From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:33:48 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: IP: Analysis of a Hack: Why was NYT Different?
Message-ID: <199809260435.VAA11818@netcom13.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




From: believer@telepath.com
Subject: IP: Analysis of a Hack: Why was NYT Different?
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 04:09:43 -0500
To: believer@telepath.com

Source:  Online Journalism Review
http://olj.usc.edu/indexf.htm?/sections/

September 17, 1998

Analysis of a Hack
By Doug Thomas, Online Journalism Review Staff Columnist 
 
The following report is based in part on interviews conducted with Kevin
Mitnick and John Markoff, two key people whose names were invoked as part
of the September 13, 1998 hack of The New York Times Web site. 
 
On Sunday, September 13, a group calling themselves "Hackers for Girlies"
hacked into The New York Times Web site, forcing the Times to take its site
offline for nine hours - hours that happened to be on what was potentially
one of the paper's biggest days in the paper's online history. According to
the Times, traffic that was already up 35% on Saturday was expected to
double on Sunday, in large part due to The New York Times' coverage of the
Starr Report and the report's full text, which was also on the site. 
 
The hack, which was by all accounts a fairly sophisticated attack, is
different from most previous hacks in a number of ways. There have
previously been hacks of Web pages designed to express political
dissatisfaction. The Department of Justice Web page, for example, was
hacked in response to the passage
of the Communications Decency Act. Sites of both the Conservative and Labor
parties in Britain were hacked prior to elections. But this is the first
hacking incident - which could also be considered a political intervention
- where a major media outlet has been financially damaged over the public
perception that their coverage was unfair. 
 
At the heart of the dispute is the case of Kevin Mitnick, and at issue for
hackers is the question of Times technology reporter John Markoff's
coverage of Mitnick's case. Mitnick, who has served the last three and a
half years as a pre-trial detainee at the federal Metropolitan Detention
Center in Los Angeles, was the subject of several Times stories written by
Markoff. He was ultimately the subject of a best-selling novel co-authored
by Markoff and Tsutomu Shimomura, the San Diego-based security expert who
helped the FBI track and capture Mitnick. 
 
Hackers allege that Markoff used his position at the Times to hype the
story of Mitnick's arrest and capture - and to demonize Mitnick in the
public imagination. These perceptions, according to the hacker community,
account in large part for Mitnick's continued incarceration in a
maximum-security jail and his denial of the right to a bail hearing. He is
only four months from trial on a 25-count federal indictment for alleged
hacking. 

 In short, the message that hackers left on the Times Web site could be
boiled down to this: They feel that the way hackers are covered by the
mainstream media generally, and by The New York Times specifically, is
unfair. They are disturbed both by what is written about hackers, as well
as what stories are overlooked. 

 The battle over such representations continues to be played out in the
coverage of the hack itself. Mitnick learned of the Times hack through
local radio broadcast reports, some of which described it as an "act of
Internet terrorism" led by Mitnick. But Mitnick said in an interview that
he was upset both by the incident and the subsequent coverage of it. 
 
The message that the hackers left Sunday came in two parts: the page that
was displayed on the Times' Web site and the comments left in the HTML
code, which were far more articulate than the hacker-speak that
appeared on the surface. The hackers themselves indicate this in their P.S.
"0UR C0MMENTS ARE M0RE 'LEET THAN 0UR TEXT. DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE T0 TH1S
PAGE AND P0NDER 0UR W1ZD0M." It is in the comments embedded in the source
code that the hackers describe "the real meaning" of the page, including
supporting quotations from Tennyson, Voltaire and Milton. 
 
The hackers' central grievance stems from what they see as Markoff's
involvement in the pursuit and capture of Mitnick. The Web page's message
targets Markoff, specifically asking: "D0 YOU HAV3 N1GHTMAR3S ABOUT H3LP1NG
1MPRIS0N K3VIN? KN0WING THAT Y0UR LI3S AND D3C3IT H3LP3D BR1NG D0WN TH1S
INJUST1C3?" 
 
What lies beneath the code in the comments spells out the hackers'
complaint more directly: "The injustice Markoff has committed is criminal.
He belongs in a jail rotting instead of Kevin Mitnick. Kevin is no dark
side hacker. He is not malicious. He is not a demon. He did not abuse
credit cards, distribute the software he found or deny service to a single
machine. Is that so hard to comprehend?" 
 
Markoff, in an interview Tuesday, said his coverage of Mitnick's case was
totally objective. After years of covering Mitnick and because of his close
connections with Shimomura, Markoff said he found himself with
"access to remarkable events" and wrote about them "as accurately and
clearly as I could." 
 
"There were no dilemmas," he said. "I told my Times editors what I was
doing every step of the way." 
 
Regarding the decision to make a Page One story of the FBI pursuit of
Mitnick, he said: "I didn't place the
story." 
 
"If hackers are upset and believe the story was hyped, they are targeting
the wrong person," Markoff said. "Their quarrel is with the Times' editors,
not me." 
 
Although the term given to Mitnick - "darkside hacker" - did figure
prominently in Markoff's book, "Cyberpunk," which he co-authored with Katie
Hafner, Markoff said that the "darkside" moniker was "created by the
Southern California press." He said the term appeared in stories by both
the Los Angeles Times and the Daily News in the San Fernando Valley well
before he ever used it. 
 
Markoff thinks the hack against the Times has the potential to do
"tremendous damage" to Mitnick. If Mitnick's defenders want to make the
claim that Mitnick and people like him are "harmlessly wandering through
cyberspace," Markoff said, an event like this is the "clearest example to
contradict that." 
 
Emmanuel Goldstein, editor of the hacker publication 2600, sees things
differently. "It's not what I would have done," Goldstein said. "But it got
the story out. It is a story that has been suppressed for so long." 
 
The popular sentiment among hackers is that the coverage of the Mitnick
case hyped his arrest and capture - by referring to him as the "Internet's
Most Wanted," as a "cyberthief" and in some cases as a "terrorist" - but
the press has paid little or no attention to issues of Mitnick's long
incarceration without a hearing, the denial of his right to a bail hearing,
or to the fact that the government has failed to provide Mitnick with
access to the evidence to be presented against him. 
 
Even Markoff, who insists that he played no part in putting Mitnick in
jail, indicated that he has "a lot of sympathy for Kevin," acknowledging
that Mitnick is in a "difficult situation" and is faced with a "grim set of
alternatives." But Markoff rejects the notion that anyone but Mitnick
himself is responsible for his current situation. "Kevin made himself what
he is," Markoff said. 

 A statement from Mitnick's attorney,  released on Monday, addressed the
hack of the Times: "Kevin Mitnick
 appreciates the support and good wishes of those who speak out against his
continued state of incarceration for years without bail. However, he does
not encourage any individuals to engage in hacking pranks on his behalf.
Kevin believes other avenues exist that can be more beneficial to his
circumstances." Supporters were directed to the Mitnick Web site at
www.kevinmitnick.com. 

 In the aftermath of the hack, several issues remain. The New York Times
will undoubtedly claim that the damage done to their site has cost them
substantial lost revenue and a decrease in traffic and e-commerce.
Goldstein, however, quarrels with the claim that any real damage was done.
"They didn't trash the Times' Web site and they could have," he said,
indicating that the hack was intended to send a message, rather than to do
any serious damage. 
 
This is not the first time a Web site has been hacked in support of
Mitnick. In fact, in December of 1997, hackers posted a threatening message
at Yahoo!, demanding the release of Mitnick. While that incident can be
dismissed as a prank, the Times attack is something altogether different.
Even the message the hackers left on the Times' page criticizes other
hackers for not having "a real purpose" and for not leaving a "meaningful
statement" in their hacks. 

(c) Copyright 1998 Online Journalism Review
 
Doug Thomas is a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication. His
column, Hacker Alert, appears monthly in the Online Journalism Review. 
-----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
-----------------------




**********************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
     majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com
with the message:
     (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address
**********************************************
www.telepath.com/believer
**********************************************