Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cisco Accused of Orchestrating Engineer's Arrest

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the when-you're-huge dept.

Crime 160

alphadogg writes "Cisco Systems orchestrated the arrest of Multiven founder Peter Alfred-Adekeye last year in order to force a settlement of Multiven's antitrust lawsuit against Cisco, a Multiven executive said on Wednesday. Multiven, an independent provider of service and support for networking gear, sued Cisco in 2008, alleging that the company monopolized the market for its software. Cisco countersued, charging that Alfred-Adekeye hacked into Cisco's computers and stole copyrighted software. In May 2010, Alfred-Adekeye was arrested in Vancouver, Canada, on 97 counts of intentionally accessing a protected computer system without authorization for the purposes of commercial advantage, according to his arrest warrant. He could be sentenced to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted. The arrest came to light only this week after local Vancouver press reported it."

cancel ×

160 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

CmdrTaco accused of millimeter-long penis (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35892820)

CmdrTaco was also accused of having a millimeter-long penis at fully erect. Oh wait, that's actually true as the video feeds from the gay bathhouse that he and kdawson frequent shows.

MateWan (1, Offtopic)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#35892880)

Remember the coal labor camps of the early 1900's where workers were brutally beaten and arrested if they didn't serve the company? Where even the most cooperative fellow would 'owe his soul to the company store'?

What's the difference nowadays with the way that major corporations treat their workers, and all in the name of serving the CEO's paycheck.

Re:MateWan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35892928)

If you honestly can't see the difference, I suggest you spend a little time working hard labor in a coal mine, you'll learn pretty quick.

Also, learn to fucking read. Google didn't have their own employee arrested, they may or may not have been involved in the arrest of an employee of a different company, who may or may not have broken into their servers and stolen their code. TFS and TFA are speculative and needlessly inflammatory.

Re:MateWan (1)

Unkyjar (1148699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35892964)

And by Google, you mean Cisco?

Re:MateWan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35892968)

learn to fucking read. Google didn't have their own employee arrested

Google???

Learn to fucking read yourself

Re:MateWan (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893126)

Can one read oneself?

Re:MateWan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893556)

good Q, can a mind reader read his/her own mind while also thinking about something?

Re:MateWan (2)

RCGodward (1235102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35894936)

Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot even He Himself could not eat it?

Re:MateWan (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35892978)

Google has nothing to do with this. What headline or summary did you read?

Re:MateWan (5, Interesting)

dainbug (678555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893144)

I think the real take away (after reading the story) is that the police; Canadian or United States, look as if they are becoming the gang enforcers of Corporations. If the prosecutors can't produce evidence after 9 months then it begs the question: what evidence was demonstrated to get an arrest warrant in the first place? Show the evidence or let the guy go. Especially if he's stuck in Canada ;)

Re:MateWan (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893522)

TFS and TFA are speculative and needlessly inflammatory.

Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:MateWan (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35892936)

The difference is that this isn't the company's worker, it's a competitor they're harassing. At least if you're being treated that way by your boss, you have the option to go elsewhere.

I see this suit akin to Dell having someone arrested for changing their BIOS settings or replacing their graphics card.. granted, I've only read the summary, but I don't see how they can get away with it..

Re:MateWan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893042)

He was downloading IOS without a support contract. this is the same as downloading and installing windows without a licence.

Re:MateWan (2)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893164)

He was downloading IOS without a support contract. this is the same as downloading and installing windows without a licence.

Neither of which should carry a punishment of that magnitude.

Re:MateWan (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893246)

Reading the Multiven website, it sounds as if they were also providing IOS updates to customers of their 3rd party warranty service.

Re:MateWan (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893244)

Sounds more like having a valid copy of Windows, but not being allowed to connect to Windows Update without paying.

Re:MateWan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893048)

No. No one on Slashdot "remembers" those. We have, however, heard of them.

Re:MateWan (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893100)

You're seriously comparing getting beaten to getting arrested for a crime you've committed?

The simple solution to prevent the arrest would have been to not commit a crime.

If you come after me with a lawyer, you're a rather stupid individual if you don't expect my response to be an all out assault on you with every weapon I have available.

The guy wasn't a Cisco employee.

The difference is ... no one gets beaten today. You're free to work elsewhere. The only reason you aren't free to work else where is because you don't actually have the skills you claim to have and know no one else will hire you.

Even at the worst the economy was, finding a job wasn't actually that difficult, there have been plenty through the entire ordeal, it just required that you were ACTUALLY qualified for the job, cause if you weren't some one else who is was going to get it instead of you. At no point did McDonalds stop hiring, so you could have had a job, you just didn't actually want to work.

Re:MateWan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893218)

The penalties for unlawful access to stored communications are divided into three categories. For first-time violations not committed for a specified improper purpose (that is, not committed "for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain, or in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act"), the maximum penalty is one year imprisonment and a $100,000 fine. See 18 U.S.C. 2701(b)(2)(A), 3571(b)(5). For repeat violations not committed for an improper purpose, or for first-time violations committed for an improper purpose, the maximum penalty is five years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. See 18 U.S.C. 2701(b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(B), 3571(b)(3). For repeat violations committed for an improper purpose, the maximum penalty is ten years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. See 18 U.S.C. 2701(b)(1)(B), 3571(b)(3)

I'll take a beating over a 10 year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine any day.

Re:MateWan (0)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35894848)

Me too. Never quite understood the outrage over police brutality. If it's a question between a cop punching me and letting me go, or arresting me and keeping me overnight, I'll go with the punch.

Re:MateWan (0)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895156)

Never quite understood the outrage over police brutality. If it's a question between a cop punching me and letting me go, or arresting me and keeping me overnight, I'll go with the punch.

The video showed Tomlinson being struck on the leg from behind by a police officer wielding a baton, then pushed to the ground by the same officer. It appeared to show no provocation on Tomlinson's partâ"he was not a protester, and at the time he was struck, the footage showed him walking along with his hands in his pockets. He walked away after the incident, but collapsed and died [wikipedia.org] moments later.

Re:MateWan (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895260)

Me too. Never quite understood the outrage over police brutality. If it's a question between a cop punching me and letting me go, or arresting me and keeping me overnight, I'll go with the punch.

How about chopping off a finger? Maybe a prolonged beating? How about raping your wife? Stealing your money? Forcing you to sign over your house to him? Access to your bank accounts?

What, exactly, is your threshold for deciding that people who detain you under the threat of violence or loss of liberty -- and in an official capacity -- have misbehaved? Is it a sliding scale? Or is there a fixed threshold? At what point would you get it?

Pick any other right ... do you have a scale for how much your freedom of speech or freedom of association could be infringed? Do you think unalienable rights are negotiable?

The reason people object to the notion of police brutality is that you don't have any recourse if they're gaming the system or abusing their authority. In a civilized society, the police are not expected to be thugs, and are held to a higher level of account -- or at least they should be. They're the ones intended to enforce society's rules -- if they can't live by them, then we're pretty much screwed.

I'm completely baffled that you seem to think there is an acceptable threshold for police brutality or misconduct. There's loads of examples of places where the police are so corrupt they can more or less commit crimes on a large scale with impunity.

Re:MateWan (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35896558)

You have created a strawman out of whole cloth. All I said was on a personal level, I would rather be subjected to mild violence than imprisonment. I dare you to find anywhere in my post where I said that the violence would not constitute police misbehavior.

Re:MateWan (2)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893608)

The simple solution to prevent the arrest would have been to not commit a crime.

The only way you could know he actually did do it is if you hacked into his system and saw the evidence. Expect to be arrested on 100,000 counts of hacking into a computer system (each bit you saw counts as a separate bit of information you stole without authorization).

If you'd RTFA, he was arrested in Canada on a court order from the USA based on non-existance evidence provided by Cisco. Only Cisco denies it, they claim the judge issued the warrant on his own with no involvement from them whatosoever. In any event, the judge is not permitting anybody to see the evidence. So, right now there is a hearing going on deciding whether or not to just shred the fucking thing and let him go. Meanwhile, this guy has been living in a hotel for 10 months. Because he can't leave the country until it's dealt with, but he doesn't LIVE THERE. And the USA is screaming "arrest him arrest him arrest him" but has sealed the evidence and is stonewalling the Canadian courts when they request it. For ten months. Obviously there isn't anything at all. But of course, you know better than the USA and Canadian courts, you know there's real evidence because you're 100% sure the only way anybody could write code for Cisco hardware is because they stole it. Extremely bad news for FOSS that can run on Cisco hardware, isn't it...

Re:MateWan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893148)

Remember the coal labor camps of the early 1900's where workers were brutally beaten and arrested if they didn't serve the company? Where even the most cooperative fellow would 'owe his soul to the company store'?

What's the difference nowadays with the way that major corporations treat their workers, and all in the name of serving the CEO's paycheck.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

I won't insult your intelligence by actually asking if you really believe that crap. But I gotta wonder about the intelligence of the drooling simps who modded you up.

Re:MateWan (-1, Flamebait)

lerxstz (692089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893476)

Maybe the "drooling simps" are better read than yourself. Here, educate yourself:

Ludlow Massacre [wikipedia.org]

Re:MateWan (3, Insightful)

uniquename72 (1169497) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893848)

Woosh! He's not saying it didn't happen; he's saying there's no similarity between that and the case at hand. In fact, comparing the two trivializes the near slave conditions of early American workers.

Re:MateWan (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895798)

the near slave conditions of early American workers.

If by "early" you mean "after 1865", then yes. Otherwise, the word "near" is at least partially inaccurate.

Great Firewall (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895990)

Agree. The similarities kinda end when Cisco doesn't cause the death of people. But that isn't black and white either. It would ignore the fact that while they don't really have a large presence in totalitarian governments [facebook.com] , they kinda don't care [internetnews.com] about who they do business with because indirectly oppressing people is profitable [wired.com] .

Re:MateWan (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893722)

> What's the difference nowadays with the way that major corporations treat their workers, and all in the name of serving the CEO's paycheck.

They didn't have penicillin then.

Re:MateWan (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35894716)

"Remember the coal labor camps of the early 1900's where workers were brutally beaten and arrested if they didn't serve the company?" Ahh, if only we could return to that libertarian utopia again.

Re:MateWan (2)

butlerm (3112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35896864)

There isn't a libertarian on the planet who doesn't believe that the government should protect against force and fraud.

I have long been annoyed by Cisco business policy (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35892994)

Not only are Cisco devices over-priced from the beginning, they are somehow not liable for the problems they might have when vulnerabilities are discovered. Fixes are only available after Cisco is paid for them and, once again, the fixes come without guarantees as well.

Most people never get close enough to the networking hardware and infrastructure to experience this and so they remain under most people's radar. But as the article states, other vendors do not charge for updates.

By industry standards and practices, they are definitely "not usual." But is it illegal? Are they abusing monopoly power? I guess that's for a court to decide. But if it can be shown that Cisco fabricated evidence that resulted in the criminal arrest of someone who has filed legal action against Cisco, then huge problems should result for Cisco executives including but not limited to prison time. I find this to be a very interesting case indeed. I hope we can follow this case in more detail as new information comes out.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893064)

so use juniper.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (3, Informative)

raddan (519638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893272)

The thing that surprises me the most is how often IT workers think that they need Cisco gear. There is very little that Cisco devices can do that cheaper third-party-- and sometimes even commodity hardware!-- cannot do. That is, unless you're running a proprietary Cisco routing protocol, or need to feel the mystique of running 'enterprise' gear.

We dumped our Cisco gear years ago after attending a presentation on OpenBGP (in which the presenter talked about routing his Internet2 connection with a P4) and we haven't looked back since. And the equivalent Cisco machines for our border routers cost an order of magnitude more.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893350)

I agree, I replaced over $10,000 of Cisco gear with a 2x Intel Atom miniITX machine, cost us about $1000.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893426)

Ugh, no kidding. I'm in IT at a medium-sized company, and our network admin I swear jerks off to Cisco porn or something. Cisco this, Cisco that, Cisco the other thing, constantly. And most of their equipment is barely being used for anything that would warren

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (5, Insightful)

eric2hill (33085) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893636)

You don't buy Cisco because of the features, you buy Cisco because of TAC. At 2:30 AM when you have 96 phone lines down, the call center opens in 3 hours, and you're getting call supervision with no voice traffic, you call TAC. I got an engineer out of their Sydney office on the phone in 14 minutes, and we had the problem resolved within an hour. (It was a telco provisioning problem.) Having someone on hand to support a problem 24 hours a day, and a supply chain that can send a part out in 4 hours is a safety net worth paying for.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893794)

Not having looked into the actual numbers, this seems like it could be done cheaper than the price difference between Cisco and non-Cisco equipment. Especially for org's that use more equipment.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35894792)

This, and Cisco is also the IBM of networking gear (IBM as in "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM").

Imagine you're in charge of buying network gear, and you go for a smaller, unknown vendor. Later on, if there's problems, your boss (and your boss's boss) will be saying "why didn't you go with Cisco? If you did, we wouldn't have these problems!". If you DO go with Cisco, and there's problems, then even if they're not solved quickly and satisfactorily, you can still say "don't blame me, I went with Cisco". It's a name even the suits will recognize, and respect.

Yes, it's a pretty classical example of Cover-Your-Ass in action, but why should you, realistically, be expected to take one for the company? If you don't go with Cisco, they benefit (they save money), and you suffer for it (because your job'll be less secure). Why should you make that deal?

Same reason that e.g. Windows is so prevalent still. It's not because it's better; it's because of inertia and because everyone knows it, even the non-techies.

TAC? (1)

r3naissance (1833990) | more than 3 years ago | (#35894818)

I haven't had a helpful TAC engineer in something like 5 years, and then only because we'd spent hours with their low-level filter people, correcting the SQL statements they were attempting to run over their remote session. They ended up replacing most of the hardware in the server (which was a nightmare in and of itself... and took far more than 24 hours) only after having us wipe and rebuild it from scratch, and that system still doesn't operate quite right. TAC is the thing that SmartNet is LEAST useful for... my only purpose in having it is to get software updates in a legally compliant fashion. I'll grant you that when I started in networking 10 years ago, I was amazed by TAC. Since then, either I've improved or they have declined.

Re:TAC? (1)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895670)

Agreed, our TAC experiences have been horrible in the last 2-3 years. We are fairly small (1200 users) but worldwide, and every time we want to get something fixed or new hardware it seems to take longer to get it done.

NOT a fan.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35895050)

Cisco is not the only network vendor with 24x7 TAC! We dumped Cisco several years ago for Foundry (now Brocade) and Juniper. Both have same level of T

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35895528)

My experience has been that the big draw is uniformity - it's okay to be using various and sundry equipment when you're just kitting out a single office, but if you've got dozens of metropolitan service area, each with one hundred or so devices, then it's very helpful to have them all come from the same vendor. Even introducing a single "odd" device to each setup adds quite a bit of complexity. Cisco is the only vendor that has every device, so that helps immensely.

On the other hand, no few Cisco devices weren't actually designed by Cisco, so in practice this often doesn't work out anyway.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (2, Interesting)

raddan (519638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35896086)

I contend that you'd be better off using the money saved to develop in-house expertise. Firstly, an organization's network is domain-specific knowledge in the extreme. Secondly, smarter engineers tend to result in better network designs, e.g., the kind that do not have the kind of urgency that they need to be fixed in the middle of the night. Your own people should be better at solving those kinds of problems, or else they're not earning their paychecks. Outsourcing gruntwork, fine. Outsourcing thinking? Bad idea.

After multihoming one of our offices, it was quite a revelation to me when one of our lines went some some months later. Nobody even noticed, except me. That gave me the freedom to fix the problem without having to worry about whether I should tell management to send people home. Also, being able to SSH in from home to fix a routing issue? How f'ing cool is that?

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (1)

IICV (652597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35896650)

Having someone on hand to support a problem 24 hours a day, and a supply chain that can send a part out in 4 hours is a safety net sometimes worth paying for.

There, fixed that for you - a lot of companies who buy Cisco products don't need that level of support, and yet are paying for it anyway because Cisco is the "enterprise" solution.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (1)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893890)

It's called advertising. Even supposedly independent minded engineers will start to believe that Cisco gear is better than the other guy's if he hears it often enough.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (2)

nharmon (97591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35894300)

People who learn on Cisco hardware tend to think of networking concepts in terms of how Cisco presents and manages them. A good example is 802.11Q. Cisco has this concept of trunking that a lot of other hardware vendors facilitate through simply tagging/non-tagging. If all you know about networking is what you learned from Cisco Press(tm), you will have a hard time getting that HP switch to pass tagged frames to your Cisco network, and ultimately give up saying "Ugh, HP switches suck, we need Cisco gear".

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35894918)

HP switches do suck... mainly because the of their crap firmware and cheap interface chipsets.

Most problematic hardware that I've ever dealt with.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35895664)

Mod parent up- this is the truth in my experience.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35895860)

This makes no sense. 802.1q is an IEEE standard, not something Cisco invented.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35894616)

I'm posting anonymously because the company I work for sells equipment designed to test network devices, from switch fabrics to web-application firewall (that's layer 2 to layer 7, so pretty much all the networking protocols, from Ethernet to ATM to Fiber Channel). I've been working in this industry for 8 years in services (on-site engagements) and business development. Cisco is our largest customer in the world.

In the hundreds of devices I've tested (many of them several times), I could detect one trend : Cisco is rarely best-in-class, but are rather average everywhere. There's one area where they are very good, and most of the time the best : switching packets from NIC 1 to NIC 2. This is not surprising as this is where they come from: routers and switches. But as soon as you get into the higher functions, especially above layer 4 (where stuff begins to be stateful and you need to keep track of all those nasty TCP states), they are very rarely best in class - when they are, it's for throughput, the easiest part.

As soon as you start testing TCP Establishment Rate, Concurrent Connections or SSL performance, they are not so good. For Load Balancers, F5 usually is best in class. For firewalls, Checkpoint tends to lead. For proxies, BlueCoat is definitively a leader. And so on. But again, they are never bad, simply not best in class (see this news [networkcomputing.com] about a NSS testing of a major firewall testing).

I guess for some people is reassuring being able to order all your network devices from the same company - and negotiate a discount once and for all. Personally I'd rather have the best in class all the time, but that's just a geek's dream. That's not how the corporate world works.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35896160)

The funny thing is that many (not all) of the companies you mention are simply rebranded versions of OSS tools. Checkpoint, for instance, is FreeBSD (at least, the box we had was). BlueCoat? Same deal! We discovered that we could do all of the functions of those machines, and more, with a couple generic OpenBSD boxes, pf, and pfsync, and they're a HECK of a lot cheaper.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893362)

So, why do you buy Cisco hardware? There are plenty other manufacturers of networking kit, even HP and Dell sell network kit.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (2)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895320)

In general, Cisco equipment seems to have better failure resilience -- their subsystems are more isolated from each other. The gear is pretty rock solid with the features that work -- all the trouble comes when trying new features which may or may not work. They also manage change relatively methodically, which is a good thing in must-be-stable environments. Though, their quality in this department has been flagging as of late.

That said, HP is now eating Cisco's lunch by offering relatively capable edge switches at a fraction of the cost. There's only so much price differential Cisco's TAC and generally stability is worth on the edge -- when you have a lot of L2 switches to upgrade and they are not supporting "million dollar loss for every hour of downtime" clients, believe it or not you'd prefer to spend that money on manpower to deal with the less robust/flexible platform, and come out ahead in the end.

As to why Cisco retains marketing share despite their inferior pricing and terms, it is because they get out in front and make sure that people learning how to do networking support learn on Cisco gear. This makes any other equipment feel alien. They do this to the extent of creating their own alphabet soup of acronyms and feature names that require constant retraining to keep on top of, retraining which they are glad to sell you. They build their CCIE certification up to be some sort of doctorate, and many a PHB will put their certifications into job requirements. The general idea is to keep people so busy getting good at Cisco that they do not have the time to explore other vendors, and for the most part it works.

The best defense for competitors IMO is to beat Cisco on clear, thorough, and well organized documentation, because they are losing their edge, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, judging from the awful quality of most other vendor's docs. Well done docs come in very handy pre-sales, because there are still a lot of sane shops where the engineers choose the candidates for new purchases and know in advance some extremely detailed features they need to have. If they can find that feature (in a manual, not a sales brochure), and verify that it looks sanely implemented, by browsing online docs, that's a huge foot in the door.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893468)

What major vendor does not charge for updates? Juniper? Alcatel? I don't think so. If you have a support contract, you get the updates, if you don't, then no cookie for you.

And as far as I know, every vendor has disclaimers as far as their products go. Open-source routing software (which does perform very well in most circumstances) have disclaimers all over them too. So which vendor, exactly, offers you any guarantees such that it makes you say that Cisco stands alone in not offering any?

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (1)

frzndrag (252873) | more than 3 years ago | (#35896438)

ADTRAN does not charge for updates and provides a 10year warranty and free tech support including 24x7x365 phone support

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893478)

Sonicwall also charges for updates. If there's a vulnerability in 5.5 and you don't have a support contract with them then you can't download 5.5.1.

Its an industry problem. These companies need to offer security updates for free. If this means rolling the cost of the support contract into the device itself, then fine, but the status quo of buying something and only having 30 days of updates is terrible.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (2)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893578)

Are they abusing monopoly power?

Generally, in order to 'abuse monopoly power' they actually have to be a monopoly, and they are about as far from it as you can get. They are exclusive providers of nothing. They happen to be devices that people (us router flunkies) happen to approve of and use in most cases, but they aren't the only game.

Cisco fits the middle ground areas well, but you don't use them at the high end. Juniper can provide bandwidth Cisco simply can't handle. You don't use them at the low end as they are just over priced, though you might use their gear in small offices anyway if you want to tie it into the a larger Cisco centric management system with fewer headaches.

The Multiven case some how revolves around they fact that they get 'hurt' because Cisco doesn't give out software updates ... Then use someone else if you don't want to pay for updates. Multiven isn't being treated differently. Cisco hasn't changed this sort of behavior recently, its been that was for 20 years.

There really hasn't been any indication Cisco manufactured evidence, only heresy from the guy trying to get out of going to jail, and he only started saying that crap after he a delay (that could happen for any number of reasons) came into play that made room for his statements to seem plausible. If they were fabricating evidence, he would have started making those statements the instant he was arrested, not months later.

Cisco isn't your friend, but there is no indication here that they've actually done anything wrong. The only thing there is at face value is a guy who thinks he should get a bigger piece of the pie and he's trying to use the court system to do so. He is losing. Seems like things are working about like they should.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893892)

According to what I read, the "evidence" to support his arrest has not been produced and delivered to the Canadian authorities. The claim of intrusion was made by Cisco to the US Secret Service. (The US Secret Service wouldn't just do this without a complaint or someone in high places issuing the directive after all.)

So this guy was arrested on criminal charges for which no evidence has been provided. This smells "not right" somehow.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35896266)

Until now, I would have assumed there was no possible way Cisco could count as a monopoly. To many competitors with sizable market share, and real competition from some big dogs like IBM for parts of that share, would say Cisco simply couldn't pass the monopoly test part of antitrust law.

But, having some parts of the federal judicial system available to issue warrants without probable cause is certainly an asset their competitors show no signs of having or misusing. The normal list of assets that could make a company a monopoly includes such government related things as state granted right of ways. Corrupt judges aren't on that list, but it's easy to see why people who believe the fix was in would see this as a monopoly. What's worse is the number of cynics who think corrupt judges are simply to prevalent to let anyone get a monopoly on them.

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35895172)

The answer to that is use Juniper, Brocade or Foundry.... It's not like there aren't large networks out there who use equipment from those companies. Cisco's wide spread, but Juniper is nothing to sneeze at.

Propriety = accountability (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895826)

Not only are Cisco devices over-priced from the beginning, they are somehow not liable for the problems they might have when vulnerabilities are discovered. Fixes are only available after Cisco is paid for them and, once again, the fixes come without guarantees as well.

But I thought the reason to go with proprietary solutions was accountability? And what does all that certification mean if it doesn't come with a guarantee?

Re:I have long been annoyed by Cisco business poli (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 3 years ago | (#35896528)

switching packets from NIC 1 to NIC 2

That because cisco has leveraged hardware extensively for just that purpose. It's rare for CPU to get involved in forwarding a frame or packet on a cisco router or switch. That's in part why they're so expensive - its all done in ASICS, and even the memory is hard-wired for bitmasking searches.

How about arresting Apple? (-1, Offtopic)

redelm (54142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893038)

Apple's iPhone/iPad location logging trojan is also "unauthorized access to a protected computer system". Or did they bury it in the EULA somehow?

Just because the mfr is doing it, does not make the access automagically "authorized". Authorization is consent, and consent can only be for known and maybe necessary functions -- it if wasn't known, it could _not_ have been authorized.

time for a law saying you can hack any hardware (2)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893180)

time for a law saying you can hack any hardware that you own?

Apple tried to use the unauthorized access part to lock out people from hacking the iphone and the courts said you can hack them for any network and any app.

Now what if say M$ made you pay for bug fixes and used the law to shut down 3rd party updates?

What if dell locked systems to windows and used the law to shut people makeing a run any os bios hack?

If they want go down the road of need to buy the software to run on there hardware it time for brake out the costs so on a mac systems there needs to be the hardware price and then the mac os / mac os boot rom software price.

The cable box needs to list the hardware rent price and the guide / software use fee in the price.

All PC systems need to list the cost of the windows OEM price with a easy way to say no the windows part.

Cell phones need to list all costs.

Re:time for a law saying you can hack any hardware (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893936)

Mfrs cannot do this because the authorization has to come from the _owner_. They do not own the hardware, only copyright/patents on parts.

Re:How about arresting Apple? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893294)

Are you authorized to ride on Apple's cock?
Do you need authorization to think about riding on Apple's cock?
Does your cock get hard thinking about fucking Apple?
How many times a day do think about fucking Apple?
What the fuck does this have to do with Apple?

Re:How about arresting Apple? (2)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893438)

How about arresting Apple?

I'm pretty sure that a company can't be arrested.

Re:How about arresting Apple? (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35894002)

You are correct, I meant the individuals determined after investigation to have been responsible. Get a search warrent and go fishing. You will find a chain of people, possibly as high as Jobs.

Of course, this is unlikely to happen, seeing how politically well-connected Apple is, and how responsive police & prosecutors are in the presence of political connections and the absence of large public outcry.

Re:How about arresting Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35894932)

It takes a lot to pierce the corporate veil. You need to have evidence of something in order to go after individuals within a company.

Re:How about arresting Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35895590)

Why not? They try to claim citizenship rights in the United States (right to lobby, buy senators / congressmen - covered as *donations* and *information gathering trips*), etc...

Let's force them to uphold that citizenship standard - ability to arrest all officers of said company at time company did the illegal act. Make them register for the draft.
etc...

If they want the rights, they get the responsibilities shoved down their throats with a double edge razor sharp, cyanide coated sword.

Re:How about arresting Apple? (1)

matrim99 (123693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35896374)

Umm... No.

My Intel CPU has 128 64bit general purpose registers. Although I'm pretty certain that nearly every single program on my computer uses these registers, I've never given *any* of them explicit permission to use them. Most people don't even know about these registers, and therefore cannot give consent to their use, by your logic. Therefore, every single program running on our computers is accessing our computers in an unauthorized manner?

Authorization is a big grey blob, not a nice black/white subject.

On Topic: I suspect the timing, and not the persuing the prosecution of the crime itself, is orchestrated by Cisco. This is a very interesting story to follow. I really want to be on this guy's side, if not for a mere "David Vs. Goliath" interest. But the evidence does point to him illegally gaining access to Cisco's computers and stealing code, so it looks like David is using a stolen rocket launcher, and not a home-made slingshot, in this case.

/. accused of moofing on stuff that really matters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893178)

how about voluntarily disarming ourselves/our 'partners'? all the hoopla surrounding hymens? the plight of the southern hillarians taking permanent refuge in mebotuh? the holycost, & associated god pleasing progress towards the mandated final .5 billion managed population. as it is written on the georgia stone, in georgia? nothing else matters?

Re:/. accused of moofing on stuff that really matt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35895706)

Because this is news for nerds. If you want news for paranoid delusionals there are other places on the internet for that.

Welcome to the free world. (1, Insightful)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893254)

Government by the corporations, for the corporations.
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
With slavery and injustice for all (except the CEO).

Remember that Cisco probably sold a lot of equipment to China to build its 'Great Firewall'.
Dont believe me? Check it out:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/05/leaked-cisco-do/ [wired.com]

I hope Cisco pays through the nose for this.

Re:Welcome to the free world. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893368)

The Cisco equipment are used in Golden Shield Project. It is not the same as the Great Firewall. -- the Great Firewall was there long before Golden Shield started.

Best reply to date and ain't it the truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35894508)

Amen man. You put out the best reply on the entire article page today because you cut right through to the truth of things in the world today. The only correction I'd make is big money (not necessarily just corporations) is at the heart of every dishonest shenanigan going on, on this planet, today. The old adage of "just follow the money" can lead anyone to that simple conclusion. My observations have led me to believe there are no real governments. They are only the puppets and face men for big money's interests around the globe.

As much as I love Cisco gear... (1, Insightful)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893394)

Having to buy a "support contract" for bug-fixes is bullshit. Cisco needs to separate their releases into two groups - bug fixes and new features.

Buy a contract and you get the new features, and hardware support. Forgo the contract and all you get is bug-fixes.

Let's not forget, if the product shipped with flaws, the manufacturer is obligated to fix them. We would accept no less from any other industry, and in some cases, warranty support is required by law.

-ted

Re:As much as I love Cisco gear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893630)

Ah but they do have warranty support, it's just that without a contract, it only lasts for 90 days. I don't think the law mandates a longer minimum warranty period.

Re:As much as I love Cisco gear... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893784)

In any other industry, though, they would be sued for the flaws in their product which cause it to not work as advertised by design if they failed to issue a recall and repair or refund purchase of the flawed goods.

Re:As much as I love Cisco gear... (2)

MECC (8478) | more than 3 years ago | (#35896734)

Cisco warranties are strange creature indeed. In order to get a bug fix on warrantied products, you must have a TAC login. In order to have a TAC login, you must have a smartnet contract. Technically, the warranty is a temporary smartnet contract (I've searched their database using the serial # of new equipment under warranty but not smartnet net, not found it, then called cisco and they pull a smartnet contract number up)

Its really messed up, but what it boils down to is that if you want to get a bug fix and you don't have smartnet, you must go through the reseller you bought from - which is not good because it means without any smartnet you are vulnerable to the next thing that arises. No smartnet, no security, warranty notwithstanding.

Of course, if you do have a TAC login, you can get warrantied equipment added to your userid, but its a manual process and annoying at best. You still need a TAC ID from another smartnet contract though.

Breaking news, someone charged with a crime (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893462)

Denies it and makes claim against the other party. More at 11!

it will be interesting to see what evidence they do have. His claim maybe valid - but I don't find the fact he refutes it anything special.

Re:Breaking news, someone charged with a crime (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893692)

He was arrested 10 months ago and the USA is refusing to disclose the evidence, not even acknowledging requests. They want him extradited based on secret charges over sealed and classified evidence.

Re:Breaking news, someone charged with a crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893948)

The problem isn't that party A flung a wild accusation in response, but that party B was arrested after accusing A of being an unjust monopoly.
 
Crime or no crime; the timing and convenience with which this was executed is simply incompatible with justice. Expose a corporate overlord bribing legislators, then you'll get thrown into prison for 10 years for that time you experimented with weed back in college while the bribery continues unimpeded.

I don't understand how this is 'orchestrating' ... (3, Informative)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35893518)

OK, this guy is a Cisco competitor involved in some legal dispute with the company that's being resolved in a civil court. He also is suspected on reasonable grounds to have committed a bona-fide crime against the company at the same time -- Cisco asks law enforcement to investigate the crime and arrest the criminal. That's not 'orchestrating' anything, nor does his status as a competitor that's suing the company have anything to do with the matter. Lawsuit or not, no one is entitled to break into Cisco computer systems -- the law doesn't say "You cannot gain unauthorized access to a computer system unless it is owned by a douchebag corporation that overcharges and dicks over the used market".

There is no mention in TFM (which is largely sourced from unnamed "Multiven Execs" -- unlikely to be objective) that Cisco fabricated the evidence of the break-in or conspired to entrap the guy. He committed a crime, they sought his arrest which is 100% within their rights. They don't surrender protection of criminal law just because they are douchebags.

Since /. loves car analogies, suppose we got in a car accident that was totally your fault but you dispute that and want a trial. Then on the night before the responsibility hearing, I throw a brick through your windshield. Does the merits of the civil trial have anything to do with whether I can be arrested? Would it matter if you were universally considered to be a jerk that screws everyone over?

Re:I don't understand how this is 'orchestrating' (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35894456)

My guess is the lawsuit actually brought to Cisco's attention that they had been hacked because he had access to information that was only available through Cisco. It's likely that his lawsuit is how the crime was discovered so I find no reason to be sympathetic to him. If you are going to break the law then sue someone using the information you obtained breaking the law you shouldn't be surprised if you are arrested for it.

Re:I don't understand how this is 'orchestrating' (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 3 years ago | (#35896768)

Were they really broken into? Or did he download bugfixed IOS images for redistribution to his customers with cisco gear?

Re:I don't understand how this is 'orchestrating' (3, Interesting)

squallbsr (826163) | more than 3 years ago | (#35894556)

The orchestrating part is where the evidence of the crime (required for the extradition) hasn't been sent to the Canadians yet. They've had 10 months to provide evidence of the crime, but have not been able to produce it. So, the civil case, which was getting close to going to a Jury trial, got settled because the guy got arrested. This is one heck of a coincidence.

Re:I don't understand how this is 'orchestrating' (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895316)

The orchestrating part is where the evidence of the crime (required for the extradition) hasn't been sent to the Canadians yet. They've had 10 months to provide evidence of the crime, but have not been able to produce it. So, the civil case, which was getting close to going to a Jury trial, got settled because the guy got arrested. This is one heck of a coincidence.

It's not a heck of a coincidence to imagine that a party to a lawsuit might break into a protected computer system owned by their opponent for the purpose of gathering evidence to use at trial. It is not a coincidence at all, in fact, that these things would come to light at the same time either since the first Cisco might have learned about the break-in was precisely when some non-publicly available document was entered into evidence. So "10 months" might have been a few weeks from when Cisco was actually aware of the crime. You will need more that circumstantial evidence to establish that Cisco intentionally withheld evidence -- at least if you want that claim to be at all credible. Accusations are pretty cheap.

I'll also note that you haven't at all refuted the key question, which is whether there is sufficient evidence to believe the individual whose extradition is sought committed the crime and merits a trial. Honestly, it's hard for me to imagine any other question that's relevant.

Re:I don't understand how this is 'orchestrating' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35895892)

If there was evidence, it would have been provided to the Canadian authorities by now. 10 months is a damn long time to rot in a cell.

Re:I don't understand how this is 'orchestrating' (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35894964)

The issue here from the article is twofold:

1- Cisco had the engineer in question (a key witness in a case taking place in the united states) meet them in Canada before he had to make a statement in the united states. At the same time Cisco also identified to a US prosecutor that a hacker had broken into there computers and was fleeing to Canada- indicating that they had evidence. He was subsequently arrested in Canada, and missed his court appearance in the states. Had they just waited he could have been arrested upon his return to the states, but then he would have been able to make his court appearance.

2- The US prosecutor has not been able to present the evidence of this hacking attempt so that Canadian authorities can send him to the united states to face trial, and they have been so slow at responding to this statement that the Canadian authorities are accusing the US prosecutor of having grossly exaggerated the concreteness of the charges.

Now it COULD simply be that fortuitous timing and a grossly incompetent prosecutor have combined to be radically in cisco's favor, but at least the possibility that cisco may have engineered for this to happen needs to be investigated as it would seem EXTREMELY convenient if not.

Re:I don't understand how this is 'orchestrating' (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895604)

The issue here from the article is twofold:

Where "the article" is statements from Multiven executives.

At the same time Cisco also identified to a US prosecutor that a hacker had broken into there computers and was fleeing to Canada- indicating that they had evidence.

And the DoJ and State seemed to think that the evidence had merit. Are you disputing that the evidence suggests he committed the crime or merely insinuating that?

I want to make clear that I'm not stating that I think he did it. I'm just saying there is a normal extradition/trial process that we ought to follow to figure out whether he did the crime, same as any other criminal that is accused of a crime. He does not deserve special protection merely because he is involved in a civil suit with the potential victim.

This is why we have procedures for arrest/extradition/trial -- so that we don't have to judge individual cases on an ad-hoc basis but instead have a formal system of justice. Canadian procedural protections in the extradition process are relatively strong, so I really don't get the complaint.

The US prosecutor has not been able to present the evidence of this hacking attempt so that Canadian authorities can send him to the united states to face trial, and they have been so slow at responding to this statement that the Canadian authorities are accusing the US prosecutor of having grossly exaggerated the concreteness of the charges.

No, the guy's attorney has made that accusation -- the Crown maintains they acted within the scope of the extradition treaty. From an article linked by TFA:

U.S. prosecutors colluded with computer giant Cisco Systems, Inc., to mislead the Canadian government and B.C. courts into invoking emergency extradition powers to jail a British computer entrepreneur, B.C. Supreme Court heard Monday. [...]
"Almost nothing in the U.S. attorney's letter was true," Vancouver lawyer Marilyn Sandford told Justice Ronald McKinnon Monday. She called the U.S. conduct careless, cavalier and Kafkaesque in her application to halt the extradition so Adekeye can return home to his wife and child in Switzerland.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cisco+prosecutors+duped+court+extradition+lawyer+says/4638201/story.html [vancouversun.com]

Of course, if that accusation is true then it would be damning. On the other hand, if the Crown/DoJ's accusations are true, the guy is guilty of hundreds of felonies. This is why we have a procedure to sort out which (if any) set of charges is true and which are false -- because a priori there's just a bunch of unproven statements.

Good job. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35893526)

That is what MOST countries.

I don't like Cisco's bug policy, but... (2)

sirwired (27582) | more than 3 years ago | (#35894750)

I don't like Cisco's bugfix policy either, but that said, it is not unheard of for enterprise HW/SW vendors to only provide fixes to customers with a current contract. If you haven't paid for a warranty, you aren't entitled to HW fixes, why should you be entitled to SW fixes?

If you want to pursue anti-trust violations because you think this is unfair, fine, but the WRONG way to go about it is to violate their policies (prior to the change) and then get caught.

It sounds like this guy's entire business model (providing aftermarket service) is built around getting those fixes. If they were downloaded in the absence of a valid service contract, then I can guess this could be a valid criminal charge.

Only in America (1)

rzei (622725) | more than 3 years ago | (#35894874)

Sounds like any perfectly legit multinational corporation with too much marketshare just keeping "the competetive egde". Does this make anyone else remember Major General Smedley Butler, USMC [fas.org] 's words?

This is way beyond sad. The last thing IT world needs are extraditions, even if the guy was quilty of the charges. If it takes 10 months to gather (make up) evidence, that makes me think he is innocent. I wonder how they are going to get anything posted as valid evidence, or are the separate laws for evidence against US nationals and foreigners? Thankfully the canadians seem to behave rationally most of the time, from what I've read.

Basic Strategy (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895046)

Make sure your flanks are secure before you launch an attack.

How did he access the Cisco Support site? (1)

s.whiplash (1810776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895192)

"97 counts of intentionally accessing a protected computer system without authorization for the purposes of commercial advantage" I wonder how he did this? Did he used some ID/password that belonged to another person? I'm worried because I MAY have done that.

He used another user's ID/Password. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35896726)

Yes. Jail time accumulates once per access.

once again,,, (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35895610)

The ugly, greedy, juggernaut raises its head to swallow innocent and guilty alike. When does it end?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>