Hacker (possibly) behind the AT&T Ipad breach has been arrested. And it's weev.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20007827-245.html

by surlyadopter • 16 years ago

70 58 16 years ago

news.cnet.com

sliverstorm2• 16 years ago

Kind of ruins my image of hackers, with all those high-profile drugs.

surlyadopter3• 16 years ago

No, he has a glorious neckbeard. He fits my stereotype perfectly!

daeken• 16 years ago

He's always been known for his extreme drug use. While doing a presentation at Toorcon (I believe) a few years back, he was tripping fairly hard, and even made a comment not quite off mic to that effect. This isn't remotely shocking, really -- only a matter of time. Of course, most hackers I've known have had a similar love of drugs, just tend not to have, well, all of them at the same time.

ronnier• 16 years ago

Do you know if this is the same person? http://www.jewishreview.org/local/Police-question-two-men-ab...

Edit: It appears to be.

drivebyacct2• 16 years ago

Why? Why do people still get hung up on people using drugs? Are you assuming he is an addict? Do you know he abuses them?

dkuchar• 16 years ago

I think he was being sarcastic.

sliverstorm2• 16 years ago

I'm not judging, it just doesn't fit IMHO. A hacker using cocaine and psychedelics? That seems like an Olympic runner smoking cigars, if you follow my meaning.

westbywest• 16 years ago

The drugs/sex/rock+roll spectacle always draws attention, without fail. If the man in this story instead consumed alcohol (a narcotic of similar potency) in a conspicuous fashion, the spectacle would be less.

rufugee• 16 years ago

Agreed. Although I don't personally consume anything but beer and the occasional scotch, I've always viewed drugs, and psychedelics in particular, as mechanisms used to hack the most interesting computer...our brain.

Shorel• 16 years ago

Politics. The drug war ensures that USA money will enslave Mexico and several countries in South America.

Otherwise superior natural resources could make those countries grow too strong for USA to be happy about it. They can even become socialist countries.

ahoyhere• 16 years ago

You should read "What the Doormouse Said." Basically, modern micro-computer culture owes so much to counterculture/drug culture that it's beyond belief.

chopsueyar• 16 years ago

If the scope of the warrant is for computer hardware/software, are his possession of these substances inadmissable?

blhack2• 16 years ago

They can't keep searching after they find what they're looking for, but if they notice something else while they're there, I think it's okay in the eyes of the law.

dougmccune• 16 years ago

I remember a police officer telling me they like getting warrants for small things. For example, if they have a bait car they're trying to get someone to steal they'll have a purse in there. If they can get a warrant that lets them search for a purse (or something the equivalent size) they can basically search everything in the house (anywhere a purse could be hidden), which means free reign to search all drawers, etc. Then anything they find in that search (drugs, etc) can all be used against the person. But if you're only looking for something big (like if someone stole a big screen TV) you're not allowed to search places that it can't possibly be hidden.

But of course I am not a police officer and this was all casual conversation, so grain of salt you know?

ryanwaggoner• 16 years ago

I took Navy Security Forces training years ago and our instructors were all ex-cops. They said the exact same thing. It was basically all a big game to see how you could trick or manipulate the "suspect" into letting you violate their rights. Still makes me angry.

boredguy8• 16 years ago

You're off a little bit, though this is a HUGELY unclear area in law right now. The term is the "plain View exception" or "plain view doctrine." It's why your trash is searchable if you put it out for pickup. It's why your trash is searchable over a fence if the lid is off.

Horton v. California, while executing a narrowly issued warrant, officers found additional evidence "in plain view" and the Supreme Court ruled the evidence admissible.

This question is particularly relevant to IT because different courts have ruled different ways on how "plain view" applies to computer searches. http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleFriendlyL... for a little on that particular question.

mambodog• 16 years ago

Goatse security group? Really?

nym• 16 years ago

"Gaping holes exposed"

Sukotto• 16 years ago

I never thought I'd see a relevant comment about Goatse on HN.

siculars• 16 years ago

When I saw this was done by "Goatse Security" I loled all day long and loled some more at the thought of journalists around the world googling goatse.

fletchowns• 16 years ago

Is putting random shit at the end of a URL really illegal?

seiji2• 16 years ago

There was this from a few years ago too: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10611 -- I think it was the same sort of "append a param to the URL" event.

We're at a gaping chasm of misunderstanding here. Tech people see websites as things to be used and toyed with. Non-tech people see websites as things that have terms of service that are supposed to legally restrict what you can do. "YOU MUST NOT ACCESS THIS WEBSITE IN ANY AUTOMATED FASHION WHATSOEVER."

They argue on a basis resembling: "You wouldn't break into the admissions office and steal the list of accepted candidates, would you?" We counter-argue that it's like knowing a person who can't lie to you. If you ask them for the result, they give you the result. Is it illegal to ask for an answer if they don't even hesitate to give it to you?

surlyadopter3• 16 years ago

I think that is the same line of reasoning some warez/piracy sites used to put those "if you are a law enforcement personnel you are not allowed to view this website" messages.

tvon• 16 years ago

Doesn't that counter argument amount to "but it's easy, and tempting"?

gizmo3• 16 years ago

It's not random shit, it's deliberately crafted shit. Just because something can be represented by bunch of ones and zeros doesn't make it any less meaningful. So of course it should be illegal. Just as illegal as "random characters" that happen to contain terrorist plans or worse.

gloob• 16 years ago

Though, admittedly, the question does arise regarding just why AT&T would publicly publish a web page if they didn't want anyone to see it. "I thought it was private" might be a legitimate excuse for a middle-aged woman on Facebook. I have less sympathy for a telecom, somehow.

koeselitz2• 16 years ago

"Terror plans or worse" have never been illegal in the United States.

mukyu• 16 years ago

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-management/2005/10/06/t...

I also recall a case where someone just removed one or two directories from a path and found an unprotected virtual listing but they said it was unauthorized because he had been sent a 403 at some point.

patio11• 16 years ago

"Wow, that took a lot of effort" is not frequently an element of the offense, for anything.

billswift2• 16 years ago

In ordinary trespass it is. I am about to spend several hundred dollars to fence my back yard, because that is the only way to stop people from just cutting across it.

sp332• 16 years ago

I think the main reason the FBI got involved was not because the leak was massive or damaging, but to figure out whether he actually broke any laws. Or more realistically, to find something to charge him with.

enjo• 16 years ago

It's an interstate complaint. I believe only the FBI has the ability to followup on it in the first place.

uhhyeahdude2• 16 years ago

Oh, weev...

http://weev.livejournal.com/

weev as the iProphet: http://the-iprophet.org/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5643217366887354926... (toorcon talk while tripping)

http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Oct/82 (some background, dox; sorry if this sort of thing is frowned upon here)

The E.D. page: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Weev

Antisec: http://antisec.wordpress.com/

Goatse Security: http://security.goatse.fr/

gizmo3• 16 years ago

Seem to be some hateful themes there. Is he just doing that for the heck of it or is it real?

uhhyeahdude2• 16 years ago

weev is a trolls' troll, so I wouldn't take anything at face value.

weev on trolling and troll culture: http://www.corrupt.org/act/interviews/weev

illumin83• 16 years ago

Wow, nice guy. I watched about 3 minutes of his toorcon talk and he seems to be advocating destroying internet infrastructure and committing as much crime as possible. Exploiting 0 days, etc. What a class act. We need more upstanding individuals like him in the "community."

His livejournal is like looking inside the mind of a drugged out crazy. He seems to be anti-jew, anti-muslim, anti-gay, and affiliated with the Westboro Baptist Church somehow. Basically, if there is some psycho hate speech group on the Internet somewhere, he's probably in it.

Not exactly security professional material, if you get my drift.

Alex39172• 16 years ago

"His livejournal is like looking inside the mind of a drugged out crazy."

IANAD, but wouldn't surprise me if he was developing some sort of mental illness. He seems to have just about every risk factor, and his writing combined with the fact that he's gained 50+ lbs in the last two years are telling.

mcantelon• 16 years ago

...and the nicely titled New York Times piece "The Trolls Among Us":

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html

Daniel_Newby• 16 years ago

From the educational documentary Hackers:

                  JOEY
      That was me. That was me. I did that.

                  DADE
      You did this from your house.

 Joey takes a drag from his cigarette and just
 nods, with a big grin on his face.

                  PHREAK
      What are you, stoned or stupid? You don't
      hack a bank across state lines from your
      house, you'll get nailed by the FBI. Where
      are your brains, in your ass? Don't you know
      anything?

                  CEREAL
      Stupid, man. It's universally stupid.

blhack2• 16 years ago

Well how am I supposed to know anything if you guys never tell me anything!?!

sfall• 16 years ago

I think that the best idea of what the security group did was comparable to calling up a company that does not provide a directory and the group showed you can easily create that directory but didn't publish it

drivebyacct2• 16 years ago

Wow. He's crazy, loves God and Fred Phelps.

http://www.queerty.com/andrew-auernheimer-saved-your-ipad-fr...

Hacker (possibly) behind the AT&T Ipad breach has been arrested. And it's weev.

Related Stories