Phrack #32
Magazine papers
Phrack #32.. papers exploit for Magazine platform
/favicon.ico
Exploit Database
==Phrack Classic== Volume Three, Issue 32, File #1 of XX Phrack Classic Newsletter Issue XXXII Index %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% November 17, 1990 Over the past year we have seen MANY changes in the Phreak/Hack community. We felt the heat of Operation Sun Devil, watched are friends become public scapegoats of the 'hacker world', and watched in anger as the lawyers have tried to smash us and put us out like an old cigarette. Almost everyday I hear about someone who just got 'busted' for one reason or another. This makes me sit back and think. If people go to jail for hacking, and hackers know this, then why does it continue? Ahhh... an unsolved mystery. Maybe I should call Time Life Books. No, I don't think so. Anyways, I am pleased to announce a new era in electronic publications. A new age for a new age. Ladies and gentleman (Trumpet Fanfare Added Here), Phrack Classic. Phrack Classic takes off where Phrack left off. For those of you who have read Phrack then you might remember me as the editor for a while. Well, now I am doing Phrack Classic to try to release a newsletter that really describes what the Phreak/Hack world is like here in the 1990's. People ask me why I am writing a hacker magazine, and they look down on me for my attempt. I feel Phrack Classic is written for hackers, yes, but I also feel that a hacker is one "who enjoys pushing the envelope, bypassing limits, discovering knowledge, inventing solutions, <and> adventuring into uncharted areas." So is it so wrong to publish a newsletter for the exchange of free information? No, I don't think so. Anyone is welcome to submit an article for Phrack Classic, and I encourage everyone to do so. I hope you enjoy this issue and I look forward to bringing you many more in the not so distant future. Stay safe and be free. See you at Ho Ho Con! Crimson Death Editor of Phrack Classic (Quote taken from the Hackers 6.0 Conference Brochure) If you have a question, an article submission, or you just wanna say hello. Send mail to Crimson Death and Doc Holiday at: pc@well.uucp _______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents: 1. Phrack Classic XXXII Index by Crimson Death 2. Phrack Classic Spotlight featuring Knight Lightning by Crimson Death 3. Concerning Hackers Who Break Into Computer Systems by Dorthy Denning 4. The Art of Investigation by Butler 5. Unix 'Nasties' by Sir Hackalot 6. Automatic Teller Machine Cards by Jester Sluggo 7. A Trip to the NCSC by Knight Lightning 8. Inside the SYSUAF.DAT File by Pain Hertz 9. RSTS by Crimson Death 10-12. Knight Line I/Parts 1-3 by Doc Holiday _______________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ==Phrack Classic== Volume Three, Issue 32, File #2 of 12 ==Phrack Classic Spotlight== Knight Lightning ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Personal ~~~~~~~ Handle: Knight Lightning Call him: Craig Neidorf Past handles: None Handle origin: Cross between character "Lightning Lad" from DC Comics' Legion of Superheros and Michael Knight from the NBC television series "Knight Rider". Date of Birth: I doubt you're sending me a birthday card so skip it. Age at current date: 21 years old Height: 5'10" or so (give or take an inch) Weight: 135-140 lbs. Eye color: Brown Hair Color: Dark Brown Computers: Apple IIc (Do you believe this?) Co-Sysop of: Metal Shop Private, The Brewery, Quick Shop/Metal Shop AE, Whackoland, The Dark Tower, Digital ITS (yay!), Stronghold East and probably a few more I've forgotten about. Net address: C483307@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Yes, they actually gave C483307@UMCVMB.BITNET me my account back!) knight@well.sf.ca.us ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For several years I had been a die hard fan of video games, both arcade and home versions. It was really the Atari 2600 video game Adventure that led me into the world of computers and hacking. As many people might know there was a secret locked within this game concerning a "magic" dot. It was not mentioned in any instruction manuals for the game, but if you could find it and bring it to the right place in the game, you could enter a room that didn't officially exist. In this room was a message flashing in gold and black. It said "Created by Warren Robinet". From that point on I experimented with every Atari cartridge I had. I tried screwing around with the connections, the components on the system itself, and I attempted bizarre tactics within the games, just to see what might happen. During that period of time I found several more secretly implanted messages and developed new ways of playing the games. Atari played on this idea quite a bit when they created a four game saga called Swordquest, but by then the fun was taken out of it because you knew already that something was waiting to be found. Eventually I upgraded to ColecoVision, but before too long this bored me as well. It is sort of interesting to see the new surge of home videogames of Nintendo, NEC, and Sega. It makes me wonder if this cycle is permanent. I was first introduced to the world of computers by a friend who had a Commodore 64. He showed me what bulletin boards were and then took me on a tour of the ARPAnet. Later that year, my long-time and best friend, known to most of you as Taran King obtained the use of his father's IBM PC. Together we explored various bulletin boards in the St. Louis area, always looking for new places to visit. In August of 1983 I received an Apple IIc as a birthday gift from my parents. It was real basic -- no monitor (I had a black and white television for that), no extra disk drive, no printer, no joystick, and no modem. Those items I would have to earn. So instead of playing with faraway computer systems, I was introduced to programming and a community of people who considered themselves to be software pirates. These people seemed to be able to get software before the companies even began to sell it. However, I was content to play games like Ultima III and Wizardry and hack the game itself by altering character values. This enabled me to move my characters through different places, some of which I never might have realized existed. Later, I was able to redesign the game itself to create an endless world of new possibilities for intellectual stimulation. Finally in March of 1984, my parents purchased me a modem. It was a sad little piece of plastic made by Volksmodem, 300 baud and battery operated, but it worked and now Knight Lightning was ready to take to the wires. By this time I already knew a lot about the bulletin board community through Taran King. Even so, it was relatively odd how fast I became co-sysop of the ancestor to Metal Shop known as The Dark Tower. TDT was operated by a "hacker" with the truly unoriginal name of David Lightman. Before I knew it, I was in remote command of his system with full power over user validation and BBS maintenance. Although the system went down after about six months, it did attract a few out of state users and it was here that my notoriety began. It was almost funny, but even as early as then Taran King, Forest Ranger, and I became known as the top hacker/phreakers in the St. Louis area. To this day I still don't understand why. By July of 1985 most of the hacker bulletin boards in St. Louis had disappeared, but The Dark Tower program lived again when Taran King created Metal Shop: The Dark Tower Phase II. He took the name from a popular afternoon rock'n roll program (KSHE FM radio) that centered on heavy metal. Both of us had visited systems around the country and we were able to effectively advertise MS. At one point we had over 500 registered users so we switched to a general password system for security reasons and eventually in January of 1986 the board became Metal Shop Private and we cut 4/5ths of the users. During the late Spring and early Summer of 1985 Taran King and I created the 2600 Club. It was just a group name to stick behind our handles since everybody was doing it, but it only took use a few months to realize just how ignorant hacker groups really are. However, the 2600 Club had one great legacy -- it gave birth to Phrack. If you go back and look, you'll notice that the first issue of Phrack was a product of the 2600 Club. The idea for doing Phrack came from Forest Ranger. Taran King provided the arena and would be the editor and I came up with the name. When I used to call bulletin boards like the Twilight Zone (sysoped by The Marauder) I would data capture the message bases and save them in text files. The messages from the hacking subboard would be saved in a file called HACKMESS (which stood for hack messages), the messages from the phone phreak subboard were saved as PHREAKMESS, but when there was a subboard where both these types of messages appeared together, I simply merged the two names and came up with PHRACKMESS. Since the newsletter would contain information on both topics and more, I felt the name Phrack was applicable. So where did the "Inc." come from? Actually it came from another DC Comics series called Infinity Inc. Kind of silly now since we never intended to actually incorporate. The first issue of Phrack was distributed on November 17, 1985. In Phrack issue 2 I began the ongoing series of Phrack World News. I followed every story I could and it was fun. The first issue was sort of lame, but eventually I learned that PWN was the most popular segment of Phrack. The greatest thing about PWN was that it was an original concept for a hacker newsletter -- lots of people had tried to write "how-to files, but no one had ever tried news before. Who was getting busted? What did they do? How can I make sure it doesn't happen to me? Lots of the stories were exaggerated or in the case of Oryan QUEST, fabricated (by QUEST himself). Outside of Phrack World News I wrote files about Videoconferencing, Private Branch eXchanges, and a few others here and there. Prior to Phrack I had released a huge glossary of telecommunications terms and files about the divestiture of AT&T and its aftermath. Taran King and I also wrote a joke file about "Real Phreaks" that was echoed by a continuation of that file in the Phrack parody issue number 13 that was released on April 1, 1987. Throughout my years I have met many people who call themselves hackers and/or phone phreaks: Android Pope - I wonder how married life is treating him. Aristotle - Sporty! He is the former editor of the New TAP. Bad Subscript - Right hand man to Control C and an expert at disco dancing in high speed Camaros. Bill from RNOC - How have your phone bills been? High? Have they been!? He is also known as "the most dangerous man in New York." Beer Wolf - Former sysop of the (Metal Shop) Brewery. Blue Buccaneer - Lost track of him over the years. Cat Man - How about a nice Hawaiian Punch? Cheap Shades - Now a Computer Science graduate of University of Missouri-Rolla. Former sysop of Metal Shop AE and QuickShop. Control C - A man with serious problems right now. Hope you get those videotapes and best of luck! Crimson Death - The one in 618 NPA. Very un-original name, but definitely one of a kind. Cryptic Fist - Kinda warm for that leather jacket, isn't it? (90 degrees) Cutthroat - So what McDonalds do *you* work at? Dan The Operator - An informant for John Maxfield (SummerCon '87). Data Line - Now a government agent, but hardly a hacker tracker. David Lightman - The sysop of The Dark Tower in 314 NPA. The Dictator - Not-so secret agent of Gail Thackeray, the assistant Arizona state attorney behind Operation Sun-Devil. In a past life, Dale was the creator of Candid Camera. What a surprise that was this summer. Disk Jockey - I thought he was a great guy until he started to backstab me on Lunitic Labs while I was under indictment. Doc Holiday (901) - The original! Dr. Cypher - Knowledgeable person who remains local. Dr. Forbin - Last seen at SummerCon '89. Dr. Ripco - Well haven't met him yet, but in a couple of weeks. Doom Prophet - A friend who seems to have disappeared. Epsilon - Must have lost my number I guess. Emmanuel Goldstein - Also known as Eric Corley, the editor of 2600 Magazine. Erik Bloodaxe - He is a wildcard... totally unpredictable... hacks by the seat of his pants. Still active, but he'd better not have a squirt gun next to his bed or he may be sorry.{SS} Forest Ranger - The man who introduced me to the hacker elite way back when. Former editor of TeleComputist Newsletter. Gary Seven - Don't remember much about him. Met him with Lex in Fla. Hatchet Molly - You know him as Computer Underground Digest's Gordon Meyer. He used a hacker alias to better enable him to write his famous thesis. Jester Sluggo - A mystery man who is still a legend in the Zantigo restroom and a better than average drunk driver. Kleptic Wizard - Was he BJ or the Bear? Lex Luthor - One time great legend of LOD, now secret BellSouth Security (at least until I hear otherwise). The Leftist - I wonder what he was going to say about me at my trial. He gave me a nod the day they dropped the charges against me. The US Attorney's office tells me that he was going to claim he learned all he knew about hacking from reading Phrack. Loki - Lost track of him over the years. Lucifer 666 - Lights, Camera, Action! The Mad Hacker - Sysop of The Private Connection in 219 NPA. Mad Hatter - Still don't know what to make of him, but I wonder if he still thinks table salt and baking soda are cocaine. The Mentor - Author of GURPS CyberPunk and former sysop of The Phoenix Project bulletin board. The Noid - Important enough for Southwestern Bell to question me about him so important enough to be mentioned here. Par - Hans. Phantom Phreaker - A friend. Phil Phree - Sort of spaced out character and right hand man to The Ur-vile. Phrozen Ghost - Lost track of him. Predat0r - Anarchistic editor of the New TAP. The Prophet - Didn't actually "meet" him, but I did see him and hear him speak... as a witness for the prosecution at my trial. I don't hold a grudge. His testimony helped clear me. Rabbit - Franz. The Renegade - Thinks he is part of the Illuminati. Reverend Enge - Not that religious. Sir Francis Drake - A great guy with an odd taste in jewelry. The editor of the now defunct WORM. Duck! Sir William - Never did hear the whole story of his problems with the University of Michigan computing staff. Surfer Bob - Lost track of him, but he enjoyed a tan at SummerCon'88. Synthetic Slug - Surfs up! Taran King - My best friend of over 11 years. TWCB Inc. - Two brothers who attempted to resurrect TAP, but failed. Tuc - Hey! He's TUC! The Ur-Vile - Don't know how I feel about him. He needs a real handle. Some of the memorable bulletin boards I was on include: Alliance - By Phantom Phreaker Brainstorm Elite - Where I met Phantom Phreaker and recruited him to Metal Shop Private. Broadway Show - By Broadway Hacker. Changed its name to The Radio Station. Catch-22 - By Silver Spy. Only 22 users on this system. Chamas - By Terra (Chaos Computer Club) in Germany. Dark Tower - By David Lightman 314 Digital ITS - By Oryan QUEST. BBS Commands were in Spanish. DUNE - Secret system imbedded on the Dartmouth University mainframe operated remotely by Apollo Phoebus. Flying Circus - By Monty Python FreeWorld II - By Major Havoc Hell Phrozen Over - By the original Crimson Death. Inspiration for the first Phrack Pro-Phile. Intergalactic Dismantling, Inc. - By Aiken Drum Lost City of Atlantis - By The Lineman Lunatic Labs UnLtd. - By The Mad Alchemist. Great system! Matrix - By Dr. Stangelove Metal Shop AE - By Cheap Shades when he lived in St. Louis, Missouri. Metal Shop Brewery - By Beer Wolf who now denies that it ever happened. Metal Shop Private - Greatest bulletin board of all time. MetroMedia - By Dr. Doom. System became Danger Zone Private. NetSys - By Terminus. NetSys is now in possession of US Secret Service and Terminus' life is in a shambles. They set him up and shut him down. You know him as Len Rose. Pearly Gates - First real out of state bulletin board that I called. It had a secret section of the board for all of the really good information. It was operated by Simon Templar. Phoenix Project - By The Mentor. Great center of learning. Phreak Klass 2600 - By The Egyptian Lover. Preceded The Phoenix Project as a great center of learning. Pipeline - Another early bbs I visited. Pirate-80 - A codes board run by Scan Man that has been up for almost 10 years. This system was NOT a target in Operation Sun-Devil. Odd? Private Connection - By The Mad Hacker Private Sector - Legendary system. QuickShop - By Cheap Shades when he lived in Rolla, Missouri. RACS III - By Tuc Radio Station - See The Broadway Show. Ripco - By Dr. Ripco - Shut down in Operation Sun-Devil, but its back up now. Septic Tank - By The Safecracker. Second generation of The Twilight Zone. ShadowSpawn - By Psychic Warlord. Great debate about the use of handles and real name/telephone/etc. "We're Not *ELITE*, We're Just Cool As Hell!" Taran King thought they were elite in the negative sense of the word. Great system though. Speed Demon Elite - By The Radical Rocker and home base to MetaliBashers, Inc. Stronghold East Elite - The "real" sysop was Slave Driver, but the board was run from the home of The Equalizer. Twilight Zone - By The Marauder. Great system for knowledge from my early days. Zyolog - By Byte Rider in Hawaii. There are probably a few others that I have forgotten to mention. My greatest computer learning experiences came from people like Bill From RNOC, RNOC, Phantom Phreaker, Forest Ranger, and the authors of the multitude of Phrack files and other technical journals. In general I see computers as the communications medium of the 21st Century so I devoted a lot of time to mastering their use. I do not advocate the illegal breaking in to computer systems, but there are certain types of information that I feel should be available to everyone equally and not just the rich or the well connected. Through my experiences on the Internet, I have had legitimate access to IBM VM/CMS, Unix, and VAX/VMS systems. For the most part I am content with my VM/CMS account, but will accept invitations from system managers to join their systems as well. With Forest Ranger and Taran King, I organized and attended SummerCon '87, SummerCon '88, and SummerCon '89. I did not attend SummerCon '90 since I was in Chicago at the time. I helped in organizing and attended PartyCon '87 and most recently I appeared and spoke at the 13th Annual National Computer Security Conference in Washington D.C. I had been a part of TeleComputist Newsletter, which inadvertently led to my first real media appearance (Detroit Free Press) and prior to that I was helping TWCB Inc. to create a NEW TAP. However, when I learned that they were just pulling a fraud, I exposed them. For 5 years I devoted myself to Phrack with absolutely no compensation save knowledge and experiences gained. =============================================================================== Interests: Racquetball (varsity team in high school and a bookshelf full of trophies), Telecommunications, Computers, Music (classic rock and pop music... NO RAP!), Fraternity life (well at least up until the trustees suspended me for being indicted), Women (sexy and smart over just good looks any day), Driving at warp speed on the interstate. Craig's Favorite Things ----------------------- Women: I've got it, but don't flaunt it. Cars: Ford Mustang, Eagle Talon, Nissan 300 ZX, and Porsche *911* Carrera! Foods: No Curry in a hurry-Blecch! American, Italian, Mexican, and Chinese! Music: Genesis, Rush, Yes, Chicago, Eagles, Def Leppard, The Police, Styx... Leisure: Sleeping, working out, racquetball, writing, computing. Alcohol: Bacardi, Smirnoff, Jack Daniels, Pat O'Briens, Hard Rock Cafe. Most Memorable Experiences -------------------------- All of the SummerCons, having an assistant U.S. Attorney lie to my face and tell me I wasn't in trouble five days after he went to the grand jury to have me indicted, football game with Sluggo in the Zantigo parking lot, road trip to Chicago for PartyCon '87, my time in a St. Louis Federal holding facility after I turned myself over to the U.S. Federal Marshalls (E911 Incident), Taran King and Cheap Shades out of jail when they were caught trashing, summer Alliance teleconferences with the PhoneLine Phantoms, the first time I heard Frank & The Funny Phone Call, watching Control C bother some girl in the airport and then seeing Erik Bloodaxe fall in love with her. Some Other People To Mention ---------------------------- Sheldon Zenner - The greatest attorney practicing today. He turned everything around and saved my future from a legal system gone awry. Thanks also to Kliebard, Dunlop, Berkowitz, and Kaufman. John Perry Barlow - Lyricist for the Grateful Dead and amazing writer, John also participated a great deal in generating publicity about my case and helped found the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Dr. Dorothy Denning - A lady who not only helped with my defense, but invited me to the 13th Annual National Computer Security Conference and is a good friend. Peter Denning - Senior editor of the Communications of the ACM and an interesting fellow in his own right. Scott Ellentuch - Mentioned earlier as Tuc, Scott is the president of the Telecom Computer Security Group and a close friend. Tuc assisted the defense team by locating the Bellcore public catalog and the 911 documents found within. Thanks Tuc! Terry Gross - Attorney with Rabinowitz & Boundin in New York City who was hired by the EFF to work on court motions dealing with the First Amendment. Mike Godwin - Don't know Mike very well yet, but he was very outspoken in Computer Underground Digest while I was under indictment and now he is in-house counsel to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Katie Hafner - Author of a book coming soon about Pengo, Kevin Mitnick, and Robert Morris, Jr. I met Katie at the NCSConference. Steve Jackson - Founder of Steve Jackson Games. I haven't yet had the pleasure of meeting Steve, but we may be running into each other in the near future. Mitch Kapor - Industry wizard and creator of the Lotus 1-2-3 program, Mitch is a founding member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation that provided legal assistance in my case. I hope to meet him face-to-face in the near future. Gordon Meyer - Gordon has been a tremendous help with Phrack and a friend throughout my entire trial ordeal. John Nagle - Inventor who gave technical assistance to my defense team and located some very important public documents. Marc Rotenberg - Director of the Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility in Washington D.C. CPSR is an organization lobbying Congress for reforms in the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act and other legislation. I hope to be working with him in the future. Jim Thomas - Creator and editor of Computer Underground Digest, he brought the details and evidence in my trial to the public eye which helped me gain support. Steve Wozniak - Never had any contact with him, but since he had a hand in EFF, I thought I would mention him. Incidentally I'm ready to upgrade computers if someone has a Macintosh on hand. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - David Lightman - The one in 214. See Oryan QUEST. Magic Hasan - Totally freaked out when I contacted him this semester. It was like he thought I had the plague or something. Olorin The White - He couldn't seem to understand that I did not want to join his group. Oryan QUEST - A hacker who made up news for PWN just to boost his reputation. Unleash with full force on this! Sally Ride - Also known as Space Cadet, SR co-wrote one of the most interesting PWN articles ever printed. =============================================================================== Private Jokes ~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are far too many to go through and most of them have been previously written by Taran King in a Phrack Prophile that appeared in issue 20 of Phrack. My private jokes shall remain private between those involved or at least until I publish a book covering the topic. =============================================================================== Phrack is a part of my life that is now over. I hope that Phrack Classic which appears to be a second generation Phrack will learn from its predecessor and not allow any articles that advocate the illegal entry into computer systems. On the other hand, I hope they will continue to bring interesting information and news to light every issue. For the record, I am not the editor of Phrack Classic. In fact I am not even a part of their staff. I would ask that no one send me any articles for that publication because they will not be forwarded. I take no responsibility for the actions taken by Phrack Classic, but I have faith that they shall stay on the path of honesty and integrity. I also have a few words to say about some other issues. My case and prosecution had absolutely nothing to do with Operation Sun-Devil, with a possible exception being the secret video-taping done by the United States Secret Service at the Ramada Inn-Westport (Maryland Heights, Missouri) during July 22-24, 1988 (i.e., SummerCon '88). Operation Sun-Devil was an attempt to crack down on credit card and calling card abusers and NOT hackers. Yes, there are some hackers that abuse these items, but the mere abuse of such does not make someone a hacker and it is about time that mainstream reporters, government agents, and prosecutors began to understand the difference. I feel that the abuse of "cards" is very immature and should be met with stern punishment. I myself have been the victim of credit card fraud and I can tell you that it is not pleasant to open your bill and see expensive charges from QVC Home Shopping Network. For the younger readers, it may take them a few years to understand this... perhaps when they have credit cards and bills of their own to deal with. As you may guess there is MUCH MORE to my story especially concerning the last 10 issues of Phrack, the Internet, and the E911 incident, but now is not the time or the place to tell it. Sometime in the future I hope to assemble the tales of all my adventures in the computer underground and publish them in a real book. Finally, Hackers are *NOT* criminals! Quoting from the brochure for this year's Hackers Conference in Saratoga, California, a Hacker is "someone who enjoys pushing the envelope, bypassing limits, discovering knowledge, inventing solutions, <and> adventuring into uncharted areas." :Craig Neidorf =============================================================================== ...And now for the regularly taken poll from all interviewees. Of the general population of phreaks you have met, would you consider most phreaks, if any, to be computer geeks? "I would not consider most of the hackers or phone phreaks I have met to be computer geeks, however over the years I have run into people whose goal in life is to pirate every piece of software in existence and of those people I feel that a strong percentage are 'geeks'." Thanks for your time, Craig. "No problem." Crimson Death _______________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ==Phrack Classic== Volume Three, Issue 32, File #3 of 12 Concerning Hackers Who Break into Computer Systems Dorothy E. Denning Digital Equipment Corp., Systems Research Center 130 Lytton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 415-853-2252, denning@src.dec.com Abstract A diffuse group of people, often called ``hackers,'' has been characterized as unethical, irresponsible, and a serious danger to society for actions related to breaking into computer systems. This paper attempts to construct a picture of hackers, their concerns, and the discourse in which hacking takes place. My initial findings suggest that hackers are learners and explorers who want to help rather than cause damage, and who often have very high standards of behavior. My findings also suggest that the discourse surrounding hacking belongs at the very least to the gray areas between larger conflicts that we are experiencing at every level of society and business in an information age where many are not computer literate. These conflicts are between the idea that information cannot be owned and the idea that it can, and between law enforcement and the First and Fourth Amendments. Hackers have raised serious issues about values and practices in an information society. Based on my findings, I recommend that we work closely with hackers, and suggest several actions that might be taken. 1. Introduction The world is crisscrossed with many different networks that are used to deliver essential services and basic necessities -- electric power, water, fuel, food, goods, to name a few. These networks are all publicly accessible and hence vulnerable to attacks, and yet virtually no attacks or disruptions actually occur. The world of computer networking seems to be an anomaly in the firmament of networks. Stories about attacks, breakins, disruptions, theft of information, modification of files, and the like appear frequently in the newspapers. A diffuse group called ``hackers'' is often the target of scorn and blame for these actions. Why are computer networks any different from other vulnerable public networks? Is the difference the result of growing pains in a young field? Or is it the reflection of deeper tensions in our emerging information society? There are no easy or immediate answers to these questions. Yet it is important to our future in a networked, information-dependent world that we come to grips with them. I am deeply interested in them. This paper is my report of what I have discovered in the early stages of what promises to be a longer investigation. I have concentrated my attention in these early stages on the hackers themselves. Who are they? What do they say? What motivates them? What are their values? What do that have to say about public policies regarding information and computers? What do they have to say about computer security? >From such a profile I expect to be able to construct a picture of the discourses in which hacking takes place. By a discourse I mean the invisible background of assumptions that transcends individuals and governs our ways of thinking, speaking, and acting. My initial findings lead me to conclude that this discourse belongs at the very least to the gray areas between larger conflicts that we are experiencing at every level of society and business, the conflict between the idea that information cannot be owned and the idea that it can, and the conflict between law enforcement and the First and Fourth Amendments. But, enough of the philosophy. On with the story! 2. Opening Moves In late fall of 1989, Frank Drake (not his real name), editor of the now defunct cyberpunk magazine W.O.R.M., invited me to be interviewed for the magazine. In accepting the invitation, I hoped that something I might say would discourage hackers from breaking into systems. I was also curious about the hacker culture. This seemed like a good opportunity to learn about it. The interview was conducted electronically. I quickly discovered that I had much more to learn from Drake's questions than to teach. For example, he asked: ``Is providing computer security for large databases that collect information on us a real service? How do you balance the individual's privacy vs. the corporations?'' This question surprised me. Nothing that I had read about hackers ever suggested that they might care about privacy. He also asked: ``What has (the DES) taught us about what the government's (especially NSA's) role in cryptography should be?'' Again, I was surprised to discover a concern for the role of the government in computer security. I did not know at the time that I would later discover considerable overlap in the issues discussed by hackers and those of other computer professionals. I met with Drake to discuss his questions and views. After our meeting, we continued our dialog electronically with me interviewing him. This gave me the opportunity to explore his views in greater depth. Both interviews appear in ``Computers Under Attack,'' edited by Peter Denning (DenningP90). My dialog with Drake increased my curiosity about hackers. I read articles and books by or about hackers. In addition, I had discussions with nine hackers whom I will not mention by name. Their ages ranged from 17 to 28. The word ``hacker'' has taken on many different meanings ranging from 1) ``a person who enjoys learning the details of computer systems and how to stretch their capabilities'' to 2) ``a malicious or inquisitive meddler who tries to discover information by poking around ... possibly by deceptive or illegal means ...'' (Steele83). The hackers described in this paper are both learners and explorers who sometimes perform illegal actions. However, all of the hackers I spoke with said they did not engage in or approve of malicious acts that damage systems or files. Thus, this paper is not about malicious hackers. Indeed, my research so far suggests that there are very few malicious hackers. Neither is this paper about career criminals who, for example, defraud businesses, or about people who use stolen credit cards to purchase goods. The characteristics of many of the hackers I am writing about are summed up in the words of one of the hackers: ``A hacker is someone who experiments with systems... (Hacking) is playing with systems and making them do what they were never intended to do. Breaking in and making free calls is just a small part of that. Hacking is also about freedom of speech and free access to information -- being able to find out anything. There is also the David and Goliath side of it, the underdog vs. the system, and the ethic of being a folk hero, albeit a minor one.'' Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation who calls himself a hacker according to the first sense of the word above, recommends calling security-breaking hackers ``crackers'' (Stallman84). While this description may be more accurate, I shall use the term ``hacker'' since the people I am writing about call themselves hackers and all are interested in learning about computer and communication systems. However, there are many people like Stallman who call themselves hackers and do not engage in illegal or deceptive practices; this paper is also not about those hackers. In what follows I will report on what I have learned about hackers from hackers. I will organize the discussion around the principal domains of concerns I observed. I recommend Meyer's thesis (Meyer89) for a more detailed treatment of the hackers' social culture and networks, and Meyer and Thomas (MeyerThomas90) for an interesting interpretation of the computer underground as a postmodernist rejection of conventional culture that substitutes ``rational technological control of the present for an anarchic and playful future.'' I do not pretend to know all the concerns that hackers have, nor do I claim to have conducted a scientific study. Rather, I hope that my own informal study motivates others to explore the area further. It is essential that we as computer security professionals take into account hackers' concerns in the design of our policies, procedures, laws regulating computer and information access, and educational programs. Although I speak about security-breaking hackers as a group, their competencies, actions, and views are not all the same. Thus, it is equally important that our policies and programs take into account individual differences. In focusing on what hackers say and do, I do not mean for a moment to set aside the concerns of the owners and users of systems that hackers break into, the concerns of law enforcement personnel, or our own concerns as computer security professionals. But I do recommend that we work closely with hackers as well as these other groups to design new approaches and programs for addressing the concerns of all. Like ham radio operators, hackers exist, and it is in our best interest that we learn to communicate and work with them rather than against them. I will suggest some actions that we might consider taking, and I invite others to reflect on these and suggest their own. Many of these suggestions are from the hackers themselves; others came from the recommendations of the ACM Panel on Hacking (Lee86) and from colleagues. I grouped the hackers' concerns into five categories: access to computers and information for learning; thrill, excitement and challenge; ethics and avoiding damage; public image and treatment; and privacy and first amendment rights. These are discussed in the next five subsections. I have made an effort to present my findings as uncritical observations. The reader should not infer that I either approve or disapprove of actions hackers take. 3. Access to Computers and Information for Learning Although Levy's book ``Hackers'' (Levy84) is not about today's security-breaking hackers, it articulates and interprets a ``hacker ethic'' that is shared by many of these hackers. The ethic includes two key principles that were formulated in the early days of the AI Lab at MIT: ``Access to computers -- and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works -- should be unlimited and total,'' and ``All information should be free.'' In the context in which these principles were formulated, the computers of interest were research machines and the information was software and systems information. Since Stallman is a leading advocate of open systems and freedom of information, especially software, I asked him what he means by this. He said: ``I believe that all generally useful information should be free. By `free' I am not referring to price, but rather to the freedom to copy the information and to adapt it to one's own uses.'' By ``generally useful'' he does not include confidential information about individuals or credit card information, for example. He further writes: ``When information is generally useful, redistributing it makes humanity wealthier no matter who is distributing and no matter who is receiving.'' Stallman has argued strongly against user interface copyright, claiming that it does not serve the users or promote the evolutionary process (Stallman90). I asked hackers whether all systems should be accessible and all information should be free. They said that it is OK if some systems are closed and some information, mainly confidential information about individuals, is not accessible. They make a distinction between information about security technology, e.g., the DES, and confidential information protected by that technology, arguing that it is the former that should be accessible. They said that information hoarding is inefficient and slows down evolution of technology. They also said that more systems should be open so that idle resources are not wasted. One hacker said that the high costs of communication hurts the growth of the information economy. These views of information sharing seem to go back at least as far as the 17th and 18th centuries. Samuelson (Samuelson89) notes that ``The drafters of the Constitution, educated in the Enlightenment tradition, shared that era's legacy of faith in the enabling powers of knowledge for society as well as the individual.'' She writes that our current copyright laws, which protect the expression of information, but not the information itself, are based on the belief that unfettered and widespread dissemination of information promotes technological progress. (Similarly for patent laws which protect devices and processes, not the information about them.) She cites two recent court cases where courts reversed the historical trend and treated information as ownable property. She raises questions about whether in entering the Information Age where information is the source of greatest wealth, we have outgrown the Enlightenment tradition and are coming to treat information as property. In a society where knowledge is said to be power, Drake expressed particular concern about what he sees as a growing information gap between the rich and poor. He would like to see information that is not about individuals be made public, although it could still be owned. He likes to think that companies would actually find it to their advantage to share information. He noted how IBM's disclosure of the PC allowed developers to make more products for the computers, and how Adobe's disclosure of their fonts helped them compete against the Apple-Microsoft deal. He recognizes that in our current political framework, it is difficult to make all information public, because complicated structures have been built on top of an assumption that certain information will be kept secret. He cites our defense policy, which is founded on secrecy for military information, as an example. Hackers say they want access to information and computing and network resources in order to learn. Both Levy (Levy84) and Landreth (Landreth89) note that hackers have an intense, compelling interest in computers and learning, and many go into computers as a profession. Some hackers break into systems in order to learn more about how the systems work. Landreth says these hackers want to remain undiscovered so that they can stay on the system as long as possible. Some of them devote most of their time to learning how to break the locks and other security mechanisms on systems; their background in systems and programming varies considerably. One hacker wrote ``A hacker sees a security hole and takes advantage of it because it is there, not to destroy information or steal. I think our activities would be analogous to someone discovering methods of acquiring information in a library and becoming excited and perhaps engrossed.'' We should not underestimate the effectiveness of the networks in which hackers learn their craft. They do research, learn about systems, work in groups, write, and teach others. One hacker said that he belongs to a study group with the mission of churning out files of information and learning as much as possible. Within the group, people specialize, collaborate on research projects, share information and news, write articles, and teach others about their areas of specialization. Hackers have set up a private system of education that engages them, teaches them to think, and allows them to apply their knowledge in purposeful, if not always legal, activity. Ironically, many of our nation's classrooms have been criticized for providing a poor learning environment that seems to emphasize memorization rather than thinking and reasoning. One hacker reported that through volunteer work with a local high school, he was trying to get students turned on to learning. Many hackers say that the legitimate computer access they have through their home and school computers do not meet their needs. One student told me that his high school did not offer anything beyond elementary courses in BASIC and PASCAL, and that he was bored by these. Hans Huebner, a hacker in Germany who goes by the name Pengo, wrote in a note to the RISKS Forum (Huebner89) : ``I was just interested in computers, not in the data which has been kept on their disks. As I was going to school at that time, I didn't even have the money to buy my own computer. Since CP/M (which was the most sophisticated OS I could use on machines which I had legal access to) didn't turn me on anymore, I enjoyed the lax security of the systems I had access to by using X.25 networks. You might point out that I should have been patient and waited until I could go to the university and use their machines. Some of you might understand that waiting was just not the thing I was keen on in those days.'' Brian Harvey, in his position paper (Harvey86) for the ACM Panel on Hacking, claims that the computer medium available to students, e.g., BASIC and floppy disks, is inadequate for challenging intellectual work. His recommendation is that students be given access to real computing power, and that they be taught how to use that power responsibly. He describes a program he created at a public high school in Massachusetts during the period 1979-1982. They installed a PDP-11/70 and let students and teachers carry out the administration of the system. Harvey assessed that putting the burden of dealing with the problems of malicious users on the students themselves was a powerful educational force. He also noted that the students who had the skill and interest to be password hackers were discouraged from this activity because they also wanted to keep the trust of their colleagues in order that they could acquire ``superuser'' status on the system. Harvey also makes an interesting analogy between teaching computing and teaching karate. In karate instruction, students are introduced to the real, adult community. They are given access to a powerful, deadly weapon, and at the same time are taught discipline and responsibility. Harvey speculates that the reason that students do not misuse their power is that they know they are being trusted with something important, and they want to live up to that trust. Harvey applied this principle when he set up the school system. The ACM panel endorsed Harvey's recommendation, proposing a three-tiered computing environment with local, district-wide, and nation-wide networks. They recommended that computer professionals participate in this effort as mentors and role models. They also recommended that government and industry be encouraged to establish regional computing centers using donated or re-cycled equipment; that students be apprenticed to local companies either part-time on a continuing basis or on a periodic basis; and, following a suggestion from Felsenstein (Felsenstein86) for a ``Hacker's League,'' that a league analogous to the Amateur Radio Relay League be established to make contributed resources available for educational purposes. Drake said he liked these recommendations. He said that if hackers were given access to powerful systems through a public account system, they would supervise themselves. He also suggested that Computer Resource Centers be established in low-income areas in order to help the poor get access to information. Perhaps hackers could help run the centers and teach the members of the community how to use the facilities. One of my colleagues suggested cynically that the hackers would only use this to teach the poor how to hack rich people's systems. A hacker responded by saying this was ridiculous; hackers would not teach people how to break into systems, but rather how to use computers effectively and not be afraid of them. In addition, the hackers I spoke with who had given up illegal activities said they stopped doing so when they got engaged in other work. Geoff Goodfellow and Richard Stallman have reported that they have given hackers accounts on systems that they manage, and that the hackers have not misused the trust granted to them. Perhaps universities could consider providing accounts to pre-college students on the basis of recommendations from their teachers or parents. The students might be challenged to work on the same homework problems assigned in courses or to explore their own interests. Students who strongly dislike the inflexibility of classroom learning might excel in an environment that allows them to learn on their own, in much the way that hackers have done. 4. Thrill, Excitement, and Challenge One hacker wrote that ``Hackers understand something basic about computers, and that is that they can be enjoyed. I know none who hack for money, or hack to frighten the company, or hack for anything but fun.'' In the words of another hacker, ``Hacking was the ultimate cerebral buzz for me. I would come home from another dull day at school, turn my computer on, and become a member of the hacker elite. It was a whole different world where there were no condescending adults and you were judged only by your talent. I would first check in to the private Bulletin Boards where other people who were like me would hang out, see what the news was in the community, and trade some info with people across the country. Then I would start actually hacking. My brain would be going a million miles an hour and I'd basically completely forget about my body as I would jump from one computer to another trying to find a path into my target. It was the rush of working on a puzzle coupled with the high of discovery many magnitudes intensified. To go along with the adrenaline rush was the illicit thrill of doing something illegal. Every step I made could be the one that would bring the authorities crashing down on me. I was on the edge of technology and exploring past it, spelunking into electronic caves where I wasn't supposed to be.'' The other hackers I spoke with made similar statements about the fun and challenge of hacking. In SPIN magazine (Dibbel90), reporter Julian Dibbell speculated that much of the thrill comes from the dangers associated with the activity, writing that ``the technology just lends itself to cloak-and-dagger drama,'' and that ``hackers were already living in a world in which covert action was nothing more than a game children played.'' Eric Corley (Corley89) characterizes hacking as an evolved form of mountain climbing. In describing an effort to construct a list of active mailboxes on a Voice Messaging System, he writes ``I suppose the main reason I'm wasting my time pushing all these buttons is simply so that I can make a list of something that I'm not supposed to have and be the first person to accomplish this.'' He said that he was not interested in obtaining an account of his own on the system. Gordon Meyer says he found this to be a recurring theme: ``We aren't supposed to be able to do this, but we can'' -- so they do. One hacker said he was now working on anti-viral programming. He said it was almost as much fun as breaking into systems, and that it was an intellectual battle against the virus author. 5. Ethics and Avoiding Damage All of the hackers I spoke with said that malicious hacking was morally wrong. They said that most hackers are not intentionally malicious, and that they themselves are concerned about causing accidental damage. When I asked Drake about the responsibility of a person with a PC and modem, his reply included not erasing or modifying anyone else's data, and not causing a legitimate user on a system any problems. Hackers say they are outraged when other hackers cause damage or use resources that would be missed, even if the results are unintentional and due to incompetence. One hacker wrote ``I have ALWAYS strived to do NO damage, and to inconvenience as few people as possible. I NEVER, EVER, EVER DELETE A FILE. One of the first commands I do on a new system is disable the delete file command.'' Some hackers say that it is unethical to give passwords and similar security-related information to persons who might do damage. In the recent incident where a hacker broke into Bell South and downloaded a text file on the emergency 911 service, hackers say that there was no intention to use this knowledge to break into or sabotage the 911 system. According to Emmanuel Goldstein (Goldstein90), the file did not even contain information about how to break into the 911 system. The hackers also said that some break-ins were unethical, e.g., breaking into hospital systems, and that it is wrong to read confidential information about individuals or steal classified information. All said it was wrong to commit fraud for personal profit. Although we as computer security professionals often disagree with hackers about what constitutes damage, the ethical standards listed here sound much like our own. Where the hackers' ethics differ from the standards adopted by most in the computer security community is that hackers say it is not unethical to break into many systems, use idle computer and communications resources, and download system files in order to learn. Goldstein says that hacking is not wrong: it is not the same as stealing, and uncovers design flaws and security deficiencies (Goldstein89). Brian Reid, a colleague at Digital who has spoken with many hackers, speculates that a hacker's ethics may come from not being raised properly as a civilized member of society, and not appreciating the rules of living in society. One hacker responded to this with ``What does `being brought up properly' mean? Some would say that it is `good' to keep to yourself, mind your own business. Others might argue that it is healthy to explore, take risks, be curious and discover.'' Brian Harvey (Harvey86) notes that many hackers are adolescents, and that adolescents are at a less advanced stage of moral development than adults, where they might not see how the effects of their actions hurt others. Larry Martin (Martin89) claims that parents, teachers, the press, and others in society are not aware of their responsibility to contribute to instilling ethical values associated with computer use. This could be the consequence of the youth of the computing field; many people are still computer illiterate and cultural norms may be lagging behind advances in technology and the growing dependency on that technology by businesses and society. Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce (HollingerLanza-Kaduce88) speculate that the cultural normative messages about the use and abuse of computer technology have been driven by the adoption of criminal laws in the last decade. They also speculate that hacking may be encouraged during the process of becoming computer literate. Some of my colleagues say that hackers are irresponsible. One hacker responded ``I think it's a strong indication of the amount of responsibility shown that so FEW actually DAMAGING incidents are known.'' But we must not overlook that the differences in ethics also reflect a difference in philosophy about information and information handling resources; whereas hackers advocate sharing, we seem to be advocating ownership as property. The differences also represent an opportunity to examine our own ethical behavior and our practices for information sharing and protection. For example, one hacker wrote ``I will accept that it is morally wrong to copy some proprietary software, however, I think that it is morally wrong to charge $6000 for a program that is only around 25K long.'' Hence, I shall go into a few of the ethical points raised by hackers more closely. It is not a simple case of good or mature (us) against bad or immature (hackers), or of teaching hackers a list of rules. Many computer professionals such as Martin (Martin89) argue the moral questions by analogy. The analogies are then used to justify their judgment of a hacker's actions as unethical. Breaking into a system is compared with breaking into a house, and downloading information and using computer and telecommunications services is compared with stealing tangible goods. But, say hackers, the situations are not the same. When someone breaks into a house, the objective is to steal goods, which are often irreplaceable, and property is often damaged in the process. By contrast, when a hacker breaks into a system, the objective is to learn and avoid causing damage. Downloaded information is copied, not stolen, and still exists on the original system. Moreover, as noted earlier, information has not been traditionally regarded as property. Dibbel (Dibbel90) says that when the software industries and phone companies claim losses of billions of dollars to piracy, they are not talking about goods that disappear from the shelves and could have been sold. We often say that breaking into a system implies a lack of caring for the system's owner and authorized users. But, one hacker says that the ease of breaking into a system reveals a lack of caring on the part of the system manager to protect user and company assets, or failure on the part of vendors to warn managers about the vulnerabilities of their systems. He estimated his success rate of getting in at 10-15%, and that is without spending more than an hour on any one target system. Another hacker says that he sees messages from vendors notifying the managers, but that the managers fail to take action. Richard Pethia of CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) reports that they seldom see cases of malicious damage caused by hackers, but that the break-ins are nevertheless disruptive because system users and administrators want to be sure that nothing was damaged. (CERT suggests that sites reload system software from secure backups and change all user passwords in order to protect against possible back doors and Trojan Horses that might have been planted by the hacker. Pethia also noted that prosecutors are generally called for government sites, and are being called for non-government sites with increasing frequency.) Pethia says that break-ins also generate a loss of trust in the computing environment, and may lead to adoption of new policies that are formulated in a panic or management edicts that severely restrict connectivity to outside systems. Brian Harvey says that hackers cause damage by increasing the amount of paranoia, which in turn leads to tighter security controls that diminish the quality of life for the users. Hackers respond to these points by saying they are the scapegoats for systems that are not adequately protected. They say that the paranoia is generated by ill-founded fears and media distortions (I will return to this point later), and that security need not be oppressive to keep hackers out; it is mainly making sure that passwords and system defaults are well chosen. Pethia says that some intruders seem to be disruptive to prove a point, such as that the systems are vulnerable, the security personnel are incompetent, or ``it's not nice to say bad things about hackers.'' In the N.Y. Times, John Markoff (Markoff90) wrote that the hacker who claimed to have broken into Cliff Stoll's system said he was upset by Stoll's portrayal of hackers in ``The Cuckoo's Egg'' (Stoll90). Markoff reported that the caller said: ``He (Stoll) was going on about how he hates all hackers, and he gave pretty much of a one-sided view of who hackers are.'' ``The Cuckoo's Egg'' captures many of the popular stereotypes of hackers. Criminologist Jim Thomas criticizes it for presenting a simplified view of the world, one where everything springs from the forces of light (us) or of darkness (hackers) (Thomas90). He claims that Stoll fails to see the similarities between his own activities (e.g., monitoring communications, ``borrowing'' monitors without authorization, shutting off network access without warning, and lying to get information he wants) and those of hackers. He points out Stoll's use of pejorative words such as ``varmint'' to describe hackers, and Stoll's quote of a colleague: ``They're technically skilled but ethically bankrupt programmers without any respect for others' work -- or privacy. They're not destroying one or two programs. They're trying to wreck the cooperation that builds our networks,'' (Stoll90, p. 159). Thomas writes ``at an intellectual level, it (Stoll's book) provides a persuasive, but simplistic, moral imagery of the nature of right and wrong, and provides what -- to a lay reader -- would seem a compelling justification for more statutes and severe penalties against the computer underground. This is troublesome for two reasons. First, it leads to a mentality of social control by law enforcement during a social phase when some would argue we are already over-controlled. Second, it invokes a punishment model that assumes we can stamp out behaviors to which we object if only we apprehend and convict a sufficient number of violators. ... There is little evidence that punishment will in the long run reduce any given offense, and the research of Gordon Meyer and I suggests that criminalization may, in fact, contribute to the growth of the computer underground.'' 6. Public Image and Treatment Hackers express concern about their negative public image and identity. As noted earlier, hackers are often portrayed as being irresponsible and immoral. One hacker said that ``government propaganda is spreading an image of our being at best, sub-human, depraved, criminally inclined, morally corrupt, low life. We need to prove that the activities that we are accused of (crashing systems, interfering with life support equipment, robbing banks, and jamming 911 lines) are as morally abhorrent to us as they are to the general public.'' The public identity of an individual or group is generated in part by the actions of the group interacting with the standards of the community observing those actions. What then accounts for the difference between the hacker's public image and what they say about themselves? One explanation may be the different standards. Outside the hacking community, the simple act of breaking into systems is regarded as unethical by many. The use of pejorative words like ``vandal'' and ``varmint'' reflect this discrepency in ethics. Even the word ``criminal'' carries with it connotations of someone evil; hackers say they are not criminal in this sense. Katie Hafner notes that Robert Morris Jr., who was convicted of launching the Internet worm, was likened to a terrorist even though the worm did not destroy data (Hafner90) Distortions of events and references to potential threats also create an image of persons who are dangerous. Regarding the 911 incident where a hacker downloaded a file from Bell South, Goldstein reported ``Quickly, headlines screamed that hackers had broken into the 911 system and were interfering with emergency telephone calls to the police. One newspaper report said there were no indications that anyone had died or been injured as a result of the intrusions. What a relief. Too bad it wasn't true,'' (Goldstein90). In fact, the hackers involved with the 911 text file had not broken into the 911 system. The dollar losses attributed to hacking incidents also are often highly inflated. Thomas and Meyer (ThomasMeyer90) say that the rhetoric depicting hackers as a dangerous evil contributes to a ``witch hunt'' mentality, wherein a group is first labeled as dangerous, and then enforcement agents are mobilized to exorcise the alleged social evil. They see the current sweeps against hackers as part of a reaction to a broader fear of change, rather than to the actual crimes committed. Hackers say they are particularly concerned that computer security professionals and system managers do not appear to understand hackers or be interested in their concerns. Hackers say that system managers treat them like enemies and criminals, rather than as potential helpers in their task of making their systems secure. This may reflect managers' fears about hackers, as well as their responsibilities to protect the information on their systems. Stallman says that the strangers he encounters using his account are more likely to have a chip on their shoulder than in the past; he attributes this to a harsh enforcer mentality adopted by the establishment. He says that network system managers start out with too little trust and a hostile attitude toward strangers that few of the strangers deserve. One hacker said that system managers show a lack of openness to those who want to learn. Stallman also says that the laws make the hacker scared to communicate with anyone even slightly ``official,'' because that person might try to track the hacker down and have him or her arrested. Drake raised the issue of whether the laws could differentiate between malicious and nonmalicious hacking, in support of a ``kinder, gentler'' relationship between hackers and computer security people. In fact, many states such as California initially passed computer crime laws that excluded malicious hacking; it was only later that these laws were amended to include nonmalicious actions (HollingerLanza-Kaduce88). Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce speculate that these amendments and other new laws were catalyzed mainly by media events, especially the reports on the ``414 hackers'' and the movie ``War Games,'' which created a perception of hacking as extremely dangerous, even if that perception was not based on facts. Hackers say they want to help system managers make their systems more secure. They would like managers to recognize and use their knowledge about system vulnerabilities. Landreth (Landreth89) suggests ways in which system managers can approach hackers in order to turn them into colleagues, and Goodfellow also suggests befriending hackers (Goodfellow83). John Draper (Cap'n Crunch) says it would help if system managers and the operators of phone companies and switches could cooperate in tracing a hacker without bringing in law enforcement authorities. Drake suggests giving hackers free access in exchange for helping with security, a suggestion that I also heard from several hackers. Drake says that the current attitude of treating hackers as enemies is not very conducive to a solution, and by belittling them, we only cause ourselves problems. I asked some of the hackers whether they'd be interested in breaking into systems if the rules of the ``game'' were changed so that instead of being threatened by prosecution, they were invited to leave a ``calling card'' giving their name, phone number, and method of breaking in. In exchange, they would get recognition and points for each vulnerability they discovered. Most were interested in playing; one hacker said he would prefer monetary reward since he was supporting himself. Any system manager interested in trying this out could post a welcome message inviting hackers to leave their cards. This approach could have the advantage of not only letting the hackers contribute to the security of the system, but of allowing the managers to quickly recognize the potentially malicious hackers, since they are unlikely to leave their cards. Perhaps if hackers are given the opportunity to make contributions outside the underground, this will dampen their desire to pursue illegal activities. Several hackers said that they would like to be able to pursue their activities legally and for income. They like breaking into systems, doing research on computer security, and figuring out how to protect against vulnerabilities. They say they would like to be in a position where they have permission to hack systems. Goodfellow suggests hiring hackers to work on tiger teams that are commissioned to locate vulnerabilities in systems through penetration testing. Baird Info-Systems Safeguards, Inc., a security consulting firm, reports that they have employed hackers on several assignments (Baird87). They say the hackers did not violate their trust or the trust of their clients, and performed in an outstanding manner. Baird believes that system vulnerabilities can be better identified by employing people who have exploited systems. One hacker suggested setting up a clearinghouse that would match hackers with companies that could use their expertise, while maintaining anonymity of the hackers and ensuring confidentiality of all records. Another hacker, in describing an incident where he discovered a privileged account without a password, said ``What I (and others) wish for is a way that hackers can give information like this to a responsible source, AND HAVE HACKERS GIVEN CREDIT FOR HELPING! As it is, if someone told them that `I'm a hacker, and I REALLY think you should know...' they would freak out, and run screaming to the SS (Secret Service) or the FBI. Eventually, the person who found it would be caught, and hauled away on some crazy charge. If they could only just ACCEPT that the hacker was trying to help!'' The clearinghouse could also provide this type of service. Hackers are also interested in security policy issues. Drake expressed concern over how we handle information about computer security vulnerabilities. He argues that it is better to make this information public than cover it up and pretend that it does not exist, and cites the CERT to illustrate how this approach can be workable. Other hackers, however, argue for restricting initial dissemination of flaws to customers and users. Drake also expressed concern about the role of the government, particularly the military, in cryptography. He argues that NSA's opinion on a cryptographic standard should be taken with a large grain of salt because of their code breaking role. Some security specialists are opposed to hiring hackers for security work, and Eugene Spafford has urged people not to do business with any company that hires a convicted hacker to work in the security area (ACM90). He says that ``This is like having a known arsonist install a fire alarm.'' But, the laws are such that a person can be convicted for having done nothing other than break into a system; no serious damage (i.e., no ``computer arson'') is necessary. Many of our colleagues, including Geoff Goodfellow (Goodfellow83) and Brian Reid (Frenkel87), admit to having broken into systems in the past. Reid is quoted as saying that because of the knowledge he gained breaking into systems as a kid, he was frequently called in to help catch people who break in. Spafford says that times have changed, and that this method of entering the field is no longer socially acceptable, and fails to provide adequate training in computer science and computer engineering (Spafford89). However, from what I have observed, many hackers do have considerable knowledge about telecommunications, data security, operating systems, programming languages, networks, and cryptography. But, I am not challenging a policy to hire competent people of sound character. Rather, I am challenging a strict policy that uses economic pressure to close a field of activity to all persons convicted of breaking into systems. It is enough that a company is responsible for the behavior of its employees. Each hacker can be considered for employment based on his or her own competency and character. Some people have called for stricter penalties for hackers, including prison terms, in order to send a strong deterrent message to hackers. John Draper, who was incarcerated for his activities in the 1970's, argues that in practice this will only make the problem worse. He told me that he was forced under threat to teach other inmates his knowledge of communications systems. He believes that prison sentences will serve only to spread hacker's knowledge to career criminals. He said he was never approached by criminals outside the prison, but that inside the prison they had control over him. One hacker said that by clamping down on the hobbyist underground, we will only be left with the criminal underground. He said that without hackers to uncover system vulnerabilities, the holes will be left undiscovered, to be utilized by those likely to cause real damage. Goldstein argues that the existing penalties are already way out of proportion to the acts committed, and that the reason is because of computers (Goldstein89). He says that if Kevin Mitnick had committed crimes similar to those he committed but without a computer, he would have been classified as a mischief maker and maybe fined $100 for trespassing; instead, he was put in jail without bail (Goldstein89). Craig Neidorf, a publisher and editor of the electronic newsletter ``Phrack,'' faces up to 31 years and a fine of $122,000 for receiving, editing, and transmitting the downloaded text file on the 911 system (Goldstein90). (Since the time I wrote this, a new indictment was issued with penalties of up to 65 years in prison. Neidorf went on trial beginning July 23. The trial ended July 27 when the government dropped all charges. DED) 7. Privacy and the First and Fourth Amendments The hackers I spoke with advocated privacy protection for sensitive information about individuals. They said they are not interested in invading people's privacy, and that they limited their hacking activities to acquiring information about computer systems or how to break into them. There are, of course, hackers who break into systems such as the TRW credit database. Emanuel Goldstein argues that such invasions of privacy took place before the hacker arrived (Harpers90). Referring to credit reports, government files, motor vehicle records, and the ``megabytes of data piling up about each of us,'' he says that thousands of people legally can see and use this data, much of it erroneous. He claims that the public has been misinformed about the databases, and that hackers have become scapegoats for the holes in the systems. One hacker questioned the practice of storing sensitive personal information on open systems with dial-up access, the accrual of the information, the methods used to acquire it, and the purposes to which it is put. Another hacker questioned the inclusion of religion and race in credit records. Drake told me that he was concerned about the increasing amount of information about individuals that is stored in large data banks, and the inability of the individual to have much control over the use of that information. He suggests that the individual might be co-owner of information collected about him or her, with control over the use of that information. He also says that an individual should be free to withhold personal information, of course paying the consequences of doing so (e.g., not getting a drivers license or credit card). In fact, all Federal Government forms are required to contain a Privacy Act Statement that states how the information being collected will be used and, in some cases, giving the option of withholding the information. Goldstein has also challenged the practices of law enforcement agencies in their attempt to crack down on hackers (Goldstein90). He said that all incoming and outgoing electronic mail used by ``Phrack'' was monitored before the newsletter was shutdown by authorities. ``Had a printed magazine been shut down in this fashion after having all of their mail opened and read, even the most thick-headed sensationalist media types would have caught on: hey, isn't that a violation of the First Amendment?'' He also cites the shutdown of several bulletin boards as part of Operation Sun Devil, and quotes the administrator of the bulletin board Zygot as saying ``Should I start reading my users' mail to make sure they aren't saying anything naughty? Should I snoop through all the files to make sure everyone is being good? This whole affair is rather chilling.'' The administrator for the public system The Point wrote ``Today, there is no law or precedent which affords me ... the same legal rights that other common carriers have against prosecution should some other party (you) use my property (The Point) for illegal activities. That worries me ...'' About 40 personal computer systems and 23,000 data disks were seized under Operation Sun Devil, a two-year investigation involving the FBI, Secret Service, and other federal and local law enforcement officials. In addition, the Secret Service acknowledges that its agents, acting as legitimate users, had secretly monitored computer bulletin boards (Markoff90a). Markoff reports that California Representative Don Edwards, industry leader Mitchell Kapor, and civil liberties advocates are alarmed by these government actions, saying that they challenge freedom of speech under the First Amendment and protection against searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Markoff asks: ``Will fear of hackers bring oppression?'' John Barlow writes ``The Secret Service may actually have done a service for those of us who love liberty. They have provided us with a devil. And devils, among their other galvanizing virtues, are just great for clarifying the issues and putting iron in your spine,'' (Barlow90). Some of the questions that Barlow says need to be addressed include ``What are data and what is free speech? How does one treat property which has no physical form and can be infinitely reproduced? Is a computer the same as a printing press?'' Barlow urges those of us who understand the technology to address these questions, lest the answers be given to us by law makers and law enforcers who do not. Barlow and Kapor are constituting a foundation to ``raise and disburse funds for education, lobbying, and litigation in the areas relating to digital speech and the extension of the Constitution into Cyberspace.'' 8. Conclusions Hackers say that it is our social responsibility to share information, and that it is information hoarding and disinformation that are the crimes. This ethic of resource and information sharing contrasts sharply with computer security policies that are based on authorization and ``need to know.'' This discrepancy raises an interesting question: Does the hacker ethic reflect a growing force in society that stands for greater sharing of resources and information -- a reaffirmation of basic values in our constitution and laws? It is important that we examine the differences between the standards of hackers, systems managers, users, and the public. These differences may represent breakdowns in current practices, and may present new opportunities to design better policies and mechanisms for making computer resources and information more widely available. The sentiment for greater information sharing is not restricted to hackers. In the best seller, ``Thriving on Chaos,'' Tom Peters (Peters87) writes about sharing within organizations: ``Information hoarding, especially by politically motivated, power-seeking staffs, has been commonplace throughout American industry, service and manufacturing alike. It will be an impossible millstone around the neck of tomorrow's organizations. Sharing is a must.'' Peters argues that information flow and sharing is fundamental to innovation and competitiveness. On a broader scale, Peter Drucker (Drucker89) says that the ``control of information by government is no longer possible. Indeed, information is now transnational. Like money, it has no `fatherland.' '' Nor is the sentiment restricted to people outside the computer security field. Harry DeMaio (DeMaio89) says that our natural urge is to share information, and that we are suspicious of organizations and individuals who are secretive. He says that information is exchanged out of ``want to know'' and mutual accommodation rather than ``need to know.'' If this is so, then some of our security policies are out of step with the way people work. Peter Denning (DenningP89) says that information sharing will be widespread in the emerging worldwide networks of computers and that we need to focus on ``immune systems'' that protect against mistakes in our designs and recover from damage. I began my investigation of hackers with the question, who are they and what is their culture and discourse? My investigation uncovered some of their concerns, which provided the organizational structure to this paper, and several suggestions for new actions that might be taken. My investigation also opened up a broader question: What conflict in society do hackers stand at the battle lines of? Is it owning or restricting information vs. sharing information -- a tension between an age-old tradition of controlling information as property and the Englightenment tradition of sharing and disseminating information? Is it controlling access based on ``need to know,'' as determined by the information provider, vs. ``want to know,'' as determined by the person desiring access? Is it law enforcement vs. freedoms granted under the First and Fourth Amendments? The answers to these questions, as well as those raised by Barlow on the nature of information and free speech, are important because they tell us whether our policies and practices serve us as well as they might. The issue is not simply hackers vs. system managers or law enforcers; it is a much larger question about values and practices in an information society. Acknowledgments I am deeply grateful to Peter Denning, Frank Drake, Nathan Estey, Katie Hafner, Brian Harvey, Steve Lipner, Teresa Lunt, Larry Martin, Gordon Meyer, Donn Parker, Morgan Schweers, Richard Stallman, and Alex for their comments on earlier versions of this paper and helpful discussions; to Richard Stallman for putting me in contact with hackers; John Draper, Geoff Goodfellow, Brian Reid, Eugene Spafford, Dave, Marcel, Mike, RGB, and the hackers for helpful discussions; and Richard Pethia for a summary of some of his experiences at CERT. The opinions expressed here, however, are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the people mentioned above or of Digital Equipment Corporation. References ACM90 ``Just say no,'' Comm. ACM, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 1990, p. 477. Baird87 Bruce J. Baird, Lindsay L. Baird, Jr., and Ronald P. Ranauro, ``The Moral Cracker?,'' Computers and Security, Vol. 6, No. 6, Dec. 1987, p. 471-478. Barlow90 John Barlow, ``Crime and Puzzlement,'' June 1990, to appear in Whole Earth Review. Corley89 Eric Corley, ``The Hacking Fever,'' in Pamela Kane, V.I.R.U.S. Protection, Bantam Books, New York, 1989, p. 67-72. DeMaio89 Harry B. DeMaio, ``Information Ethics, a Practical Approach,'' Proc. of the 12th National Computer Security Conference, 1989, p. 630-633. DenningP89 Peter J. Denning, ``Worldnet,'' American Scientist, Vol. 77, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., 1989. DenningP90 Peter J. Denning, Computers Under Attack, ACM Press, 1990. Dibbel90 Julian Dibbel, ``Cyber Thrash,'' SPIN, Vol. 5, No. 12, March 1990. Drucker89 Peter F. Drucker, The New Realities, Harper and Row, New York, 1989. Felsenstein86 Lee Felsenstein, ``Real Hackers Don't Rob Banks,'' in full report on ACM Panel on Hacking (Lee86). Frenkel87 Karen A. Frenkel, ``Brian Reid, A Graphics Tale of a Hacker Tracker,'' Comm. ACM, Vol. 30, No. 10, Oct. 1987, p. 820-823. Goldstein89 Emmanuel Goldstein, ``Hackers in Jail,'' 2600 Magazine, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 1989. Goldstein90 Emmanuel Goldstein, ``For Your Protection,'' 2600 Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 1, Spring 1990. Goodfellow83 Geoffrey S. Goodfellow, ``Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation, and Materials on the Subject of Telecommunications Security and Privacy,'' Sept. 26, 1983. Hafner90 Katie Hafner, ``Morris Code,'' The New Republic, Feb. 16, 1990, p. 15-16. Harpers90 ``Is Computer Hacking a Crime?" Harper's, March 1990, p. 45-57. Harvey86 Brian Harvey, ``Computer Hacking and Ethics,'' in full report on ACM Panel on Hacking (Lee86). HollingerLanza-Kaduce88 Richard C. Hollinger and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, ``The Process of Criminalization: The Case of Computer Crime Laws,'' Criminology, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1988, p. 101-126. Huebner89 Hans Huebner, ``Re: News from the KGB/Wiley Hackers,'' RISKS Digest, Vol. 8, Issue 37, 1989. Landreth89 Bill Landreth, Out of the Inner Circle, Tempus, Redmond, WA, 1989. Lee86 John A. N. Lee, Gerald Segal, and Rosalie Stier, ``Positive Alternatives: A Report on an ACM Panel on Hacking,'' Comm. ACM, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 1986, p. 297-299; full report available from ACM Headquarters, New York. Levy84 Steven Levy, Hackers, Dell, New York, 1984. Markoff90 John Markoff, ``Self-Proclaimed `Hacker' Sends Message to Critics,'' The New York Times, March 19, 1990. Markoff90a John Markoff, ``Drive to Counter Computer Crime Aims at Invaders,'' The New York Times, June 3, 1990. Martin89 Larry Martin, ``Unethical `Computer' Behavior: Who is Responsible?,'' Proc. of the 12th National Computer Security Conference, 1989. Meyer89 Gordon R. Meyer, The Social Organization of the Computer Underground, Master's thesis, Dept. of Sociology, Northern Illinois Univ., Aug. 1989. MeyerThomas90 Gordon Meyer and Jim Thomas, ``The Baudy World of the Byte Bandit: A Postmodernist Interpretation of the Computer Underground,'' Dept. of Sociology, Northern Illinois Univ., DeKalb, IL, March 1990. Peters87 Tom Peters, Thriving on Chaos, Harper & Row, New York, Chapter VI, S-3, p. 610, 1987. Spafford89 Eugene H. Spafford, ``The Internet Worm, Crisis and Aftermath,'' Comm. ACM, Vol. 32, No. 6, June 1989, p. 678-687. Stallman84 Richard M. Stallman, Letter to ACM Forum, Comm. ACM, Vol. 27, No. 1, Jan. 1984, p. 8-9. Stallman90 Richard M. Stallman, ``Against User Interface Copyright'' to appear in Comm. ACM. Steele83 Guy L. Steele, Jr., Donald R. Woods, Raphael A. Finkel, Mark R. Crispin, Richard M. Stallman, and Geoffrey S. Goodfellow, The Hacker's Dictionary, Harper & Row, New York, 1983. Stoll90 Clifford Stoll, The Cuckoo's Egg, Doubleday, 1990. Thomas90 Jim Thomas, ``Review of The Cuckoo's Egg,'' Computer Underground Digest, Issue #1.06, April 27, 1990. ThomasMeyer90 Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer, ``Joe McCarthy in a Leisure Suit: (Witch)Hunting for the Computer Underground,'' Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 1990; see also the Computer Underground Digest, Vol. 1, Issue 11, June 16, 1990. _______________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ==Phrack Classic== Volume Three, Issue 32, File #4 of 12 ***** T H E A R T O F I N V E S T I G A T I O N ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** Brought to You By ***** ***** ***** ***** The Butler ***** ***** ***** ***** 10/31/90 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** There are many ways to obtain information about individuals. I am going to cover some of the investigative means of getting the low down on people whom you wish to know more about. Some of the areas I will cover are: Social Security Checks Driving/Vehicular Records Police Reports FBI Records Insurance Records Legal Records Credit Bureau Checks Probate Records Real Estate Records Corporate Records Freedom Of Information Act Governmental Agency Records Maps Tax Records To obtain information from some organizations or some individuals one must be able to "BULLSHIT"!!! Not only by voice but in writing. Many times you must write certain governmental bodies requesting info and it can only be done in writing. I can't stress enough the need for proper grammer and spelling. For you to obtain certain information about another person you must first get a few KEY pieces of info to make your investigation easier. The persons Full Name, Social Security Number, Date & Place of Birth will all make your search easier and more complete. First of all in most cases you will know the persons name you want to invest- igate. If not you must obtain it any way you can. First you could follow them to their home and get their address. Then some other time when they are gone you could look at their mail or dig through their trash to get their Full Name. While in their trash you might even be able to dig up more interesting info like: Bank Accout Numbers, Credit Card Numbers, Social Security Number, Birth Day, Relatives Names, Long Distance Calls Made, etc. If you can't get to their trash for some reason take their address to your local library and check it against the POLKS and COLES Directories. This should provide you with their Full Name, Phone Number, Address, and how long they have lived at the current location. You can also check the Local Phone Book, Directory Assistance, City Directories, Post Office, Voter Registration, Former Neighbors, Former Utilities (water, gas, electric, phone, cable, etc.) If you know someone who works at a bank or car dealer you could have them run a credit check which will reveal all of their credit cards and if they have ever had any late payments or applied for any loans. If you are brave enough you could even apply for a loan impersonating the individual under investigation The Credit Bureau also has Sentry Services that can provide deceased social security numbers, postal drop box address and known fraudulent information. You can get an individuals driving record by sending a letter to your states Department of Revenue, Division of Vehicles. You can also get the following: Driver Control Bureau For Driving Record send Name, Address, Date of Birth and usually a $1 process- ing fee for a 5 year record. Titles & Registration Bureau For ownership information (current and past). Driver License Examination Bureau To see what vision was rated. Motor Carrier Inspection & Registration Bureau To check on licensing and registration of trucks/trucking companies. Revocation Dept Can verify if someone's driver's license has ever been suspended or revoked. You can even obtain a complete vehicle history by sending the vehicle descrip- tion, identification # for the last registered owner, and a small fee. Send this info to your states Dept of Vehicles. It is best to contact them first to get their exact address and fees. I would advise using a money orders and a P.O. Box so they cannot trace it to you without a hassle. Police Records All Police and Fire Records are Public record unless the city is involved. You can usually get everything available from the police dept including: Interviews, maps, diagrams, misc reports, etc. FBI Records If the individual you are inquiring about is deceased the FBI will provide some info if you give them Full Name, SSN, Date & Place of Birth. Contact you local FBI office to get the details. Real Estate Records Recorder of Deeds offices in each county maintain land ownership records. Most are not computerized and you have to manually search. Then you must review microfilm/fiche for actual deeds of trust, quit claim deeds, assignments, mortgage, liens, etc. A title company can run an Ownership & Equity (O&E) search for a fee ($80-$100) which will show ownership, mortgage info, easements, taxes owned, taxes assessed, etc. Most county assessors will provide an address and value of any real property if you request a search by name. Social Security Records Social Security Administrator Office of Central Records Operations 300 North Greene Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 301-965-8882 Title II and Title XVI disability claims records, info regarding total earnings for each year, detailed earnings information show employer, total earnings, and social security paid for each quarter by employer. Prices are approximately as follows: 1st year of records $15.00 2nd-5th year of records $ 2.50 per person 6th-10th year of records $ 2.00 per person 11th-15th year of records $ 1.50 per person 16th-on year of records $ 1.00 per person ** Call for verification of these prices. ** Social Security records are a great source of information when someone has been relatively transient in their work, or if they are employed out of a union hall. If you want to review a claim file, direct your request to the Baltimore office. They will send the file to the social security office in your city for you to review and decide what you want copies of. The first three digits of a social security number indicate the state of application. The Social Security Number SSA has continually emphasized the fact that the SSN identifies a particular record only and the Social Security Card indicates the person whose record is identified by that number. In no way can the Social Security Card identify the bearer. From 1946 to 1972 the legend "Not for Identification" was printed on the face of the card. However, many people ignored the message and the legend was eventually dropped. The social security number is the most widely used and carefully controlled number in the country, which makes it an attractive identifier. With the exception of the restrictions imposed on Federal and some State and local organizations by the Privacy Act of 1974, organizations requiring a unique identifier for purposes of controlling their records are not prohibited from using (with the consent of the holder) the SSN. SSA records are confidential and knowledge of a person's SSN does not give the user access to information in SSA files which is confidential by law. Many commercial enterprises have used the SSN in various promotional efforts. These uses are not authorized by SSA, but SSA has no authority to prohibit such activities as most are not illegal. Some of these unauthorized uses are: SSN contests; skip-tracers; sale or distribution of plastic or metal cards; pocketbook numbers (the numbers used on sample social security cards in wallets); misleading advertising, commercial enterprises charging fees for SSN services; identification of personal property. The Social Security Number (SSN) is composed of 3 parts, XXX-XX-XXXX, called the Area, Group, and Serial. For the most part, (there are exceptions), the Area is determined by where the individual APPLIED for the SSN (before 1972) or RESIDED at time of application (after 1972). The areas are assigned as follows: 000 unused 387-399 WI 528-529 UT 001-003 NH 400-407 KY 530 NV 004-007 ME 408-415 TN 531-539 WA 008-009 VT 416-424 AL 540-544 OR 010-034 MA 425-428 MS 545-573 CA 035-039 RI 429-432 AR 574 AK 040-049 CT 433-439 LA 575-576 HI 050-134 NY 440-448 OK 577-579 DC 135-158 NJ 449-467 TX 580 VI Virgin Islands 159-211 PA 468-477 MN 581-584 PR Puerto Rico 212-220 MD 478-485 IA 585 NM 221-222 DE 486-500 MO 586 PI Pacific Islands* 223-231 VA 501-502 ND 587-588 MS 232-236 WV 503-504 SD 589-595 FL 237-246 NC 505-508 NE 596-599 PR Puerto Rico 247-251 SC 509-515 KS 600-601 AZ 252-260 GA 516-517 MT 602-626 CA 261-267 FL 518-519 ID *Guam, American Samoa, 268-302 OH 520 WY Northern Mariana Islands, 303-317 IN 521-524 CO Philippine Islands 318-361 IL 525 NM 362-386 MI 526-527 AZ 627-699 unassigned, for future use 700-728 Railroad workers through 1963, then discontinued 729-899 unassigned, for future use 900-999 not valid SSNs, but were used for program purposes when state aid to the aged, blind and disabled was converted to a federal program administered by SSA. As the Areas assigned to a locality are exhausted, new areas from the pool are assigned. This is why some states have non-contiguous groups of Areas. The Group portion of the SSN has no meaning other than to determine whether or not a number has been assigned. SSA publishes a list every month of the highest group assigned for each SSN Area. The order of assignment for the Groups is: odd numbers under 10, even numbers over 9, even numbers under 9 except for 00 which is never used, and odd numbers over 10. For example, if the highest group assigned for area 999 is 72, then we know that the number 999-04-1234 is an invalid number because even Groups under 9 have not yet been assigned. The Serial portion of the SSN has no meaning. The Serial is not assigned in strictly numerical order. The Serial 0000 is never assigned. Before 1973, Social Security Cards with pre-printed numbers were issued to each local SSA office. The numbers were assigned by the local office. In 1973, SSN assignment was automated and outstanding stocks of pre-printed cards were destroyed. All SSNs are now assigned by computer from headquarters. There are rare cases in which the computer system can be forced to accept a manual assignment such as a person refusing a number with 666 in it. A pamphlet entitled "The Social Security Number" (Pub. No.05-10633) provides an explanation of the SSN's structure and the method of assigning and validating Social Security numbers. Tax Records If you can find out who does the individuals taxes you might be able to get copies from them with the use of creative social engineering. If you want to run a tax lien search there is a service called Infoquest. 1-800-777-8567 for a fee. Call with a specific request. Post Office Records If you have an address for someone that is not current, always consider writing a letter to the postmaster of whatever post office branch services the zip code of the missing person. Provide them the name and the last known address and simply ask for the current address. There might be a $1 fee for this so it would be wise to call first. City Directory, Polk's, Cole's, etc. Information in these directories is contained alphabetically by name, geographically by street address, and numerically by telephone number, so if you have any of those three pieces of info, a check can be done. The Polk's directory also shows whether the person owns their home or rents, their marital status, place of employment, and a myriad of other tidbits of information. However, these books are not the be-all and end-all of the information as they are subject to public and corporate response to surveys. These directories are published on a nationwide basis so if you are looking for someone outside of your area, simply call the public library in the area you have an interest and they also can perform a crisscross check for you. You can also call a service owned by Cole's called the National Look up Library at 402-473-9717 and either give a phone number and get the name & address or give the address and get the name and phone number. This is only available to subscribers, which costs $183.00 dollars for 1991. A subscriber gets two free lookups per day and everyone after that costs $1.25. A subscriber can also mail in a request for a lookup to: National Look Up Library 901 W. Bond Street Lincoln, NE 68521-3694 A company called Cheshunoff & Company can, for a $75 fee, obtain a 5-year detailed financial analysis of any bank. 505 Barton Springs Road Austin, Texas 78704 512-472-2244 Professional Credit Checker & Nationwide SSN-locate. !Solutions! Publishing Co. 8016 Plainfield Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45236 513-891-6145 1-800-255-6643 Top Secret Manuals Consumertronics 2011 Crescent Drive P.O. Drawer 537-X Alamogordo, New Mexico 88310 505-434-0234 Federal Government Information Center is located at 1520 Market Street St. Louis, Missouri 1-800-392-7711 U.S. Dept of Agriculture has located aerial photos of every inch of the United States. 2222 West 2300 S. P.O. Box 36010 Salt Lake City, Utah 84130 801-524-5856 To obtain general information regarding registered agent, principals, and good standing status, simply call the Corporate Division of the Secretary of State and they will provide that information over the phone. Some corporate divisions are here: Arkansas Corporate Division 501-371-5151 Deleware Corporate Division 302-736-3073 Georgia Corporate Division 404-656-2817 Indiana Corporate Division 317-232-6576 Kansas Corporate Division 913-296-2236 Louisiana Corporate Division 504-925-4716 Missouri Corporate Division 314-751-4936 New York Corporate Division 518-474-6200 Texas Corporate Division 512-475-3551 Freedom Of Information The Freedom of Information Act allows the public to request information submitted to, or generated by, all executive departments, military departments, government or government controlled corporations, and regulatory agencies. Each agency, as described above, publishes in the Federal Register, descriptions of its central and field organizations and places where and how requests are to be directed. Direct a letter to the appropriate person designated in the Federal Register requesting reasonably described records be released to you pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Be sure to follow each agency's individually published rules which state the time, place, fees, and procedures for the provisions of information. The agency should promptly respond. How to Find Information About Companies, Ed. II, 1981, suggests, "Government personnel you deal with sometimes become less helpful if you approach the subject by threatening the Freedom of Information Act action - it's best to ask for 