TK0JUT2%NIU.BITNET@uicvm.uic.edu (06/26/90)
Many of us are still seething about the Infoworld blurb in "Notes from the Field." I have also received an inquiry about a newstory apparently reporting a recent press release in which AT&T is now claiming that hackers, not sofware, was responsible for the January long distance crash. I called a number of AT&T sources in the past few days. The most authoritative was Gary Morgenstern from the New Jersey public relations office, who has handled all the information regarding the crash of AT&T long distance service in January. He re-affirmed that the problem was caused by an error in the source code, the problem was replicated in the labratory, they fixed it, and it was replaced and working fine. He indicated that neither he nor anybody else from AT&T ever claimed that hackers were responsible. So: contrary to rumors that have come to us, there has been no press release put out, and AT&T stands unequivocally behind their statement. It also seems that Robert Cringely's account was inaccurate in many respects. First, the crash occured in January, not February; second, neither the LoD nor any other hacker was involved in the LD breakdown; third, the attempt to link LoD to the theft of sourcecode belies the facts in the Len Rose and other cases; fourth, the LD crash occured this year, but the Secret Service began their investigation two years ago (minor sequential gap here); Finally, the attempt to link both the unix source code and the publication of the E911 glossary belies the facts available from all sides of the issue. It's one thing to print a "rumor" column in which people can freely provide information without fear of retaliation. But when rumors fly in the face of existing facts readily checked, and when defendants may be forced to respond to irresponsible rumors, the purpose of such a column as Infoworld's should be challenged.