OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
From: RISKS List Owner (risko_at_csl.sri.com)
Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 16:09:24 CDT

  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Friday 30 August 2002 Volume 22 : Issue 22

       FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks)
       ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator

    ***** See last item for further information, disclaimers, caveats, etc. *****
    This issue is archived at <URL:http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.22.html>
    and by anonymous ftp at ftp.sri.com, cd risks .

      Contents:
    Real risks of cyberterrorism? (Chris Norloff)
    Rookie's mistake melted down $500,000 transformer (Scott Wlaschin)
    Police dispatch disrupted by broken lightbulb (Gene Berkowitz)
    Sabotage in a few clicks: NDS vs. Canal Plus (Max)
    Tough EU privacy rules influence U.S. Web practices (NewsScan)
    Big Brother hiding inside cars' airbags - tells fibs (Bernd Felsche)
    FEC OK's SMS spam without saying who paid for it (Hal Murray)
    Website Security Flaw Costs ZD (Monty Solomon)
    Transport worker ID in works; privacy rights, funding at issue (Monty Solomon)
    The EUR-RVSM safety case is flawed (Peter B. Ladkin)
    Bogus Probabilistic Risk Assessments (Peter B. Ladkin)
    Japanese phones vulnerable to hackers? (Monty Solomon)
    Microsoft warns of Office and IE risks (PGN)
    Computer expert says he can break Microsoft security (Monty Solomon)
    A better approach to spam (John Pettitt)
    Re: Keystone SpamCop summary and response (Crispin Cowan)
    Parody and copyright (Terry Carroll)
    Re: American style cyber warfare ... (Peter Hanecak)
    Abridged info on RISKS (comp.risks)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:11:33 -0400
    From: "Chris Norloff" <cnorloffnorloff.com>
    Subject: Real risks of cyberterrorism?

    The article "What are the real risks of cyberterrorism?"
      http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-955293.html
    plays down risks from hostile access through Internet connections. The
    conclusions seem to be based on a recent study by the Gartner Group and the
    US Navy War College. This study, however, is not referenced or included.

    Some statements from people apparently interviewed by the article's author
    or perhaps were part of the Gartner/Navy study seem like something right out
    of the RISKS archives:

      Ellen Vancko, a representative for the North American Electric
      Reliability Council, said such access [direct access by Internet or modem]
      should not always be considered unsafe. "All the electric companies are
      connected to the Web in one way or another," she said. "But that doesn't
      mean our control systems are hooked up to the public Net."

    I'd like to hear what other RISKS readers think of the real risks of
    "cyberterrorism" and poorly-protected supervisory control and data
    acquisition (SCADA) devices.

      [The report of the Clinton Administration's President's Commission on
      Critical Infrastructure Protection (The Marsh Commission) (RISKS-18.89,
      RISKS-19.43, RISKS-19.61) clearly indicated that essentially all of the
      critical infrastructures had serious potential vulnerabilities. PGN]

    ------------------------------

    Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:21:31 -0700
    From: "Scott Wlaschin" <scottextractofmalt.com>
    Subject: Rookie's mistake melted down $500,000 transformer

    *Palm Beach Post*, 23 Aug 2002 (via Romensko's Obscure Room)
    http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/friday/news_d3568ba0e56222b00057.html

    With the flick of the wrong switch, an unsupervised power-plant apprentice
    melted down a half-million-dollar transformer, blacking out the city for 40
    minutes.

    Apparently, Coady [the apprentice] failed to follow procedures.

    Two circuit breakers -- called the east and west buses -- must be flipped in
    a particular order to avoid damaging equipment: the west bus first, then the
    east bus. The procedure was written for an important reason -- because the
    west bus turns on the cooling system for the transformer.

    The switches are in separate rooms. Coady said he closed the east switch
    before Stephenson [the supervisor] closed the west one. They couldn't see
    each other when the [switches were closed and the] damage was done.

    The result was disastrous. "It was literally an explosion inside the
    transformer," Lake Worth Utilities Director Miller said. "The internal parts
    of the transformer reached such high temperatures that even the insulation
    inside the transformer was burned."

    Stephenson said Coady had no clue what had happened. "He was completely
    unaware," Stephenson wrote in a memo to Baker. "With his lack of knowledge
    of the plant electrical controls, it was not even possible to explain to him
    what he did. He would not have understood. His training did not include
    these advanced concepts."

    // Comment:
    Giant circuit breakers have to be flipped in a certain order blindly in
    different rooms? This was an accident waiting to happen. It is scary that
    systems like this can exist. Note that the poor trainee was blamed, of
    course, for not understanding the 'advanced concepts'.

    ------------------------------

    Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:10:35 -0400
    From: "Gene Berkowitz" <geneb.ma.ultranetrcn.com>
    Subject: Police dispatch disrupted by broken lightbulb

    This is a Rube Goldberg sort of story: Man damages cruiser. Police use
    pepper spray, restraints, place him in a cell. He jumps up and hits the
    cell light and microphone, destroying the light, tripping a circuit breaker,
    causing the dispatch room lights to go out and messing up the phone systems
    -- which still were not working properly the next day. [Source: Stacey Hart
    and Michael Wyner, *Sudbury Town Crier* (Massachusetts), 24 Jul 2002;
    heavily PGN-ed] http://www.townonline.com/metrowest/sudbury/38116472.htm

    ------------------------------

    Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:10:22 -0700
    From: Max <max7531earthlink.net>
    Subject: Sabotage in a few clicks: NDS vs. Canal Plus

    Canal Plus (a maker of smart cards) alleges a rival firm (NDS Group, a
    competing company largely owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp) broke its
    secret code, then gave it to counterfeiters. (In Italy, for example, 75% of
    premium-channel viewers are reportedly freeloaders using bogus cards.)
    Canal Plus is suing for a billion dollars in damages. NDS denies the
    charges, attributing the suit to "an attempt by an inept competitor to shift
    the blame for its incompetence." This situation has also played a role in
    the downfall of Vivendi's Jean-Marie Messier and the auctioning off of
    Vivendi's Italian satellite system -- purchased by News Corp. "The case
    marks the biggest and most sensational accusation yet of corporate
    cybercrime, a shadowy, unsavory and increasingly popular activity."
    [Source: A very long and interesting article by David Streitfeld, *Los
    Angeles Times*, Column One, 29 Aug 2002; PGN-ed]

    Streitfeld's article also notes that "Seven years ago, Cadence Design
    Systems, a maker of design software for integrated circuits, sued Avant
    Corp., claiming it had stolen its programs. A subsequent criminal case,
    brought by a determined San Jose prosecutor, led to verdicts last year
    against seven current and former Avant employees, including the chief
    executive and three founders. Five received jail sentences."

    Also, "In 1999, Internet bookseller Alibris paid $250,000 to resolve federal
    charges that it had unlawfully intercepted thousands of e-mail messages to
    its customers from online bookseller Amazon.com."

    ------------------------------

    Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:38:06 -0700
    From: "NewsScan" <newsscannewsscan.com>
    Subject: Tough EU privacy rules influence U.S. Web practices

    Europe's strict approach to consumer data protection is forcing many
    U.S.-based companies to follow suit in order to continue serving their
    European customers. "Europeans are extremely concerned about the use of data
    about people," says Rockwell Schnabel, the U.S. ambassador to the European
    Union. "The data privacy issue is a huge issue over there. American
    partners have to live with those rules, and they can't do with it what they
    can with American data." A case in point is Microsoft's Passport online ID
    service that enables users to log in once and then move from one secure Web
    site to another. Consumer and privacy groups had accused Microsoft of not
    taking adequate steps to protect consumers' personal information and in a
    settlement earlier this month, Microsoft admitted no wrongdoing, but agreed
    to government oversight of its consumer privacy policies for the next 20
    years. A separate Passport investigation by the EU is still pending. "The EU
    directive raised the bar on the practices by U.S. companies for
    U.S. consumers," says Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy
    Information Center. "Passport is a good example of that, because Microsoft
    is very much aware that its products are going to have to meet EU privacy
    standards." EU standards specify that data may be collected only for
    "specified, explicit and legitimate purposes, and to be held only if it is
    relevant, accurate and up to date." Citizens may access any data about
    themselves, find out its source, correct inaccuracies, and pursue legal
    recourse for misuse. [*San Jose Mercury News*, 29 Aug 2002; NewsScan Daily,
    30 August 2002]
      http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/local/3966648.htm

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:20:03 +0800 (WST)
    From: Bernd Felsche <bernieinnovative.iinet.net.au>
    Subject: Big Brother hiding inside cars' airbags - tells fibs (RISKS-22.21)

    Monty Solomon (RISKS-22.21) drew our attention to the use of recorded
    information in airbag triggers for crash investigation. Notwithstanding the
    likelihood that extraction of such measurements doesn't constitute a legal
    measurement(*), such information extracted must be treated with extreme
    distrust because the operating environment is not trusted and has many
    potential modes of unpredictable and unforeseen behaviour.

    The recording device isn't measuring road speed at all; rather, it relies
    not only on its own sensors, but also on information provided by other
    subsystems in the car. Road speed is most easily (cheaply) obtained by
    measuring the rate of revolutions of the final drive gearing in the
    transmission. That speed depends on the speed of rotation of the driving
    wheels and not the road speed.

    One example where the indicated speed is nothing like the true road speed is
    when one or more drive wheels becomes airborne. Depending on the current
    driver demand and engine torque, a wide-open-throttle condition results in a
    very rapid acceleration of the airborne drive wheels, producing a "speed" as
    high as will be permitted by the engine management system.

    How much data are stored is another question. If the recording is only of a
    second or less of the end to a crash, then it's difficult to establish the
    sanity of individual data points.

    The records may be accurate, but how can you be sure that they reflect what
    happened in reality?

    (*) e.g. http://www.nsc.gov.au/PAGES/Nms/nms_metrology.html

    Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia

    ------------------------------

    Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:44:27 -0700
    From: Hal Murray <hmurraysuespammers.org>
    Subject: FEC OK's SMS spam without saying who paid for it

    A decision by federal election regulators to exempt text-based wireless ads
    from campaign disclosure rules has critics warning that consumers could find
    their mobile phones subject to a flood of political spam as campaign 2002
    kicks into high gear.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49356-2002Aug22.html

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:41:19 -0400
    From: Monty Solomon <montyroscom.com>
    Subject: Website Security Flaw Costs ZD
     
    By Brian McWilliams, Wired.com, 28 Aug 2002

    Ziff-Davis Media has agreed to revamp its Web site's security and pay
    affected customers $500 each after lax security exposed the personal data of
    thousands of subscribers last year. The settlement, announced on 28 Aug
    2002 by New York's Attorney General, could spur other online companies to
    do a better job securing their sites ...
      http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,54817,00.html

    ------------------------------

    Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:16:26 -0400
    From: Monty Solomon <montyroscom.com>
    Subject: Transport worker ID in works; privacy rights, funding at issue

    The US Transportation Security Administration is developing a mandatory
    identification card for every trucker, dock worker, airport employee, and
    mass-transit operator in the nation with access to secure corners of the
    country's transportation network. ... if implemented, it would be the
    first broad national identity-card system and could involve hundreds of
    thousands of people. [Source: Raphael Lewis, *The Boston Globe*, 24 Aug
    2002; PGN-excerpted]
    http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/236/nation/Transport_worker_ID_in_works+.shtml

    ------------------------------

    Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:21:16 +0200
    From: "Peter B. Ladkin" <ladkinrvs.uni-bielefeld.de>
    Subject: The EUR-RVSM safety case is flawed

    Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) is a procedure by which the
    altitude separation between Flight Levels 290 and 410 (that is, between
    29,000 ft pressure altitude and 41,000 ft pressure altitude) is reduced to
    1,000 ft vertically instead of the previous 2,000 ft vertically. It has been
    in force in European airspace since early 2002, after trial periods since
    1997 on the North Atlantic Track (NAT) and early introduction in Ireland,
    the UK, Germany and Austria, which was, however, not based on the procedures
    for the full EUR-RVSM implementation.

    However, the argument in the Pre-Implementation Safety Case for RVSM
    demonstrates at most that RVSM operations without ACAS meet Target Levels of
    Safety /TLS). It does not demonstrate that RVSM operations with
    ACAS-equipped aircraft meet Target Levels of Safety; neither can a correct
    argument for this assertion be reconstructed from the document. The document
    believes it derives the assertion that RVSM-with-ACAS-meets-TLS from the
    assertion that RVSM-without-ACAS-meets-TLS, but the reasoning is flawed and,
    as far as I can see, irreparable.

    Since most aircraft operating in RVSM are required to be ACAS-equipped, the
    safety case does therefore not establish the required safety level of RVSM
    operations as they are currently conducted and for the foreseeable future.

    The reasoning demonstrating the flaw is contained in the short note "The
    Pre-Implementation Safety Case for RVSM in European Airspace is Flawed",
    RVS-Occ-02-03, available from http://www.rvs-uni-bielefeld.de

    Peter B. Ladkin, University of Bielefeld, http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de

    ------------------------------

    Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 04:51:34 +0200
    From: "Peter B. Ladkin" <ladkinrvs.uni-bielefeld.de>
    Subject: Bogus Probabilistic Risk Assessments (Re: Fairfax, Risks 22.21)

    In a note which, inter alia, extols the merits of Probabilistic Risk
    Assessment (PRA) for assessing risks, Stephen Fairfax claims in RISKS-22.21
    that:

      Guns in the cockpit represent an independent layer that does not
      automatically fail when screens fail. While there is heated debate about
      the possibilities of negative consequences, a dispassionate analysis of
      the probabilities of both success and failure offers rather overwhelming
      evidence that on balance, armed pilots will reduce both the likelihood and
      consequences of hijacking attempts.

    He claims to be able to assess the probabilities of success and failure (of
    what, he does not say). I think his assertion is bogus. But it takes
    advantage of what one might call sound-bite rhetoric. It takes one sentence
    to assert, but one page to refute, and many people don't have the patience
    or interest to read that page. Here it is, for those who do.

    A PRA works well with physical components. You have a thingummie which is
    supposed to do thisandthat. You make lots of them, put them on a test
    apparatus which makes them do thisandthat continuously, and assess a failure
    rate using well-founded statistical techniques. A physical system has lots
    of components; lots of different thingummies, so you arrange the failures
    and their consequences in a taxomony, plug in the failure rates you have,
    and do straightforward computations to assess the rates of different kinds
    of failures of the entire system. This system has worked well for half a
    century, mainly in the guise of Fault Tree Analysis, and is routine for many
    applications.

    Applying it to components that do not fail that way is rather more
    tricky. Software, for example. The assessment of SW reliability is a whole
    branch of statistical methods to itself. It is anything but routine: some
    very clever people have become famous through their ability to make it sort
    of work, sometimes.

    Then there is PRA applied to human negotiations. People interacting with
    each other. Dealing with hijacking is an almost pure negotiation
    situation. It is not like HW or SW assessment. PRA can be and is performed
    on negotiation situations, but one requires reliable data, as in the HW
    case. If you don't have data, whether for hardware, software or wetware, a
    PRA cannot work. And reliable data for human negotiation situations is very
    sensitive to environmental variables, many of which one cannot see (it is
    notoriously difficult to control for cultural dependencies, for example),
    let alone that infamous variable known to believers in it as free will.

    On hijackings in the US, there is no data, none, for the last, oh, thirty
    years until September 11 last year. The only way that Fairfax could gather
    data for any of his proposed models would be by simulation, or by patching
    together data from fragments of behavior inferred from other situations that
    someone considers relevantly similar.

    There is no data, for example, on facility of deployment of a firearm by
    cockpit crew. That includes the decision to deploy, not just the physical
    deployment. Second, deployment of a firearm changes the negotiating
    situation. There is no data on how this negotiating situation will be
    changed in a commercial airplane. One has to guess: will it be more like a
    hostage-taking situation, or more like a military firefight amongst
    civilians? Until September 11, 2001, the assumption was that it is a hostage
    situation and pilots were advised accordingly. Opinions have since
    changed. I emphasise the word "opinions". Those four examples constitute
    meagre data, as those warning us against "responding by preparing to fight
    the previous war" have pointed out.

    No data, though? Surely El Al's been doing it for years, one might think,
    and they haven't been hijacked. Exactly: there is no data. No data is not
    data. One could infer that if one takes over the whole El Al prophylactic
    package, including the cultural norms and expectations of most of its
    passengers, maybe one would not have big hijacking problems either, but that
    proposal is not what is being evaluated. Whatever the El Al example might
    tell us, it does not tell us anything *probabilistically* about the US
    domestic consequences of deploying firearms as cockpit equipment, so it's
    not input to a valid PRA on that issue.

    To summarise, I am not aware of any data on which to base a PRA concerning
    the deployment of firearms in US domestic airline cockpits that is not open
    to strong objections to its relevance to the situation.

    The most worrisome aspect of Fairfax's assertion may be that it is made by a
    presumed expert in PRA. That is the kind of phenomenon that has led and
    continues to lead this enormously powerful, essential, but sensitive set of
    techniques into disrepute. Fairfax is undoubtedly aware that not even the
    National Academy of Sciences, nor the Royal Society in Britain, recommends
    exclusive use of PRA methods as decision procedures for environmental or
    social policy issues, although they used to until the early 1990's.

    Whatever the wisdom or otherwise of deploying firearms on commercial
    aircraft, the issue should not be determined by arguments with bogus claims
    to objectivity.

    Peter B. Ladkin, University of Bielefeld, http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:05:48 -0400
    From: Monty Solomon <montyroscom.com>
    Subject: Japanese phones vulnerable to hackers?

    Cell phone users in Japan have already had to contend with spam and
    technical glitches, but that may seem like a breeze when hackers finally
    turn their attention to the wireless world. So far, no serious virus
    attacks have been reported in Japan--or anywhere else--but tech security
    companies say cell phones could become targets as they turn into
    sophisticated, high-tech devices like PCs, allowing people to send e-mail,
    surf the Internet and shop online. [...] [Source: Reuters, 26 Aug 2002]
      http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955294.html

    ------------------------------

    Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:49:00 PDT
    From: "Peter G. Neumann" <neumanncsl.sri.com>
    Subject: Microsoft warns of Office and IE risks

    On 22 Aug 2002, Microsoft announced that "critical" security lapses in its
    Office software and Internet Explorer Web browser put tens of millions of
    users at risk of having their files read and altered by online attackers.
    Using e-mail or a Web page, an attacker could use Internet related parts of
    Office to run programs, alter data, and wipe out a hard drive, as well as
    view file and clipboard contents on a user's system. ... [Reuters, 22 Aug
    2002; PGN-ed] http://news.com.com/2100-1001-954973.html

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:33:44 -0400
    From: Monty Solomon <montyroscom.com>
    Subject: Computer expert says he can break Microsoft security

    Software security widely used for Internet banking and e-commerce can be
    easily circumvented, and customer accounts at several of Sweden's largest
    banks remain at risk as a result, a computer expert said on 26 Aug 2002.
    The Swedish hacking expert, who is well known in computer security circles,
    but asked not to be named, demonstrated to Reuters how it was possible
    within minutes to break through security on Web server SSL software from
    Microsoft Corp. He showed how to crack the security systems for Internet
    banking, breaking into three of Sweden's big four banks in quick succession.
    He was then able to show how to conceal his tracks, making detection
    difficult afterward. [Source: Peter Andersson, Reuters, 26 Aug 2002;
    PGN-ed] http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=28447602

    ------------------------------

    Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:20:10 -0700
    From: John Pettitt <jppcloudview.com>
    Subject: A better approach to spam

    I'm a former spamcop user. I've switched to a tool called bogofilter
    (http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/bogofilter/) which is based on Bayesian
    statistics and an article "A Plan for Spam" by Paul Graham
    (http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html) the full article presents an
    interesting discussion of why keyword filters and block lists don't really
    work and suggests a better way based on real math (rather than hunches and
    suppositions).

    For me the statistical approach doing better than spamcop and razor ever
    did particularly with respect to false positives.

    ------------------------------

    Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:38:55 -0700
    From: Crispin Cowan <crispinwirex.com>
    Subject: Re: Keystone SpamCop summary and response (Felten, RISKS-22.21)

    > ... The ISP was intimidated by SpamCop and seemed to be trying to show
    > that it was responsive to SpamCop complaints. Hence the quick shutoff of
    > my account.

    Your ISP did not respond appropriately to Spamcop. They did not even follow
    the directions. The ISP is required to address the issue, not shut down the
    site. Shut down the site is one way of addressing the issue, and is only
    appropriate if actual spamming occurred.

    > ... This refusal to reinstate my account is what convinced me that the ISP
    > was afraid of SpamCop.

    Sounds like a really bad ISP.

    > ... For me, the bottom line is this: if SpamCop didn't exist, my site
    > would not have been shut off.

    Near as I can tell from your response, "Blame the ISP, not SpamCop" still
    holds. So change hosting companies; it's not like there's a shortage of
    them.

    SpamCop is an immune response to invaders (spam). Like immune responses, it
    can be inconvenient at times. But SpamCop is not nearly so draconian as you
    make out: the draconian effects are all in your ISP's head.

    Tell us who the ISP is. They are far more to blame for this than SpamCop,
    and so far they've got off scot-free. Traceroute seems to indicate it is
    "netrail.net" but they do not have a responsive web site.

    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, WireX http://wirex.com/~crispin/
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution: http://immunix.org

    ------------------------------

    Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
    From: Terry Carroll <carrolltjc.com>
    Subject: Parody and copyright (Re: US Navy domain hijacking, RISKS-22.13)

    Jay Ashworth (RISKS-22.13) reflects a commonly repeated misunderstanding of
    the Skywalker case, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), as
    though it held that parody is not an infringement. The case held no such
    thing.

    The core holding of the opinion is that the lower court had made a mistake
    by presuming that, because the Campbell parody was a commercial work, its
    use of the original was presumptively not a fair use and therefore
    infringing. It then sent the case back down to the lower courts for further
    consideration in light of the market effect factor.

    The Court specifically rejected the argument that parody is inherently a
    non-infringing fair use. It said that parodies, like any other work, have
    to be judged on a case by case basis:

      Like a book review quoting the copyrighted material criticized, parody may
      or may not be fair use, and petitioner's suggestion that any parodic use
      is presumptively fair has no more justification in law or fact than the
      equally hopeful claim that any use for news reporting should be presumed
      fair, see [Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471
      U.S. 539, 561 (1985)]. The [Copyright] Act has no hint of an evidentiary
      preference for parodists over their victims, and no workable presumption
      for parody could take account of the fact that parody often shades into
      satire when society is lampooned through its creative artifacts, or that a
      work may contain both parodic and non parodic elements. Accordingly,
      parody, like any other use, has to work its way through the relevant [fair
      use] factors, and be judged case by case, in light of the ends of the
      copyright law.

         http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html

    Terry Carroll, Santa Clara, CA carrolltjc.com

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:53:01 +0200 (CEST)
    From: Peter Hanecak <hanecakmegaloman.com>
    Subject: Re: American style cyber warfare ... (Hendrik, R-22.18)

    If such law will be passed, I expect RIAA and/or MPPA will start (maybe
    slowly but definitely) global cyberwar consisting of:

    a) many cracking attacks
    b) many DoS and DDoS attacks
    c) deployment of blocking mechanisms similar to those targeting SPAM ...

    and also leading to:

    a) many lawsuits (international too)
    b) demonstrations
    c) trade blockades

    and a lot of other consequences - maybe also full scale war (jumping point
    may be for example computerized war ship - it may answer electronic attack
    with real rockets - but possibilities are almost endless).

    ------------------------------

    Date: 29 Mar 2002 (LAST-MODIFIED)
    From: RISKS-requestcsl.sri.com
    Subject: Abridged info on RISKS (comp.risks)

     The RISKS Forum is a MODERATED digest. Its Usenet equivalent is comp.risks.
    => SUBSCRIPTIONS: PLEASE read RISKS as a newsgroup (comp.risks or equivalent)
     if possible and convenient for you. Alternatively, via majordomo,
     send e-mail requests to <risks-requestcsl.sri.com> with one-line body
       subscribe [OR unsubscribe]
     which requires your ANSWERing confirmation to majordomoCSL.sri.com .
     If Majordomo balks when you send your accept, please forward to risks.
     [If E-mail address differs from FROM: subscribe "other-address <xy>" ;
     this requires PGN's intervention -- but hinders spamming subscriptions, etc.]
     Lower-case only in address may get around a confirmation match glitch.
       INFO [for unabridged version of RISKS information]
     There seems to be an occasional glitch in the confirmation process, in which
     case send mail to RISKS with a suitable SUBJECT and we'll do it manually.
       .MIL users should contact <risks-requestpica.army.mil> (Dennis Rears).
       .UK users should contact <Lindsay.Marshallnewcastle.ac.uk>.
    => The INFO file (submissions, default disclaimers, archive sites,
     copyright policy, PRIVACY digests, etc.) is also obtainable from
     http://www.CSL.sri.com/risksinfo.html ftp://www.CSL.sri.com/pub/risks.info
     The full info file will appear now and then in future issues. *** All
     contributors are assumed to have read the full info file for guidelines. ***
    => SUBMISSIONS: to risksCSL.sri.com with meaningful SUBJECT: line.
    => ARCHIVES are available: ftp://ftp.sri.com/risks or
     ftp ftp.sri.com<CR>login anonymous<CR>[YourNetAddress]<CR>cd risks
       [volume-summary issues are in risks-*.00]
       [back volumes have their own subdirectories, e.g., "cd 21" for volume 21]
     http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/VL.IS.html [i.e., VoLume, ISsue].
       Lindsay Marshall has also added to the Newcastle catless site a
       palmtop version of the most recent RISKS issue and a WAP version that
       works for many but not all telephones: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/w/r
     http://the.wiretapped.net/security/info/textfiles/risks-digest/ .
     http://www.planetmirror.com/pub/risks/ ftp://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub/risks/
    ==> PGN's comprehensive historical Illustrative Risks summary of one liners:
        http://www.csl.sri.com/illustrative.html for browsing,
        http://www.csl.sri.com/illustrative.pdf or .ps for printing

    ------------------------------

    End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 22.22
    ************************