Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Network Information Access 60
Founded By: | _ _______
Guardian Of Time | __ N.I.A. _ ___ ___ Are you on any WAN? are
Judge Dredd | ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ you on Bitnet, Internet
------------------+ _____ ___ ___ ___ ___ Compuserve, MCI Mail,
Ø / ___ ___ ___ ___ ___________ Sprintmail, Applelink,
+---------+ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___________ Easynet, MilNet,
| 26OCT90 | ___ ______ ___ ___ ___ FidoNet, et al.?
| File 60 | ___ _____ ___ ___ ___ If so please drop us a
+---------+ ____ _ __ ___ line at
___ _ ___ elisem@nuchat.sccsi.com
Other World BBS __
Text Only _ Network Information Access
Ignorance, There's No Excuse.
Network Thought Machine [2]
Guardian Of Time And The Net
NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA
Early Apple Phreaking Days
Those that don't know, I was busted, back in 1980, and I will explain in this
file, what lead up to me being busted, what happened, how I got out of it.
1980, I got my first computer which was an Apple //e for a Xmas Present, and
I immediately started out in the world of Apple Phreaking. Thanks to a friend
of mine (The Mad Cracker (409) (BTW, How is Nuclear School? hehehe)), we began
our trail, meeting up w/ a person by the name of Joe Nowak from Michigan.
Joe was the person that taught both of us, who where just young pups at that
time, what Phreaking was, gave us the rules to follow, how to phreak, how to
hack, how to crack, everything.
I created my first handle, which was The Rammaster, as you can tell, I quickly
changed it to my present one. My friend, dreamt up the handle of The Mad
Cracker (even though at the time, he NEVER cracked anything that later
changed). We had our handles and we where ready for the Apple Pirate World.
Apple Pirates at that time, where the cream of the crop w/ Jack The Ripper,
Taran King running The Metal Shop AE, in Houston there was Wizzardry, Sub
Station Charlie, and the infamous Mines Of Moria (w/ the Tele Trials!), and
the 414 Group (busted for breaking into a Hospital Computer and altering
vital records), Phrack was just a dream to be made, and the ever so popular
Apple Cat Modems and running 10 megs with Ascii Express Professional.
Just for a side note, those of you who don't know what AE (Ascii Express) was,
it made all of us IBM people look bad for having Ratio's, for AE was LEECH and
LEECH it was, you would dial into an AE line, get the prompt, and then you
would have the capability (if your access was allowed), to d/l everything in
whatever disk drives or harddrives where set up. Meaning you could call and
d/l all of the latest game and never worry about Ratio's for the ratio was
set up something like 1 u/l for every 1000 d/ls or mostly they never had any
ratio's on there at all. As the year progressed, many AE lines became part
of BBS's (GBBS) as a door, and only the "Elite" or "Pirate Access" users would
have access to it. By 1982 most of the AE lines had gone away and left where
phrases like "running AE off of my 2 double sided double density 5 1/4 inch
disk drives". Those people where generally considered lame. Comparison would
be like calling up an Em/2 board running off of an IBM w/ 2 3 1/2 inch drives
and having PART of the latest game in the Xfer Section.
Those days people had massive parties, brought their Apples over and just did
MASSIVE coppying, for their copy protection was crude, and well with
Locksmith 5.0 you could crack just about everything under the sun. Pirating
was in, and phreaking was in, for there was not even a thought of ESS, or of
Operation Sundevil. Black Boxing was just being figured out, by the telco
company, and they figured out a way of "listening" for the device, but hey, w/
our trusty Apple Cat modems we just didn't send a pure 2600 htz tone and that
solved that problem, but then the Telco company got wise to that.
Well as years progressed, the phone company started getting their act together
there was rumors flying in and out of every major BBS that people where starting
to be arrested. The term 'BUSTED' came into play, which meant, being caught
by either the Feds, or by the Telco Company, while you where phreaking off of
their system. Also ESS was just starting to be testing in rural areas...
Soon BBS's started to go "private", the term "elite" no longer meant someone
w/ a special talent, or an infamous computer handle (Count Zero, Jack The
Ripper), the term started to apply to BBS's. The BBS initself, became "elite".
About the same time this was happening, BBS INFOFORMS came up, testing ones
ability. The idea at the time was to get onto said Elite BBS, you just passed
a simple test. Fill out this Questionaire and if you answered the questions
accurately then there was a chance you could get onto this Elite BBS. Problem
w/ that was shortly aftwards, Acronym Lists started floating around. Funny how
someone w/ absolutely no knowledge on a given subject, could pass the toughest
questionaire w/out blinking an eye.
How To Phreak files started to pop up everywhere, people where pumping out text
files left and right. Many people tested these files out w/out every thinking
of what they where doing, and again many people where caught by the phone co,
for being stupid.
As 1988 passed, the "Old Group" as most of us are now called, have either
pulled out or went into hiding. Many of the later 80's people are still
around, probably laughing at this file now (hehehehe, I am), and well it is
a shame, but what have we to look for?
Todays phreakers/hackers are uneducated people. I don't mean to sound like I
know what I'm doing b/c I don't either. I pulled out in 1983 and haven't
phreaked since. But as I scan BBS hacking/phreak bases I see the exact same
thing that was started back in 1983. The home computer was priced just right,
so just about every middle class person could afford one. People went out
bought one, bought a modem, and just started away at BBSing coming across those
dreaded Bad BBS's or those "Underground BBS's". People don't read the old text
files anymore, there where many ground rules laid down by many text file
magazines (Phrack, Lod, etc) you did a certain thing and not this, and the
reason why you don't do it THIS way is b/c you will get busted, yet people don't
read the warning label that says danger anymore why?
I was busted, as I mentioned earlier, but what happened? Nothing special, I got
this registered letter in the mail, which contained about 5 pages worth of BBS
numbers, I checked against my own records (I kept detailed records of what code
what service, what time and what BBS I called), narrowed down a 10,000.00$ bill
down to around 2500$. I don't remember the exact figures but it was around
those mentioned. If I refused to pay the bill, I would then appear in Galveston
County's local District Court. I mailed in a letter stating that I had made
only certain calls, attatched a sheet that contained all my codes used, numbers
dialed (fax machines where still in testing...), and they returned my letter
accepting the offfer I proposed to them.
Remember todays carders, phreakers, and hackers, are reckless, uncaring for
the system they aquire, the service they use, or the cards they card off of.
People are not what they used to be, times have changed, and they have changed
for the worse (my opinion), if we do not start re-educating people about what
to do and what not to do, and making sure that people do not abuse our knowledge
then Operation Sundevil will be a fairly common word etched in our minds.
People that card, don't be so damned stupid, carding to your house? Jesus, what
moron would do that? Someone w/ a modem and pc. Someone that is uneducated,
and someone that should be stopped.
I close this small file w/ a quote from a respected BBS User in our Community:
1980's Hacker: A person who hacked into a system w/ the sole intent on
learning the system, inside and out. To better educate
oneself, w/ no thought of harm or destructive means.
1990's Hacker: A person who hacks into a system w/ the sole intent of
destructive purposes. No benefit has come of this type
of hacker.
Today the word hacker means to break into a system for malice intent. Why
has this happened? I propose that question to you.
I hope that some of you will recall that more and more people are being busted,
it is no longer anyones fault, but YOUR own for being busted, the rules have
been layed down for years now, you just need to re-educate yourself and learn
something...
Guardian Of Time
NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA
"Whats In A Name? : Brad Templeton"
People keep trying to figure out what an electronic forum (or bulletin board)
is in traditional terms -- common carrier or publication.
I think that it is not analogous to any of the old forms, and a new type
of law has to be created to apply to it.
There are 4 types of BB today:
A) The completely open BB with no supervision (USENET newsgroup, some
BBS operations)
B) The supervised open BB. (most BBS, GEnie, CIS forums, etc.)
C) The heavily supervised BB. (Prodigy, moderated USENET group)
D) The fully edited electronic publication
D is a direct analog of the traditional publication. C is very close, but
not quite. A is close to the "common carrier" model, but does not match
it exactly. B has little analog in traditional publishing.
All four are of course(*) deserving of constitutional protection of free
speech. For all are published forms of expression.
The closest thing to A is common carrier or enhanced service provider
status, where the carrier is not liable for what is transmitted. However
there are many differences. For one, I have not heard of a "public broadcast"
common carrier, where messages are sent to arbitrary members of the public
who request the material. The closest analog might be Ham radio, although
Hams are licenced and thus not classed as general public. They are also
restricted in use. Of course "Ham radio" is a thing, not an organization.
In addition, most type A systems do have some controls and checks and
balances. They do not have the "service to anybody who asks is mandatory"
rule of common carriers.
I would view each individual author as the publisher, and the system owner
as a tool in this case. On the other hand, I would support the right of
system owners to restrict *who* has access, if not necessarily what they
say.
Type B is also a new animal. Such systems are supervised, but
supervised after-the-fact. ie. any user can post any message, but the
SYSOP/supervisor/moderator can delete things after the fact. The amount
of this deletion ranges from almost none to moderate. Sometimes it is
there as an option, but never actually practiced. This needs a new type
of law.
Type C is very close to a publication, and may not need a new type of law.
In this case, all messages must be approved before they go out -- ie. they
pass through a human being first. This is not too different from a
classical publication. However, in most such cases, the editors do not
truly act as editors. They merely select material based on appropriateness
to a forum. Only because the law requires it do they also sometimes
attempt to remove libel and criminal activity. The editors almost never
select material to match their own views, and it is not assumed that
postings reflect the editor's views.
Thus in A and B it is clear that the author is the publisher and the
system is the medium. In C the author and system operator are jointly
involved in publication. In D the system operator is the publisher, and
the author is just the author.
What new types of law? This we can discuss.
Type A:
Authors fully responsible for their postings. No liability
for SYSOP unless illegal activity deliberately encouraged.
(ie. "The Phone Phreak BBS" might have a liable SYSOP, but
"Joe's Amiga BBS" would not be liable if somebody posts a phone
credit card number.)
NO complete anonymity. Author's names need not be revealed in
the forum itself, but a record should exist for the authorities
in case of libel or other illegal activity by an author. The
sysop must maintain this list in return for the limit of SYSOP's
liability.
(Note SYSOPS still have the right to delete material, but not
the obligation.)
Type B:
Authors continue to be responsible for their postings. SYSOPS
responsible for illegal material which they are aware of but do
not delete in a timely fashion. Anonymity possible, if desired.
Type C:
Authors responsible together with SYSOPS for postings. If Author
warrants to SYSOP that material is legit, most liability goes to
Author. SYSOP must not permit any obviously illegal material,
and delete any material found to be illegal ASAP.
Type D:
Standard publication. No new law.
--
NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA
"Musing On Constituionality : Karl Lehenbauer"
In article <1990Sep20.221955.10879@spectrum.CMC.COM> lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars
Poulsen) writes:
>By analogy, it may not be unreasonable to hold the "publisher" (i.e. the
>owner/SYSOP) jointly liable with the poster for whatever appears on the
>bulletin board.
>Indeed, this may require that the SYSOP not allow unmoderated discussion
>except within closed user groups whose members have all signed a pledge
>of responsible behaviour and are all known to the SYSOP.
>Seems pretty reasonable to me ...
If this were the case, it would be the end of Usenet. Further, it would
have a chilling effect on free speech via bulletin boards. As a sysop,
I would have to be very careful to never allow anything out that was
in the least bit controversial, and would always want to err on the side of
not allowing a message to go out unless I was really sure there was no chance
of me getting in trouble for it.
Shouldn't the poster of the message be accountable for its contents?
Or by your reasoning, shouldn't the phone company have to listen to *all* the
phone conversations going on at any time to make sure nothing illicit was
being said, done or planned? They tried this in Eastern Europe, you know.
Further, this would be a new and time-consuming burden on sysops and introduce
potentially long delays in messages getting out.
If a sysop let a bad message go out and it was gatewayed to a bunch of other
machines, or one was forged or somehow illicitly injected into the network,
by your reasoning wouldn't the owner/sysops of all the machines the
message went to be liable? If that were the case, it would definitely be
the end, because nobody has the resources to monitor, for example, all the
traffic on the Usenet.
I used Prodigy several times, and it is a heavily censored system, i.e.
Prodigy's censors examine every article posted before it goes into the
message base, and people on it were complaining that the censors were
capricious, arbitrary and would not state reasons why specific articles
had been censored.
Not only is there nothing like talk.religion.*, talk.politics.*,
soc.motss on Prodigy (they dropped a forum in which fundamentalist Christians
and homosexuals and homosexual rights advocates were going at it, although
they claimed it was for a different reason), but you can't even mention
or talk about most products by name because advertising is a big part
of their revenue base (about 20% of your display is permanently dedicated
to advertising when using it -- ads are continually updated in this area the
whole time you're on) and they don't want anyone to get free advertising.
Consequently messages of the "Yeah, I bought a Frobozz 917 and it works really
well" are censored. If this is IBM's view of the future of personal
electronic communications (Prodigy is a joint-venture of IBM and Sears), and
there is every reason to believe it is since this is what they chose to
provide, it is a bleak future indeed. (The reason they do this, I think, is
that Prodigy is supposed to be a "family" system. Under your one account you
can set up logins for your other family members. So they don't want anything
in there that some kid is going to read. But that restricts everything on the
system to a very low common denominator, namely that every message must be so
inoffensive that *nobody* is going to be offended by it... and that is
censorship.
--
-- uunet!sugar!karl
-- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA
From ¤The Age, 12th October, 1990, Melbourne, Australia.
By Leon Gettler, Communications reporter.
Is it all over between PETA and LES since she found out about the
LEOPARD? Was SID linked to the MAFIA? And where did DRACULA fit into
all this? Was he really a VAMPIRE or just one of the DAGS?
Confused? Just consult the Telecom staff dictionary, an introduction
the to world of tele-babble. Insiders in every profession have their
jargon, but no one generates it faster than telecommunications
engineers.
Take, for instance the story of the chap sent to Cairns on an
emergency mission several years ago when the phone system was wiped
out by flood. He designed the Cairns restoration and provisioning
program. No prizes for working out the acronym. "It just rolled off
the tongue," said a Telecom official this week.
Step into the world of telecommunications and you find yourself in a
sea of acronyms and jargon. Some examples: DNA (does not answer), DND
(did not dial), MBC (major business customer), HC&F (heat, coil and
fuse), LIBFA (line bearer fault analysis), DELY (delivery), CIE
(customer interface equipment), PP (prompt public telephone) and TTT
(terminatng trunk tandem).
Traditionally, acronyms have been used to help us remember
terminology. Usage has transformed many into ordinary words.
Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services is always Qantas.
The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps gave us Anzac, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organisation is NATO.
But Telecom Australia seems to have done the reverse. It produced
DRACULA (data recording and concentrator unit for line applications),
VAMPIRE (videotex access monitoring and priority incident reporting
equipment), LEOPARD (local engineering operations processing and
analyses of recorded data), MAFIA (maintenance and fleet information
analysis), SULTAN (subscribers' universal line testing access
network), CARGO (complaints analysis recording and graphing
organisation), CATNAP (computer-aided network assessment program) and
DAGS (digit-absorbing group selector).
In many ways, Telecom employees are lucky. They can see PARIS
(product accounting and reporting information system) or even MARS
(microfiche auto-retrieval system). They don't even need a MAP
(manual assistance position), the work station for telephonists.
Telephone operators-turned-philosophers can turn to PLATO (programmed
evaluation review technique) over a few POTS (plain old telephone
services) of CIDER (costing input, data editing and reporting) or SODA
(service order debit advice). and romantics can contemplate EROS
(emitter-receiver for optical systems).
But things can get confusing, too. COLDEWS (computerised lines depot
external works scheduling) does not cover grass in the morning. And
TACONET is short for Telecom Australia computer network, not tapas
tucker. Similarly, CONTRAFAST is not a Nicaraguan health regime but
the consolidated trunk forecast.
Are Telecom employees happy with the ALP (associated line prime) after
the [Australian] Labor Party's national conference last month? And
does COM (computer output to microfilm) suggest that the reds have
escaped from under the beds and infiltrated the phone exchanges?
The names are also a worry. There are nine males (REX, JACK, SID,
DAVID, LARS, LES, LEN, MARC AND SAM) but only four females (PETA,
DAISY, DOT AND SUSIE). Koorie and other non-English names do not get
a mention. And what about the indelicacy of TART (TACONET
availability and response time monitoring) and TIT (technician in
training)?
----------------------
Don't blame me if my fingers did not type what my eyes saw!
Danny
[Moderator's Note: Thanks for taking the time to type in such a clever
report. Speaking of obscure acronyms, everyone must know of CARE, the
organization which provides assistance to other countries in need. But
do you remember what the letters mean? Committee on American Relief
in Europe. And lest we forget, the zip in the postal Zip Code refers
to the Zone Improvement Plan. Seriously. PAT]
NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA
"Vanessa Layne: Education And Cyberspace"
I *can* think of a (hopefully) beneficial use to young people of Cyberspace.
It all started with a high school aged student/friend of mine who had
dyslexia (one of many) and was diagnosed rather late in his school career...
Well, my friend had (after much sweat and tears and tutoring and really great
supportive parents, teachers and counsilors) learned to read at age level
ability, more or less. More, because he was very smart; less, because no matter
how wonderful your tutoring is, it can't make up for lost practice. In addition
,
(his greatest problem in fact) was that he just couldn't articulate his ideas
in print. He had trouble with literature because he was so busy reading the
words and just figuring out what the sentences said, he missed the relevence of
the give passage. Myself and another of his teachers and he discussed what woul
d
be the most helpful to him. We knew he needed practice reading sheer volumes of
text, good and bad, to learn differences in quality and style. We knew it shoul
d
be interesting (no Dickens [pardon me if *you're* a raving rabid Dickens fan,
but...]) about things that were immediately relevant, at least to the people
writing the material. The material had to be communicating its ideas rather
straight-forwardly, like a in a letter or essay. But it couldn't be plain
factual information...it had to communicate emotion, and demonstrate attemps to
convince the reader. And we knew he needed practice trying his own hand at
communicating, not just writing reports on what he had read, but real writing
trying to *communicate* his ideas and feelings. And he needed lots of feedback,
not just you missed a semicolon'' but What did you mean by THAT crack
mister?!'' He needed practice at honing an argument, and describing things
clearly and concisely.
So we got him an account.
One of the fascinating phenomina I have noticed, in myself and others, is how
much better a person becomes (usually) at communicating via print after
doing it over the net for a while. When a person first begins using newsgroups,
emailing lists, and (here at MIT) discuss and zephyr, usually s/he will try
to communicate by typing down what it was they (damnit, I *will* use the
plural for a gender indefinite pronoun) would have said out loud, if what
they were responding to were a spoken conversation. This tends to fail
miserably (though I have known people who always sounded funny when they
talked because they talked as they read and wrote, who then e-sounded' fine
here in Cyberspace). I once heard that 90% of all realtime communication is
via body language. I'm not so sure that is unreasonable. Certainly
printed-out speach is odd stuff. The raised eyebrows, which turned a demand
into a statement of mock-dismayed-disbelief, disappear. The turning up of
the lips which made an insult a friendly tease disappear. The grating pulled
out note of mockery which makes a bald statement into its very inverse
disappears. How many times have you seen what was originally supposed to be
sarcasm interpreted to be opposite of what the sender intended? Printed-out
speach is raw, and cold, and its impact is not lessened by any cloaking
tones: it does not pull its punches. So the culture here developed :) :( : ;)
:P and ///italics/// and *emphasis* and so forth to try to let the reader know
when the speaker'' would have done such things in realspace. But they are not
adequate for most of the subtleties people wish to get across. So they wind up
honing their skill with written English, often from reflex and not conscious
determination...you keep plugging away at the argument until 1) you are
understood 2) your account gets nuked enough that you decide it's not worth it.
First, usually, people figure out about the tone implicit in word choice
.
People, when speaking, and at first on the net, will vehemently deny such a thin
g
exists. But there is obvious difference between I think you are incorrect''
and I think you're wrong'' and that difference is in implied attitude. Next,
people seem to pick up on supporting arguments (like when you're nth grade teach
er
harassed you about writing essays w/ three paragraphs of support for your three
points?)...if you hear What makes you say that?!'' Who ever heard of such a
thing?'' Well *i've* seen...'' enough times, you begin to respond Well, whe
n
I...'' or I noticed...'' or Well haven't you seen...''
The more a person writes in Cyberspace, the more it seems s/he is able
to see the mood and point of other writers. Something in a person's subconsciou
s
goes gee, I said something in just that way when I was tired.'' People get
better at this.
If you are not clear in Cyberspace, someone is *going* to misunderstand
you (yes, someone will probably if you are clear as well, but no need to encoura
ge
it). If you are not concise (my sin [if you hadn't noticed]) your letter will
be flushed before it is read. If either happens you are GOING to be FLAMED. An
d
if you really gave a damn about what you were trying to tell people, you will
try again, on another tack, or clarifying your previous statements (all the whil
e
making mental notes not to let yourself be misunderstood the same way again,
unless it is a deliberate firestarter tactic). So people inprove, and surprizin
g
to say (for all those insulting Humanitites out there), people who use the net
for communication, get better at using the printed word, both to express
themselves and to glean the insights of other writing. I don't think it is
necessarily so that we'll all become Shakespears, but maybe it will help some
kids understand what he was saying about people.
Computers cannot solve nearly as many problems in education as many
teachers seem to hope, but surely Cyberspace is not evil, and may be a benefit
in varying degrees to those kids who need it. And certainly its computer
science benefits are not the only ones, and maybe not even it's greatest. Cyber
-
space is the greatest communications network in history to date, and perhaps
can help teach what today is that most relevant of skills: the use of the printe
d
word.
Vanessa Layne
dagoura@athena.mit.edu
NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA
"Triva Of A Hacker: Bob Bickford"
In article <748@public.BTR.COM> techie@public.BTR.COM (Bob Vaughan) writes:
>
>A friend of mine posed an interesting trivia question.
>
>What was the system manager password for the Burroughs 6700
>at the Universty Of The Pacific in 1977?
>
>This password was included in a utility program that the TA's used
>for job control (they weren't allowed to have the system manager
>password, so the program had a line that allowed the utility to
>run as the system manager)
>
>Please reply by email.
>
>Thanks in advance
>
I'm the friend. Here, I'll make this even easier:
1) The TA's utility was written in the Burroughs - specific variant of
the ALGOL language called "DCALGOL"; it used the construct
REPLACE MYSELF.USERCODE BY "XXXXXXX/YYYYY."
to change its permissions to the system manager's. The TA's were
very interested in the DCALGOL language; I distinctly recall being
in the computer center with them late one night as they waited
breathlessly for the compiler to come online so they could try
out an MCP-modifying program that they'd written. It worked, as
I recall, which was rather scary. (Yes, MCP means Master Control
Program, as in the movie TRON. No, I don't know if they were
thinking of the Burroughs machines when they wrote the movie.)
2) The name of the utility was "LOOKING-GOOD". When I obtained that
usercode/password combination, one of the things I did was to print
out a source-code listing of same, which I still have. (I was then
invited to the Dean's office for a morning chat.... ah, the trials
and irresponsibilities of youth.) I realize now, looking at it,
that it's *horribly* bad code, but in 1977 I didn't know any better.
3) I was at UOP from September of 1976 through January of 1978; the
password being queried about was in use in the Spring of 1977.
They changed it, obviously, after my little adventure.....
4) I obtained this totally by accident; I was curious as to how the
TA's utility worked, and printed out the object code. Before I
arrived at UOP, that was illegel and would crash the system every
time; I didn't know that and had crashed the system twice earlier
in the year by printing the wrong file. So they "fixed" it; what
you got was a page full of question-marks, with any quoted strings
from the source code appearing in cleartext form. So when I printed
out the object to LOOKING-GOOD, there were lots of strings lying
around in it, including one that said XXXXXXX/YYYYY. which I
immediately recognized as an ALGOL usercode/password string. So
I tried it...... and was immediately caught (but not before I'd
made a printout of the program, as mentioned above). When they
explained to me what the ramifications of having that knowledge
were, I got real scared.
BTW, the LOOKING-GOOD object file had the security attributes
"CLASSA-OUT" which meant that *anybody* could read it and print it
out as I had done. I pointed that fact out to them...... and the
Dean had a few hard words with the computer center manager. His
name was Jerry (no, that won't help you guess the password) but he
was later replaced by a friend whom I had introduced to the B6700
that year named Ed.
Ed helped me late one night to print out a voluminous system
logging file that also turned out to have lots of sensitive
security info in it; we left one copy of the printout on Jerry's
desk the next morning (Ed took the other, I don't think he ever
did anything with it) along with instructions that *any* user
could use to print the same thing out with. We were playful and
harmless; I gather that a year or so later some guys came along
that tried to repeat my stunt but with malign intent: they were
caught, and prosecuted.
I'm revealing all this now because I've finally stopped using that
password as my own on any system, and because it makes a rather
interesting challenge as a trivia question. A harmless one, too.
--
Robert Bickford ¤apple,pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax!well!rab
rab@well.sf.ca.us
"A Hacker is any person who derives joy from
discovering ways to circumvent limitations."
NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA---NIA
[OTHER WORLD BBS]
