Slashdot Log In
Comcast Briefly Loses Control of Its Domain Name
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri May 30, 2008 07:54 AM
from the old-skool-pwned dept.
from the old-skool-pwned dept.
Fallen Andy notes that Comcast, one of the largest US ISPs, lost control of its domain name to what appeared to be juvenile social engineers of the old school — i.e. not in it for the money. The intruders got into Comcast's registrar account at Network Solutions and repointed the domain's DNS records. A blog entry at SANS points out how trivially easy this can be. Reader ElvenKnight points out an insightful interview up at Wired with the two young guys who perpetrated the hack.
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: ICANN Loses Control of Its Own Domain Names 61 comments
NotNormallyNormal writes "CBC picked up an AP story about ICANN recently losing control over two of their domain names on Thursday, June 26. A domain registrar run by the group transferred the domains to someone else. ICANN's press release had this to say: 'As has been widely reported, a number of domain names, including icann.com and iana.com were recently redirected to different DNS servers, allowing a group to provide visitors to those domains with their own website. It would appear the attack was sophisticated, combining both social and technological techniques, but was also limited and focused.' Comcast has had similar troubles lately as well."
This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Insightful)
How much do you bet the feds will come down hard on the kids and charge then with felony, cyber-"terrorism" or some other preposterous computer crime? I used to do harmless hacks for fun in years past, but these days it's not really wise.
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Insightful)
That was hardly a "harmless hack". There is a lot of money tied to that domain and when it's down, it's a serious problem for a lot of people. That said, I agree that charging them as cyber-terrorists would be severe overkill.
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, really? You were there? You know what they were thinking? How do you know it wasn't a couple of punk kids just screwing around and not realizing what they were getting themselves into?
I never said they shouldn't be charged. I (and the parent I responded to) both just said that they will likely be charged with much more than the crime warrants.
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:4, Insightful)
These kids used social engineering to deliberately steal the domain name of one of the largest ISPs in the nation. This isn't equivalent to a kid stumbling across a XSS or SQL injection attack in some web app.
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Insightful)
These kids used social engineering to deliberately steal the domain name of one of the largest ISPs in the nation. This isn't equivalent to a kid stumbling across a XSS or SQL injection attack in some web app.
We base our economy upon something this fragile, and then when someone points it out we come down on them really hard.
Imagine if a real attack takes place?
They should thank the kids, ask them not to do it again, and takes steps to prevent it from happening again.
But will that happen - don't make me laugh.
It's like the rest of the U.S. phoney as can be when it comes to real domestic security.
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:4, Insightful)
As it was, they inconvenienced tens of thousands of people. And they didn't put up a sign that said
"We have briefly changed this page to point out a serious flaw in the security of this system. Sorry for the inconvenience.
it said:
"KRYOGENICS Defiant and EBK RoXed Comcast
sHouTz to VIRUS Warlock elul21 coll1er seven"
yes, very helpful.
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not an excuse and that's why they should be charged with something. However, intent is a huge factor when determining what to charge someone with. For example, it's the difference between first degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Either way, someone's dead, but one crime involves a possible death penalty for the perpetrator.
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Ubuwalker's 6 pronged guide to terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why I developed:
Ubuwalker's 6 pronged guide to determining if a person or entity is a terrorist:
1) Did they intend to cause mass terror? [This is an objective test; just because something is scary, doesn't make it terrorism.]
2) Did they use violence or threat of violence? [This rules out non-violent protesters, but includes activities related to violence, like arson]
3) Did they deliberately (and routinely) target non-combatant civilians? [Actions that target military personnel aren't terrorism. An entity which is involved in isolated and infrequent acts which meet criteria 1-6 are more characteristic of war crimes, rather than terrorism, as they might be revenge attacks or guerrilla attacks of opportunity, or of splinter cells, or accidental engagements of civilian target, or engagements of legitimate military targets where civilian combatant are killed, and thus would not be indicative of a systematic policy of engaging in terrorism]
4) Are they a non-governmental organization? [otherwise the action is a war-crime or crime against humanity or piracy or the actor is a State Sponsor of Terrorism]
5) Did they have a political goal? [This rules out ordinary criminals and vandals and street thugs and normal military action]
6) Do they disguise themselves or pretend that they are ordinary civilians? [This goes to the fundamentally unlawful nature of terrorism, by not acting under the color of the laws of war or international law, and thereby putting civilians at risk of attack or collateral damage]
If you don't meet all of these criteria, or find yourself arguing that a group doesn't meet a prong, then you might be dealing with something other than terrorism. Like Piracy (missing prong 5), ordinary military action (lacking 3 and 4 and 6), covert government operations (lacking 4), war crimes (lacking 4), paramilitary/freedom fighters/insurgents (lacking 1, 3).
A State Sponsor of Terrorism provides support to non-governmental entities engaged in terrorist activities. It is fair to say that a leader who supports terrorism is himself a terrorist, sort of like how its fair to say an accessory to murder is a murderer. However, deliberately targeting civilians/ethnic cleansing/genocide is a war crime, and calling war criminals terrorists just confuses the issue.
Hackers and script kiddies are just ordinary criminals. If Al Queda launched a cyber attack to knock out a hospitals computer infrastructure, that would be terrorism.
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Okaaaaaayyyy.... So tell us who was 'terrified', and what was it that 'terrified' them?
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Pollution
2girls1cup
Enron
goatse.cx
PATRIOT Act
DMCA
The Pirate Bay
Incredible. We can call almost anything terrorism now! Thank you!
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Funny)
Just the other day, I had a fast food burger, and the terrorists left out the pickle. Then I went to get gas, but the pump had been broken by terrorists. After finally getting gas, I discovered the terrorists have been jacking up fuel prices so I didn't have enough cash. The terrorists must have been disrupting the banking system, because it took several minutes to access my funds by debit card. The terrorists had been messing with the stop lights as well, since they were completely out of sync.
Finally, I got home and discovered my wife must be a terrorist, since she overcooked the roast. Then I tried watching the news, but terrorists kept interrupting it with ads for things I didn't want to buy. Disillusioned, I decided to go throw a ball around with my son Billy. It's one of the few pleasures I can still find in this dangerous, terror-infested world. You wouldn't believe what happened! My son threw the ball badly, and I got a grass stain on my slacks when diving for it. I'm afraid I'll have to call DHS and get them to start a dossier on Billy now.
I hope the terrorists don't turn off my alarm clock in the night again. If I'm late for one more day of work, I'm pretty sure the terrorists in human resources are going to fire me.
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Funny)
Excuse me while I listen to Barry Goldwater rolling in his grave.
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Terrorism, by definition, has to have some sort of political goal in mind (wanting power, autonomy, etc), and has to have the intention of intimidation. This has neither.
I don't see anyone shaking in fear over Comcast's website being inaccessible...
It's just a regular crime, not terrorism.
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they've figured that out... now. From the Wired interview:
They claim they called Comcast's technical contact and told him they'd taken control of the domain, BEFORE they changed anything. I don't know if it'll help them in court, but it sounds like if he hadn't blown them off, it really would have been a harmless prank. That doesn't justify their decision to redirect, but the Comcast guy should have at least bothered to check.
After they were blown off by him, these punks lost their tempers:
"I was trying to say we shouldn't do this the whole damn time," says Defiant.
"But once we were in," adds EBK, "it was, like, fuck it."
Well, I hope they had fun, because they're going to be paying for it, big time.
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully the judicial system will dish out the appropriate punishment and won't get caught up in the hype. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Washington Monument is a highly visible, highly valuable, historic landmark and if you deface it it affects a lot more people.
I don't know about anyone else, but your analogy just made it easier for me to see fault in these kids' actions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:4, Interesting)
Since always, basically. The prime example would be theft, which has always been both a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on how much is stolen.
With crimes against persons, any monetary impact is considered so secondary as to not be worthy of consideration, generally (a few centuries back, this wasn't the case; in medieval law, if you murdered somebody rich and important, the penalty was indeed greater than if you murdered a serf). With crimes against property, the monetary impact is basically the point. This was a crime against property.
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The consequences might not be as fun (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Network Solutions seems to be the common trend. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps it's a sign of a more underlying flaw in Network Solutions' security?
Everything old is new again. (Score:5, Interesting)
The best part: Network Solutions were of absolutely no help to us in getting our own domain back from the hijackers, so we ended up having to use the same trick to just steal it back again. Three times.
Parent
Re:Network Solutions seems to be the common trend. (Score:5, Informative)
From the Wired article:
Sooo, what she's saying is that Network Solutions' system was operating as designed. Is that supposed to be comforting?
Parent
These guys are my heroes (Score:5, Funny)
Now *THAT'S* hacking.
Re:These guys are my heroes (Score:5, Informative)
Lazy companies create "automated systems to handle most inquiries" ignoring the fact that even their claim states its own failing, it doesn't handle them all. So we have created a database of how to circumvent the barrier to customer support.
Now if only we could force them to hire customer support grunts without such thick accents.
Parent
Re:These guys are my heroes (Score:5, Funny)
Comcast: OMG!!! Outrageous!!! Some HACKERS denied us access to our OWN DOMAIN NAME!!!! Get them!!!!
FBI: Why? They didn't take anything that belongs to you.
Comcast: What??? Out contract with ICANN gives us unlimited access to the Comcast domain!
FBI: Right. And what does unlimited mean?
Comcast: Look, it's right here in Websters: "without any
FBI: No, no, not that one, use your own internal glossary.
Comcast: Okay then, "unlimited: "
Parent
I know who did it... (Score:5, Funny)
Stupid password (Score:3, Funny)
Right.... it was probably 1234 (same as most slashdotter's luggage)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
12345.
Thats just sad.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thats just sad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
If Comcast had sense... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If Comcast had sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have discovered that I can throw bricks through windows. But strangely, no glass manufacturers want to hire me to give them advice on the specifics of engineering brick-proof glass.
Parent
What about Network Solutions liability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Expiring domains (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently, according to the linked articles, they pulled it off twice, too. This wasn't a case of "oh sweet, that's not registered anymore, yoink", it was a case of actual wresting of control.
The question is if the weakness in security lies with Comcast (i.e. a weak password for the panel) or Network Solutions (i.e. weakness in their portal, weak transmission of passwords, etc).
Parent