Re: please stop the Mitnick stuff

At 21:16 1/6/96, John Young wrote:

>   Also, crypto-related: The fact that Shimomura's supposedly
>   secret files were not protected by encryption or other
>   security is what causes Littman and others to think there
>   was a sting (perhaps with TLA help) rather than foolish
>   vanity of the security wizard.

[I do belive this has CP relevance.]

Of course it was a set-up. Mitnick got into Shimomura's computer by
impersonating the IP address of one of Shimomura's machines. The router
should have never let packets in from outside that have an IP address that
is supposed to be inside. That a 'security expert' would overlook such a
blatant and well publicized hole in his _own_ router is inconceivable.

Shimomura was trying to get someone to break into his system. If the bait
was specifically for Mitnick, we may never know.


-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
   PGP encrypted mail preferred.

In article <v02120d0bad14ee9ba9ef@[192.0.2.1]>,
Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> wrote:
>At 21:16 1/6/96, John Young wrote:
>
>>   Also, crypto-related: The fact that Shimomura's supposedly
>>   secret files were not protected by encryption or other
>>   security is what causes Littman and others to think there
>>   was a sting (perhaps with TLA help) rather than foolish
>>   vanity of the security wizard.
>
>[I do belive this has CP relevance.]
>
>Of course it was a set-up. Mitnick got into Shimomura's computer by
>impersonating the IP address of one of Shimomura's machines. The router
>should have never let packets in from outside that have an IP address that
>is supposed to be inside. That a 'security expert' would overlook such a
>blatant and well publicized hole in his _own_ router is inconceivable.

"That word you keep using -- I do not think it means what you think it means."

   - Ian