SearchSupport the SiteOur SponsorsLinks and SupportersCopyrightExcept where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
All copyright interests in the legal filings contained herein are expressly disclaimed. Documents, opinions, and comments provided on any Spamsuite.com page are for general information purposes only and are not intended to substitute for informed professional legal advice. Spamsuite.com expressly disclaims liability for any opinion expressed in comments. Spamsuite.com does not endorse any article comment. |
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for JudgmentI've been watching Sierra Corporate Design, Inc., v. David Ritz, for a long time. You haven't seen it here because the documents are not kept online and are, therefore, not accessible. However, a decision has been reached in that case and the clerk of court in Fargo was kind enough to fax me a copy of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment. In 12 pages of bad law, a North Dakota District Court judge has declared that using the "host" command with the "-l" option constitutes computer hacking. The "-l" option, which effects a DNS zone transfer, is only available to computers and maybe administrators, with the prior written consent of Major League Baseball. That means that pages mentioning the potential for use by non-administrators like this one should probably go away since it's teaching people how to "hack". And, of course, this also means that the manual pages on all Linux, *nix, and *BSD machines include hacking instructions thanks to the inclusion of a man page for host which mentions the -l option (such as this one or this one). I have mentioned on my personal blog that Sierra is currently being sued by the RIAA for promoting copyright infringement. This document provides definitive proof that Sierra and the defendant in that copyright infringement case are the same. David is also facing criminal charges in North Dakota related to this case. That means that it could soon be a criminal offense to use "host -l" in North Dakota. If you would like to contribute to David's legal defense fund, please go here. UPDATE: Let's be clear on a couple of things here:
I say what I say about the use of "host -l" because of Conclusion of Law #1: "behavior in conducting a zone transfer was unauthorized within the meaning of the North Dakota Computer Crime Law." That zone transfer was accomplished by the use of "host -l" (Finding of Fact #2). Notice that the "behavior in conducting" the zone transfer is the unauthorized action, not the republication of the information. Also important to notice is that the zone file remained available for access using this command during at least some of the time of the republication. That means that the republication only gave out information that could be readily obtained by anyone else who knew how to run the exact same command. Given the level of administrator that would need to be involved to discuss a Usenet Death Penalty, that would have been pretty much everyone. That said, at least one attorney has contacted me and made an analogy to giving car keys to a parking valet who then takes the car out for a joyride. So, read the decision and make up your own mind. ======================================================== File No. 09-05-C-01660 Sierra Corporate Design, Inc., v. David Ritz, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT The above-captioned matter came on for trial before the undersigned Judge of District Count on October 23 through October 30. 2007. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the arguments of counsel, and this Court's prior ruling on partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Sierra Corporate Design ("Sierra"), the Court makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Sierra is as Internet service provider, offering Usenet access and web hosting to its customers. Sierra owned and operated several servers, including two DNS servers. It operated various Usenet access services including Newsfeeds.com, Usenet.com, Nuthinbutnews.com and others. 2. On February 27, 2005, David Ritz ("Ritz") connected to Sierra's DNS server. In the course of that connection, he issued a host -l command which requested a zone transfer from Sierra's DNS server. Sierra's server responded with a full zone transfer, providing Ritz with the network map showing all of Sierra's private domain names, private host names, and internal non-routable IP addresses. -2- 4. Ritz frequently accomplished his access to Sierra's computers by concealing his identity via proxies and by accessing the servers via a Unix operating system and using a shell accounts, among other methods. He also disguised himself as a mail server. 5. In the late winter or spring of 2005, Ritz published the zone information he copied from Sierra's server in the form of a file he published by making it accessible to the Internet and which he named "zilla_queries" ("zilla queries file") That file contained the internal domain structure of Sierra. 6. Sierra's internal domain structure as copied by Ritz into the zilla queries file included private host names, private and non-routable IP addresses, and privately registered domain names. The non-mutable IP addresses were not directly accessible from the Internet and would not be known to Ritz had he not accomplished a zone transfer. The private host names could not be ascertained from any publicly available source and were only known to Ritz by virtue of the zone transfer. 7. Ritz, at all times material, acted intentionally and with the intent to gather as much DNS and other information as possible about Sierra and its principals, agents and related entities and persons. Ritz made the information he gathered available to several persons, including a competitor of Sierra, SuperNews and SuperNews accessed that information. Ritz has admitted that SuperNews personnel accessed the zilla queries file where it resided on his computer via http connection. 8. The intended purpose of a zone transfer is primarily one of redundancy. Zone 9. The evidence presented at trial produced no treatises or authoritative sources to suggest that any other intended purpose exists for a zone transfer. The academic and technical resources put in evidence at trial uniformly indicate that zone transfers have no intended purposes beyond those mentioned above. 10. The literature available on the subject all refers to access attempts such as the host -l command issued by Ritz under the circumstances of this case as "unauthorized." Microsoft itself, as well as various other, authorities all refer to zone transfers conducted by an individual other than the network administrator or an authoritative name server as "unauthorized." 11. Ritz accessed Sierra's computer, copied and disclosed information found on that computer beginning at least with the February 27, 2005 access and continuing thereafter through the summer of 2005. Ritz made several access attempts which were also unsuccessful after April 1, 2005. 12. Publication of the zilla queries file containing information about Sierra including its internal domain structure created a grave security risk for Sierra. That information, in the 13. Ritz has port scanned thousands of computed, including those of Sierra. 14. Ritz frequently attempted to access Sierra's computers from a variety of locations in case Sierra was blocking access from his known IP address. He also concealed the IP address of his point of origin in order to shield himself from blame or, as he put it, "taking the beat." 15. Ritz has participated in approximately eighteen UseNet death penalties ("UDP"). A UDP is an attempt to force a Usenet service provider to change its behavior by threatening to have peers cancel their relationships with the target of the UDP, canceling messages propagated from the target of the UDP and if that fails, to go to other providers to convince them to cease doing business with the target. Once he was armed with Sierra's internal domain structure and published that information. Ritz called for a UDP against Sierra. 16. Ritz has issued Internet mail bombs and undertaken efforts which resulted in disconnecting third parties from the Internet 17. Sierra incurred out-of-pocket costs, including consulting fees and the time spent by its oven personnel, of $2,930.00 in remapping and reconfiguring its internal domain structure and server. This is by no means a complete statement of the losses suffered by Sierra since it is difficult to put a dollar figure on the damage done to the integrity of Sierra's security. The potential for ongoing harm, however, continues. 18. Ritz was not an authoritative name server, a DNS server, nor any kind of computer at the time he accessed Sierra's computer. Ritz has never been an employee, agent, or network administrator for Sierra. -5- 20. When Ritz accessed Sierra's server, he interfered with Sierra's enjoyment in that chattel. By copying data during his access which he subsequently published, Ritz rendered the value of the network structure substantially less than it had been before publication. 21. The information which Ritz published was not public. Moreover, much of the information was not publicly accessible. 22. Without knowing the internal IP addresses specifically used by Sierra, there was noway for Ritz to determine all of the domain and host names used by Sierra through any other sort of lookup or publicly accessible database. While Ritz might be able to identify some domain names and host names if be knew the IP addresses assigned to them, he could not have ascertained both the IP address and the domain and private host names of many of Sierra's servers without having performed the zone transfer. 23. Ritz has hijacked computers, i.e. taken control without permission, of the computers of third parties such as Verizon. He admitted to hacking Verizon and further admitted to doing so without authorization. 24. Ritz has conducted port scans of Sierra's computers. Although Ritz denies having run any port scars on Sierra's computers, he admits to having run thousands of port scans on other computers that he suspected of being involved in spamming. In light of his testimony, at least at times, he has suspected Sierra of spamming, the Court finds that the direct and circumstantial evidence is sufficient for a finding that Ritz ran port scans on Sierra's computers. The circumstantial evidence relied upon includes the firewall access logs of Sierra, Ritz's habits, Ritz's doctored connection logs reflecting his port scans, and the scarcity of other persons who 25. Ritz accessed the salver for Newsfeeds.com. and other Sierra computers such as the one hosting Travisreynolds.com and the Rover's Playhouse site, after this Court issued an injunction prohibiting such access on August 4, 2005. Ritz has not even denied such activity. Ritz's behavior in visiting those sites violated the injunction. Ritz did so knowingly. 26. While this Court previously excused Rite's violation of the injunction when he made a renamed copy of the zilla queries file publicly available via http access, the Court cannot overlook yet another violation of its Order. Ritz is a highly sophisticated computer operator and fully appreciated what be was doing when he accessed the Newsfeeds.com server and website which be knew was owned and operated by Sierra. Similarly, Ritz violated the injunction when be accessed the websites operated by Sierra on behalf of Rover's Playhouse and Travis Reynolds, the son of Jerry Reynolds. 27. Ritz has participated in approximately 18 Usenet Death Penalties. A UDP is a process by which a Usenet ISP can be pressured by canceling messages posted through its service and convincing other providers to de-peer with it. 28. Ritz denied having even discussed any UDPs of Newsfeeds.com and Siesta. His testimony to that effect was false. He called for a UDP of Newsfeeds.com and Sierra. 29. Ritz received information in this case which Sierra had designated Attorneys Eyes Only ("AEO") for purposes of this litigation when it produced that information to Ritz's counsel. 30. Ritz received offers of assistance from the SuperNews team in this litigation. Ritz's sworn denials of such offers of help were false. 31. Ritz falsely stated in his interrogatory answers that his only name on the Internet was David Ritz, when be actually went by names including "s lewini" and "BOFH" ("Bastard 32. Ritz’s ongoing monitoring, tracking, and connection attempts with Sierra's computers is malicious. He admits to having ill will and malice towards Sierra and its principals. While Ritz maintains that the basis for his feelings are Suspicions of Spam activity by Sierra, those suspicions do not justify violations of the law nor trespass. Ritz's constant surveillance is sinister in nature and he continues to this day, to gather and maintain as much information as he can acquire on Sierra and its principals, including gathering information on the son of Sierra's owner. Historically, Ritz has published information including what he believed to be tax credit card number of Sierra's owner. 33. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Ritz is guilty of actual malice. Sierra is entitled to an award of exemplary damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing Ritz. 34. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that $50,000.00 in exemplary damages is consistent with the principles and factors set forth under N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-11(5). There is a reasonable relationship between this award and the harm likely to result from the Ritz's conduct as well as the harm that actually has occurred; the award is consistent with the degree of reprehensibility of Ritz's conduct and the duration of that conduct; and the award is consistent with Ritz's awareness of and concealment of the conduct. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Ritz's behavior in conducting a zone transfer was unauthorized within the meaning of the North Dakota Computer Crime Law. The zone transfer conducted on February 27, 2005 was a violation of the stance. His successful and unsuccessful attempts to access Sierra's server in the months that followed were additional violations of the Computer 2. The Court need not determine whether a normal, single DNS query is authorized within the meaning of the statute. Even if there had been any authorization for a such a DNS query or lookup, Ritz exceeded that authorization in violation of the statute by conducting a zone transfer and attempting further access. 3. The Court rejects the test for "authorization" articulated by defendant's expert, Lawrence Baldwin. To find all access "authorized" which is successful would essentially turn the computer crime laws of this country upside down. Any backer could allege that any form of access was authorized because he was able to penetrate the system, regardless of whether the commands utilized were well-formed. 4. Ritz violated the injunction of this Court when he accessed the newsfeeds.com website which he knew to be owned and operated by Sierra, after this Court enjoined him from visiting any Sierra website. He also violated that injunction by his repeated visits to the Rover's Playhouse websites and his visits to travisreynolds.com which he understood to be part of Sierra 5. Ritz is hereby held in contempt for violating the injunction of this Court. He is ordered to pay $10,000.00 as a penalty. 6. Ritz has engaged in a variety of activities without authorization on the Internet. Those activities include port scanning, hijacking computers, and the compilation and publication of Whois lookups without authorization from Network Solutions. 7. Clear and convincing evidence shows that Ritz acted with actual malice when he 8. Sierra has sustained actual damages in an amount of $2,930.00. Sierra has also suffered an ongoing security risk which cannot be accurately valued in money damages but which may continue to exist for years. 9. Sierra is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in this action by statute. 10. Ritz trespassed Sierra's chattel by his intrusions into Sierra's computers. 11. Injunctive relief is warranted to prevent Ritz from causing Sierra further harm and to attempt to mitigate the injury caused by Ritz's unauthorized access, trespass to chattels and publication of information about Sierra taken from Sierra's computer. ORDER FOR JUDGMENT 1. Judgment is GRANTED to Plaintiff on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, under North Dakota's Computer Crime Law. 2. Judgment is GRANTED to Plaintiff on Count II of the Second Amended Complaint, for trespass to chattels. 3. Sierra is awarded actual damages of $2,930.00. 4. Sierra is awarded exemplary damages in the amount of $50,000.00. 5. Ritz shall pay $10,000.00 as a contempt sanction. 6. Sierra is awarded reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in this action. Sierra shall apply to this Court for a determination of the amount of those fees. 7. Sierra's request for a Permanent Injunction is GRANTED. 8. Defendant Ritz is hereby restrained and permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly accessing Sierra Corporate Design, Inc.'s computers, websites, servers, networks, programs, computer systems or data contained in Sierra Corporate Design, Inc.'s computers, computer system or computer network at any time. This includes but is not limited to, computers and websites operated under the names Newsfeeds.com, Usenet.com, Nuthinbutnews.com. Binaries.net and Newsgroups.com (hereinafter “Sierra’s companies”) or any other server Sierra makes accessible via the Internet. 9. Defendant Ritz is hereby restrained and permanently enjoined from requesting or securing DNS zone transfers or otherwise copying, directly or indirectly, any information on Sierra's computers, websites, servers, networks, programs, computer systems or data contained in Sierra's computers, computer system or computer network at any time. This injunction also applies to DNS lookups on hostnames of Sierra that it does not publish on any of its websites. 10. Defendant Ritz is hereby restrained and permanently enjoined from port scanning. IP scanning or any other type of network scanning on any of Sierra's computers or networks. -11- 12. Defendant Ritz is directed to immediately destroy any and all copies of Sierra's computers, websites, servers, network, or computer systems and any information about Sierra that are in their possession, whether such copies and information are in digital, electronic or physical form. 13. Defendant Ritz is further enjoined from directly or indirectly (including through third parties acting on Ritz's request or behalf) publishing the preliminary or final transcript of the proceedings in this case and any filing of that transcript shall be done under confidential seal unless Sierra expressly stipulates to the open filing of the transcript or excerpts thereof. 14. All materials designated as Attorneys Eyes Only or Confidential in this case shall continue to enjoy the protections of those designations as 15. Plaintiff is awarded reasonable costs and disbursements. /s/
|
Upcoming Dates
NavigationUser loginRecent comments
|
The Judge
Let the Judge know what you think:
CRothe-Seeger@ ndcourts.
So...this guy used host -l
So...this guy used host -l to basically get a map of Sierra's internal network structure including customers' domain names and sold it to a competitor.
Sounds kind of unauthorized to me. Corporate espionage, even.
Not Espionage!! Get a clue
Well, not even close to corporate espionage. You obviously know nothing about networks or the host -l command. Name servers, have to have this information public ....or you would have to type in an IP address every time you went to any website. The name record (PUBLIC), is like a giant phone book of names to IP's. If there were internal IP's that Sierra didn't want public, there is plenty of security available to turn those "transfers" off. What is really a shame here, is that this poor guy is being prosecuted, because Sierra didn't have smart enough IT staff to realize what should be public, and what should not have been....
zone transfers
Any reasonably competent DNS admin would be expected to restrict zone transfers to nominated hosts, and/or use a key to secure such transfers (assuming a relatively recent copy of bind is in use). They would also be expected to present to the internet at large a different view (called a "split horizon") of the DNS to that presented to internal users, so that even a direct request for a single name would not be fulfilled if it came from an internet (and not internal) host.
It is borderline however if simply not locking down the system constitutes permission to pull this data from it - a better analogy would be that the ability to lock a wifi access point with a WEP key does not mean any access points not so locked are not private property.
I would also be concerned (and rapidly move my business away from) any site where knowledge of the names and ip addresses of hosts in a DMZ was such a significant security risk they had to spend $50,000 (and disrupt service) in order to renumber their internal space, and/or where it would actually cost such a sum to perform what is after all a fairly trivial administrative task.
This is a prepared order,
This is a prepared order, written by Plaintiff's counsel, submitted to the judge. The judge did not write it.
I have been a witness to
I have been a witness to this lawyer's common practice of writing "prepared orders" as a "courtesy" to the Court ~ which also increases his billable hours...
I invite you to analyze previous court testimony documented on the spam diaries at blogspot.com to compare the language used. In my opinion, "anonymous" is correct.
LITTERALLY following the order
If he follows the letter of the order,
[quote]
12. Defendant Ritz is directed to immediately destroy any and all copies of Sierra's computers, websites, servers, network, or computer systems and any information about Sierra that are in their possession, whether such copies and information are in digital, electronic or physical form.
[unquote]
Sierra might get a wee bit upset. The pronoun 'their' in the phrase 'in their possession would refer to Sierra.
Of course, one might say that the judge just made a mistake and he 'obviously meant "in his possession"'.
I notice quite a few 'typos' in the text. I wonder if the original was that bad or it got messed up during optical character recognition.
It'll be some of both,
It'll be some of both, mainly OCR errors, though. The program I use is good, but not perfect.
Analogy
Here is an analogy of the zone transfer (correct me if you disagree):
A company has a large office building in downtown. The front doors of said building are open. Any citizen (employee or not) may walk into the front doors. Once inside, the citizen is standing in a lobby. This is a public waiting area.
There can be a security guard preventing further access into the building, or it could be unguarded allowing access. However, if there is an office directory hanging on the wall, telling who is in what office, the citizen may look at this because it is in the public domain. Using the information from this directory to commit a crime does not make the use of the directory a crime. And if the company did not want to let people know the information contained in the directory, they merely have to take it down.
Make sense?
Yes
That is a proper analogy, but it needs some clarification
There is a directory hanging on the wall, well inside the lobby (ie: can't be seen from the street.
There can be a guard posted to keep people from entering, but once they enter they can see the directory listing.
In this case there was no guard, and he walked in and republished the directory listing.
--- but it gets more complicated --
There is also the issue of him spoofing himself as a DNS sever. The extended analogy would be that there are two entrances, a service entrance and a main entrance. The directory listing is posted within the service entrance (but no one would normally think to go in that way). He dressed up like a delivery man and entered through the service entrance.
no "spoofing", imho
How should that be, "spoof as a DNS server" (or, as in a different paragraph, "disguised as a mail server"? I think that manual zone transfers are uncommon enough to assume that most zone transfers are done by other name servers. Likewise, using expn and vrfy while telnet'ing to a mailserver's SMTP engine (eg. telnet mailhost 25), is also usually only done by other mail servers, and, of course (like zone transfers) by systems administrators who need to debug something. The server which receives such commands has NO way to distinguish the human entering them from some piece of software doing it instead.
But I'm really stumped as to why any of these activities can possibly constitute "hacking".
Can you please get your judges wised up a bit, or are they only already "purchased"?
If Sierra has non-public
If Sierra has non-public information, they have a duty of "reasonable care" to protect it from unauthorized disclosure.
Best practice, since 1996, is that firms run multiple DNS servers:
1) an 'outside' one that limits certain kinds of transfers (such as zone transfers) without additional authentication.
2) an 'inside' one that (Sierra-only) DNS Servers can utilize.
Seems that they weren't doing this properly. Being an ISP doesn't excuse lax security.
I won't argue about other aspects of the case, but Sierra alone is responsible for either 'publishing' the information (or not).
However
however, if a person had a court order prohibiting them from entering that building, getting caught looking at that directory would show violation of the court order, which is what this is saying.
Finding #21 is the key
It looks like Finding #21 is the key.
I suggest that by having a DNS Server publicly accessible, and permitting someone to execute a zone transfer, that Sierra has "published" this information.
What Ritz did was republish it more widely.
Were any arguments to this effect made during the case?
. . . If there were, and the Judge rejected them, this could be grounds for an appeal.
. . . If not, it is probably too late to assert this now
IANAL. Just guessing.
The important finding is
The important finding is that the defendant:
performed port scanning, hijacking computers, and the compilation and publication of Whois lookups without authorization from Network Solutions
causing:
actual damages in an amount of $2,930.00
and did so such that clear and convincing evidence shows that he acted with actual malice.
Further he:
violated the injunction of the Court.
How bad did he want to lose this case? It appears he wanted to lose on purpose. I think port scanning and hijacking computers are quite bad enough and may be what he is actually being punished for.
> The important finding is
> The important finding is that the defendant:
> performed port scanning, hijacking computers, and the compilation and publication of
> Whois lookups without authorization from Network Solutions
You *do* understand that there's no proof at all that he "hijacked computers", do you? The other stuff is daily administrator work, no crime. Thousands of sites around the world "publish" whois lookups (almost every web hosting provider does it) and tens of thousands of administrators do port scans, daily.
Portscans of which systems?
What admin would do a portscan of a system not under his control? If I control an internal network and find a suspicious machine as an admin I can poke at it as much as I like because keeping the network alive is part of my duty.
But if I do this to a system I do not own and is outside my administrative domain then it is a clear violation of that system. So if he scanned system of the defended without expres permission he got nailed for that and for good reason.
The trick might be how the court defines 'portscans' in this case.
But in general I see no sense in defending someone who is willing to deliberatly do the wrong thing to stop another wrong thing. Two wrongs just don't make it right.
Analogy
The lawyer's analogy is completely inaccurate. It's much more like walking down the street and looking inside a store through the window.
DNS Zone transfers
Bad law is right....
I use that command many times on my servers or my main Desktop computer to troubleshoot DNS issues all the time, including tracking down Spammers. I also use Sam Spade, a nice tool to check out
my servers and other servers to see who is hosting what.
Zone transfers are done all the time by many online tools
or websites. I feel after much money is spent it will be reversed
on error by a higher court.
1st Amendment Rights
Let's say I take an interest in company X. I walk into the X store and find that they have a brochure detailing all of their store locations. In addition, the brochure contains information about their internal accounting structure which leads me to believe they are involved in shady dealings.
I take the following steps:
1. I publish my findings that come from the brochure in a nationwide newspaper.
2. I start a boycott campaign against X which includes boycotting businesses that do business with X.
3. I start picket lines in front of each X store.
4. I use the accounting structure information that came from their brochure to further probe into their business dealings.
Would that be criminal? Or an exercise of my 1st Amendment rights?
Defendant is a smart Idiot
The defendant was obviously maliciously attacking the plaintiff. The details of the methods used are not the issue. The judge made the correct decision and now the defendant is whining because he couldn't baffle-gab the judge. Don't be a fool by throwing your good money after bad. The defendant is in for well deserved and certain punishment.
Where is the defendent
Where is the defendent whining exactly? He doesn't seem to be posting at all.
Very vague, and can be interpreted to include more than dns
Part of the ruling is that Ritz did not have authorization to perform "host -l". The "host" command exists on most Linux systems, and can be executed from any system to perform a query upon an external DNS server. If I perform the "host" command (without -l) on "usenet.com" (a Sierra address), I will be given the IP address that "usenet.com" resolves to. This is a fundamental service of the internet that allows you to use easy to remember domain names rather than difficult to remember IP addresses. The command can exist on a computer on which Ritz is the owner or has exclusive authorization to perform any task that he deems necessary, just as I can run this on the computer sitting next to me without needing to access a "shell account" elsewhere. When I run this command, the DNS server tells me the address without any heading warning me of restricted access and does not require authentication. However, in running this command, according to this ruling, I have violated North Dakota law.
Now, for the "host -l" part of this. Using this command requires knowing the address of the server hosting the DNS entries for the domain. This can be done using a "whois" query. When running a "whois" query, you get a lot of information about the owner of the domain, as well as all of the DNS servers hosting it, authoritative or not. Most whois servers will provide a terms of use. In this case, the whois provider is Network Solutions (not Sierra), who prohibits dissemination of the information provided from their servers. Now, after running this query, I have the nameserver, so I would now be able to use "host -l" to do a zone transfer.
Here's a tidbit of information about DNS servers and their configurations. When deploying a DNS server, it is possible to configure how it can and cannot be accessed. By default, most DNS servers PROHIBIT zone transfers. However, this can be enabled if a domain is being "slaved" by another DNS provider, allowing the "slave" DNS provider to transfer the information and store it. It's a sort of redundancy feature. However, this has to be enabled. In this case, it is enabled, so the information is freely available. I ran the "host -l" query and found I can transfer usenet.com without authentication, and I was provided no terms of use.
Now, if access to the DNS server was a violation of North Dakota law, what's to keep the law from being interpreted that accessing a HTTP server is a violation as well? The majority of HTTP servers do not require authentication, but information can be gathered from them, such as someone's website.
In Findings of Fact paragraph 3, those are standard email server commands. In paragraph 4 it is explained he used Unix servers and pretended to be a mail server, etc. Mail servers are NOT the only applications that issues those commands. In fact, email clients (Outlook, Eudora, Mail.app, etc) also perform these commands. Many admins will use them in a manual fashion to make sure their servers work correctly. Some scripts may use them to reduce the dependency on specific services. However, almost all email servers will contain a terms of use. Also, paragraph 4 seems to demonize Unix altogether. This is an obvious lack of understanding of current computer technology, internet technology, and how things work.
There's one thing I can see that Sierra has on Ritz, and that is access mail servers without authorization if the mail servers do display a terms of use. I did not attempt access because I don't have a reason to. The violation of Network Solutions's terms of use should not even be applicable because Sierra has no representation of Network Solutions. However, publication of whois data is a violation of Network Solutions's terms of use. The only way Sierra would have been able to address that issue is to report it to Network Solutions.
This ruling is full of bad decisions and information. Just doing my research, I was in violation of North Dakota law, just as Ritz was. I do in fact have an address mapping of usenet.com displayed on my computer running Linux (but not publicly), which shows Sierra is not even taking this seriously. If they wanted to have some sort of weight on this case outside of North Dakota, they should have disabled zone transfers, or restricted zone transfers to servers that need the access. As a former network administrator, I know this is possible, and I'm not even close to the best there is.
host -l is a tool
Sadly, the guy was obviously engaging in illicit activities, obviously to provoke attacks against the Sierra Club. However, it would be more prudent to prosecute him for his actual unauthorized accesses and his rallying for denial of service attacks of various sorts. Both of these acts constitute criminal behaviours, and are covered under even regular laws such as trespassing and conspiracy.
The problem is that the prosecutor hinged his case on an innocent and entirely useful command, having no idea what it really was, and the judge apparently believed it. This is probably more the fault of the defending attorney for not providing enough clarification for why this command is not an illicit tool.
An analogous situation a coworker of mine came up with is if a robber broke into your house and beat you with the hammer, does that mean that no one should ever use a hammer outside two explicitly defined uses again?
Sierra Corporate Design is NOT the Sierra Club
Mainly, I'm letting comments run wild here. But I would like to point out that no one is attacking the Sierra Club.
The plaintiff here is "Sierra Corporate Design" a/k/a Usenet.com.
Right and Wrong
The ruling was right in a way, although a lot of the commentary that came along with it was quite wrong (and yeah, there were a heck of a lot of typos in there).
A ruling against Ritz on the grounds that he violated an injunction against accessing Sierra's computers is absolutely right. It sounds like he has been waging this war against them for a while (and as it mentions, perhaps selling some of the info / blackmailing them as well). They had already taken out the injunction, and he clearly and intentionally violated it.
The fine obviously doesn't have much to do with actual damages, but is more of a way to try to prevent him from continuing his actions (since this is a civil case and thus he can't do time for it).
Nevertheless, the judge deciding that she knows what the ONLY legit uses for a zone transfer or even a port scan are is troubling, although from what I understand a case like this really doesn't provide precedent for future cases.
Those dns records are made publicly available, so to suggest that accessing them is unauthorized (that is unless you have a prior injunction barring it!) is total BS. You don't have express permission to access ANYTHING on the internet, from the lowliest website to the mightiest mainframe. If a company or person puts it out there (as Sierra did, in this case) without security it is publicly available and you are authorized to access it. At least in a perfect world.
Judges need to quit pretending that they understand better than others how this new world of technology works. They just don't. However, I think this guy got what he had coming to him.
@Binary Bandito You can't
@Binary Bandito
You can't believe everything you read in that decision.
The Judge's "Facts" aren't facts at all--- they are BS
You can't read from the Judge's opinion and take it as fact! The Judge makes all kinds of bogus claims like "Hijacking computers" and "Un-Authorized access". Un-authorized access of a PUBLIC server. That's like saying "You weren't authorized to be inside the library, even though it was open."
Nothing was "hacked" or "Hi-Jacked" here --- other then Justice, that is.
Classic case of a scumbag spammer suing a spam-fighter. Amazing how many people support the spammer.
IDP
I hereby propose an Internet Death Penalty for ndcourts.com, ndcourts.gov, ndcourts.org, and court.state.nd.us.
Instructions: How to commit a crime in North Dakota
Go here
http://www.kloth.net/services/dig-de.php
enter "usenet.com" as Domain, "ns1.securityspace.net" as Server and use "AXFR" for Query. Hit Search (Suchen). Doh, you commited a crime in North Dakota!
There are *dozens* of this kind of service publically and freely available on the net!
This sucks almost as bad as my case did.
It would appear that spammers everywhere are gaining EVEN MORE GROUND thanks, in part, to moron judges. It would be very nice if a judge would recuse him/herself when they obviously DON'T HAVE A CLUE about email, servers, whois, etc. etc.
In my case they determined that the email server name forgery going on was some type of 'bare error'. Problem is, they're still doing it. Usually when a company uncovers an 'error' they fix it. Not in my case.
I know how it feels to lose a spam lawsuit due to poor 'judging'. I wish David Ritz the best of luck. Hopefully the tide will begin to turn and spammers will start paying for thier acts.
Mark
Analogy for the untechnical
Basically what Sierra did is akin to this:
They published their internal phone numbers in the phone book, then sued someone for reading the phone book and seeing their internal phone numbers.
We all know the legal system (NOT a justice system) is pretty bad, but when you can sue someone for your own mistake..?
The Defendant IS a crook....should have gone to jail
Everyone commenting in favor of the defendant have missed the point here....the judge smelled a rat, a dirty little cyber rat with criminal intent to use admin commands to probe a network, not for maintenance, not even to experiment, but to do harm. The legal term is the defendant had the intent to harm. The judge knew that, and it was obvious from the facts. Did any of you know that when hackers are caught, one piece of evidence that the cybercops look for is "port scanning" utilities and reports.
You folks missed with your public lobby analogy.....
This the best analogy....the defendant was "casing" the victim's "cyber space" to further his criminal behavior. Stop mitigating for this guy....he got caught. Too bad, so sad.....
Mitigating?
The defendant performed a simple, common *Nix command. His intention was to gather information, information routinely made available by a spammer's server to other computers on The Internets, information which must be public for those goldanged Internets to function. Access to this information could easily have been denied; it was not. There was no "hack," there was no "crack."
Since your knowledge of networks is plainly comparable to that of Judge Corncrib, it's not surprising that you fail to understand the public lobby analogy.
In addition, the defendant performed the dreaded, arcane command WHOIS and promulgated the result.
The port scanning was not proven to have been performed by the defendant. This is one of the many reasons why the transcript has been sealed.
What the judge smelled was a North Dakota "businessman" who was desperate to purge proof of his history as a spammer. What I smell above is one of the North Dakota businessman's fellow creeps.
Post new comment