[comp.org.eff.talk] Passwords/Intent to Defraud

vapspcx@prism.gatech.EDU (S. Keith Graham) (06/13/91)

Last I checked, having the ability to gain access to another
users account is not a crime.

Having the ability *with intent to defraud* is a crime.

At one point, I had the ability to gain root access 
on our primary system here at gatech.  Just because I know
the 50 keystrokes doesn't make me a felon (I do hope.  :)
(And I did report this to the system administrators here.)

(Incidentally, this almost certainly would have given me
the ability to break into other systems, as a number of people
have gatech's machines in their ".rhosts", probably including the 
system at UGA.  Because I had the ability to violate their 
security, does this mean they should have had me suspended?.)

In the same vein, possesion of access codes (passwords) is
not a crime.  (Nor is the ability to obtain these codes
from existing information, i.e. COPS, nor is the knowledge of how
to break security to gain access to accounts.)  If it were, all of the
best unix wizards would be in jail now.  :)

However, a friend of mine (who just got out of jail) will be happy
to tell you all about the felony count "Posession of 10 or more
access codes *WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD*".

In the case at UGA, it seems obvious that the student that was
suspended was assisting someone with intent to defraud, and was
aware of their motives.  He should therefore be treated as harshly
as the adminstrator would like (within the bounds of the law and 
university regulations.)

The sticky question arises when someone is running COPS, and you
have no idea how they intend to use the results.  (Or otherwise
"attempting to break security".)  Then the question becomes
"Are users/students innocent until proven guilty?"

I hope everyone (at least in this country) can answer "yes" to
that question.

Keith Graham
vapspcx@prism.gatech.edu

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (06/13/91)

I didn't say it was a CRIME for a non-sysadmin to run Cops and obtain
passwords, I said that we do not PERMIT it, i.e., it's against system
policy.

There has been a whole series of messages here in which people talk
about a fellow named "Michael Covington" whose opinions have little
resemblance to mine.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia  |  Athens, GA 30602   U.S.A.
-------------------------------------------------------

tighe@convex.com (Mike Tighe) (06/13/91)

In article <1991Jun13.152618.28383@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

>I didn't say it was a CRIME for a non-sysadmin to run Cops and obtain
>passwords, I said that we do not PERMIT it, i.e., it's against system
>policy.

I'd be interested to know what the policy is for the use of CPU time.
Surely if every user fired up a copy of COPS every morning when they logged
in, that would be a waste of resources. However, if users are billed for
their usage, sysadms would be less inclined to worry about how users waste
their time.

I would also like to know how many sysadms have had security problems
reported to them by users that have taken it upon themselves to find
security holes.

When I was in the systems group at a previous employer, I knew one person
who took it upon himself to be the guardian of the system. He wouldn't
hesitate to point things out to the sysadms (and hence 'prove' how smart he
was).  However, he often wouldn't tell them why it was a problem (after all
the sysadms couldn't be trusted). He just told them how to fix.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Tighe, Internet: tighe@convex.com, Voice: (214) 497-4206  
-------------------------------------------------------------

gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (06/14/91)

In article <1991Jun13.152618.28383@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

>I didn't say it was a CRIME for a non-sysadmin to run Cops and obtain
>passwords, I said that we do not PERMIT it, i.e., it's against system
>policy.

Why?

Why is it against policy to do something that's entirely legal?

Why is it against policy to do something that's entirely ethical?

Aren't you just demonstrating total lack of trust in your users? Such
an attitude is never good. Such policies can never be enforced. Such
policies are just plain bad.

Concentrate on the real problem, which is people doing things with
malicious intent.