Packet Storm Security site closed down 382
krp writes "The well known and regarded security softare and information site Packet Storm Security has been closed down by Harvard, who hosted the site, becuase of claims from John Vranesevich, of www.AntiOnline.com, about libellous material. The site will not re-open and backups will be destoryed. Ken Williams explains here and here - this guy put a lot of work into that site. "
antionline.com (Score:1)
To find out how you can stop malicious hackers, visit AntiOnline's Fight Back!
For the latest security news, views, and information, visit the Main AntiOnline Website.
Legality (Score:1)
Could this person not hold the university responsible for both the delteion of his school work (his failure of a course) as well as destruction of his copyrighted material (the site itself)? Given that someone with 'authority' personally gave him the okay to set it up?
I hate that.
Fight back.
Re:Legality (Score:1)
2 things though.
1.) If AntiOnline is going to sue, they won't have a case because Harvard is destroying everything. Hence, without evidence it won't hold up. Even though AntiOnline has a copy, it may be deemed as hear say.
2.) Without reading or seeing what was in http://packetstorm.harvard.edu/jp/, Mr. John Vranesevich should understand that if your in the public eye, your free game. I am not saying that you can threaten to kill people and get away with it. People make fun of other people all of the time. Look at the President. I have seen alot of sexual explict material with his face on it and he doesn't sue. You have to except the fact people make fun of other people either on a website or not.
Example:
If I am walking down the street and someone tells me that my mother's a whore, my sister is tramp and sucks donkey dick, and that I should go to hell. I either:
1.) Send pulses from my brain down to my arm and hand, telling them to slam my fist down his throat and if he doesn't go down the first time, try...try and try again. Which is battery but I still can do it.
2.) Walk away and think nothing off it.
3.) Threaten to sue him, like everyone today.
4.) Ask him why he thinks that and maybe talk it out and see what his fu*king problem is.
To me, Ken did two things wrong:
1.) Didn't do any backups, which I don't think is true. I think he is smarter than that and he just wants to have his shit back.
and
2.) If your going to attack people, attack them intellectually.
Ken, words of advice if the police interogate you about this, use these lines:
--Play dumb, "I swear, I didn't know it was there."
--OJ Simpson style, "I wasn't there, I was on a plane to Chicago. Someone else planted it there to frame me. Its a conspiracy, I TELL YOU!"
--Godfather style (and say it with a Brando-esk dialect), "I wasss...unaware of my associates wrong doing. I am a business man. My families' name is ashamed to be linked to suchhh...libellous activities. Be assured that thisss...unprofessional manner will not happen again." Then tell Polly to round up the goons and take care of unfinished business.
--Clinton style, "I DID NOT place any libellous material on my website."
I love it! (Score:1)
This is great stuff. Keep it up guys.
Lets start a fund for defense from idiots. (Score:1)
Besides JP is an ass. He sold out.
Re:Attrition (Score:1)
Careful here. This looks pretty much like as a fake. For instance, he looks very much like he never used a unix C compiler, but without a 'ls -l', he guesses that the name of the executable file is 'a.out'.
Also, he looks like he never used much Unix before, but he knows the name of many commands (pico, cc, write, cd, ftp, ps, kill, logout, cat, pine, write, w, ls, man, lynx, talk, vi, mv, chown, mkdir, mail, clear, '--help' option, and the './program' way to run programs). Strangely enough, in the log, by some miracle, he knows the name of the command but too often doesn't find the proper arguments. This is unlikely.
Re:Free speech (Score:1)
Given this [attrition.org] little gem (pointed out by another below), I'm not surprised.
Harvard's official statment! (Score:1)
-----------------------------------------------
* S T A T E M E N T *
As a service to the Internet community, Harvard agreed to host a Packet Storm Security Website for security-related materials only. Without Harvard's knowledge, unrelated content was put on the Harvard server, including sexually-related material and personal attacks on an individual not affiliated with the University. A Harvard administrative site focused on security issues is not the forum for this type of material. We are returning the content on the site and hope that Packet Storm will make its security tools available through its own Website.
Joe Wrinn
Director
Office of News and Public Affairs
Joe Wrinn
Director, Harvard News Office
1350 Massachusetts Ave., Rm. 1060
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: 617-495-1585
Fax: 617-495-0754
joe_wrinn@harvard.edu
Packet Storm no saint - check out the other side (Score:2)
http://www.antionline.com/archives/editorials/p
If anitonline's statements are correct, Ken Williams is no saint who was needlessly attacked. I am not saying antionline is a saint either, but it does look like there are two sides to this story.
JP's Letter About PacketStorm (Score:5)
On top of that, and what was far more serious, the site contained dozens and dozens of pages of libelous, harassing, and threatening items which included: e-mails, messages, documents, images, and even public surveys. These materials were libelous, and in some cases, were blatant threats against members of my immediate family, myself, and my company.
While I value the right to free speech as much, if not more, than the average American, I do not believe in individuals posting threatening and harassing documents about another individual, and their family members. It was for this reason, and no other, that I contacted Harvard University, which was hosting the PacketStorm Website, and requested that it be shut down. I did not threaten legal action, but simply directed University Administration to the website, for them to view, and to judge, on their own. Below is a copy of that letter:
Greetings:
May I first say that I did my best to see that this letter got sent to the appropriate individuals. I had some difficulty determining who those individuals may be, so if I have made an error, I would greatly appreciate it if you would forward this letter on to the appropriate individual(s).
My name is John Vranesevich, and I am the Founder and General Partner of AntiOnline LLP, a computer security company based outside of Pittsburgh, PA.
Earlier today, one of my colleagues forwarded me the following URL:
http://packetstorm.harvard.edu/jp/
Needless to say, I was shocked and outraged at what I saw. This page contains a large archive of libelous and, to put it bluntly, sick material. Everything from archives of copyrighted material from our website, to altered pictures of my family, to 'stories' about me which contain images ranging from people engaged in homosexual activities, to a nun that appears to be covered in seminal fluid.
I am astounded that an institution as prestigious Harvard would be party to the dissemination of this type of material. It is my hope that the University Administration was unaware of this site, and now that it has been brought to their attention, it is my hope that it will be dealt with promptly.
I have worked to help several educational institutions develop 'Acceptable Use Policies', and if Harvard is similar to them, the above URL would be a clear violation of that policy.
It is my hope that the above mentioned domain will be shut down immediately, and that the individual responsible will be seriously reprimanded.
I hope to hear from you soon about this matter, and what you may have done regarding it.
Yours In CyberSpace,
John Vranesevich
Founder, AntiOnline
Tonight, Ken Williams, the founder of Packet Storm Security, released a letter to the public. The letter read in part:
Funny how I spent the past few years donating my time, literally thousands of hours, to "the security community", never making even a penny off the time and work I invested, and have now lost it all because some asshole named John Vranesevich is able to make a quick phone call, fabricate absurd stories about criminal activity and bullshit I never did, and effectively ruin years of work, my education, my career, my life.
Ken, I know what it's like to dedicate many, many, thankless hours into a project, believe me. But, you did not loose your site because of me, you lost it because of you. I could not stand by and watch your site be used as a platform to harass and threaten my family, myself, and the business which I have worked hard to start. While you, and others who 'follow you' may criticize me for what I did, I think everyone that's reading this, who has family members that they love, and a career that they enjoy, will admit to themselves that if in my shoes, they would have done at least the same. I hold absolutely no grudge towards you as a person, and I hope that you have the best of success in all that you do.
Due to the types of threats that I have been receiving, and that sites like PacketStorm have been propagating, local law enforcement agencies were put on alert, and began doing extensive extra patrolling of the residence of my family members, my own residence, and the AntiOnline Offices. I realize that the actions that I have taken against PacketStorm may greatly increase the immediate threat against my family, myself, and my company; and that the harassment will now only get worse. However, I will not allow my family, myself, nor my company to become a victim. I am standing my ground, and will continue AntiOnline's mission of putting an end to malicious hackers.
People in this country have the right to say and do whatever they please, unless that is, what they say and do infringes on the rights of another - anonymous.
Yours In CyberSpace,
John Vranesevich
Founder, AntiOnline
Re:Hmm.. (Score:1)
Re:Why has no one commented on the "homosexual" pa (Score:1)
Strange place.
Re:JP's Letter About PacketStorm (Score:1)
While I'm glad to read the original notice given to Harvard, the fact of the matter is that network administrators have a daunting task when it comes to security. While you refer to PacketStorm as an "underground" publication, the fact of the matter is that in high-security systems, one HAS to use every available resource, from CERT to the better security sites that truly are "underground".
I understand your considerable outrage at the alleged contents of the
If the allegations are true, then what Ken Williams did on those pages was wrong, but destroying a reference that professionals use daily is just as wrong.
I hope you'll write a letter to Harvard explaining that you only wanted the offensive material removed, and that much of the other material is valued by the security community.
Kevin Way
Packet Storm Will Return (Score:1)
Yahoo has an article, in which it says "Harvard intends to send the complete contents of the site back to Williams so that he can post it elsewhere." http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/technology/z
Whose side are you on? (Score:1)
Insanity! (Score:1)
P.S. I hope the venture capital he got kills his "business".
No big shocker this (Score:4)
Basically, he sucks. He just does this stuff to get attention, like some little kid having a spaz at the supermarket. Hell, all you have to do is read his site to realize that the guy's not quite right in the head (egomania, anyone?).
Anyway, the best way to handle a guy like this is to ignore him.
----
Re:Doesn't anybody have a mirror? (Score:1)
Re:HAHAHAAH JP LIVES 1 HR AWAY (Score:2)
Re:Local Internet (Score:1)
I too am very seriously considering mirroring a few pages locally. If I can work out some type of reasonable deal with either my cable or DSL company I will.
Most of the pages that I want to mirror are political in nature, but the principle is the same. Just because someone wants it shutdown does not mean that is should be.
My question is this, why did he not have local backups of his work? I don't even do work for customers without keeping a backup of it for a while. (just in case they stiff me on the payment, I can still get paid for my work).
LK
Re:Destroying the Evidence? (Score:1)
If the allegedly injured party asks to have
the site taken down and the backups destroyed,
and this is done, he'll look rather silly
demanding in court the evidence that he told
them he wanted them to destroy.
Update : Packet Storm Not Lost (Score:1)
HNN [hackernews.com] has an update; Harvard will return a copy of the site to Ken Williams. Also AntiOnline (JP's site) is uber-down. No DNS, no nuthin'. Figures, I suppose.
Re:One side of the story. (Score:2)
He was not a Harvard student, but a student
at another university. According to his
postings, a Harvard sysadmin had offered to
host his security website - and he kept the
only copies of his class notes from the other
school's classes, his website, and the related
data on this Harvard machine - trusting them
to back it up for him and keep it available.
Oops.
Re:TO BE BLUNT - *YAWN* (Score:1)
i believe the answer is New jersey.
:)
But what does that have to do with the discussion?
Re:AntiOnline.com, can't even get to it.... (Score:2)
Someone called, threatened to sue and whoever was on the phone probably freaked out and pulled the plug.
What JP doesn't realize is that eventually, this sort of behaviour will chase all his potential viewers away. Without traffic, his VC-funded site will go down the tubes and all will be well again.
The best thing to do is to just ignore him and his site and stop visiting.
Re:One side of the story. (Score:1)
He was looking for another place to host his site, because it was so huge. I should have grabbed the humor section when I had a chance, he had a lot of classic stuff archived there.
Oh, and what does he have on his local web site? His pgp keys.
Poor fellow BOFH, getting shut down by just a regular B...
Re:Attrition (Score:1)
Same here... I knew many of the common commands, but couldn't always remember the arguments and didn't always get the format right... this is not that farfetched at all.
Re:AntiOnline.com, can't even get to it.... (Score:2)
Looks like the router loop is fixed, but now his web server is dead. Last good hop is antionline-gw.cust.stargate.net.
Re:Legality (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, however:
That's a good point. Unless or until a libel suit is decided in court, it's only an allegation. In any event, Harvard is within their rights to take the site down (they may even be legally obligated to do so). But they do not have a right to destroy the data. Simply hosting the site and making the backups as a favor does not entitle them to destroy the data, they may only demand that he come pick it up within a reasonable time.
This is not unlike storing another persons physical posessions as a favor.
Isn't it ironic? (Score:1)
http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/86
The main difference, of course, is that AntiOnline wasn't shut down because of derogatory statements. But it does seem rather ironic.
Adam
Re:Update in the situation...? (Score:5)
=======================
* S T A T E M E N T *
As a service to the Internet community, Harvard agreed to
host a Packet Storm Security Website for security-related
materials only. Without Harvard's knowledge, unrelated
content was put on the Harvard server, including
sexually-related material and personal attacks on an
individual not affiliated with the University. A Harvard
administrative site focused on security issues is not the forum
for this type of material. We are returning the
content on the site and hope that Packet Storm will make
its security tools available through its own Website.
Joe Wrinn
Director
Office of News and Public Affairs
Joe Wrinn
Director, Harvard News Office
1350 Massachusetts Ave., Rm. 1060
Cambridge, MA 02138
So did he, or didn't he? (Score:1)
Umm, this seems like it would have been a fairly easy thing to verify before taking action, wouldn't it? Am I right to assume that PacketStorm never contained anything of that sort?
Doesn't anybody have a mirror? (Score:1)
eternity (was: Re:Local Internet) (Score:2)
The cypherpunks have been working on "non-erasable Internet space" for some time now. They call them "Eternity servers" [ex.ac.uk] and they already have some working prototypes running. If you would like to see a world where it is mathematically impossible to censor someone's web pages (without taking down the whole 'Net), then visit some of the following sites, and/or subscribe to the cypherpunks list and pitch in!
Ken Williams and his character (Score:1)
ever since he came to NCSU and zephyred me about
how to use the Sparc4s we had at the time. I
gave some of my typical LabOp(tm) Brand Advice
and watched him eat it up. He was in the lab for
days. He slept there, he ate there. We split
pizzas and good conversation. (He still owes me
lunch for admitting PERL is better than Java)
Eventually, all his hard work paid off and he
picked up on network security and got packet storm
up and running. Although I never contributed, I
was a long time listener.
I say I know him pretty well. As well as anyone
else around at NCSU. We're all pretty damn
unsatisfied that he's been treated this way,
especially since he gave us knowledge and he
was a campus character to boot.
Ken is not a bad person, he's not someone who
is likely to hurt anyone. He's got his opinions, he voices him, and doesn't expect you to change
yours for his. All he ever cared about, really,
was the information.
He's the Real American Cracker.
He knows his stuff, and doesn't pretend to know
what he doesn't. He'll talk your ear off about
networks and share a cigarette over some talk
about how weak the System is. He's just a good guy, that's all, and I'd say that in any forum or institution, International or Domestic.
That's all I have to say about Ken.
Now, the others....
Harvard was trying to protect itself by purging Ken from its records. Destroying his site was just that. Not letting him have the backups was the line. Hopefully, in the future, they'll be less like little bastards and more like men.
JP. Shove him. Don't pay him any respect. In my eyes, AntiOnline has been a pox on the security community for too long....
Peace,
BFD
JP, Carolyn Meinel... They're all alike.... (Score:1)
No local backups? Oops! (Score:1)
I can only hope that the web site wasn't that important to him (yeah right), or that Ken is just pretending not to have any backups.
People with important data ought to be a little more paranoid. Don't trust someone else to keep your data safe. Always have a copy on you.
Re:Free speech (Score:1)
requests that were referred from www.attrition.org
to the following URL. How immature.
http://www.antionline.com/archives/editorials/p
Interesting cached page on google (Score:1)
This cached page from google is probably an example of the type of thing that they are complaining about
Dammit (Score:1)
I'll bet there is more to this story than we are being told.
Good luck in whatever you do next Ken...
Re:One side of the story. (Score:1)
Re:Attrition (Score:1)
http://www.attrition.org/negation/quotes.html
Now most of these are taken out of context, and they mostly show that
1. JP has a sense of humor.
2. JP isn't very polite.
3. JP made one insensitive quote about albanians - don't know if that makes him a RACIST (sic!)
Disclaimer: I don't know JP, he might be a rapist KKK member eating children for breakfast as far as I know, but pulling those quotes out of context doesn't really makes me certain that he is...
/El Niño
I'm stupid (Score:1)
Also, please understand that I'm not defending JP in any way for being an asshole, which it seems he is, I just think that _first_ quote page wasn't very good for conveying that.
/El Niño
Re:You know what? (Score:1)
I, at least, hope that Packetstorm will find a backup and a new home, or that somebody new like www.securityfocus.com will step in to fill the gap. Otherwise we might go back to the "bad old days", where the only people who know about certain vulnerabilities are small groups of hackers and irresponsible vendors with no incentive to fix problems.
In praise of full disclosure,
Tweety Fish, cDc
save packetstorm emergency archive (Score:1)
Vistors can look at the archive at:
UPloaders can use:
to upload all the stuff they saved from packetstorm.PLEASE, do everything in your power to save the knowledge in the packetstorm archive from being lost... (hint to moderators :)
Thanks,
Rik van Riel
Re:Free speech (Score:1)
"I'm gonna find you and waste your pathetic loser ass into fish food for my pet pirhanas!"
Yep. It does. Now, is there any context that I might actually do this? Nope.
I can also say, "I wanna blow the muthafuckas up!" Again, it might get someone's attention, but, again, there is no context about who I want to blow up.
Does JV have "malicious hackers" stalking him, as he claims, or is he just listening for the footsteps just a little bit too closely? He may claim these bad things have happened to him.
Seems like JV has just a bit too thin of skin. If the only way he can wall it off is to try and get rid if it by running to the Teacher or Mommy, well, I guess that's his right. Or is he really crying out for help and can't afford to go to the public mental health clinic to talk about his delusions?
Too bad we all lose by the loss of someone else's web site from his paranoic rantings and actions.
That the click-through on
Re:Legality (Score:1)
Hmm...this is just a little bit scary. Think about it for a second. That means that a student's privately owned PC in his dorm room, hooked to the campus network (however), is thus in the domain (in a legal sense) of the University?
Or, just a bit more abstract, that your University employees, if they use your school's dial-up network services, that their computers are thus in the domain of the University while they're using the University's dialup networking services (thus justifying University personnel to hack into a person's computer to see what they could find while it was on the network)?
I somehow don't think this is quite so. If it is, then it is kind of scary, for it would justify any company making their software have similar phraseology in their EULAs or other agreements (yes, I know of the problems with UCITA, if it gets approved, which would definitely provide the contractural basis for allowing stupid ass things like this to happen for real in EULAs)...
Re:Legal help (Score:1)
Re:Contrast with Demon case (Score:1)
Umm...even though it's not a law, it is a guiding principle of how the law is interpreted and applied...
If the 1st Amendment (or, hell, the rest of the Constitution) doesn't apply to anyone else OTHER than the US Government, then...we're all f'd.
Attrition (Score:5)
Moderators: I don't beg for upping of my posts scores, but I think its important for everyone to see JP for who he is.
All the info I need... (Score:1)
When I saw antionline home page describe itself
as the "National Enquirer of Cyberspace" I had
all the information I needed to make a judgement.
Now I'm sure the National Enquirer NOT in cyber-
space is right about 1 time in 5000, but life is
short and I'm betting short odds.
Why has no one commented on the "homosexual" part? (Score:1)
In his letter to Harvard, John Vranesevich accuses Packet Storm of posting images of "people engaged in homosexual activities".
Why, exactly, would that be any worse than people engaged in heterosexual activities?
In addition to his other stellar characteristics, it looks like JP is a homophobe.
People, we need to catch things like this. Homophobia should not be tolerated in the online community.
Cheers,
James, who is not homosexual but knows a whole lot of great people who are.
A sign of worse things to come (Score:2)
This is so depressing, and more, it enrages me to think that this kind of stuff can happen.
Anyone who wants to do _anything_ as a public service can no longer simply "just do it" -- cover your backsides, boys and girls, because if you piss off anyone, I mean _anyone_ your "host" might decide to send you up as a sacrificial lamb.
Get everything in writing.
Keep backups of everything on a really big hard drive.
Encourage supporters to archive your site.
I think it's shameful that Harvard won't let him get the information he needs to graduate. I think it's shameful that his professor doesn't seem to give a damn. Personally, I think Harvard's reaction disgusts me more than AntiOnline's.
Don't think for a second, however, that I approve of AntiOnline's actions to any degree. I'm ashamed that they can do this stuff and still look themselves in the face at night. So much for the computing "community."
It's going to get worse. Apparently, the whole idea that the internet is a medium for the free exchange of ideas is getting less and less true, becasue any idea that you don't like can be litigated out of existence.
[ / r a n t ]
pick up your telephone (Score:1)
2. dial
Re:antionline.com (Score:1)
Re:TO BE BLUNT - *YAWN* (Score:1)
Both in terms of raw numbers, and if I remember correctly, percentages - heterosexuals.
Re:I want my, I want my, I want my packetsormsecur (Score:1)
Re:Legal help (Score:1)
Re:Let's all email Harvard and complain.... (Score:1)
Re:JP's Letter About PacketStorm (Score:1)
"a popular underground collection of security related tools and information"
I must inform you that I am about as far as you can get from the underground (whatever that means). I have enough trouble keeping up with security issues without some whiner taking down one of the most informative sites available. I have removed your site from my bookmarks and will not be visiting again...ever! Self-destruction is even stranger than self-delusion John, you've done plenty of damage for one day... get a life and quit messing with mine.
Re:HAHAHAAH JP LIVES 1 HR AWAY (Score:1)
I wonder if that could really be JP himself just trying to get another enemy in trouble for making death threats?
He'd better not be. That would be stealing Laurence Godfrey's schtick.
Re:He wants a job in IT (Score:1)
JP a "Security Expert" ? (Score:1)
Here's [attrition.org] a rather hilarious .history file that allegedly comes from one of JP's accounts.
Re:antionline.com (Score:1)
*pssst* Hemos will crack anything for nanorobots.
if this is true, that destroys any respect I have for him and his site (and yes, I did have some before)
I'd be interested in the sites blocked. I don't see it in the source (JavaScript or anything). anyone?
Lea
ps I'm not getting that error, but that's probably becasue I'm having some little "problems" with my SGI right now, which are preventing me from storing a history.
Re:This is classic JP (Score:1)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:Packet Storm no saint - check out the other sid (Score:2)
After working with him for that time period, I can easily say he's a total asshole, and likes to take everything said as it was directed at him. He got picked on a little too much in school, and now, if anyone "picks on him", his retaliation is to sue. Back when he was an op in #HackPhreak, his retaliation was to ban their entire domain/country. Some things never change.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:What was Packet Storm? (Score:1)
so try and do a google search on packet storm
--
Practical legality (Score:2)
First off, It seems unlikely to me that Harvard, with a reputation of being an excellent law school, would destroy evidence if some sort of wrong-doing had been done. They really ought to know better.
But, if they did wipe the site completely, Ken has nothing to worry about in terms of lawsuits (without evidence, it's all he-said-she-said), disciplinary action from Harvard (he's not a student), or loss of his job (no reason, because there's no evidence).
Furthermore, I suspect he would have a good case against Harvard for destruction of his site, including the loss of his schoolwork. (Can you say Harvard is a cracker?) If I were on a jury, I'd certainly have Harvard pay him enough so he wouldn't have to worry about his schooling being screwed up.
If, however, Harvard does have a copy, then there is a possibility of a lawsuit happening. In which case, Ken Williams has really nothing to worry about from Harvard claiming he cracked their systems -- even the world's worst lawyer could get a judge/jury to see that 400K hits could not go unnoticed. If Harvard knew about it, they must have approved of it.
That would leave only the alledgedly libelous material. Which, if it was as John Vranesevich claims, than KW deserves whatever he gets. If it is not, than JV should be rightly counter-sued.
My guess is that Harvard pulled the server and is preventing KW access until they can determine what's what. If there really was libellous material, they certainly don't want KW to go and erase it.
Wait and see is all we can do.
Antionline.com not completely down (Score:1)
Re:Seems like we /. ed it.. (Score:1)
Several members of the internet community have taken it apon themselfs to make sure AntiOnlines site is down.
Last I heard the uplink was just ignoring all packets bound for *.antionline.com...
-Mike
Re:Destroying the Evidence? (Score:1)
Yup. The cover-your-ass position for Harvard in any matter similar to this is:
1. Take the site in question offline (done).
2. Make more backups of the questionable material, so that the lawyers can sort it out later. Especially if Harvard is sueing the site owner! How are they going to sue if they're destroying the evidence they need to sue?
Something just doesn't make sense.
Re:AntiOnline.com, can't even get to it.... (Score:1)
Chuck
Cheezus, for the past year and ½ we've been watching seminal fluid on the seal of the US white house.
Lack of data (Score:3)
IMO, the second is more likely. This doesn't mean that we are being misled - just that we have an incomplete view. Can anyone who has emailed Harvard management (or who is within Harvard management), or who is otherwise involved with this, provide more information on what is actually going on?
Re:You put a comma by accident (Score:2)
Re:Attrition (Score:4)
http://www.attrition.org/negation/www/tech.01.htm
It's a shell history file from an account JP had a year ago or so. It pretty much speaks for itself as far as his Unix ability and his activities.
Destroying the Evidence? (Score:5)
Hmm.. (Score:2)
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth (Score:2)
FACT: I doubt Harvard wouldnt have looked at the link on the site before the pulled the page. More then likely it was full of alot of the crap that was said about it or Harvard would have said to go screw yourself. Being from a private university, appearances must be kept up. In fact, here where I goto school three staff members were fired for posting a Playboy nude of Pamela Andersen. Harvard's covering their ass.
FACT: These two have had a long running feud between each other and this a pissing contest. However, somebody got caught were their pants down this time. I doubt anybody here would have want their work copied like antionline has been for the past how many months by packetstorm.
FACT: I doubt the FBI, Air Force, Computer Associates as well as numerous others would have put their trust into someone who they didnt throughly check out.
My point, grab both sides of the story before you start taking sides. Both of these sites have been credits to web but when they dengerate to this stuff like making threats or taking each others sites down, it just feeds the fire. This is a pissing contest plain and simple. Nothing less and nothing more. Pack up the stuff and move on.
Hangtime
Re:Legality (Score:2)
-Chris
Legal help (Score:2)
Re:AntiOnline.com, can't even get to it.... (Score:2)
Re:JP's Letter About PacketStorm (Score:2)
(differences are underlined)
Funny how I spent the past few years donating my time, literally thousands of hours, to "the security community", never making even a penny off the time and work I invested, and have now lost it all because some asshole named John Vranesevich is able to make a quick phone call, fabricate absurd stories about criminal activity and bullshit I never did, and effectively ruin years of work, my education, my career, my life.
Ken Williams' acual statements (can be found at http://www.hackernews.com/orig/williams.html and many other sites.. all pgp signed by ken williams)
Funny how I spent the past few years donating my time, literally thousands and thousands of hours, to "the security community", never asking for or making a single penny off the time and work I invested, and have now lost it all because John Vranesevich and a few of his IRC friends are able to make quick phone calls, fabricate absurd stories about criminal activity, libel, threaten to sue Harvard, and I don't even get to plead my case. I am guilty without even being informed of what was going on.
All above is copyrighted by Ken Williams (which he gives permission to copy freely in his letter) except the few portions that seem to have been written by someone else, and I dare them to sue for me that.. hmm maby I shouldn't say that.. NA
Re:JP's Letter About PacketStorm (Score:2)
Re:JP's Letter About PacketStorm (Score:2)
Re:JP's Letter About PacketStorm (Score:2)
But it seemed to be genuine. This was on the site, and seemed to directly mirror what JP quoted (minus the curse words which Ken admits to having)
Funny how I spent the past few years donating my time, literally thousands of hours, to "the security community", never making even a penny off the time and work I invested, and have now lost it all because John Vranesevich is able to make a quick phone call, fabricate absurd stories about criminal activity, and effectively ruin years of work, my education, my career, my life.
So much for Truth and Justice.
-- Ken Williams, Wed Jun 30 22:35:59 EDT 1999
("bullshit", "damn", and "asshole" removed from the above statement because somebody was offended and complained)
Re:AntiOnline Bias (Score:2)
But if you look at packetstorm.genocide2600.com
you find out that he did say this (apparently revised his statement a few times) but this is exactly what was quoted by JP minus the cuss words in which he notes where removed at the bottom of the page.
Letter I sent... (Score:3)
Subject: Letter of Protest
Dear CAIS and the Harvard Computing Community,
I am writing to protest strongly Harvard's confiscation of Ken Williams' site PacketStorm.
Ken is one of the brightest talents in the security community, has worked tirelessly for years on security related issues and has freely shared his
work with the rest of the community.
To pull his site and prohibit him from accessing his own content is outrageous.
As a professional network administrator, I used his site services at least once a day, and found his content to be professional accurate and trustworthy. His content helped me PROTECT MY NETWORK, and according to all reports, you've destroyed all of his content, his hard work, and a RESOURCE that I used. This is absurd. His content, regardless of libelousness, existed BEFORE it came to Harvard's domain, and libel suit threat aside, destroying data like that is a crime. If you wanted it removed, pull the plug on the machine, and RETURN the data to Ken.
It is my sincere hope that you will reconsider your actions.
Thank you for your considerate attention.
Sincerely,
Seth Cohn
network administrator of [removed for privacy]
Re:JP's Letter About PacketStorm (Score:2)
Re:Free speech (Score:4)
Heres the mail John Vranesevich says he sent to Harward. If this mail is what made Harward close the site, then I'm all on Vranesevich's side. The important thing to remember, though, is we don't know!
(1) English is not my first language, so I'm sorry if this is the right word, what I mean is e.g. publishes fake porn images of me.
Re:Local Internet (Score:2)
The idea is for a "CryptNet" Here is the idea...
Anyone who has a Net connected computer with some space and wants to be part of the network sets up a cryptnet server daemon and allocates some disk space to it. The space allocated is encrypted and the site admin has NO direct access to the data stored there. He has no control over or access to the contents. All these servers are linked together to form what ammounts to a big distributed file system that anyone can store data in. (Or maybe instead of opening it to the public completely, you can only store as much data as the space you donate to crypt net?) Several "Gateway" servers are set up to display what is IN the "filesystem". The "gateway" would act as a sort of proxy server to the gateway, so that the actual physical location of the data is unknown (or maybe we can avoid going through the directory server if the packet source can be anonymized some other way). Suddenly, physical location of the data is no longer an issue. The only problem I see is if a node goes down, suddenly that data in unavailable, but this can be avoided by only allowing responsible admins to join the network, not just anyone (similar to IRC?) or making sure each byte of data is stored in two or more locations. Anyway.. thats the general idea, and thats all it is. Anyone interested in helping start a project like this?
Re:Local Internet (Score:2)
The idea is for a "CryptNet" Here is the idea...
Anyone who has a Net connected computer with some space and wants to be part of the network sets up a cryptnet server daemon and allocates some disk space to it. The space allocated is encrypted and the site admin has NO direct access to the data stored there. He has no control over or access to the contents. All these servers are linked together to form what ammounts to a big distributed file system that anyone can store data in. (Or maybe instead of opening it to the public completely, you can only store as much data as the space you donate to crypt net?) Several "Gateway" servers are set up to display what is IN the "filesystem". The "gateway" would act as a sort of proxy server to the gateway, so that the actual physical location of the data is unknown (or maybe we can avoid going through the directory server if the packet source can be anonymized some other way). Suddenly, physical location of the data is no longer an issue. The only problem I see is if a node goes down, suddenly that data in unavailable, but this can be avoided by only allowing responsible admins to join the network, not just anyone (similar to IRC?) or making sure each byte of data is stored in two or more locations. Anyway.. thats the general idea, and thats all it is. Anyone interested in helping start a project like this?
OK, now Calm Down.... (Score:3)
A bit of new information, courtesy of Harvard. (Score:3)
itachi
Harvard Statement (Score:4)
=======================
* S T A T E M E N T *
As a service to the Internet community, Harvard agreed to host a Packet Storm Security Website for security-related materials only. Without Harvard's knowledge, unrelated content was put on the Harvard server, including sexually-related material and personal attacks on an individual not affiliated with the University. A Harvard administrative site focused on security issues is not the forum for this type of material. We are returning the content on the site and hope that Packet Storm will make its security tools available through its own Website.
Joe Wrinn
Director
Office of News and Public Affairs
Seems to me that harvard is giving Ken his site back.
Lessons to be Learned (Score:3)
1) ALWAYS BACKUP DATA. This seems to burn you whenever you don't.
2) Always have a written contract. Harvard is pulling the site because he isn't a student. Because his contract wasn't written, and he isn't a student, Harvard doesn't have any reason not to pull the site without a hearing. The site shouldn't have been there in the first place, at least, in the eyes of Harvard. I'm sure Antionline knew this. (Strange, I can't connect to their site now... Timeouts and all...)
3) ALWAYS BACKUP DATA - this goes for regular users too. If you have a site you love with information you love, backup that information, if nothing else.
I truly feel for Ken. He seems to have gotten a shaft that few of us can ever imagine receiving. I would reccomend that he get a good lawyer, fight the charges, and file a counter suit. If he has been acedemically, financially, and personally destroyed by this, and their claims have no merit, then he should be able to punish them legally.
However, I doubt he has any case against Harvard. It *IS* Harvard, and he isn't a student. They're just wiping their hands clean. What can you expect from the school that has helped shape the dismal state of the Americal Legal System?
His only hope is that Jeff Gray makes a backup of his data before officially destroying it, and sometime in the future, Ken receives a complete backup of his data, site and all, from an anonymous user. If Jeff is all Ken cracks him up to be, I wouldn't doubt that this has already been done.
The love of hackers (Score:2)
As for the rest of my message, Ken was a very good to all of us. He was one reason I moved over to Linux. I find it great that HackerNewsNetwork and the cDc both had something to say Slashdot. Hackers are like a mob family. Treat them well and you can enjoy great riches, like Packet Storm, 2600's Off the Hook, and DefCon, but if you cross us, you will be fitted for electronic cement shoes.
As for some of the comments about mirrors, Ken didn't allow them, so no one had them. The security at Packet Storm was tight, and JP knew that. The only way he could get rid of Ken was to get Harvard to pull the plug.
I was even thinking about going there, just to work with Ken, or to talk to him. That may not happen now.
From the konsole of,
Louis Blue
P.S. The next "Hacker's Jargon File" needs to have a place in it for Packet Storm Security and Ken Williams, and how JP made it all go away.
Update! Harvard gives Ken the goods back! (Score:4)
-- as yet unconfirmed, from www.hackernews.com [hackernews.com]
AntiOnline Bias (Score:4)
Re:Free speech (Score:2)
Next question, were there such pics as he described on the site? If there were then harvard was right to drop the server, but not the contents of the server, immediately. If there weren't, and those pics were part of JB's paranoid imagination, then harvard and JB should be slapped, hard.
Likely JB chose just the right words to get harvard to drop it immediately, without getting them to check if the accusations actually were true, to force them to act as if they were true. Had harvard not dropped it immediately, and the accusations were true, then JB might have probable cause for suing.
Harvard is not completely to blame, but they completely mishandled it. Had they just taken it down momentarily to VERIFY the accusations and consult, likely nothing would have happened. But rather JP and their own nature caused them to act heavy-handed, and they did.
If there is one thing that the internet despises, its heavy handed behaivor companies or organizations squashing the little guy.
Free speech (Score:2)