Computer underground Digest Sun Jul 30, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 64 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: J

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Sun Jul 30, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 64 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson CONTENTS, #7.64 (Sun, Jul 30, 1995) File 1--Re: Intellectual Property (CuD 7.60, 7.51) File 2--A Much Different Carnegie Mellon "Cyberporn" Study File 3--EFF Newsletter Excerpt: Rimm Doesn't Testify File 4--(Another Internet Online Game File 5--felony conviction in Oregon v. Schwartz ("victim" = Intel) File 6--InfoWarCon '95 Program Info (fwd) File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jul 1995 16:23:01 +1000 From: "Brian Martin" Subject: File 1--Re: Intellectual Property (CuD 7.60, 7.51) Keith Graham in CuD #7.60 makes some thoughtful points in response to my article "Against intellectual property" (CuD #7.51). None of them, though, undercuts my original arguments. There is a strong tendency among those defending intellectual property (IP) to look only at its benefits and to ignore the benefits of not having IP. For example, in the case of movies it's easy to point to the big-budget movies that might not be made without IP. But without IP, there would be vastly greater opportunities for small producers, with a great flourishing of film production for niche audiences and different cultures around the world. These need not be low quality, as anyone who has attended a film festival should realise. Without the monopoly protection of IP, less money would flow to certain big producers, to be sure. But this would mean that more money would be available elsewhere, including for jobs for those who modify existing intellectual products. My article did not always distinguish between ideas and information products, but the distinction is not as great as it may at first appear. Certainly in the case of writing, ideas are not just altered but also in a real sense produced in the process of expressing them. In any case, my point applies in both cases. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have ownership of things that can be cheaply and easily copied. Does it really require an IP incentive to "clean up" a computer program? I suggest contacting the Free Software Foundation (gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu) to find out about its GNU Project. (It uses copyright basically to get around the constraints of copyright, a process that would be unnecessary without IP.) There's a vast amount of high-quality free software available. Some say that it's greater in quantity and quality than commercial software. I know of no impartial examination. The point is that the existence of such free software undermines the argument for IP. Dave Ljung (#7.60) presumes that because my ideas about IP don't seem to fit in a box called capitalism then they must fit in a box called socialism. Although this is a common way of thinking, it won't do. These boxes are misleading simplications. In addition, there are other options. Let's start with socialism. Presumably Dave Ljung means "actually (or formerly) existing socialism", a society such as the Soviet Union. I've long been an opponent of such systems of domination. But there are also many who favour varieties of libertarian socialism, in which people organise themselves locally to provide goods and services collectively, but there is no government. No full-scale society like this exists today, but there are many activities within existing societies that fit this picture, for example many voluntary organisations. Now for capitalism. Does this mean "actually existing capitalism", such as the economic system in the United States? If so, it is hardly a "free-market" society. There are enormous non-market powers exercised by the military, large corporations and professions, among others. John Kenneth Galbraith's "The New Industrial State", among many other works, shows that the US economy is dominated by the monopoly sector; the competitive sector picks up the pieces. The greatest support for IP comes from the monopoly sector and the government. Just have a look at Peter Drahos' article about lobbying for TRIPS ("Global property rights in information: the story of TRIPS at the GATT", Prometheus, June 1995, pp. 6-19). IP is a form of monopoly privilege, relying on protection by the state. If depending on the power of the state to prosecute people who make copies of articles or software is "capitalist", so be it. But it is worth noting that actually existing capitalism has been quite viable in many parts of the world without the scope of IP typically advocated by western governments today. On the other hand, it's possible to imagine a market system based on voluntary agreements, without the state, as spelled out in the journal The Voluntaryist (PO Box 1275, Gramling SC 29348, USA). In such a system, there would be no IP. Markets are not necessarily a better way to do things, even within capitalism. There used to be markets in people, called slavery. There are many other areas where most people would oppose having free markets, such as family members, human organs, university degrees, and lives. There is no intrinsic reason why there should be state intervention to create artificial markets in the monopoly privilege called IP. It is not my intention in these comments to argue the case for or against a particular economic system, but rather to criticise the assumption that "capitalism" requires IP and that not having IP implies "socialism". My arguments against IP are compatible with quite a range of visions of society. I made the case against IP precisely because IP is typically assumed, without argument, to be a good thing. I believe the issue deserves much more debate. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 14:53:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Jane Aronson Manning Subject: File 2--A Much Different Carnegie Mellon "Cyberporn" Study PITTSBURGH -- Is the average American family devouring pornographic materials on the Internet? HomeNet, a new study at Carnegie Mellon University of how ordinary families use the Internet concludes that families aren't big consumers of sexual information on computer networks. Nor do they seem likely to become avid readers. At the start of the HomeNet field trial in February, 1995, a panel of 50 families in the Pittsburgh area received Macintosh computers, a full Internet connection and Internet services including electronic mail and a World Wide Web browser. The families were also encouraged to explore electronic newsgroups, or discussion groups, on hundreds of topics where anyone can read and post messages to others. Detailed electronic audit trails were collected by the researchers to understand how the 150 individuals in these families used the Internet. (Subjects all signed consent forms, and the study went through internal CMU human-subjects review. No results are reported that could in any way attribute specific behaviors to specific individuals in the study.) So, what do ordinary people do with the Internet, and with Usenet newsgroups in particular, when they're there? o Our population of "regular people" here in Pittsburgh is far less interested in using the net as a way to access sexually-oriented material than the recently publicized Rimm study would seem to predict. And their interest is mostly transient: Most people who do, in fact, look at sexually oriented newsgroups do so only once or twice (over a period of months). Those who have looked at any particular sexually oriented newsgroup more than twice constitute less than 1/5th the sample population, and are mostly adult males and teenagers. And even for these people, their usage of sexually oriented groups is a relatively small portion of their overall activity with newsgroups. o Newsgroup usage results turn out to be highly sensitive to the sampling technique used. The HomeNet researchers sampled every 10 minutes. But if a one-week sample interval is used instead, it *appears* that sexually-oriented newsgroups and other occasionally-browsed newsgroups are twice as popular as they really are. The more you sample, the more fine-grained your results are, and the more fine-grained your results are, the less important sexually oriented newsgroups become. o Mostly, people browse newsgroups specific to their interests. Because there are many such specific newsgroups and diverse interests, few such groups show up in the "top 40". But in the aggregate, they far outrank the sexually-oriented groups in popularity. And local groups which allowed users to exchange information relevant to their day to day lives (e.g. "where's the easiest place in Pittsburgh to take the driver's license exam?") were by far the most popular. o "Lurking": among HomeNet users who both follow (have looked at 3 times or more) Usenet newsgroups and post to them, the median ratio of groups posted on to groups followed is 1:2 (i.e., among people who both read and post, people tend to post to about half as many groups as they read). If we include people who have never posted in the calculation, then the ratio drops to 1:10 (and in case you're wondering, only three HomeNet users have ever posted to a sexually oriented newsgroup). The HomeNet trial is expected to last three years. It is funded through grants from Carnegie Mellon University's Information Networking Institute, Bellcore, US West, Bell Atlantic, and the US Postal Service. For more information about HomeNet, contact Jane Manning at jane.manning@cmu.edu or 412-268-6186 or Robert Kraut at robert.kraut@cmu.edu or 412-268-7694. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 21:53:13 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Subject: File 3--EFF Newsletter Excerpt: Rimm Doesn't Testify Stanton McCandlish (mech@eff.org) wrote the attached article in the latest EFFector Online newsletter here. (Good article, Stanton!) It mentions how Mike Godwin was instrumental in uncovering the truth about the Rimm study. Following is an excerpt: -Declan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EFFector Online Volume 08 No. 14 July 26, 1995 editors@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 A July 24 hearing chaired by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) on the issues surrounding children's getting access to so-called "indecent" material on the Internet, did not go exactly as planned for the Senator. In the absence of Sen. Grassley's planned star witness -- a self-styled expert on online pornography named Martin Rimm -- ranking minority member Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) effectively controlled the hearing. Grassley's attempt to center his hearing on Rimm's controversial pornography study had backfired. Though the Iowa Senator had termed it the "only comprehensive study dealing with pornography in cyberspace", now, thanks to recent articles discussing the motives and ethics of its undergraduate author, Grassley was forced to disavow it: "Now under criticism, that study is under review as it should be." EFF lawyer Mike Godwin had taken the lead weeks before in coordinating efforts to challenge former CMU student Martin Rimm's "study" of sexually oriented material online and Time magazine's decision to promote it as the basis of a cover story on "cyberporn." Time has been widely criticized for promoting the study without allowing any prior critical review of it by independent experts. Working with EFF interns Beth Noveck and Ben Manevitz, Godwin had arranged for copies of the study to get into the hands of reporters and academics across the country. This in turn had generated press coverage that led both to the discrediting of the Rimm study (which is riddled with methodological flaws and unsupportable conclusions) and to Time magazine's seemingly unprecedented disavowal of its own cover story in a followup article only three weeks later.. [...] It is widely believed that the critical response to the Rimm article is what led to Rimm's removal last week from the witness list for the July 24 hearing sponsored by Sen. Grassley, who is sponsoring legislation purportedly aimed at protecting children from so-called "indecent" content online. At the hearing, Sen. Leahy commented that, "he [Rimm] got disinvited when the study that everyone embraced as gospel was a little bit less than that. I would expect any time now to see _Time_ say that even great media can be conned." In point of fact, _Time_ Senior Editor Philip Elmer-Dewitt has essentially done so, in public forums on the WELL, the online service where much of the dirt on the Rimm study was unearthed and examine. "The voice you didn't hear at that hearing," Godwin later said, "was that of would-be star witness Martin Rimm, who may have hoped his study would establish him as the national expert in online pornography." Once Rimm and his questionable study were discredited, Godwin said, "the hearing lost a lot of drama, but it gained a lot of balance." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 95 08:50:29 0000 From: Leigh Waters Subject: File 4--(Another Internet Online Game Electronews release from RayneWaters Studio Arts: Please publish where appropriate. IS IT THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS INTERNET GAME ON PLANET EARTH? Launch date is set for 9/1/95 for TREASURECHEST: QUEST 2000 I am designing an unusual and highly visual "internet game" that can be played by anyone online, ( but especially by aspiring artists) right off the internet. Players will email their interactive game parts as they play, so an active email account is helpful. It is not required, however. Finalists and winners receive cash prizes, free web sites, studio commissions from my graphics firm in Seattle, Washington, USA and some excellent exposure for their work if they are developing artists. The game will "launch" officially on 9/1/95, but some of the pages for it are already going up, although under construction. You should take a peek and spread the word. Visit the skeleton site to see a sneak preview of this outrageous and challenging game, which is called: TREASURECHEST: Quest 2000 http://www.colossus.net/rwsa/treasurechest/treasurechest.html Let me know what you think of the art. Sponsored by Leigh Waters, Owner and Founder of RayneWaters Studio Arts in Seattle http://www.halcyon.com/harleqnn/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 17:20:30 -0700 From: Randal L. Schwartz Subject: File 5--felony conviction in Oregon v. Schwartz ("victim" = Intel) Send email to fund@stonehenge.com to find out about my legal defense fund, and more importantly, to find out about how a person without malicious intent became a felon and faces jail time and stiff fines. There are implications here that can impact anyone working in the industry. (Content of message is ignored, although I sometimes read them.) print "Just another Perl hacker," # but not what the media calls "hacker!" :-) # legal fund: $3411.03 collected, $72879.50 spent; email fund@stonehenge.com for details -- Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 Keywords: Perl training, UNIX[tm] consulting, video production, skiing, flying Email: Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger merlyn@ora.com) Web: My Home Page! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 01:39:13 -0500 (CDT) From: Computer Underground Digest Subject: File 6--InfoWarCon '95 Program Info (fwd) Date--13 Jun 95 20:36:11 EDT From--"Bob Bales [NCSA]" <74774.1326@compuserve.com> To--BlindCopyReceiver:; Dear Colleague: Because of the interest you expressed in NCSAs Information Warfare Conference: Chaos on the Information Superhighway (held in Montreal in January '95), Dr. Kabay asked me to provide you with information about NCSAs upcoming conference InfoWarCon '95. I am enclosing the current version of the program. We hope to see you in Washington, DC in September; please redistribute this information widely: InfoWarCon '95 September 7-8, 1995 Stouffer Concourse Hotel Arlington, VA CONFERENCE OVERVIEW The Information Warfare Conference (InfoWarCon '95) is our third international conference dedicated to the exchange of ideas, policies, tactics, weapons, methodologies and defensive posture of Information Warfare on a local, national, and global basis. InfoWarCon will bring together international experts from a broad range of disciplines to discuss and integrate concepts in this rapidly evolving field. Attendees will intensely interact with the speakers and presenters as well as each other to increase each other's understanding of the interrelatedness of the topics. While there are many interpretations of Information Warfare by different groups, the current working definition we employ is: "Information Warfare is the use of information and information systems as weapons in a conflict where information and information systems are the targets". Information Warfare is broken down into three categories, and InfoWarCon speakers and attendees will interactively examine them all: Class I: Personal Privacy. "In CyberSpace, You Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent." The mass psychology of information. Privacy versus stability and law enforcement. Class II: Industrial and Economic Espionage. Domestic and international ramifications and postures in a globally networked, competitive society. Class III: Global Information Warfare. Nation-state versus Nation-state as an alternative to conventional warfare, the military perspective and terrorism. THE SPONSORS National Computer Security Association Winn Schwartau, Inter.Pact Robert Steele, OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS, Inc. CORPORATE SPONSORS (as of 6/13/95) IBM THE CONFERENCE The conference is designed to be interactive - with a healthy dialog between all participants. The contents and discussions will all be considered open source. - What is Information Warfare? - What Are the Targets? - Protecting the Global Financial Infrastructure - Military Perspectives on InfoWar - InfoWar Vs. Non-Lethal Warfare - Defending the U.S. Infrastructure - The Intelligence Community and Information - Open Source Intelligence - The Psychology of Information - Privacy Balances - Information As the Competitive Edge - International Cooperation - Denial of Service - Cyber-Terrorism - Offensive Terrorism - Offensive InfoWar Techniques - Defensive InfoWar Postures - Education and Awareness Training - Corporate Policy - Government Policy - Global Policy - Espionage - Export Controls of Information Flow - The Legal Perspective - The New Information Warriors Plenary sessions will accommodate all attendees, while the three break-out session rooms will provide for more intimate presentations and interactivity on topics of specific interests. * * * * * * * Tentative Agenda * * * * * * * Preliminary Schedule (Rev. 4; May 14, 1995) DAY I: Thursday, September 7, 1995 7:00 - 7:45 Continental Breakfast 7:45 - 8:00 Introductory Remarks: - Peter Tippett, NCSA - Robert Steele, OSS - Winn Schwartau, Inter.Pact 8:00 - 8:30 Keynote Address Admiral William Studeman, Asst Director of Central Intelligence "An Overview of the Threat from Information Warfare: An Intelligence Perspective" Morning Plenaries "What Is Information Warfare?" There is no consensus as to what Information Warfare means; everyone has a different definition and application which often suits specific agendas. The morning sessions are to provide attendees with a current review of what Information Warfare means to different people. 8:30 - 9:30 "The Government Perspective" How do the various military services see Information Warfare as fitting within their needs and mission? Moving information rapidly and efficiently to the modern soldier provides key battlefield advantage. How does lethal versus non-lethal warfare fit into their models? 9:30 - 10:30 "The Commercial View" The commercial sector sees Information Warfare from a different perspective. Business survival is top on the list. How do private sector leaders view Information Warfare from both a defensive and offensive standpoint? Government attendees will be especially interested in this session. 10:30 - 11:00 Morning Coffee Break 11:00 - 12:00 Breakout Sessions I Class I "Anti-Privacy Technology" This will be a hands-on demonstration of how to breach personal privacy, bug and eavesdrop on individuals and corporations. Attendees will see how easy it is to violate privacy, and how hard it is to detect such violations. Class II: "Industrial and Economic Espionage - An Update" What's new in the world or private spying? Front line experts will what's better and what's worse. Who's spying on whom? What are they looking for? What are their techniques and tools? What can you do to protect your organization from being a victim? Moderator: Jim Settle Former head of Natl. Computer Crime Squad, FBI - Larry Watson, DECA, FBI Class III "Magnetic Weapon Systems: Risks and Defenses" The first half will present an overview of the risks of HERF Guns, EMP/T Bombs and Magnetic Pulse Cannons (MPC). The attendee will learn how easy they are to build, and why increasingly sophisticated magnetic weapons will become a choice weapon for terrorists. The second half will describe fundamental approaches to defensive postures against such Class 3 Denial of Service Assaults. - Winn Schwartau, Interpact, Inc. - Don White, EMC 12:00 - 13:30 Working Lunch Luncheon Speech 12:30 - 13:00 (TBD) 13:30 - 14:30 Breakout Sessions I Class I "Well Managed Propaganda" The media is a powerful filter by which citizens and the government collect most of their information. Was the media a puppet of the US in the Gulf War? Does aggressive PR makes media policy? How can the media be used, or protect itself from being used? What do journalists have to say about their apparent control over what people hear and see? Moderated by: Neil Munro, Senior Editor, Washington Technology Class II "Should the US Spy on the World?" The US has been the target of economic and indutrial espionage by military allies and 'friendly' competitors such as France, Japan, Korea, Israel, Germany, Taiwan among others. With an estimated intelligence budget of $30 Billion and arguably the most proliferate and advanced technologies, should we turn our spying 'eyes' on our global neighbors for the benefit of American economic security? Or, are Mom and Apple Pie Americans above that? Class III "Practicing Defensive Information Warfare" Military lessons for the private sector This exciting session will show 'real time' security testing with an active Internet connection. The military has developed an arsonal of tools for penetration and monitoring and alerting users about intrusions. Commercial attendees will learn what life is like without these mechanisms, and how much more secure they can be with them - with a low increase in overhead. What steps are required to build a defensive posture, and just how much defense is enough? 14:30 - 15:00 Afternoon Coffee Break Afternoon Plenaries 15:00 - 15:30 "Denial of Service on Information Systems" Confidentiality Availability and Integrity, two of the three pinions of security have been technically solved with advanced encryption techniques. The third aspect, Availability remains unsolved because of daunting technical problems. What do DOS attacks look like? From the Civil-Cyber Disobedience to Accidental Acts God or Man, a failure of key system components can trigger a domino-like chain of collapses. This sessions examines the vulnerability of current US infrastructures and the application such techniques in offensive military applications. 15:30 - 16:00 "Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism" Terrorist attacks against the US are now occurring on our home ground. What can the modern terrorist do which will meet his goals of sowing fear and distrust? Key infrastructures such as power grids, communications and transportation systems are attractive targets for the terrorist minded Information Warrior. What are we doing in planned response? 16:00-17:00 "What Is the Role of Government in defending National Economies?" As evolving global conditions shift competitive value from military might to economic advantage, how should we redefine national security? The threats to the private sector increase and become more likely targets in information warfare of all three classes. What is, and what should the role of the military be in defending US interests both domestically and abroad? This session will provide plenty of time for audience involvement. 17:00 - 19:00 Cocktail Reception Most speakers will be available for more intimate groups chats,and authors will be available to sign books. Great opportunity to pursue those ideas with people from different disciplines. 19:00 - 21:00 Birds of a Feather Dinners "Dutch" dinners give attendees the chance to dig into more and more depth in areas of their particular interest. * * * * * DAY II: Friday, September 8, 1995 7:00 - 8:00 Continental Breakfast 8:00 - 8:30 Keynote II (TBD) 8:30 - 9:00 "Defending the Financial Infrastructure" Not only the US is concerned. The world's financial infrastructure are inextricably linked. If one portion is hurt, the rippling effect is immediate. Trillions and trillions of dollars are trade every day. What can Information Warriors do to the global spider-web of electronic money, and what defenses are in place? 9:00 - 9:30 "PsyOps" The military and intelligence community have practiced Psychological Operations against adversaries for decades. How is this done, and how well does it work? Does PsyOps also have a place in commercial ventures? 9:30 - 10:00 "CORE WARS: Practicing Information Warfare in Cyberspace" The Core War was invented by A.K. Dewdney from the University of Western Ontario, Canada. As fought today on the Internet, Core Wars represent the purest intellectual tests of pure strategy, tactics and capability. Battalions of software programs must genetically breed themselves for combat knowing that they will go up against fierce competition. Video examples will be used to portray how Core Wars is a working model for Information Warriors on the front lines. Chair: Stuart Rosenberg, University of Cologne, Germany Jo Seiler, University of Cologne, Germany 10:00 - 10:30 "Security By Obscurity: Point-Counterpoint" Should the threats and details of potential vulnerabilities and actual events be guarded under the shrouds of official government secrecy or corporate policy of denial? Or is open disclosure the best route for education, awareness and defense? How can one defend against the unknown? Strong arguments exist for all views. 10:30 - 11:00 Morning Coffee Break 11:00 - 12:00 Breakout Sessions I Class I "An Electronic Bill of Rights" Defining Privacy In Cyberspace How do we as a nation balance the privacy rights of the individual against the legitimate needs of the state, and in sync with the policies of our global trading partners? The views from three differing positions will stimulate a healthy audience-panelist dialogue. Moderated by: Andrew Grosso, Former Asst. US Attorney Scott Charney, DOJ Computer Crime Unit Class II: "The 'Third Wave' Approach to Managing Information Warfare: Building a Commercial War Room" Maximizing the flow and control of information's key to competitiveness - whether it be on the battlefield or in the marketplace. An innovative tool and approach to planning and managing information in these very intense, time-sensitive environment is the advent of "war rooms." These are dynamic facilities which are optimized to channel the collection, analysis and dissemination of information. 'War rooms' can be static or field-portable and vary in ergonomic layout and technical capability. This session will provide case studies on the use of war rooms in government and industry. State of the art automated war rooms will be described which feature the projection of computer-generated information. Tools and practices for knowledge discovery, processing and dissemination will help you understand how you go about planning and building a competitive intelligence War Room? Chair: Steve Shakar, KnowledgeBASE, Inc. Panel: Mark Gembecki, Technology and Security Oversight Consultant, US Dept of State Robert Beckman, Alta Analytics, Inc. Class III "International Cooperation" All countries have an interest in stability, but rising nationalism often transcends the greater good. While most countries are becoming militarily allied, we all remain competitively aggressive. 25% of the world's population control 75% of the wealth (The Haves) while nearly 4 billion people share the remaining 25% (The Have-Nots). Where is the balance, and at what point does Information Warfare become openly hostile? In an electronically border-less world, how do we collectively avoid getting to that point? 12:00 - 13:30 Working Lunch 12:30 - 13:00 Luncheon Speech What are the organizing principles for information security and the design basis of information systems and networks? The DII is mandated to provide information services to the war-fighter. The NII initiative is enhancing the economic posture of the US. The infrastructures are inter-related and the loss of either capability could have devastating effect on the economy and security of the United States. The GII will necessarily find similar challenges where all nations must develop a viable means of cooperation. This presentation outlines high level approaches to successful implementation. 13:30 - 14:30 Breakout Sessions Class I "The Legal Consequences: The Lawyers Are Coming, The Lawyers Are Coming." What are the legal rights of Cyber-citizens in the US and how do those relate to the laws in other countries? What is the real criminal and civil recourse and remedies to combat industrial espionage? How do we legally handle non-physically violent attacks against the interest of the US on our own soil or overseas? Get the views of the experts. Moderated by: Daniel Kuehl, PhD, Professor National Defense University Scott Charney, DOJ Computer Crime Unit Class II "Defending Against the Internet" The chaotic ravages of the Internet constantly knock at the doors of anyone or any company is connected. What do you have to do to protect your information resources? What have others done? Is it enough and what does the future bode? Chair: Kermit Beseke, President, Secure Computing Corp. John Nagengast, NSA, Deputy Chief of Network Security Class III "The First Information War" The military is attempting to build a global network where intelligence information from the field is fed back to a War Room, analyzed, decisions made, and then instructions sent back to the theater: almost in real time. How well does this work, and how far from reality is the Pentagon's dream? Chair: Mich Kabay, Ph.D., NCSA Alan D. Campen, Col. USAF (Ret.) Author, "The First Information War." Former Director of Command and Control Policy to the Undersecretary of Defense. 14:30-15:00 Afternoon Coffee Break 15:00 - 15:30 "Who Are The Information Warriors?" Who are the bad guys? Who has the capability and the motivation to wage any of the Three Classes of Information Warfare? It's time to name names. 15:30 - 16:00 "Hackers: National Resources or Criminal Kids" DEBATE Germany uses professional hackers for their domestic industrial and economic advantage. What about the US? The kindest words ever uttered by Mich Kabay, Ph.D., about hackers is, "Amoral, sociopathic scum." Robert Steele, President of Open Source Solutions, Inc. sees them as national resources, to be cultivated as a tool for US economic security. Do they have a value in the protection of the US infrastructure, or can their specific expertise be found elsewhere? After short opening statements, the audience will be encourage to ask provocative questions. Robert Steele, President, OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS, Inc. Mich Kabay, Ph.D. NCSA Dir of Education 16:00 - 17:00 "The Future of Information Warfare" Where do we go from here? After two intensive days of interaction, learning and listening, what's the next step? What do industry and the government have to do to better understand each other? What steps can each take to improve individual, corporate and national defensive postures? Chair: National Defense University 17:00 - 17:15 Closing remarks - Peter Tippett - Robert Steele - Winn Schwartau 17:15 - 19:00 No host reception. Hotel Information: Stouffer Concourse Hotel (Crystal City) 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 703-418-6800 Conference Fees: $495.00/445.00 - NCSA Members/OSS Attendees $595.00/545.00 - All others ($50.00 discount available if payment is received by July 1, 1995) ========================= InfoWarCon '95 Registration Form: Name: ___________________________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________________________ Org: ___________________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________ City: ___________________________________________________________ State: _______________________________ Zip: _____________________ Country: __________________________ Email: ________________________ Phone: __________________________ Fax: _________________________ FEES: Payment made BEFORE July 1, 1995: ( ) $445.00 NCSA Members/OSS Attendees ( ) $545.00 All others Payment made AFTER July 1, 1995: ( ) $495.00 NCSA Members/OSS Attendees ( ) $595.00 All others Make checks payable to NCSA, or Charge to: ( ) VISA ( ) MasterCard AMEX ( ) Number: ___________________________________________ Exp date: ___________________________ Signature: ___________________________________________ MAIL OR FAX REGISTRATION TO: National Computer Security Association 10 South Courthouse Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone 717-258-1816 or FAX 717-243-8642 EMAIL: 74774.1326@compuserve.com CompuServe: GO NCSAFORUM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CUDIGEST Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown) Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) JAPAN: ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~cudigest/ COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #7.64 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank