Is AT&T's Denial of Service to Hacker Justified?

[Omniyoji]

Is AT&T's Denial of Service to Hacker Justified?

Hacker turned security expert Kevin Mitnick has been denied service by both his web host and his cell phone provider. HostedHere.net and AT&T argue that the barrage of hacker attacks on Mitnick's accounts make them too difficult to defend. Said The Register's Dan Goodin, "In asking Mitnick to take his business elsewhere, [the companies] seem to be making the tacit admission that they are unable to secure the accounts of users whose only fault is being a high-profile target." Really? Is the public surprised that hackers can penetrate these systems?

When you wear the badge of "the most wanted computer criminal in United States history", you become a moving target. Companies cower at your name, fellow hackers aim to dethrone you, and governments put you in solitary confinement for fear that your Captain Crunch-style phone phreaking skills will ignite nuclear war. Kevin Mitnick has paid dearly for his past life and has been made an example from his first arrest. But is it really surprising that AT&T and HostedHere.net are denying him service?

Mitnick is probably a formidable security expert, but the simple fact of the matter is that one man, let alone one company, is unlikely to be able to defend against multiple and persistent attackers. While Mitnick spends up to $20,000 per year on his phone bill, companies are likely spending at least twice that to protect his accounts.

Said Mitnick, "You'd think they'd like to talk to me and say 'how do you think these guys are getting in?" Despite the fact that Mitnick has turned over a new leaf, one might understand why a company like AT&T would rather wash its hands of Mitnick as a client, rather than taking advice from him. After all, Mitnick's combination of hacking and "social engineering" once gave him illegal access to computer systems at Motorola, Nokia, Siemens and allegedly the Pacific Bell Telephone Company - better known as AT&T California.


http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/k..._att_aug09.jpg

Not sure if some of the younger people might remember him. He was the talk among the geek scene back then. His dealings with the law happened in the late 80s to mid 90s. The guy was restricted from using any type of communications technology with the exception of a landline phone. He finally fought and gained access to internet usage which the Screensavers (TechTV) made a special show for in 2003.

AT&T is clearly doing it wrong in this case.

Thoughts, opinions, comments?

FREE KEVIN

[Alleya]

I wouldn't want to give him service either. More trouble than it's worth. I ain't running a charity.

[Niiro]

I wouldn't want to give him service either. More trouble than it's worth. I ain't running a charity.

This.

A business can deny service to whoever they want for whatever reason. All things considered this is a very good reason to deny someone service.

This is only news because the guys famous(ish) I guess.

[Cream Soda]

Should just get it in someone else's name

[pohibaba]

He made his choice to be a societal nuisance, now he has to face some of the consequences for that. How exactly is it unjustified?

[Skjie]

Keeping him on board could have upsides as well. Being able to say "We keep his communications safe" etc. could have marketing implications.

[Correction]

Keeping him on board could have upsides as well. Being able to say "We keep his communications safe" etc. could have marketing implications.

Until you mix in any public awareness in AT&T's complicity in the warrantless wiretapping program. "We Keep Kevin's communications safe; the rest of you can go fuck yourselves."

AT&T isn't exactly my hero, but Mitnick deserves even less praise.

[Plow]

I don't see why they don't just charge him for the extra security but...


This is the man we have to thank for HY EYE IS PRINCE OF EGYPT U GIEV BANK ACCOUNT


so, yeah, fuck it, whatever

[Ghost_Wheel22]

I was more of a fan of Phiber Optik and MOD/LOD. Still find it amusing they kept Mitnick in solitary for over a year because they thought he could launch a nuke with a Capt Crunch whistle.

[Pirian]

I don't see why they don't just charge him for the extra security but...

While Mitnick spends up to $20,000 per year on his phone bill, companies are likely spending at least twice that to protect his accounts.

You spend 20k a year on your phone bill?

[Plow]

What does what I spend have to do with it?

If he spends 20k, and the phone company spends 40k, how difficult is the concept of "charge him the extra 20k"?

[Alleya]

What does what I spend have to do with it?

If he spends 20k, and the phone company spends 40k, how difficult is the concept of "charge him the extra 20k"?

It's not worth the hassle to set up custom billing arrangements for 1 customer, especially when it must be done so because of the need to protect your company's infrastructure from damage and cancellations/legal action from other customers who get hit with the splash damage.

[Olo401]

Total bullshit. Mitnick is more than capable of securing his own machines. He doesn't need AT&T or his webhost to babysit his shit for him, and their claims of him being a risk to them are completely unfounded.

But hey.. fuck them anyways. He can take his business elsewhere.

[Skjie]

To be honest, it's be a long time since Mitnick was the best hacker ever (if he even ever was) and I would be surprised if he was capable of completely securing all of his stuff.

Remember, most of his exploits involved social engineering and the phone system.

[Aangeliceus]

Remember, most of his exploits involved social engineering and the phone system.

For the young kids... look up:

Phreaking and 2600.

God this brought back memories... Any of you old of enough to remember or actually have used 300bps modems to connect up to BBS's? It was all about POTS back then...

[Brill Weave]

I wouldn't want to give him service either. More trouble than it's worth. I ain't running a charity.

Agreed 100%.

AT&T is clearly doing it wrong in this case.

In what fucking world? Why on God's green Earth would any company knowingly provide their services to a customer that in the end will cause them to lose money? Just because you want something doesn't mean you're going to get it. All companies reserve the right to provide their services to what customers they want. Where I work we actually have a list of people that are excluded from ever signing up for our services. It's not a new concept. It's business and AT&T is making the right choice to protect their bottom line and the security of their existing customers.

[Skjie]

For the young kids... look up:

Phreaking and 2600.

God this brought back memories... Any of you old of enough to remember or actually have used 300bps modems to connect up to BBS's? It was all about POTS back then...

Oh god, 2600. It's been so long since I last read that zine. As for dialup, I was a MUDer.