for the creation of snake oil cures and security systems that work by seeing to the financial security of the software authors.
Of course, the natural defense to such hucksterism is the presence of groups such as yours. What are some of the products and techniques that you've seen, debunked, and felt you intelligence insulted by?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:Internet Worm II (Score:2)
OpenBSD? (Score:2)
I have heard many times that L0pht uses OpenBSD almost exclusively for their servers. Is that true? If so, could you please explain why (in a more detailed manner that just the obvious "it's been audited for security...") and also tell us if you contribute code back to OpenBSD.
Thanks!