"L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu> writes:

Anyway, this letter is an attempt to find a topic that someone will not flame me about, and is relevant to the cypherpunk list as I understand it!

Phiber Optik --

I have been watching the trial of Mark Abene, aka Phiber Optik, closely, and I think I even fowarded articles on it to the cypherpunks once. This is a very fascinating trial. We learn, for example, of the first use of wiretaps for digital data (modem communications) for a successful prosecution. Also, we learned about how LOD (Legion of Doom) -- or was it MOD, Masters of Deception, I get all these criminal organizations mixed up! -- infiltrated phone systems. I think I even heard in one news report that some in the group performed illicit wiretaps.

Although some people on this list could care less about the details, since you confused the two ex-hacking groups, I feel the need to set the record straight. It was MOD *not* LOD that phiber has been recently affiliated with. MOD was in my opinion a malicious group of hackers who used their knowlege and abilities to relentlessly harass people, wreak havoc on computer systems and networks by shirking the 'hacker ethic' of not causing damage, and allegedly to perpetrate various forms of fraud and theft. Please note that Phiber Optik was probably the most mellow one of the MOD and having spoke with him a number of times, it seems that he is not a malicious type. IMHO his mistake was teaching his 'friends' in the group how to do certain things without regard to what they intended to do with that knowlege. LOD was a whole different type of group. If you want to classify us as a criminal organization due to gaining unauthorized access into various computers and networks over the years, fine. But the LOD maintained a high standard of ethical behavior in the way of not intentionally causing damage to computer system, not violating people's privacy for the sole purpose of harassment or fraud, and the overall mentality of spreading knowlege and information to those who were interested. Obviously those ethics were warped as none of the ex-members that I am in contact with (erik bloodaxe - editor of Phrack, the marauder, Lord Digital and Deal Lord - Mindvox owners, etc.) believe that unauthorized access to computers is/was right nor legal. I am not defending what we did all those years ago, but just clarifying the degree to which we were involved. To make this clear, gaining unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal and wrong under just about any circumstance. Violating a person or company's privacy is wrong also, even if it was done out of curiousity or a thirst for knowlege. One other thing, it was reported in the press a number of times that there was some sort of war between hacker groups. I think this is silly and although I had 'retired' by 1989 which was about the time a lot of the alleged MOD activity took place, my version is that there was no 'war'. There are always personality conflicts between people and arguements between erikb and phiber appears to have been blown way out of proportion as usually happens when things get reported by the press.

I find this *fascinating*. Can anyone elaborate to me the wiretapping that was going on? who did they wiretap? how did they do it? how did they avoid detection? more importantly, have the phone systems been upgraded or modified to be protected from this kind of extremely insidious crime?

One of the things some MOD members allegedly did was gain access to certain key computer systems that controlled various functions of BT's Tymnet packet switching network. There are some systems that allow a privileged user to monitor network traffic (XRAY for example), by gaining access to these systems and knowing the correct commands, one can 'wiretap'. It should be noted, if you read through the old hacker BBS message bases (which you can do if you contact lod communications who is compiling messages from the very first phreak boards such as Modem Over Manhattan and 8BBS circa 1980 up through boards such as the Phoenix Project circa 1989/1990, see the review of the project in Autumn 1993 issue of 2600 or CuD #5.39 for more details or email lodcom@mindvox.phantom.com) that the LOD had access to those same systems years before MOD was around, and no one was the wiser simply because it was more of an exploration of the systems as opposed to an exploitation of the systems. I for one operated on the premise that if I didn't know what a certain command did, I did not type it in. That kind of caution allows you to explore and learn as safely as possible by helping to avoid accidental damage. As for tapping phone lines, most any reader of the cypherpunks list can do this physically. What the MOD *may* have done (or use the word allegedly if you like), is to gain access to certain phone company systems, such as LMOS (Loop Maintenance Operating System) which allow a person who has a privileged account and the correct commands and syntax, to REMOTELY monitor phone lines. The phone company does this for repair and maintenance reasons and not to spy on subscribers. As we all know, most technologies can be used for reasons other than for what they were originally intended, this being a classic example. As for avoiding detection, if one had access to the Switching Control systems, they would be able to do a whole host of other things from putting traces on subscribers served by the particular switch to seeing if there were any 'traces' on their lines. In addition, putting call forwarding onto a network access port number and then forwarding calls to their computer, would allow the perpetrator to gain untold amounts of usernames/passwords for systems on whichever network they forwarded the calls from.

I read in `Cyberpunk' by K.Hafner and J.Markoff (the latter my favorite cyberspatial writer) that K. Mitnick in California also had this capability of wiretapping, and used it in an extremely sophisticated way. Apparently he actually tapped the lines of police stations and knew when they were coming, or knew when they had detected or `sniffed' his own illegal wiretapping. Did this happen? or is all of this rumor?

Back in 1984 or so, a fellow lod member, The Blue Archer, dealt a lot with Mitnick (using the handle The Condor if I remember correctly). I specifically recall speaking with Blue Archer when he told me to not discuss certain things for fear that Condor was listening to his line remotely. Not only this, but Condor gave Blue Archer a phone number in California that forwarded to his real phone number which was located 1000 miles east. This number lasted for a long time and somehow there was never any billing associated with this long distance forwarding situation. Therefore, I believe the above happened and was not rumor. What is interesting is that he was capable of this type of technology manipulation nearly a decade ago. Condor/Mitnick was one of the 'best' there ever was, but it appears that he used his knowlege and abilities in ways that he probably should not have.

I remember Phiber Optik posting to *this list* on the subject of phone wiretapping. I think he might have been a bit too knowledgeable for his own good, eh? What ever happened to K. Mitnick, anyway? He did serve federal time, I know that. I remember reading that story and thinking -- here is someone we should keep our eyes on, even after he is out of prison, *especially* when he is out!

Conspiracy Charges --

Another question. I understand that Mr. Abene was charged with `conspiracy' or at least that was one of the charges involved in the whole affair, perhaps against others. My question: what is the legal criterion for a `conspiracy'? what are the penalties? did Abene actually get successfully prosecuted for `conspiring'? what was the conspiracy? Did it have anything to do with the wiretapping?what are famous conspiracy cases? I'm sure that some cypherpunks may be knowledgeable on these subjects. I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone in asking. Mr. Finney posted some outstanding analyses of the ITAR (which I subsequently incorporated into a RISKS article), for example, so there is definitely some strong legal background here.

please cc: your replies to me or I may not see them.

Reply was cc'd to you. Lex