top | item 39487819

(no title)

justanother | 2 years ago

I knew an ex-employee back in the day (not me I swear) who created a dialup/ISDN provisioning profile called 'Ringing' in the modem rack controller module (not the Radius server, that would be too obvious), such that a glance at the modem rack status page showed everyone who was connected, and one that was 'Ringing', just like any other incoming call that hadn't been picked up yet. It went completely undetected, yielding 128Kbit ISDN service for well over a year.

Obviously I do not advise this, especially now that the CFAA has been interpreted to include things like changing URL parameters and flicking boogers on the carpet.

discuss

order

nadermx|2 years ago

You got a reference on the CFAA? On the contrary, I found that it was probably not a problem to change a URL parameter

"We also note that in order to be guilty of accessing “without authorization, or in excess of authorization” under New Jersey law, the Government needed to prove that Auernheimer or Spitler circumvented a code-or password-based barrier to access. See State v. Riley, 988 A.2d 1252, 1267 (N.J. Super. Ct.Law Div.2009). Although we need not resolve whether Auernheimer’s conduct involved such a breach, no evidence was advanced at trial that the account slurper ever breached any password gate or other code-based barrier. The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped information that AT&T unintentionally published."

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/13...

justanother|2 years ago

Exactly correct. Nonetheless, a prosecution was indeed brought, and the opinion you're citing is an appeal. Without the EFF's financial support, weev would not be a free man.

KennyBlanken|2 years ago

There is a massive difference between scraping unintentionally published information on a public website and cloaking your account to subvert your employer revoking access to its systems and continuing to access them when you know you're not allowed to be.

jonathanlydall|2 years ago

Reminds me a little of sneaking into a Warcraft II LAN game of 2 of my brothers by calling myself “Computer” when they were playing a co-op game against computers.

foobiekr|2 years ago

I spent months passively waiting for a former employer to evict me from Slack. It was genuinely bizarre, almost a year later I still had full access to a ton of internal channels.

They are friends, but this was not them being friendly, it was just because slack account management integration with Google Office is a dumpster fire.

paradox460|2 years ago

I've got one up on this. I kept my insurance from a past company for nearly 2 years after I got laid off. Would have rather they cancelled it, as it caused a massive headache around the time my son was born

vanc_cefepime|2 years ago

What’s the story about cfaa and boogers? My google-fu is failing me and can’t find a reference on it.

jonny_eh|2 years ago

Simple exaggeration.