Computer underground Digest Sun Jan 12, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 03 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.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 Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #9.03 (Sun, Jan 12, 1997) File 1--AOL hax0rs beware (fwd) File 2--AOL: The Happy Hacker (fwd) File 3--Morality of Undoing Blocking Software File 4--Run for the hills! Virulent Shergold meme escapes cyberspace! File 5--Crypt News forces correction in FBI newsletter File 6--7th Computers, Freedom & Privacy Conf - Mar.11-14 File 7--Foreign spies snoop the Net, from The Netly News File 8--Soliciting a Child via Computer now a Crime in Illinois File 9--Re: Cu Digest, #8.93 (xchaotic Xmas e-bombings) File 10--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 13 Dec, 1996) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 19:18:36 -0500 (EST) From: "noah@enabled.com" Subject: File 1--AOL hax0rs beware (fwd) From -Noah ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date--Wed, 8 Jan 1997 18:16:18 -0600 (CST) From--"Brett L. Hawn" [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hacker admits to AOL piracy By Jeff Pelline January 8, 1997, 1 p.m. PT A college student today pleaded guilty to illegally creating a program that allowed him to access America Online for free. Known online as Happy Hardcore, 20-year-old Nicholas Ryan of Yale University entered his plea in federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia. The felony offense carries a fine of up to $250,000 and five years in prison. Sentencing is set for March. Ryan used his illegal software, dubbed "AOL4Free" between June and December 1995. He also made it available to others. The investigation was carried out by the Secret Service and Justice Department's computer crime section. AOL called the case a "legal milestone," representing the first successful computer fraud prosecution involving an online network. "We hope this conviction sends a message to our members that AOL is dedicated to stopping hackers and their activities on the service and creating a safe online experience," said Tatiana Gau, the newly named vice president for Integrity Assurance at AOL. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 22:03:29 -0700 (MST) From: Gordon J Lyon Subject: File 2--AOL: The Happy Hacker (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date--Thu, 09 Jan 1997 01:32:39 -0800 (PST) From--David Cassel T h e H a p p y H a c k e r +~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ In 1995 a hacker named Happy Hardcore wrote a program that granted unlimited free access to AOL. Yesterday AOL issued a press release applauding his conviction in a court in Virginia. (http://www.prnewswire.com/pdata/19970108-DCW022.html) According to press accounts, Nicholas Ryan -- who studies computer science at Yale university -- was found guilty of a felony offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: he illegally accessed AOL "and violated AOL's terms of service". But AOL's press release doesn't tell the whole story. The Washington Post reported that in fact, AOL dropped over 370,000 subscribers between March and June of 1996 "for credit card fraud, hacking, etc." [9/16/96] Up until September of 1995, AOL didn't even verify the authenticity of credit card information submitted for free-trial accounts. (And as of last year, they'd distributed over 100 million of them.) Monday AOL shut local phone access to the entire nation of Russia because it couldn't collect enough accurate information to cover their expenses. Ryan was targeted because he created a program used by other hackers--and because he publicly taunted AOL in the program's documentation. He included internal AOL e-mail (stolen by other hackers) discussing the company's plans to thwart his program. Ryan wasn't charged with creating the program, but for accessing the system illegally--a crime he shared with nearly half a million others. For six months of access, he faces a maximum of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Under AOL's new value plan, the stolen time would have a cash value of $60. AOL's public statements indicate they want to appear tough on hackers -- especially now that they're seeking revenue from on-line transactions. A press release announcing the appointment of a vice president to AOL's optimistically-named "Integrity Assurance" division stressed her previous employment at the CIA--saying Tatiana Gau wants to "improve the world's most secure online environment". (The phrase "most secure" appeared three times.) Yesterday's announcement even asserted AOL had achieved "the first successful computer fraud prosecution involving an Internet online network." (One technology correspondent quipped, "Maybe it means that Kevin Mitnick is just a figment of Tsutomu Shimomoura's imagination.") AOL's announcement went so far as to claim that AOL is safer than the internet because AOL uses a private network. But safety still depends on how a network is administered. In 1995, a beta of AOL's telnet client put users directly behind their firewalls--and earlier that year, AOL's mail server was accessible via telnet, allowing forged mail from any AOL address. Hackers even took the stage during a 1995 celebrity appearance on AOL--then taunted the scheduled guest and the event sponsors. (http://www.aolsucks.org/security/recondite.html). "I am sure Corporate Communications will be getting some questions about it," read an internal e-mail titled "Hacker Attack In the Rotunda Last Night". Ironically, that message later ended up on the AOL Security Page--"What AOL Does Not Tell You." http://www.netvirtual.com/blank/aol) The next month AOL's CEO Steve Case wrote a letter to all users about hacker problems, arguing that "it happens everywhere", and adding that "when we discover hackers", AOL "aggressively take measures to head them off". But within days of that announcement, hackers were posting internal mail that they'd stolen to the internet. They continued undaunted, posting internal memos, and even Case's home address. In probably the most embarrassing development, in-house mail ABOUT the hackers was being circulated BY The hackers (ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/hacker1) At the time, AOL spokeswoman Pam McGraw told me, "We've encountered these problems in the past, and we make changes to the service as appropriate-- and as we can". The hackers had reverse-engineered AOL's "Rainman" software, which had been mistakenly stored in AOL file libraries accessible by their hundreds of remote staffers. The company fumbled for an explanation--Pam McGraw told the press AOL believed the heist was effected with the Visual Basic macro program AOHell. (Some later attributed her remarks to a deliberate disinformation campaign--especially when, to suppress the program's distribution, AOL later told Boardwatch magazine AOHell contained built-in child pornography. ftp://ftp.boardwatch.com/aohell.txt) But AOL's attempts to cover-up security breaches left their members even more vulnerable. "I went to a bunch of new member chat rooms, used AOHell to fish for passwords, and got 25 of them," one Usenet poster gloated. "Doesn't AOL tell its users to not do that?" There were worse abuses. When AOL realized hackers could "sniff" passwords during TCP/IP connections, staffers say they were warned--but not the customers. "I hope that AOL alerts the General Membership to this problem in a timely manner," one staffer complained, "and not, as in the previous situation, wait until they are forced to by negative news coverage." Sources had told the Wall Street Journal that the 1995 security breach included hackers distributing customer credit card numbers in AOL hacker chat rooms, and AOL had warned staffers about the breach--but didn't tell their users (until the story broke in nationwide news reports.) The staffers complained AOL's hush-hush policy was aimed more at protecting their image than protecting their customers. In a memo warning staffers not to speak to the press, Steve Case countered that "We need everyone's support...to protect AOL's interest". That even applied AOL's content providers. Shortly before hackers took the stage at his live event, the producer of AOL's MacWorld area asked AOL about earlier problems. He told me AOL had attributed them to "some security holes that AOL promised were closed." It was when hackers took the stage that he found they were not. Even AOL's latest statements are suspect. The press release claims that AOL "immediately upgraded its security measures to prevent AOL4FREE or any similar software from working". But Nicholas Ryan told a different story. "AOL found a way to detect users of AOL4Free," began the program's documentation. "However, with only a few lines of additional code AOL4Free is again undetectable!" Tatiana Gau's claims that AOL has a "zero tolerance" policy for hackers is patently implausible. Macromedia's software piracy suit fingered 67 screen names in 1995. And over 70 came into play for the "Hacker Riot" that November--a coordinated attack on the New Member Lounges (http://www.getnet.com/~onion/work/planetmag/current/features/aolside.html) lasting several hours and affecting hundreds of users. This August AOL's Chief Financial Officer even pointed to the fake accounts as a possible culprit for the high figures on their subscriber churn rate. And just six weeks ago hackers doctored text at AOL keyword: legal. (http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,5712,00.html). Even yesterday, aolsucks.org received the comment, "AOL SUX!!!!! Thats why I make fake accounts with them!!!" Ironically, the documentation for AOL4Free ends with the classic hacker manifesto "The Conscience of a Hacker." The 1986 document ends, "I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity..." And most technology pundits agree. AOL's MacWorld area was mailbombed for a week and a half, with dozens of junk posts to its bulletin boards. "We hate that," their producer told me. "Does that mean the FBI needs to be brought in? Probably not." Chris Flores of Microsoft's Developer Division agreed. "If a Visual Basic program can automate hitting this key and hitting that key, the blame should be on AOL for allowing a certain keystroke to be hit... They should think of AOHell as a blessing. Since they know about it, they know that they have a fault in their system." MacWorld's producer added, "You've got to admire the hacker ethic in a certain way, because it's how things get done...how holes get patched." Indeed, as a result of the hacker presence, AOL began accompanying all e-mail and instant messages with a warning in red letters--that AOL staff will never ask you for your password. One Florida resident with a degree in criminology pointed out on Usenet that this alone wouldn't be sufficient--because password-fishers were incorporating the warnings into their scams! ("Enter your password to confirm that you understand the warning below." "Enter your password now to turn on pass-block, which offers protection beyond the simple password warning given below.") Now AOL's 3.0 software requires users to download small software changes before they can access the system. Unfortunately, there's no way to opt out--which creates a major security hole waiting to backfire. In any case, the hacker presence belies AOL's claims of the "highest level of security". In fact, Wired News reported that "Gau is confident, but she knows she has her work cut out for her. She's already spotted a link on the Web announcing her arrival. It was titled 'Hackers are laughing.'". It was my page. THE LAST LAUGH Within days of its creations, AOL threatened the AOL Security page with charges of copyright infringement. Unfortunately, the tactic inspired three other sites to mirror the documents--which are still there to this day. David Cassel More Information - http://www.wco.com/~destiny/time.htm ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ Please forward with subscription information and headers in-tact. To subscribe to this moderated list, send a message to MAJORDOMO@CLOUD9.NET containing the phrase SUBSCRIBE AOL-LIST in the message body. To unsubscribe send a message saying UNSUBSCRIBE AOL-LIST to MAJORDOMO@CLOUD9.NET ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 11:05:09 -0500 From: "Glen L. Roberts" Subject: File 3--Morality of Undoing Blocking Software ((MODERATORS' NOTE: Glen Roberts of Full Disclosure has taken some criticism for advocating and making available the means of circumventing homepage blockers. Here, he responds to one of his critics)). Critic: I have just visited your (glr's) site for the first time even though I have been a listener to your program for some time now. Normally I agree with everthing you put forth on your show but, I now have serious questions as to your moral sense of right and wrong! Imagine my surprise when I found your page describing how to circumvent blocks of web pages such as those promoting explicit sexual content and abhorent behavior. While I am in support of maintaining our freedom to access information on the Internet, I can not condone your publishing work arounds for parental net censorship programs. GLR: If the programs 1) effectively blocked porn and 2) did not block non-obnoxious sites, my interest in publishing that information would be minimal. Additionally, the programs are so simply, that any teenager who has the intellect to make it in the real world in a few years will be able to figure out how to turn off these programs without my instructions (the original instructions on my page for turning off Cybersitter came from a teenager). The answer to keeping our kids from turning off the blocking programs is to keep our kids stupid. The idea of computers and the internet is to expand our intellect. I believe from my limited use of Cybersitter, that it would pretty much interefere with downloading most shareware from the internet. Critic: You obviously do not or would not restrict your own children from viewing all manner of objectionable material because of their 'right' to access such information and your desire of not "depriving them of the knowledge contained therein". My reference there is obviously to the thousands of web pages blocked by the various blocking programs that are not immoral by anyone's opinion... for example, my anti-junk email page, fishing spots in chicago, the Girl Scouts home page, etc. Critic: I find this idea reprehensible and beneath any reasonable common sense when it comes to protecting ones own children. I don't view that these programs actually protect anybody. They may filter SOME immoral sites, however, with 50,000,000+ web pages and more everyday how they can get them all? Critic: You may certainly have a case in stating that this is only the first step in preventing all manner of useful information that the tyrannical government, for instance, does not desire it's subject to view. However, this is not an excuse to interfere with my right as a parent to prevent unhealthy material from falling in the hands of potential innocent children! What am I interfering with? If you buy a blocking program that is ineffective because your kids can use notepad to turn it off, your problem should be with the company that offers that program. Critic: You should realize that we do not live in a perfect society and some of us will have to sacrifice their right to be accessed (if you have do not have immoral material) on the internet to protect the innocense of our children. It is precisely your opinion that everyone should have access to anything on the Internet that I find myself not even allowing my children to use this extremely useful medium at all. You want a magic bullet to protect your children in cyberspace. You won't find that anywhere. I have seen some schools ask about software that will allow students to surf the internet unsupervised. What other school activities exist wher kids do something UNSUPERVISED? None. Your job as a parent is to supervise your kids, set limits, encourage their intellectual development and teach them to distringuish between right and wrong. You cannot go to the corner store and buy a $39.95 product that will protect your kids from harms in the real world. You do not keep your kids inside 24 hrs a day, because there are drugs, sex and other evils in the real world. Why do you expect that in cyberspace? Critic: I have tried to use some of the programs you so arrogantly bash and find that they do not and can not limit access to sexually explicit sites due to the concept they use to block them. There is no way for all offensive sites to discovered and placed in a database for distribution to users of these various programs. It is physically impossible to keep up with new site additions and only promotes the same mentality of our current 'throw away' free-market enterprise system. I refuse to participate in this 'sceme' to extract as much money as possible from the users of these services. Exactly. The programs do not protect you. They block many non-offensive sites. They give you a false sense of security. No program can be an alternative to your being a good parent. No corporate executive can make the moral decisions for you (if the programs were effective). Critic: Again, I support your views, to an extent, on access to information. But, I can not sacrifice the mental health of my children by exposing them to many various profane materials present on the Internet today. I sincerely hope you do not hold the view that parents are not the best judge of what is proper for their own children. They are. Which is why, even if the programs worked effective, they would still be a bad idea. Critic: I must say that this appears to be your view based on your support and open defiance of such programs. Maybe you have a better way of protecting children from the dreggs of society that have apparently migrated to the internet that I am not aware of. Please let me know if so! Work with your kids on the net. Help them explore the wonderful world out there... help them learn to be excited about life and the opporunities. "Just say no" doesn't work for drugs or cyberspace. Help them develop a keen zest for life and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Something a "purifying" filter cannot do. Critic: I hope you can understand my position in the matter and look forward to a response from you. Thank you in advance for considering my position. Sincerely, Concerned Parent The Stalker's Home Page -- What the hell? Are you listed? Privacy? http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/stalk.html Tech Support Hell Hole: http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/hellhole.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:09:31 -0800 (PST) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: File 4--Run for the hills! Virulent Shergold meme escapes cyberspace! ((MODERATORS' NOTE: If readers would send in some of the more egregious examples of cyber-urban legends, we'll try to run a few of them within the next few months)). Imagine my shock when today I entered our building's elevator, only to find that a construction company had posted a flyer in it, saying that a kid named Craig Sherman with brain cancer was collecting business cards via a Make-a-Wish Foundation maildrop, to get into the Guiness Book of World Records before he died. The earnest company urged everyone who read it to participate by sending cards, and said they'd gotten word from another participating contruction company. Needless to say, I warned both companies and Make-a-Wish about this latest iteration of the Craig Shergold hoax, and wrote a warning about all this on the flyers themselves. Still, the fact that company number one enlisted the aid of other organizations in spreading this thing around suggests it may get another few years of life out of this, offline, since by now the "news" has probably been mailed, faxed, and posted a zillion more times, starting a domino effect. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 16:09:28 -0600 (CST) From: Crypt Newsletter Subject: File 5--Crypt News forces correction in FBI newsletter In follow-up to last CuD's article on the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin "joke virus" gaffe: ------------------------------ You may recall Crypt 40's short piece on the FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin and its humorous run-in with the Internet jokes known as the Clinton, Clipper, SPA and Newt Gingrich viruses. In an article on the emerging face of computer crime, authors David L. Carter and Andra J. Katz, wrote that these jokes were real examples of "insidious" computer viruses. Of course, this was nonsense and Crypt News set out to ask the editor of the FBI's bulletin how jokes from the Internet had contaminated a supposedly serious article on computer crime. Apparently embarrassed over the mistake, the editor of the Law and Enforcement Bulletin did not return repeated phone calls from Crypt Newsletter. Andra J. Katz, reached over Christmas, said only that her co-author was responsible for the goofed-up material in question. However, increasing interest after the Bulletin's mistake was first published in Crypt Newsletter has resulted in a hasty edit in which the references to the jokes-as-viruses were simply hacked out. However, the rewrite is still imperfect. Reference to the "Clinton" virus remains in the feature's section on "Virus introduction." The FBI's curious article can be found off the FBI home page on the Web: http://www.fbi.gov/leb/dec961.txt . The "joke virus" portion from the _original_ edition of LEB has been posted at -- http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt/other/orig.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 14:31:36 -0800 From: Jim Warren Subject: File 7--Foreign spies snoop the Net, from The Netly News The Netly News http://netlynews.com/ SPY VS. SPY January 6, 1997 By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) Move over, James Bond. Take your last bow, Maxwell Smart. Modern spies are jacked into the Net, a recent report from the multiagency National Counterintelligence Center says. It claims the Internet is now the "fastest growing" means for foreign governments and firms to gather information about U.S. businesses. The eight-page quarterly report says that malevolent "foreign entities" are sorting through web sites, pounding on search engines and firing off e-mail queries to U.S. defense contractors in hopes of winnowing out sensitive data. "Use of the Internet offers a variety of advantages to a foreign collector. It is simple, low cost, non-threatening and relatively 'risk free' for the foreign entity attempting to collect classified, proprietary, or sensitive information... We also know foreign intelligence and security services monitor the Internet," says the report, which is distributed to government agencies and contractors. Search engines apparently serve spies well. Want a copy of something you shouldn't be able to get? Perhaps it was left in an unprotected directory; try Altavista. "Foreign intelligence services are known to use computers to conduct rudimentary on-line searches for information, including visits to governments and defense contractors' on-line bulletin boards or web sites on the Internet. Access to Internet advanced search software programs could possibly assist them in meeting their collection requirements," the NACIC briefing paper says. Beware of spam from spies, it warns: "These foreign entities can remain safe within their borders while sending hundreds of pleas and requests for assistance to targeted US companies and their employees." Of course! This is any e-mail spammer's modus operandi: Flood an astronomical number of addresses at an infinitesimal cost. Then hope that at least some recipients will respond with the information you want. This isn't the first time that the Clinton administration has painted economic espionage as a dire threat. Last February, FBI director Louis Freeh warned the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of the possible harm. He said foreign governments are especially interested in "economic information, especially pre-publication data" including "U.S. tax and monetary policies; foreign aid programs and export credits; technology transfer and munitions control regulations... and proposed legislation affecting the profitability of foreign firms acting in the United States." Note to Freeh: That information already is online. For proposed legislation, try Thomas -- or for munition regulations, the White House web site is a good bet. But forget Freeh's rhetoric. The White House isn't serious about halting the overseas flow of American secrets over the Net. If it were, President Clinton would lift the crypto export embargo. Strong encryption is the most effective way for companies to fend off foreign data-pirates, but current regulations allow U.S. multinational firms to use only the cipher-equivalent of a toy cap gun. Worse yet, last week the Commerce Department moved further in the wrong direction by releasing its new encryption export regulations that continue to keep American businesses at a competitive disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors, which generally are less hampered by crypto export rules. "The new regulations are worse" than the old, says Dave Banisar, a policy analyst at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Sure, France and Britain spy on us for economic purposes. But we're just as guilty. We snooped on the French -- and got several U.S. "diplomats" kicked out of France two years ago. We peeked at Japanese secrets during automobile trade negotiations -- and got caught then, too. Especially under President Clinton, economic intelligence has become part of the mission of our spy agencies. Yet if we complain about other countries while doing it ourselves, we become hypocrites. Stanley Kober, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, argues in a recent paper that it's "folly" for the U.S. to continue such spying and risk alienating political allies: "The world is still a dangerous place, and it would be folly for the democracies to engage in nasty intramural squabbles. Yet that is the danger that economic espionage against other free societies poses." "Washington ought to consider that it may need the cooperation of Paris (or other Western capitals) to help deal with a mutual security threat" from terrorism, Kober writes. I asked Kober what he thought of the NACIC report. "It strikes me as a normal security reminder," he says. "The specifics are fairly slim. It's not the sort of thing that's sent to everyone. It's sent to their clients, the people who have government contracts. Since the Internet is new, they're telling people to be careful." Indeed, netizens must be careful. It's common sense, really, and defensive driving for the Net. Encrypt that e-mail. Use the anonymizer at least once a day. Let paranoia be your watchword. That e-mail from your mother may come from the KGB. When you're not watching it, your monitor may be watching you. Be afraid, Maxwell Smart. Your shoe phone may be listening back. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 16:37 CST From: Cu Digest (tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu) Subject: File 8--Soliciting a Child via Computer now a Crime in Illinois SOLICITING A CHILD VIA COMPUTER NOW A CRIME A state law effective Sunday makes it a crime (in Illinois) for anyone to use cyberspace to lure children into sex. Violators face up to 5 years in prison if convicted. The law goes a step beyond existing laws that make it a crime to take indecent liberties with a minor. Earlier this year, FBI agents arrested more than a dozen people accused of using America Online to meet children for sex. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 01:16:39 GMT From: hud@NETCOM.COM(Hud Nordin) Subject: File 9--Re: Cu Digest, #8.93 (xchaotic Xmas e-bombings) >today's act of "cyber-terrorism" is brought to you by the >letters 'A', 'D', and the number '1'. and the person who >brought it to you? you know who you are.

Run! Johnny's got his gun but he doesn't know how to shoot straight! Johnny, in the December Unamailer/xchaotic manifesto alleged to you, you seem to wish people would be more accurate in their dealings with the Net. In your victims list, I find this fascinating excerpt: > hud@netcom.com Co$ Supporter or Member > the cult of scientology needs to be shut down. it is a > criminal organization and should be treated as such. Your research is shoddy. I am neither a member nor a supporter of the Church of Scientolgy. In fact, I am a critic. (My Usenet posting history should prove it. If you can't be bothered to check, maybe this sentiment will do: Fuck the lying sonofabitch L. Ron Hubbard and the bait-and-switch scam "church" he rode in on. OK? I can provide references.) I am highly insulted to find myself labeled a proponent of scientology. I expect you to apologize to me. After that, issuing a retraction would be the right thing to do. You may be relieved to know that you didn't wind up inconveniencing me -- someone who shares many of your beliefs; I easily installed procmail shields to divert your errant flood. Please be more careful in your next act of sabotage. Actually, you might want to reconsider this whole bombing thing. You are hurting people. I think you are hurting your cause. Hud Nordin hud@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1996 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 10--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 13 Dec, 1996) 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 post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. 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 CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.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) (860)-585-9638. 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) In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893 UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/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/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~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 #9.03 ************************************