Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Pure Bollocks Issue 22_021
-------------------------------------------------------------
* C Y B E R S P A C E * A N D * I T ' S
-------------------------------------------------------------
* L E G A L * I M P L I C A T I O N S *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning Hackers Who Break into Computer Systems
Dorothy E. Denning
Digital Equipment Corp., Systems Research Center
130 Lytton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301
415-853-2252, denning@src.dec.com
Abstract
A diffuse group of people often called "hackers" has been characterized as
unethical, irresponsible, and a serious danger to society for actions related
to breaking into computer systems. This paper attempts to construct a picture
of hackers, their concerns, and the discourse in which hacking takes place. My
initial findings suggest that hackers are learners and explorers who want to
help rather than cause damage, and who often have very high standards of
behavior. My findings also suggest that the discourse surrounding hacking
belongs at the very least to the gray areas between larger conflicts that we
are experiencing at every level of society and business in an information age
where many are not computer literate. These conflicts are between the idea that
information cannot be owned and the idea that it can, and between law
enforcement and the First and Fourth Amendments. Hackers have raised serious
issues about values and practices in an information society. Based on my
findings, I recommend that we work closely with hackers, and suggest several
actions that might be taken.
1. Introduction
The world is crisscrossed with many different networks that are used to deliver
essential services and basic necessities -- electric power, water, fuel, food,
goods, to name a few. These networks are all publicly accessible and hence
vulnerable to attacks, and yet virtually no attacks or disruptions actually
occur.
The world of computer networking seems to be an anomaly in the firmament of
networks. Stories about attacks, breakins, disruptions, theft of information,
modification of files, and the like appear frequently in the newspapers. A
diffuse group called "hackers" is often the target of scorn and blame for these
actions. Why are computer networks any different from other vulnerable public
networks? Is the difference the result of growing pains in a young field? Or is
it the reflection of deeper tensions in our emerging information society?
There are no easy or immediate answers to these questions. Yet it is important
to our future in a networked, information-dependent world that we come to grips
with them. I am deeply interested in them. This paper is my report of what I
have discovered in the early stages of what promises to be a longer
investigation. I have concentrated my attention in these early stages on the
hackers themselves. Who are they? What do they say? What motivates them?
What are their values? What do that have to say about public policies
regarding information and computers? What do they have to say about computer
security?
From such a profile I expect to be able to construct a picture of the
discourses in which hacking takes place. By a discourse I mean the invisible
background of assumptions that transcends individuals and governs our ways of
thinking, speaking, and acting. My initial findings lead me to conclude that
this discourse belongs at the very least to the gray areas between larger
conflicts that we are experiencing at every level of society and business, the
conflict between the idea that information cannot be owned and the idea that it
can, and the conflict between law enforcement and the First and Fourth
Amendments.
But, enough of the philosophy. On with the story!
2. Opening Moves
In late fall of 1989, Frank Drake (not his real name), Editor of the now
defunct cyberpunk magazine W.O.R.M., invited me to be interviewed for the
magazine. In accepting the invitation, I hoped that something I might say
would discourage hackers from breaking into systems. I was also curious about
the hacker culture. This seemed like a good opportunity to learn about it.
The interview was conducted electronically. I quickly discovered that I had
much more to learn from Drake's questions than to teach. For example, he asked:
"Is providing computer security for large databases that collect information on
us a real service? How do you balance the individual's privacy vs. the
corporations?" This question surprised me. Nothing that I had read about
hackers ever suggested that they might care about privacy. He also asked:
"What has [the DES] taught us about what the government's (especially NSA's)
role in cryptography should be?" Again, I was surprised to discover a concern
for the role of the government in computer security. I did not know at the
time that I would later discover considerable overlap in the issues discussed
by hackers and those of other computer professionals.
I met with Drake to discuss his questions and views. After our meeting, we
continued our dialog electronically with me interviewing him. This gave me the
opportunity to explore his views in greater depth. Both interviews appear in
"Computers Under Attack," edited by Peter Denning [DenningP90].
My dialog with Drake increased my curiosity about hackers. I read articles and
books by or about hackers. In addition, I had discussions with nine hackers
whom I will not mention by name. Their ages ranged from 17 to 28.
The word "hacker" has taken on many different meanings ranging from 1) "a
person who enjoys learning the details of computer systems and how to stretch
their capabilities" to 2) "a malicious or inquisitive meddler who tries to
discover information by poking around .. possibly by deceptive or illegal means
..." [Steele83] The hackers described in this paper satisfy both of these
definitions, although all of the hackers I spoke with said they did not engage
in or approve of malicious acts that damage systems or files. Thus, this paper
is not about malicious hackers. Indeed, my research so far suggests that there
are very few malicious hackers. Neither is this paper about career criminals
who, for example, defraud businesses, or about people who use stolen credit
cards to purchase goods. The characteristics of many of the hackers I am
writing about are summed up in the words of one of the hackers: "A hacker is
someone that experiments with systems... [Hacking] is playing with systems and
making them do what they were never intended to do. Breaking in and making
free calls is just a small part of that. Hacking is also about freedom of
speech and free access to information -- being able to find out anything.
There is also the David and Goliath side of it, the underdog vs. the system,
and the ethic of being a folk hero, albeit a minor one."
Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation who calls himself a
hacker according to the first sense of the word above, recommends calling
security-breaking hackers "crackers" [Stallman84]. While this description may
be more accurate, I shall use the term "hacker" since the people I am writing
about call themselves hackers and all are interested in learning about computer
and communication systems. However, there are many people like Stallman who
call themselves hackers and do not engage in illegal or deceptive practices;
this paper is also not about those hackers.
In what follows I will report on what I have learned about hackers from
hackers. I will organize the discussion around the principal domains of
concerns I observed. I recommend Meyer's thesis [Meyer89] for a more detailed
treatment of the hackers' social culture and networks, and Meyer and Thomas
[MeyerThomas90] for an interesting interpretation of the computer underground
as a postmodernist rejection of conventional culture that substitutes "rational
technological control of the present for an anarchic and playful future."
I do not pretend to know all the concerns that hackers have, nor do I claim to
have conducted a scientific study. Rather, I hope that my own informal study
motivates others to explore the area further. It is essential that we as
computer security professionals take into account hackers' concerns in the
design of our policies, procedures, laws regulating computer and information
access, and educational programs. Although I speak about security-breaking
hackers as a group, their competencies, actions, and views are not all the
same. Thus, it is equally important that our policies and programs take into
account individual differences.
In focusing on what hackers say and do, I do not mean for a moment to set aside
the concerns of the owners and users of systems that hackers break into, the
concerns of law enforcement personnel, or our own concerns as computer security
professionals. But I do recommend that we work closely with hackers as well as
these other groups to design new approaches and programs for addressing the
concerns of all. Like ham radio operators, hackers exist, and it is in our
best interest that we learn to communicate and work with them rather than
against them.
I will suggest some actions that we might consider taking, and I invite others
to reflect on these and suggest their own. Many of these suggestions are from
the hackers themselves; others came from the recommendations of the ACM Panel
on Hacking [Lee86] and from colleagues.
I grouped the hackers' concerns into five categories: access to computers and
information for learning; thrill, excitement and challenge; ethics and avoiding
damage; public image and treatment; and privacy and first amendment rights.
These are discussed in the next five subsections. I have made an effort to
present my findings as uncritical observations. The reader should not infer
that I either approve or disapprove of actions hackers take.
3. Access to Computers and Information for Learning
Although Levy's book "Hackers" [Levy84] is not about today's security-breaking
hackers, it articulates and interprets a "hacker ethic" that is shared by many
of these hackers. The ethic includes two key principles that were formulated
in the early days of the AI Lab at MIT: "Access to computers -- and anything
which might teach you something about the way the world works -- should be
unlimited and total," and "All information should be free." In the context in
which these principles were formulated, the computers of interest were research
machines and the information was software and systems information.
Since Stallman is a leading advocate of open systems and freedom of
information, especially software, I asked him what he means by this. He said:
"I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By 'free' I am
not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and
to adapt it to one's own uses." By "generally useful" he does not include
confidential information about individuals or credit card information, for
example. He further writes: "When information is generally useful,
redistributing it makes humanity wealthier no matter who is distributing and no
matter who is receiving." Stallman has argued strongly against user interface
copyright, claiming that it does not serve the users or promote the
evolutionary process [Stallman90].
I asked hackers whether all systems should be accessible and all information
should be free. They said that it is OK if some systems are closed and some
information, mainly confidential information about individuals, is not
accessible. They make a distinction between information about security
technology, e.g., the DES, and confidential information protected by that
technology, arguing that it is the former that should be accessible. They
said that information hoarding is inefficient and slows down evolution of
technology. They also said that more systems should be open so that idle
resources are not wasted. One hacker said that the high costs of communication
hurts the growth of the information economy.
These views of information sharing seem to go back at least as far as the 17th
and 18th Centuries. Samuelson [Samuelson89] notes that "The drafters of the
Constitution, educated in the Enlightenment tradition, shared that era's legacy
of faith in the enabling powers of knowledge for society as well as the
individual." She writes that our current copyright laws, which protect the
expression of information, but not the information itself, are based on the
belief that unfettered and widespread dissemination of information promotes
technological progress. (Similarly for patent laws which protect devices and
processes, not the information about them.) She cites two recent court cases
where courts reversed the historical trend and treated information as ownable
property. She raises questions about whether in entering the Information Age
where information is the source of greatest wealth, we have outgrown the
Enlightenment tradition and are coming to treat information as property.
In a society where knowledge is said to be power, Drake expressed particular
concern about what he sees as a growing information gap between the rich and
poor. He would like to see information that is not about individuals be made
public, although it could still be owned. He likes to think that companies
would actually find it to their advantage to share information. He noted how
IBM's disclosure of the PC allowed developers to make more products for the
computers, and how Adobe's disclosure of their fonts helped them compete
against the Apple-Microsoft deal. He recognizes that in our current political
framework, it is difficult to make all information public, because complicated
structures have been built on top of an assumption that certain information
will be kept secret. He cites our defense policy, which is founded on secrecy
for military information, as an example.
Hackers say they want access to information and computing and network resources
in order to learn. Both Levy [Levy84] and Landreth [Landreth89] note that
hackers have an intense, compelling interest in computers and learning, and
many go into computers as a profession. Some hackers break into systems in
order to learn more about how the systems work. Landreth says these hackers
want to remain undiscovered so that they can stay on the system as long as
possible. Some of them devote most of their time to learning how to break the
locks and other security mechanisms on systems; their background in systems and
programming varies considerably. One hacker wrote "A hacker sees a security
hole and takes advantage of it because it is there, not to destroy information
or steal. I think our activities would be analogous to someone discovering
methods of acquiring information in a library and becoming excited and perhaps
engrossed."
We should not underestimate the effectiveness of the networks in which hackers
learn their craft. They do research, learn about systems, work in groups,
write, and teach others. One hacker said that he belongs to a study group with
the mission of churning out files of information and learning as much as
possible. Within the group, people specialize, collaborate on research
project, share information and news, write articles, and teach other about
their areas of specialization. Hackers have set up a private system of
education that engages them, teaches them to think, and allows them to apply
their knowledge in purposeful, if not always legal, activity. Ironically,
many of our nation's classrooms have been criticized for providing a poor
learning environment that seems to emphasize memorization rather than thinking
and reasoning. One hacker reported that through volunteer work with a local
high school, he was trying to get students turned on to learning.
Many hackers say that the legitimate computer access they have through their
home and school computers do not meet their needs. One student told me that
his high school did not offer anything beyond elementary courses in BASIC and
PASCAL, and that he was bored by these. Hans Huebner, a hacker in Germany who
goes by the name Pengo, wrote in a note to the RISKS Forum [Huebner89] : "I was
just interested in computers, not in the data which has been kept on their
disks. As I was going to school at that time, I didn't even have the money to
buy [my] own computer. Since CP/M (which was the most sophisticated OS I could
use on machines which I had legal access to) didn't turn me on anymore, I
enjoyed the lax security of the systems I had access to by using X.25 networks.
You might point out that I should have been patient and wait[ed] until I could
go to the university and use their machines. Some of you might understand that
waiting was just not the thing I was keen on in those days."
Brian Harvey, in his position paper [Harvey86] for the ACM Panel on Hacking,
claims that the computer medium available to students, e.g., BASIC and floppy
disks, is inadequate for challenging intellectual work. His recommendation is
that students be given access to real computing power, and that they be taught
how to use that power responsibly. He describes a program he created at a
public high school in Massachusetts during the period 1979-1982. They
installed a PDP-11/70 and let students and teachers carry out the
administration of the system. Harvey assessed that putting the burden of
dealing with the problems of malicious users on the students themselves was a
powerful educational force. He also noted that the students who had the skill
and interest to be password hackers were discouraged from this activity because
they also wanted to keep the trust of their colleagues in order that they could
acquire "superuser" status on the system.
Harvey also makes an interesting analogy between teaching computing and
teaching karate. In karate instruction, students are introduced to the real,
adult community. They are given access to a powerful, deadly weapon, and at
the same time are taught discipline and to not abuse the art. Harvey
speculates that the reason that students do not misuse their power is that they
know they are being trusted with something important, and they want to live up
to that trust. Harvey applied this principle when he set up the school system.
The ACM panel endorsed Harvey's recommendation, proposing a three-tiered
computing environment with local, district-wide, and nation-wide networks.
They recommended that computer professionals participate in this effort as
mentors and role models. They also recommended that outside of schools,
government and industry be encouraged to establish regional computing centers
using donated or re-cycled equipment; that students be apprenticed to local
companies either part-time on a continuing basis or on a periodic basis; and,
following a suggestion from Felsenstein [Felsenstein86] for a "Hacker's
League," that a league analogous to the Amateur Radio Relay League be
established to make contributed resources available for educational purposes.
Drake said he liked these recommendations. He said that if hackers were given
access to powerful systems through a public account system, they would
supervise themselves. He also suggested that Computer Resource Centers be
established in low-income areas in order to help the poor get access to
information. Perhaps hackers could help run the centers and teach the members
of the community how to use the facilities. One of my colleagues suggested
cynically that the hackers would only use this to teach the poor how to hack
rich people's systems. A hacker responded by saying this was ridiculous;
hackers would not teach people how to break into systems, but rather how to use
computers effectively and not be afraid of them. In addition, the hackers I
spoke with who had given up illegal activities said they stopped doing so when
they got engaged in other work.
Geoff Goodfellow and Richard Stallman have reported that they have given
hackers accounts on systems that they manage, and that the hackers have not
misused the trust granted to them. Perhaps universities could consider
providing accounts to pre-college students on the basis of recommendations from
their teachers or parents. The students might be challenged to work on the same
homework problems assigned in courses or to explore their own interests.
Students who strongly dislike the inflexibility of classroom learning might
excel in an environment that allows them to learn on their own, in much the way
that hackers have done.
4. Thrill, Excitement, and Challenge
One hacker wrote that "Hackers understand something basic about computers, and
that is that they can be enjoyed. I know none who hack for money, or hack to
frighten the company, or hack for anything but fun."
In the words of another hacker, "Hacking was the ultimate cerebral buzz for me.
I would come home from another dull day at school, turn my computer on, and
become a member of the hacker elite. It was a whole different world where
there were no condescending adults and you were judged only by your talent. I
would first check in to the private Bulletin Boards where other people who were
like me would hang out, see what the news was in the community, and trade some
info with people across the country. Then I would start actually hacking. My
brain would be going a million miles an hour and I'd basically completely
forget about my body as I would jump from one computer to another trying to
find a path into my target. It was the rush of working on a puzzle coupled
with the high of discovery many magnitudes intensified. To go along with the
adrenaline rush was the illicit thrill of doing something illegal. Every step I
made could be the one that would bring the authorities crashing down on me. I
was on the edge of technology and exploring past it, spelunking into electronic
caves where I wasn't supposed to be."
The other hackers I spoke with made similar statements about the fun and
challenge of hacking. In SPIN magazine [Dibbel90], reporter Julian Dibbell
speculated that much of the thrill comes from the dangers associated with the
activity, writing that "the technology just lends itself to cloak-and-dagger
drama," and that "hackers were already living in a world in which covert action
was nothing more than a game children played."
Eric Corley [Corley89] characterizes hacking as an evolved form of mountain
climbing. In describing an effort to construct a list of active mailboxes on a
Voice Messaging System, he writes "I suppose the main reason I'm wasting my
time pushing all these buttons is simply so that I can make a list of something
that I'm not supposed to have and be the first person to accomplish this." He
said that he was not interested in obtaining an account of his own on the
system. Gordon Meyer says he found this to be a recurring theme: "We aren't
supposed to be able to do this, but we can" -- so they do.
One hacker said he was now working on anti-viral programming. He said it was
almost as much fun as breaking into systems, and that it was an intellectual
battle against the virus author.
5. Ethics and Avoiding Damage
All of the hackers I spoke with said that malicious hacking was morally wrong.
They said that most hackers are not intentionally malicious, and that they
themselves are concerned about causing accidental damage. When I asked Drake
about the responsibility of a person with a PC and modem, his reply included
not erasing or modifying anyone else's data, and not causing a legitimate user
on a system any problems. Hackers say they are outraged when other hackers
cause damage or use resources that would be missed, even if the results are
unintentional and due to incompetence. One hacker wrote "I have ALWAYS strived
to do NO damage, and inconvenience as few people as possible. I NEVER, EVER,
EVER DELETE A FILE. One of the first commands I do on a new system is disable
the delete file command." Some hackers say that it is unethical to give
passwords and similar security-related information to persons who might do
damage. In the recent incident where a hacker broke into Bell South and
downloaded a text file on the emergency 911 service, hackers say that there was
no intention to use this knowledge to break into or sabotage the 911 system.
According to Emmanuel Goldstein [Goldstein90], the file did not even contain
information about how to break into the 911 system.
The hackers also said that some break-ins were unethical, e.g., breaking into
hospital systems, and that it is wrong to read confidential information about
individuals or steal classified information. All said it was wrong to commit
fraud for personal profit.
Although we as computer security professionals often disagree with hackers
about what constitutes damage, the ethical standards listed sound much like our
own. Where the hackers' ethics differs from the standards adopted by most in
the computer security community is that hackers say it is not unethical to
break into many systems, use idle computer and communications resources, and
download system files in order to learn. Goldstein says that hacking is not
wrong: it is not the same as stealing, and uncovers design flaws and security
deficiencies [Goldstein89].
Brian Reid speculates that a hacker's ethics may come from not being raised
properly as a civilized member of society, and not appreciating the rules of
living in society. One hacker responded to this with "What does 'being brought
up properly' mean? Some would say that it is 'good' to keep to yourself, mind
your own business. Others might argue that it is healthy to explore, take
risks, be curious and discover." Brian Harvey [Harvey86] notes that many
hackers are adolescents, and that adolescents are at a less developed stage of
moral development than adults, where they might not see how the effects of
their actions hurt others. Larry Martin [Martin89] claims that parents,
teachers, the press, and others in society are not aware of their
responsibility to contribute to instilling ethical values associated with
computer use. This could be the consequence of the youth of the computing
field; many people are still computer illiterate and cultural norms may be
lagging behind advances in technology and the growing dependency on that
technology by businesses and society. Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce speculate that
the cultural normative messages about the use and abuse of computer technology
have been driven by the adaption of criminal laws [HollingerLanza-Kaduce88],
which have been mainly in the last decade. They also speculate that hacking
may be encouraged during the process of becoming computer literate. Some of my
colleagues say that hackers are irresponsible. One hacker responded "I think
it's a strong indication of the amount of responsibility shown that so FEW
actually DAMAGING incidents are known."
But we must not overlook that the differences in ethics also reflect a
difference in philosophy about information and information handling resources;
whereas hackers advocate sharing, we seem to be advocating ownership as
property. The differences also represent an opportunity to examine our own
ethical behavior and our practices for information sharing and protection. For
example, one hacker wrote "I will accept that it is morally wrong to copy some
proprietary software, however, I think that it is morally wrong to charge $6000
for a program that is only around 25K long." Hence, I shall go into a few of
the ethical points raised by hackers more closely. It is not a simple case of
good or mature (us) against bad or immature (hackers), or of teaching hackers a
list of rules.
Many computer professionals argue the moral questions by analogy, e.g., see
Martin [Martin89]. The analogies are then used to justify their judgement of a
hacker's actions as unethical. Breaking into a system is compared with
breaking into a house, and downloading information and using computer and
telecommunications services is compared with stealing tangible goods. But, say
hackers, the situations are not the same. When someone breaks into a house,
the objective is to steal goods, which are often irreplaceable, and property is
often damaged in the process. By contrast, when a hacker breaks into a system,
the objective is to learn and avoid causing damage. Downloaded information is
copied, not stolen, and still exists on the original system. Moreover, as
noted earlier, information has not been traditionally regarded as property.
Dibbel [Dibbel90] says that when the software industries and phone companies
claim losses of billions of dollars to piracy, they are not talking about goods
that disappear from the shelves and could have been sold.
We often say that breaking into a system implies a lack of caring for the
system's owner and authorized users. But, one hacker says that the ease of
breaking into a system reveals a lack of caring on the part of the system
manager to protect user and company assets, or failure on the part of vendors
to warn managers about the vulnerabilities of their systems. He estimated his
success rate of getting in at 10-15%, and that is without spending more than an
hour on any one target system. Another hacker says that he sees messages from
vendors notifying the managers, but that the managers fail to take action.
Richard Pethia of CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) reports that they
seldom see cases of malicious damage caused by hackers, but that the break-ins
are nevertheless disruptive because system users and administrators want to be
sure that nothing was damaged. (CERT suggests that sites reload system software
from secure backups and change all user passwords in order to protect against
possible back doors and Trojan Horses that might have been planted by the
hacker. Pethia also noted that prosecutors are generally called for government
sites, and are being called for non-government sites with increasing
frequency.) Pethia says that break-ins also generate a loss of trust in the
computing environment, and may lead to adoption of new policies that are
formulated in a panic or management edicts that severely restrict connectivity
to outside systems. Brian Harvey says that hackers cause damage by increasing
the amount of paranoia, which in turn leads to tighter security controls that
diminish the quality of life for the users. Hackers respond to these points by
saying they are the scapegoats for systems that are not adequately protected.
They say that the paranoia is generated by ill-founded fears and media
distortions (I will return to this point later), and that security need not be
oppressive to keep hackers out; it is mainly making sure that passwords and
system defaults are well-chosen.
Pethia says that some intruders seem to be disruptive to prove a point, such as
that the systems are vulnerable, the security personnel are incompetent, or
"it's not nice to say bad things about hackers." In the N.Y. Times, John
Markoff [Markoff90] wrote that the hacker who claimed to have broken into Cliff
Stoll's system said he was upset by Stoll's portrayal of hackers in "The
Cuckoo's Egg" [Stoll90]. Markoff reported that the caller said: "He [Stoll]
was going on about how he hates all hackers, and he gave pretty much of a one-
sided view of who hackers are."
"The Cuckoo's Egg" captures much of the popular stereotypes of hackers.
Criminologist Jim Thomas criticizes it for presenting a simplified view of the
world, one where everything springs from the forces of light (us) or of
darkness (hackers) [Thomas90]. He claims that Stoll fails to see the
similarities between his own activities (e.g., monitoring communications,
"borrowing" monitors without authorization, shutting off network access without
warning, and lying to get information he wants) and those of hackers. He
points out Stoll's use of pejorative words such as "varmint" to describe
hackers, and Stoll's quote of a colleague: "They're technically skilled but
ethically bankrupt programmers without any respect for others' work -- or
privacy. They're not destroying one or two programs. They're trying to wreck
the cooperation that builds our networks." [Stoll90, p. 159] Thomas writes "at
an intellectual level, [Stoll] provides a persuasive, but simplistic, moral
imagery of the nature of right and wrong, and provides what -- to a lay reader
-- would seem a compelling justification for more statutes and severe penalties
against the computer underground. This is troublesome for two reasons. First,
it leads to a mentality of social control by law enforcement during a social
phase when some would argue we are already over-controlled. Second, it invokes
a punishment model that assumes we can stamp out behaviors to which we object
if only we apprehend and convict a sufficient number of violators. ... There
is little evidence that punishment will in the long run reduce any given
offense, and the research of Gordon Meyer and I suggests that criminalization
may, in fact, contribute to the growth of the computer underground."
6. Public Image and Treatment
Hackers express concern about their negative public image and identity. As
noted earlier, hackers are often portrayed as being irresponsible and immoral.
One hacker said that "government propaganda is spreading an image of our being
at best, sub-human, depraved, criminally inclined, morally corrupt, low life.
We need to prove that the activities that we are accused of (crashing systems,
interfering with life support equipment, robbing banks, and jamming 911 lines)
are as morally abhorent to us as they are to the general public."
The public identity of an individual or group is generated in part by the
actions of the group interacting with the standards of the community observing
those actions. What then accounts for the difference between the hacker's
public image and what they say about themselves? One explanation may be the
different standards. Outside the hacking community, the simple act of breaking
into systems is regarded as unethical by many. The use of pejorative words
like "vandal" and "varmint" reflect this discrepency in ethics. Even the word
"criminal" carries with it connotations of someone evil; hackers say they are
not criminal in this sense. Katie Hafner notes that Robert Morris, who was
convicted of launching the Internet worm, was likened to a terrorist even
though the worm did not destroy data [Hafner90].
Distortions of events and references to potential threats also create an image
of persons who are dangerous. Regarding the 911 incident where a hacker
downloaded a file from Bell South, Goldstein reported "Quickly, headlines
screamed that hackers had broken into the 911 system and were interfering with
emergency telephone calls to the police. One newspaper report said there were
no indications that anyone had died or been injured as a result of the
intrusions. What a relief. Too bad it wasn't true." [Goldstein90] In fact,
the hackers involved with the 911 text file had not broken into the 911 system.
The dollar losses attributed to hacking incidents also are often highly
inflated.
Thomas and Meyer [ThomasMeyer90] say that the rhetoric depicting hackers as a
dangerous evil contributes to a "witch hunt" mentality, wherein a group is
first labeled as dangerous, and then enforcement agents are mobilized to
exorcise the alleged social evil. They see the current sweeps against hackers
as part of a reaction to a broader fear of change, rather than to the actual
crimes committed.
Hackers say they are particularly concerned that computer security
professionals and system managers do not appear to understand hackers or be
interested in their concerns. Hackers say that system managers treat them like
enemies and criminals, rather than as potential helpers in their task of making
their systems secure. This may reflect managers' fears about hackers, as well
as their responsibilities to protect the information on their systems.
Stallman says that the strangers he encounters using his account are more
likely to have a chip on their shoulder than in the past; he attributes this to
a harsh enforcer mentality adopted by the establishment. He says that network
system managers start out with too little trust and a hostile attitude toward
strangers that few of the strangers deserve. One hacker said that system
managers show a lack of openness to those who want to learn.
Stallman also says that the laws make the hacker scared to communicate with
anyone even slightly "official," because that person might try to track the
hacker down and have him or her arrested. Drake raised the issue of whether
the laws could differentiate between malicious and nonmalicious hacking, in
support of a "kinder, gentler" relationship between hackers and computer
security people. In fact, many states such as California initially passed
computer crime laws that excluded malicious hacking; it was only later that
these laws were amended to include nonmalicious actions [HollingerLanza-
Kaduce88]. Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce speculate that these amendments and other
new laws were catalyzed mainly by media events, especially the reports on the
"414 hackers" and the movie "War Games," which created a perception of hacking
as extremely dangerous, even if that perception was not based on facts.
Hackers say they want to help system managers make their systems more secure.
They would like managers to recognize and use their knowledge about design
flaws and the outsider threat problem. Landreth [Landreth89] suggests ways in
which system managers can approach hackers in order to turn them into
colleagues, and Goodfellow also suggests befriending hackers [Goodfellow83].
John Draper (Cap'n Crunch) says it would help if system managers and the
operators of phone companies and switches could coopererate in tracing a hacker
without bringing in law enforcement authorities.
Drake suggests giving hackers free access in exchange for helping with
security, a suggestion that I also heard from several hackers. Drake says that
the current attitude of treating hackers as enemies is not very conducive to a
solution, and by belittling them, we only cause ourselves problems.
I asked some of the hackers whether they'd be interested in breaking into
systems if the rules of the "game" were changed so that instead of being
threatened by prosecution, they were invited to leave a "calling card" giving
their name, phone number, and method of breaking in. In exchange, they would
get recognition and points for each vulnerability they discovered. Most were
interested in playing; one hacker said he would prefer monetary reward since he
was supporting himself. Any system manager interested in trying this out could
post a welcome message inviting hackers to leave their cards. This approach
could have the advantage of not only letting the hackers contribute to the
security of the system, but of allowing the managers to quickly recognize the
potentially malicious hackers, since they are unlikely to leave their cards.
Perhaps if hackers are given the opportunity to make contributions outside the
underground, this will dampen their desire to pursue illegal activities.
Several hackers said that they would like to be able to pursue their activities
legally and for income. They like breaking into systems, doing research on
computer security, and figuring out how to protect against vulnerabilities.
They say they would like to be in a position where they have permission to hack
systems. Goodfellow suggests hiring hackers to work on tiger teams that are
commissioned to locate vulnerabilities in systems through penetration testing.
Baird Info-Systems Safeguards, Inc., a security consulting firm, reports that
they have employed hackers on several assignments [Baird87]. They say the
hackers did not violate their trust or the trust of their clients, and
performed in an outstanding manner. Baird believes that system vulnerabilities
can be better identified by employing people who have exploited systems.
One hacker suggested setting up a clearinghouse that would match hackers with
companies that could use their expertise, while maintaining anonymity of the
hackers and ensuring confidentiality of all records. Another hacker, in
describing an incident where he discovered a privileged account without a
password, said "What I (and others) wish for is a way that hackers can give
information like this to a responsible source, AND HAVE HACKERS GIVEN CREDIT
FOR HELPING! As it is, if someone told them that 'I'm a hacker, and I REALLY
think you should know...' they would freak out, and run screaming to the SS
[Secret Service] or the FBI. Eventually, the person who found it would be
caught, and hauled away on some crazy charge. If they could only just ACCEPT
that the hacker was trying to help!" The clearinghouse could also provide this
type of service. hiring hackers to work on tiger teams that are commissioned to
locate vulnerabilities in systems through penetration testing. Baird Info-
Systems Safeguards, Inc., a security consulting firm, reports that they have
employed hackers on several assignments [Baird87]. They say the hackers did not
violate their trust or the trust of their clients, and performed in an
outstanding manner. Baird believes that system vulnerabilities can be better
identified by employing people who have exploited systems.
One hacker suggested setting up a clearinghouse that would match hackers with
companies that could use their expertise, while maintaining anonymity of the
hackers and ensuring confidentiality of all records. Another hacker, in
describing an incident where he discovered a privileged account without a
password, said "What I (and others) wish for is a way that hackers can give
information like this to a responsible source, AND HAVE HACKERS GIVEN CREDIT
FOR HELPING! As it is, if someone told them that 'I'm a hacker, and I REALLY
think you should know...' they would freak out, and run screaming to the SS
[Secret Service] or the FBI. Eventually, the person who found it would be
caught, and hauled away on some crazy charge. If they could only just ACCEPT
that the hacker was trying to help!" The clearinghouse could also provide this
type of service.
Hackers are also interested in security policy issues. Drake expressed concern
over how we handle information about computer security vulnerabilities. He
argues that it is better to make this information public than cover it up and
pretend that it does not exist, and cites the CERT to illustrate how this
approach can be workable. Other hackers, however, argue for restricting
initial dissemination of flaws to customers and users. Drake also expressed
concern about the role of the government, particularly the military, in
cryptography. He argues that NSA's opinion on a cryptographic standard should
be taken with a large grain of salt because of their code breaking role.
Some security specialists are opposed to hiring hackers for security work, and
Eugene Spafford has urged people not to do business with any company that hires
a convicted hacker to work in the security area [ACM90]. He says that "This is
like having a known arsonist install a fire alarm." But, the laws are such
that a person can be convicted for having done nothing other than break into a
system; no serious damage (i.e., no "computer arson") is necessary. Many of
our colleagues admit to having broken into systems in the past, e.g., Geoff
Goodfellow [Goodfellow83] and Brian Reid [Frenkel87]; Reid is quoted as saying
that because of the knowledge he gained breaking into systems as a kid, he was
frequently called in to help catch people who break in. Spafford says that
times have changed, and that this method of entering the field is no longer
socially acceptable, and fails to provide adequate training in computer science
and computer engineering [Spafford89]. However, from what I have observed,
many hackers do have considerable knowledge about telecommunications, data
security, operating systems, programming languages, networks, and cryptography.
But, I am not challenging a policy to hire competent people of sound character.
Rather, I am challenging a strict policy that uses economic pressure to close a
field of activity to all persons convicted of breaking into systems. It is
enough that a company is responsible for the behavior of its employees. Each
hacker can be considered for employment based on his or her own competency and
character.
Some people have called for stricter penalties for hackers, including prison
terms, in order to send a strong deterrent message to hackers. John Draper, who
was incarcerated for his activities in the 1970's, argues that in practice this
will only make the problem worse. He told me that he was forced under threat
to teach other inmates his knowledge of communications systems. He believes
that prison sentences will serve only to spread hacker's knowledge to career
criminals. He said he was never approached by criminals outside the prison, but
that inside the prison they had control over him.
One hacker said that by clamping down on the hobbyist underground, we will only
be left with the criminal underground. He said that without hackers to uncover
system vulnerabilities, the holes will be left undiscovered, to be utilized by
those likely to cause real damage.
Goldstein argues that the existing penalties are already way out of proportion
to the acts committed, and that the reason is because of computers
[Goldstein89]. He says that if Kevin Mitnick had committed crimes similar to
those he committed but without a computer, he would have been classified as a
mischief maker and maybe fined $100 for trespassing; instead, he was put in
jail without bail [Goldstein89]. Craig Neidorf, a publisher and editor of the
electronic newsletter "Phrack," faces up to 31 years and a fine of $122,000 for
receiving, editing, and transmitting the downloaded text file on the 911 system
[Goldstein90].
7. Privacy and the First and Fourth Amendments
The hackers I spoke with advocated privacy protection for sensitive information
about individuals. They said they are not interested in invading people's
privacy, and that they limited their hacking activities to acquiring
information about computer systems or how to break into them. There are, of
course, hackers who break into systems such as the TRW credit database.
Emanuel Goldstein argues that such invasions of privacy took place before the
hacker arrived [Harpers90]. Referring to credit reports, government files,
motor vehicle records, and the "megabytes of data piling up about each of us,"
he says that thousands of people legally can see and use this data, much of it
erroneous. He claims that the public has been misinformed about the databases,
and that hackers have become scapegoats for the holes in the systems. One
hacker questioned the practice of storing sensitive personal information on
open systems with dial-up access, the accrual of the information, the methods
used to acquire it, and the purposes to which it is put. Another hacker
questioned the inclusion of religion and race in credit records.
Drake told me that he was concerned about the increasing amount of information
about individuals that is stored in large data banks, and the inability of the
individual to have much control over the use of that information. He suggests
that the individual might be co-owner of information collected about him or
her, with control over the use of that information. He also says that an
individual should be free to withhold personal information, of course paying
the consequences of doing so (e.g., not getting a drivers license or credit
card). (In fact, all Federal Government forms are required to contain a
Privacy Act Statement that states how the information being collected will be
used and, in some cases, giving the option of withholding the information.)
Goldstein has also challenged the practices of law enforcement agencies in
their attempt to crack down on hackers [Goldstein90]. He said that all
incoming and outgoing electronic mail used by "Phrack" was monitored before the
newsletter was shutdown by authorities. "Had a printed magazine been shut down
in this fashion after having all of their mail opened and read, even the most
thick-headed sensationalist media types would have caught on: hey, isn't that a
violation of the First Amendment?" He also cites the shutdown of several
bulletin boards as part of Operation Sun Devil, and quotes the administrator of
the bulletin board Zygot as saying "Should I start reading my users' mail to
make sure they aren't saying anything naughty? Should I snoop through all the
files to make sure everyone is being good? This whole affair is rather
chilling." The administrator for the public system The Point wrote "Today,
there is no law or precedent which affords me ... the same legal rights that
other common carriers have against prosecution should some other party (you)
use my property (The Point) for illegal activities. That worries me ..."
About 40 personal computer systems and 23,000 data disks were seized under
Operation Sun Devil, a two-year investigation involving the FBI, Secret
Service, and other federal and local law enforcement officials. In addition,
the Secret Service acknowledges that its agents, acting as legitimate users,
had secretly monitored computer bulletin boards [Markoff90a]. Markoff reports
that California Representative Don Edwards, industry leader Mitchell Kapor, and
civil liberties advocates are alarmed by these government actions, saying that
they challenge freedom of speech under the First Amendment and protection
against searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Markoff asks: "Will
fear of hackers bring oppression?"
John Barlow writes "The Secret Service may actually have done a service for
those of us who love liberty. They have provided us with a devil. And devils,
among their other galvanizing virtues, are just great for clarifying the issues
and putting iron in your spine." [Barlow90] Some of the questions that Barlow
says need to be addressed include "What are data and what is free speech? How
does one treat property which has no physical form and can be infinitely
reproduced? Is a computer the same as a printing press?" Barlow urges those of
us who understand the technology to address these questions, lest the answers
be given to us by law makers and law enforcers who do not. Barlow and Kapor
are constituting the Computer Liberty Foundation to "raise and disburse funds
for education, lobbying, and litigation in the areas relating to digital speech
and the extension of the Constitution into Cyberspace."
8. Conclusions
Hackers say that it is our social responsibility to share information, and that
it is information hoarding and disinformation that are the crimes. This ethic
of resource and information sharing contrasts sharply with computer security
policies that are based on authorization and "need to know." This discrepancy
raises an interesting question: Does the hacker ethic reflects a growing force
in society that stands for greater sharing of resources and information -- a
reaffirmation of basic values in our constitution and laws? It is important
that we examine the differences between the standards of hackers, systems
managers, users, and the public. These differences may represent breakdowns in
current practices, and may present new opportunities to design better policies
and mechanisms for making computer resources and information more widely
available.
The sentiment for greater information sharing is not restricted to hackers. In
the best seller "Thriving on Chaos," Tom Peters [Peters87] writes about sharing
within organizations: "Information hoarding, especially by politically
motivated, power-seeking staffs, has been commonplace throughout American
industry, service and manufacturing alike. It will be an impossible millstone
around the neck of tomorrow's organizations. Sharing is a must." Peters
argues that information flow and sharing is fundamental to innovation and
competetiveness. On a broader scale, Peter Drucker [Drucker89] says that the
"control of information by government is no longer possible. Indeed,
information is now transnational. Like money, it has no 'fatherland.' "
Nor is the sentiment restricted to people outside the computer security field.
Harry DeMaio [DeMaio89] says that our natural urge is to share information, and
that we are suspicious of organizations and individuals who are secretive. He
says that information is exchanged out of "want to know" and mutual
accommodation rather than "need to know." If this is so, then some of our
security policies are out of step with the way people work. Peter Denning
[DenningP89] says that information sharing will be widespread in the emerging
worldwide networks of computers and that we need to focus on "immune systems"
that protect against mistakes in our designs and recover from damage.
I began my investigation of hackers with the question: who are they and what is
their culture and discourse? My investigation uncovered some of their
concerns, which provided the organizational structure to this paper, and
several suggestions for new actions that might be taken. My investigation also
opened up a broader question: What are the clashing discourses that the
hackers stand at the battle lines of? Is it owning or restricting information
vs. sharing information -- a tension between an age-old tradition of
controlling information as property and the Englightenment tradition of sharing
and disseminating information? Is it controlling access based on "need to
know," as determined by the information provider, vs. "want to know," as
determined by the person desiring access? Is it law enforcement vs. freedoms
granted under the First and Fourth Amendments? The answers to these questions,
as well as those raised by Barlow on the nature of information and free speech,
are important because they tell us whether our policies and practices serve us
as well as they might. The issue is not simply hackers vs. system managers or
law enforcers; it is a much larger question about values and practices in an
information society.
Acknowledgments
I am deeply grateful to Peter Denning, Frank Drake, Nathan Estey, Katie Hafner,
Brian Harvey, Steve Lipner, Teresa Lunt, Larry Martin, Gordon Meyer, Donn
Parker, Morgan Schweers, Richard Stallman, and Alex for their comments on
earlier versions of this paper and helpful discussions; to Richard Stallman for
putting me in contact with hackers; John Draper, Geoff Goodfellow, Brian Reid,
Eugene Spafford, and the hackers for helpful discussions; and Richard Pethia
for a summary of some of his experiences at CERT. The opinions expressed here,
however, are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the people
mentioned above or of Digital Equipment Corporation.
References
ACM90
"Just say no," Comm. ACM, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 1990, p. 477.
Baird87
Bruce J. Baird, Lindsay L. Baird, Jr., and Ronald P. Ranauro, "The Moral
Cracker?," Computers and Security, Vol. 6, No. 6, Dec. 1987, p. 471-478.
Barlow90
John Barlow, "Crime and Puzzlement," June 1990, to appear in Whole Earth
Review.
Corley89
Eric Corley, "The Hacking Fever," in Pamela Kane, V.I.R.U.S. Protection,
Bantam Books, New York, 1989, p. 67-72.
DeMaio89
Harry B. DeMaio, "Information Ethics, a Practical Approach," Proc. of the
12th National Computer Security Conference, 1989, p. 630-633.
DenningP89
Peter J. Denning, "Worldnet," American Scientist, Vol. 77, No. 5, Sept.-
Oct., 1989.
DenningP90
Peter J. Denning, Computers Under Attack, ACM Press, 1990.
Dibbel90
Julian Dibbel, "Cyber Thrash," SPIN, Vol. 5, No. 12, March 1990.
Drucker89
Peter F. Drucker, The New Realities, Harper and Row, New York, 1989.
Felsenstein86
Lee Felsenstein, "Real Hackers Don't Rob Banks," in full report on ACM
Panel on Hacking [Lee86].
Frenkel87
Karen A. Frenkel, "Brian Reid, A Graphics Tale of a Hacker Tracker," Comm.
ACM, Vol. 30, No. 10, Oct. 1987, p. 820-823.
Goldstein89
Emmanuel Goldstein, "Hackers in Jail," 2600 Magazine, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring
1989.
Goldstein90
Emmanuel Goldstein, "For Your Protection," 2600 Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 1,
Spring 1990.
Goodfellow83
Geoffrey S. Goodfellow, "Testimony Before the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Aviation, and Materials on the Subject of
Telecommunications Security and Privacy," Sept. 26, 1983.
Hafner90
Katie Hafner, "Morris Code," The New Republic, Feb. 16, 1990, p. 15-16.
Harpers90
"Is Computer Hacking a Crime?" Harper's, March 1990, p. 45-57.
Harvey86
Brian Harvey, "Computer Hacking and Ethics," in full report on ACM Panel on
Hacking [Lee86].
HollingerLanza-Kaduce88
Richard C. Hollinger and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, "The Process of
Criminalization: The Case of Computer Crime Laws," Criminology, Vol. 26,
No. 1, 1988, p. 101-126.
Huebner89
Hans Huebner, "Re: News from the KGB/Wiley Hackers," RISKS Digest, Vol. 8,
Issue 37, 1989.
Landreth89
Bill Landreth, Out of the Inner Circle, Tempus, Redmond, WA, 1989.
Lee86
John A. N. Lee, Gerald Segal, and Rosalie Stier, "Positive Alternatives: A
Report on an ACM Panel on Hacking," Comm. ACM, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 1986,
p. 297-299; full report available from ACM Headquarters, New York.
Levy84
Steven Levy, Hackers, Dell, New York, 1984.
Markoff90
John Markoff, "Self-Proclaimed 'Hacker' Sends Message to Critics," The New
York Times, March 19, 1990.
Markoff90a
John Markoff, "Drive to Counter Computer Crime Aims at Invaders," The New
York Times, June 3, 1990.
Martin89
Larry Martin, "Unethical 'Computer' Behavior: Who is Responsible?," Proc.
of the 12th National Computer Security Conference, 1989.
Meyer89
Gordon R. Meyer, The Social Organization of the Computer Underground,
Master's thesis, Dept. of Sociology, Northern Illinois Univ., Aug. 1989.
MeyerThomas90
Gordon Meyer and Jim Thomas, "The Baudy World of the Byte Bandit: A
Postmodernist Interpretation of the Computer Underground," Dept. of
Sociology, Northern Illinois Univ., DeKalb, IL, March 1990.
Peters87
Tom Peters, Thriving on Chaos, Harper & Row, New York, Chapter VI, S-3, p.
610, 1987.
Samuelson89
Pamela Samuelson, "Information as Property: Do Ruckelshaus and Carpenter
Signal a Changing Direction in Intellectual Property Law?" Catholic
University Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, Winter 1989, p. 365-400.
Spafford89
Eugene H. Spafford, "The Internet Worm, Crisis and Aftermath," Comm. ACM,
Vol. 32, No. 6, June 1989, p. 678-687.
Stallman84
Richard M. Stallman, Letter to ACM Forum, Comm. ACM, Vol. 27, No. 1, Jan.
1984, p. 8-9.
Stallman90
Richard M. Stallman, "Against User Interface Copyright" to appear in Comm.
ACM.
Steele83
Guy L. Steele, Jr., Donald R. Woods, Raphael A. Finkel, Mark R. Crispin,
Richard M. Stallman, and Geoffrey S. Goodfellow, The Hacker's Dictionary,
Harper & Row, New York, 1983.
Stoll90
Clifford Stoll, The Cuckoo's Egg, Doubleday, 1990.
Thomas90
Jim Thomas, "Review of The Cuckoo's Egg," Computer Underground Digest,
Issue #1.06, April 27, 1990.
ThomasMeyer90
Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer, "Joe McCarthy in a Leisure Suit:
(Witch)Hunting for the Computer Underground," Unpublished manuscript,
Department of Sociology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 1990;
see also the Computer Underground Digest, Vol. 1, Issue 11, June 16, 1990.
-------------------------------------------------
