Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Congressman Calls for Arrest of Security Researcher

Posted by Zonk on Fri Oct 27, 2006 05:28 PM
from the that's-a-pretty-cool-project dept.
Christopher Soghoian writes "Yesterday, I published a tool that allows you to Create your own boarding pass for Northwest flights. This was an attempt to document the fragile and broken state of identity/security for domestic flights in the US. Today, Congressman Markey (D-Mass) has called for my arrest." From the ABC article: "'I don't want to help terrorists or help bad guys do bad things on airplanes, but what we have now is what we in the industry call security theater. It's made to make you think you're secure without actually making you secure,' Soghoian said. 'As a member of the academic research community, I consider this to be a public service.' Soghoian admits that he hasn't actually tried to use one of the boarding passes yet."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: FBI Raids Security Researcher's Home 516 comments
Sparr0 writes, "The FBI has raided the home of Christopher Soghoian, the grad student who created the NWA boarding pass site. Details can be found on his blog including a scanned copy of the warrant. The bad news is that he really did break the law. The good news is that Senator Charles Schumer did it first, 19 months ago, on an official government website no less. The outcome of this trial should be at least academically interesting. At best, it could result in nullifying some portion of the law(s) that the TSA operates under." Read on for Sparr0's take on what laws may apply in this case.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by mbstone (457308) <michael.b.stoneNO@SPAMatt.net> on Friday October 27 2006, @05:31PM (#16616518) Homepage
    The prosecutors would never file a criminal case, because it would be quickly thrown out on First Amendment grounds? Wouldn't it?
    • by soft_guy (534437) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:35PM (#16616568)
      The prosecutors would never file a criminal case, because it would be quickly thrown out on First Amendment grounds? Wouldn't it?

      With a supreme court with 7 republican appointees? I doubt it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Unfortunately, the Supreme Court takes a very loose view of what the Constitution says. For example, it considers building a hotel and condominiums as "public use" for the purposes of eminent domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_L ondon [wikipedia.org]

        Note that all four of the dissenting justices in the Kelo decision were appointed by Republicans.

          • by jadavis (473492) on Friday October 27 2006, @10:50PM (#16619294)
            There must be some hidden reason for the seemingly obvious misjudgment.

            More like a misconception. This country really needs more so-called conservative justices. By "conservative", I don't mean conservatives pushing their agendas from the bench (like O'Connor), I mean justices who follow the Constitution (like Scalia).

            It's no surprise that Kelo went the way it did. You're thinking is that "liberals are for the little guys, conservatives for business". But, in reality, having the power of central planning is crucial to the liberal agenda. Kelo was exactly what the liberals needed: the power for government officials to confiscate your personal property in the name of a "greater good" by calling it a "public purpose" (not public use, however, as the 5th Amendment says).

            Scalia, on the other hand, follows the Constitutional principle that the federal government can only regulate interstate commerce ("commerce among the states," as is in the Constitution). Using that principle, it would be Unconstitutional for the federal government to prohibit the growing of Marijuana on private property. States could still outlaw it, of course, but the feds couldn't do a thing. Does that sound "conservative" to you? Nope, but it is what the Constitution says.

            This is not about your party, the Constitution gets in the way of BOTH parties, but it's not for the parties, it's for the PEOPLE. So back the Constitution, because it's just in the way of the Democrats and the Republicans. It's time for both parties to face the hard truths: you can't execute unwarranted searchs (too bad, GOP). And Democrats: stop trying to control guns, unless you want to try to pass an Amendment. The Constitution says these things, plain and simple. Oh, and when you get a chance, read the 10th Amendment, too.

            Right now the idea that we are following the Constitution is a joke. We cling to a few scraps of the Bill of Rights, and ignore much of the rest of it. Congress "Authorized the use of force"?! What is that supposed to mean? What about a declaration of war? Meanwhile the Supreme Court passes arbitrary edicts fabricated out of thin air, like "privacy" meaning that it's Unconstitutional to ban abortions. I don't think it's a good idea to ban abortions, but why did 9 people make that decision for the entire country, when it's clearly a state issue?

    • by Tackhead (54550) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:36PM (#16616578)
      > The prosecutors would never file a criminal case, because it would be quickly thrown out on First Amendment grounds? Wouldn't it?

      Much like the guy who looks at your boarding pass, you're trusting your life to something that's just a goddamn piece of paper.

      • by timeOday (582209) on Friday October 27 2006, @06:42PM (#16617454)
        A boarding pass isn't even supposed to be a security document. That's why you have to show your ID as well as your boarding pass, just to get the privelige of being x-rayed, bomb-sniffed, and patted down before being allowed into the secured area. If anybody thought boarding passes were supposed to enhance security, they wouldn't let you print your own.

        In other words, I think the professor's research is silly, and I think the congressman is equally silly for calling for his arrest.

    • I doubt it. It's hard to see how faking a boarding pass can be considered some kind of "political speech," which is about the only kind of speech that has near-absolute protection under the First Amendment.

      Otherwise, you know, you couldn't be prosecuted for faking a bill of sale for a car, or a life insurance policy, or printing counterfeit currency, or most other forms of fraud that involve a printed document -- and you surely can.
      • Re:not likely (Score:5, Informative)

        by kfg (145172) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:45PM (#16616684)
        Otherwise, you know, you couldn't be prosecuted for faking a bill of sale for a car, or a life insurance policy, or printing counterfeit currency, or most other forms of fraud that involve a printed document -- and you surely can.

        I just created a fake bill of sale for a car. I have committed no crime, because I have not proffered it as genuine to anybody.

        Fraud is a crime of intent.

        KFG
      • Re:not likely (Score:5, Insightful)

        by finkployd (12902) * on Friday October 27 2006, @05:46PM (#16616702) Homepage
        No, you can be prosecuted for attempting to pass these off as real, but not just printing them (well, in the case of money that may not be true). Obviously, this guy was not encouraging people to print them and break the law and threaten national security, he was attempting to make a point about how silly our pseudo-security efforts regarding airlines are. In the collective mind of the federal government, educating the public just how ineffective most security measures are is probably the more more dangerous scenario though.

        Finkployd
          • Re:not likely (Score:5, Informative)

            I suspect very strongly that in the case of money, simply having the means to create counterfeit bills will probably land you in a whole heap of trouble.


            This is why every American should immediately go visit FIJA [fija.org] and learn the truth about serving on a jury. Hint: you can judge the law as well as the facts, and juries ARE the "last line of defense" against oppressive government / bad laws. See Jury Nullification [wikipedia.org] and/or Peter Zenger [wikipedia.org] for more.

            If I'm ever serving on a jury, I can guarantee you that I won't be voting to convict in any "victimless crime" situation, or anything where somebody is being charged with violating some bullshit law. Hung jury or acquittal, here we come.

      • Re:not likely (Score:4, Interesting)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:58PM (#16616910) Journal

        Passing a fake bill is illegal. Selling a printing press is not, even if that printing press can be used to print bills.... Telling people how to make a plate based on existing currency... it's the same as making any other kind of plate, so also not illegal in all likelihood.

        There isn't anything here that hasn't been obvious to every single person who reads Slashdot for years. It's all smoke and mirrors, and anyone with even a modest level of intelligence knows this, not just geeks. The only thing surprising here is that we have a Congressman who is so completely computer illiterate and clueless that he actually believes that the stuff in this article would be a surprise to anyone.

        You know, now that I think about it, given the quality of federal legislation in the past few years... it's not really that surprising after all. In fact, it explains a lot.

        • Re:not likely (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Fulcrum of Evil (560260) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:50PM (#16616770)

          Come on, security researchers, you know what the political climate is! Is there no other way to point out that something may be easily forged besides actually creating a tool to forge it!?

          No, because anything less will be dismissed as fearmongering.

          • Re:not likely (Score:5, Interesting)

            by UbuntuDupe (970646) on Friday October 27 2006, @06:09PM (#16617046) Journal
            Conservative/Libertarian radio talk show host Neal Boortz ran into the same thing. (According to a story he regularly tells) He told some airline, Delta I think, that the security check in procedures were too lax. They ignored him. After he was fed up with that, he made a bet with the head of security, then dressed up like a pilot, got waved through a checkpoint, and once on a plane, he got out his cell phone and called the head of security to let him know he got through.

            Don't know what became of that. (This was long before 9/11.)
        • Re:not likely (Score:5, Insightful)

          by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) on Friday October 27 2006, @06:08PM (#16617038) Homepage Journal
          Is there no other way to point out that something may be easily forged besides actually creating a tool to forge it!?

          Come on software security researchers -- is there no other way to demonstrate exploits in Internet Explorer than to actually create and release the exploit code?!

          I mean seriously -- isn't this the same question in a different wrapper?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          The problem is that for every tale like yours, there are a thousand stories of people who found holes in a computer system, told the responsible party, and were promptly threatened with administrative action for "cracking". After all, if you weren't trying to break in, how did you stumble across the security hole to begin with?

          And as I said, we've all been saying this for years. It simply took somebody having the guts to make a really visible, easy-to-use exploit for the problem before anyone would list

    • by finkployd (12902) * on Friday October 27 2006, @05:42PM (#16616640) Homepage
      Clearly you do not understand that we are at war. Anything that the Whitehouse defines as terrorism related or critical to our war effort is off limits to your constitutional whining. to suggest otherwise indicates that you clearly need some waterboarding, you filthy enemy combatant.

      Finkployd
    • The prosecutors would never file a criminal case, because it would be quickly thrown out on First Amendment grounds? Wouldn't it?
      Well, look at it like this: because he published this, he is both an enemy combatant and a terrorist. Therefore, he has no habeas corpus protection. Therefore, they can just come around, pick him up, and toss him in some cell somewhere, and never have to tell anyone.
        • by An Onerous Coward (222037) on Saturday October 28 2006, @01:58AM (#16620166) Homepage
          Soooooo.... if I get my butt hauled off to Guantanamo, how do I get myself a court hearing so that I can present the evidence showing that I am a U.S. citizen and therefore entitled to Habeus Corpus?

          Face it. So long as we say, "Everyone has a right to habeus corpus, except for group X," then all the government needs to do is claim you're a member of group X to deny you access to the courts.

          Final note: We are not at war. Legally, we are not at war, because Congress has not declared war. Morally, we cannot declare a war that amounts to a war against anyone, anywhere who might be plotting violence against us. That leads directly to a state of eternal war, because we cannot even conceive of a future state of affairs that could be called "victorious."

          The U.S. knew the war was over when Lee signed his surrender at Appomattox. How will we know that the "global struggle against islamofascism" is at an end, that America is safe, and we can demand these so-called "war powers" back? Who is going to have to surrender their arms to make that day come? The answer, of course, is nobody. This "war" won't end with a resounding military victory or the fall of some great tyrant. It only ends when the people of the U.S. rise up and take back the liberties they traded for false security.

          November 7, people. Mark it on your calendars.
  • by RightSaidFred99 (874576) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:31PM (#16616522)
    You could have just used an old boarding pass or copied an old one, or scanned and photoshopped an old boarding pass and changed the date/time.

    Or, gee, the terrorists could just have someone else buy a plane ticket, or buy it themselves, or buy for a different flight, whatever.

    The whole thing is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that this is thought to be some newly discovered weakness, and it's ridiculous that the powers that be are actually getting upset over it.

    • by panaceaa (205396) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:56PM (#16616866) Homepage Journal
      There IS brilliance behind his idea. Perhaps you didn't read it... but basically, you can fly on a fake identity without any screening of your actual identity.

      1) Go to 7-Eleven and buy a pre-paid credit card with cash using a fake name. This will be the name you fly under.
      2) Buy a ticket with this credit card.
      3) Print out an ADDITIONAL ticket for your real identity. He gives you an HTML form to do this.

      Now, show up at the airport. Go through security with the fake ticket... it will match your ID, but since it's not in any computer systems, they won't check to see if you're on the no-fly list. When at the gate, provide the ticket you actually bought. Nowadays you don't need an ID at the gates anymore -- just have your ticket scanned and hop on the plane!

      Now, I'm not exactly sure if you can check bags. If you have to go to the counter before security, they ask for your ID. But if you can avoid that (and you can now, as far as I know), you can fly on a fake identity.
  • Arrest? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous brave dude (950545) <gavinwahl@gmail.com> on Friday October 27 2006, @05:33PM (#16616536)
    So, some guy said he should be arrested. Does that mean anything?
  • by GillBates0 (664202) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:33PM (#16616544) Homepage Journal
    ...it also amazes me immensely, how a simple 'printout' passes as an 'authentic' document in a variety of situations.

    The wide spread use of e-commerce has expedited the adoption of regular printouts as tickets, receipts, passes and other situations I can't think of right now.

    Are people so dumb as to not realize, how simple their official 'logos' are to create using an image processing software? Agreed, most of these 'receipts' merely provide a number, which acts as an 'index' in some internal database somewhere.

    But this guy does have a point. Merely admitting a person holding a an easily reproducible printout of an 'eticket' or boarding pass is just lame.

  • Newark (Score:5, Insightful)

    by From A Far Away Land (930780) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:34PM (#16616550) Homepage Journal
    Listening to the radio this morning, they said Newark airport staff failed 20 of 22 tests involving guns and bombs being smuggled past security by undercover agents. Airport "security" is a joke, and a distraction from real issues. When they stop taking away your toothpaste and maple syrup in the carry-on luggage, maybe then I'll take something about airports seriously again.
  • by pjt33 (739471) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:35PM (#16616566)
    It's astounding that Markey thinks that the website which prints fake boarding passes is creating a loophole. Politicians may not have a grasp of technology, but it only takes common sense to see that the loophole exists independently of any specifictool which creates the document to exploit it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Get real. Although 2000 AMERICANS is a significant percentage of AMERICA, 2000 PEOPLE is not a significant percentage of HUMANITY. Even if terrorists were somehow able to construct a functional nuclear device, smuggle it into a major city and manage to detonate it and kill 100,000 people, it's still meaningless as far as humanity is concerned. A great tragedy, the country would be pretty numb, almost everyone would know someone who died and those people who were in city would have their lives unjustly end
  • but of course (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phantom of the Opera (1867) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:38PM (#16616598) Homepage
    This whole homeland security mindset is not one of rationality. It is one of panic. There is an element of OMG - he's giving the badguys ideas. This call to arrest him is probably more along the lines of OMG - he's giving passengers the idea that they are unsafe. It isn't the issue wether they are unsafe or not, but making them feel that is going to have negative affects on the airline industry and get people jumpier. All in all, its going to make going on a plane that much less pleasant.


    "The Bush Administration must immediately act to investigate, apprehend those responsible, shut down the website, and warn airlines and aviation security officials to be on the look-out for fraudsters or terrorists trying to use fake boarding passes in an attempt to cheat their way through security and onto a plane," Markey said in a statement. "There are enough loopholes at the backdoor of our passenger airplanes from not scanning cargo for bombs; we should not tolerate any new loopholes making it easier for terrorists to get into the front door of a plane."


    One, shouldn't they already be on the lookout for frausters and terrorist.
    Two, this isn't a new loophole. It's been there a while folks.
  • Well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by finkployd (12902) * on Friday October 27 2006, @05:40PM (#16616624) Homepage
    The emperor generally does not like having his nudity pointed out. Many in government know they are bit players in a pointless security theater, but react violently when told that. I suppose they like to feel that what they do is important and useful (read TSA agents, pretty much the entire DHS, etc). After all, how would you like it if your entire job consisted of going through a dance routine designed to make the clueless public feel as though the government is doing something to keep them safe?

    I suppose Congress is a bit different, I have no problem believing most of the genuinely are clueless and believe wholeheartedly that keeping lighters, tweezers, and bottles of water off airlines is critical to our national security. That also seem to really believe that torture and massive surveillance is an effective way to combat terrorism, further displaying a total lack if understanding. The Republicans (at least those loyal to the Whitehouse) are in a unique position where they have to pretend all of this fluff is important, but somehow selling the ports to Middle East companies, looking the other way on illegal aliens, and ignoring Bin Laden to focus on the mess we created in Iraq are perfectly acceptable.

    Finkployd
  • by geekotourist (80163) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:42PM (#16616634) Journal
    I called up their Washington DC office. The person who answered didn't know about this issue and the call for an arrest. I made three points:


    1. Arresting the messenger doesn't help security- it makes people more afraid to point out security holes.
    2. Security holes don't shrink by pretending they don't exist
    3. Just before elections isn't the best time to make people in Silicon Valley rethink democrats on security. Markey has usually been thoughtful on security- he should rethink his policy of calling for arresting the messenger.

  • Impossible. (Score:5, Funny)

    by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Friday October 27 2006, @05:43PM (#16616652) Journal
    This is impossible. EVERYONE knows it is only those with a R after their name that wish to take away our rights and jail those they do not like.
  • by hondo77 (324058) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:43PM (#16616654) Homepage
    The 9/11 hijackers all had valid boarding passes. What do fake boarding passes have to do with security?
  • Political spectrum (Score:3, Insightful)

    by delirium of disorder (701392) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:44PM (#16616662) Homepage Journal
    Check out Edward Markey's voting record [washingtonpost.com]. He's one of the most liberal members of congress. His call to arrest this innocent security researcher further proves that the Democrats are authoritarians just like the Republicans. Only Greens and Libertarians appear to have any respect for free speech and other civil liberties.
    • by NineNine (235196) on Friday October 27 2006, @06:43PM (#16617464) Homepage
      Ha! You didn't actually think that the Republicans and Democrats were opponents, did you? C'mon.
       
          There's a very popular case study in business school about Coke and Pepsi, and how they're both very happy with approximately 49% of the market. People think they have a real "choice". Neither one has to worry about "monopolies". And, they already know each other. It's a fake battle to make people think that they actually have a choice, all the while, both parties are very happy with half of a FUCKING HUGE pie.
       
      Sound familiar?
  • Prediction (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FirstTimeCaller (521493) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:55PM (#16616864)

    And what do you think the TSA's response to this will be? My money is that they decide to no longer allow people to print their own boarding passes. It will be paper ticket or nothing (and yes I'm aware that these can be forged too). So no more checkins at the gate -- stand in line along with those that have baggage to check. Just great.

  • by aapold (753705) on Friday October 27 2006, @05:57PM (#16616888) Homepage Journal
    Maybe you could use it to flee the country...
  • by mpapet (761907) on Friday October 27 2006, @06:05PM (#16617004) Homepage
    Individuals simply cannot point out the obvious flaws in what passes for National Security. While we as individuals are supposed to have some kind of freedom in this way, we don't.

    Now, lets get to the reasons why this was the dumbest thing to do.

    1. It puts egg of the face of every big federal contractor muscling their way into the "homeland security" budget.

    2. We're at war with an enemy and tactical end that won't ever be defined. To maintain that heightened state of fear and social control, this individual must be criminalized. (he's helping the terrists after all.)

    3. No contractor has a product ready to replace it. It will be a tough day for the contractors that have to explain this to gov't types.

    4. It fires off a "something must be done" storm, that no politician really wants. They've got too much fund raising to do.

    5. Whistle blowing is contrary to the nation-state's goals. An individual this smart and not working for the State must be criminalized in order to maintain the heightened state of fear and sustain a compliant population.

    Never, and I mean never, should an individual take it upon themselves to publish this kind of information.

    Except if you want to be known as "notorious" and probably a felon in prison for a couple of administrations at least.
  • by thehossman (198379) on Friday October 27 2006, @06:17PM (#16617156)
    Background: my last name starts with the letters "Host"

    When southwest first started offering online checking, i discovered a small bug, when you got the the "Print your boarding pass" screen, with my name in all caps, the letters "HOST" were replaced with "southwest.com" ... so if your name was "Jim Hostenfeffer" it would appear on your boardingpass as "JIM southwest.comENFEFFER" ... I played with the site a little bit and found that it was a straight macro replacement bug of whatever domain name was used, so would say "JIM wWw.SOutHwesT.cOmENFEFFER" if that was the domain you typed into the URL bar.

    The first time it happened i thought it was ammusing, I emailed their tech support, saved the HTML to a file and edited it so it had my name again and would match my ID when i checked in.

    4 or 5 flights and at least 9 months later it was still happening and I spent a good 3 hours on the phone being transfered arround to different people trying ot get them to understand what the problem was and how fucking ridiculous it was that i had to constantly "hack" my boarding pass because of a bug they'd had for months.

  • If outlawing printing fake passes, is what it takes to keep terrorists from printing them, then we should do it. Terrorists wouldn't dare to break such a law, thus they won't be able to get boarding passes, thus they won't be able to fly, thus they won't be able to travel to my city, thus they won't be able to detonate a suicide bomb near me.

    I'm glad Markey has the sense to systematically think this threat though, and recommend a solution that will stop it at the source.

    And if anyone suggests that terrorist threats can only be countered by assuming that terrorists are willing to break TSA guidelines, then I suspect such a person of being an anarchist! This is a nation of laws!

  • by quincunx55555 (969721) on Friday October 27 2006, @06:40PM (#16617444)
    Dear Honorable Edward Markey,

    I just read about your response to Christopher Soghoian's findings regarding online printable boarding passes being easily faked.

    I have to say that I am appalled at what I am reading. Mr. Soghoian has found something that could allow terrorist to continue to harm Americans. This technique may have already been used, or plan to be used, but now we know about it and can do something about it.

    Why? Because Mr. Soghoian was kind enough to expose this security flaw. Punishing someone that has put this much effort into giving us the knowledge to save more lives is asinine.

    As a Quality Assurance Engineer, I know the importance of finding, and reporting, flaws. This man should be commended, not condemned.

    I think it would be wise as a senior member of the Department for Homeland Security to withdraw your previous statements as you have gained "an insightful perspective" on this issue after responses such as mine.

    Scaring others into not telling us where our security flaws are will only lead to more opportunities for our enemies. How can you not immediately see this?

    Or should I put you on the list of government employees that pretend like they care, but would rather play political games instead?


    Sincerely,

    Quincunx (real name used in the real letter)


    I encourage others to write as well. If we let him know his error, give him an "out", then maybe bullshit like this won't happen again. Here's hoping.
    Here's the send-an-email part of Honorable Edward Markey's web page [house.gov]
  • by AdmiralWeirdbeard (832807) on Friday October 27 2006, @06:47PM (#16617506)
    Uh, so should they arrest Tom Clancy too? He wrote a book detailing how easily a single person could fly a plane into an important building (the capitol building during a presidential address to a joint session of congress, but whatever).
    So, if the litmus test has become, "Using mass media to point out ways that terrorists might strike = terrorism," then Mr. Clancy, as well as any number of Whitehouse Spokespeople are terrorists and should be put in Guantanamo right now. I mean, come on, they got up there at the briefings and said that people could smuggle bomb supplies on in component form in water bottles... and we can bring water bottles on board again... so... THEY'RE WITH THE TERRORISTS!!!!!

    Since this is patently absurd, maybe Mr. Windbag might want to slow his roll a bit, and consider using his brain before he opens his fucking hole.
  • by klausner (92204) on Friday October 27 2006, @06:55PM (#16617574)
    Chris reports that the FBI is knocking [blogspot.com] on his door. The boarding pass generator [dubfire.net] is also (at least temporarily) down.
  • I suggest that all concerned Slashdotters contact congressman Markey [house.gov] and let him know what you think.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Because everyone knows terrorists aren't smart enough to buy a ticket before attempting to blow up the airport. Obviously.