informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0764.txt

963 lines
39 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

Computer underground Digest Sun Jul 30, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 64
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
CONTENTS, #7.64 (Sun, Jul 30, 1995)
File 1--Re: Intellectual Property (CuD 7.60, 7.51)
File 2--A Much Different Carnegie Mellon "Cyberporn" Study
File 3--EFF Newsletter Excerpt: Rimm Doesn't Testify
File 4--(Another Internet Online Game
File 5--felony conviction in Oregon v. Schwartz ("victim" = Intel)
File 6--InfoWarCon '95 Program Info (fwd)
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Jul 1995 16:23:01 +1000
From: "Brian Martin" <Brian_Martin@UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: File 1--Re: Intellectual Property (CuD 7.60, 7.51)
Keith Graham in CuD #7.60 makes some thoughtful points in response to my
article "Against intellectual property" (CuD #7.51). None of them, though,
undercuts my original arguments.
There is a strong tendency among those defending intellectual property
(IP) to look only at its benefits and to ignore the benefits of not
having IP. For example, in the case of movies it's easy to point to
the big-budget movies that might not be made without IP. But without
IP, there would be vastly greater opportunities for small producers,
with a great flourishing of film production for niche audiences and
different cultures around the world. These need not be low quality, as
anyone who has attended a film festival should realise.
Without the monopoly protection of IP, less money would flow to
certain big producers, to be sure. But this would mean that more money
would be available elsewhere, including for jobs for those who modify
existing intellectual products.
My article did not always distinguish between ideas and information
products, but the distinction is not as great as it may at first
appear. Certainly in the case of writing, ideas are not just altered
but also in a real sense produced in the process of expressing them.
In any case, my point applies in both cases. It doesn't make a lot of
sense to have ownership of things that can be cheaply and easily
copied.
Does it really require an IP incentive to "clean up" a computer
program? I suggest contacting the Free Software Foundation
(gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu) to find out about its GNU Project. (It uses
copyright basically to get around the constraints of copyright, a
process that would be unnecessary without IP.) There's a vast amount
of high-quality free software available. Some say that it's greater in
quantity and quality than commercial software. I know of no impartial
examination. The point is that the existence of such free software
undermines the argument for IP.
Dave Ljung (#7.60) presumes that because my ideas about IP don't seem
to fit in a box called capitalism then they must fit in a box called
socialism. Although this is a common way of thinking, it won't do.
These boxes are misleading simplications. In addition, there are other
options.
Let's start with socialism. Presumably Dave Ljung means "actually (or
formerly) existing socialism", a society such as the Soviet Union.
I've long been an opponent of such systems of domination. But there
are also many who favour varieties of libertarian socialism, in which
people organise themselves locally to provide goods and services
collectively, but there is no government. No full-scale society like
this exists today, but there are many activities within existing
societies that fit this picture, for example many voluntary
organisations.
Now for capitalism. Does this mean "actually existing capitalism",
such as the economic system in the United States? If so, it is hardly
a "free-market" society. There are enormous non-market powers
exercised by the military, large corporations and professions, among
others. John Kenneth Galbraith's "The New Industrial State", among
many other works, shows that the US economy is dominated by the
monopoly sector; the competitive sector picks up the pieces. The
greatest support for IP comes from the monopoly sector and the
government. Just have a look at Peter Drahos' article about lobbying
for TRIPS ("Global property rights in information: the story of TRIPS
at the GATT", Prometheus, June 1995, pp. 6-19).
IP is a form of monopoly privilege, relying on protection by the
state. If depending on the power of the state to prosecute people who
make copies of articles or software is "capitalist", so be it. But it
is worth noting that actually existing capitalism has been quite
viable in many parts of the world without the scope of IP typically
advocated by western governments today.
On the other hand, it's possible to imagine a market system based on
voluntary agreements, without the state, as spelled out in the journal
The Voluntaryist (PO Box 1275, Gramling SC 29348, USA). In such a
system, there would be no IP.
Markets are not necessarily a better way to do things, even within
capitalism. There used to be markets in people, called slavery. There
are many other areas where most people would oppose having free
markets, such as family members, human organs, university degrees, and
lives. There is no intrinsic reason why there should be state
intervention to create artificial markets in the monopoly privilege
called IP.
It is not my intention in these comments to argue the case for or
against a particular economic system, but rather to criticise the
assumption that "capitalism" requires IP and that not having IP
implies "socialism". My arguments against IP are compatible with
quite a range of visions of society. I made the case against IP
precisely because IP is typically assumed, without argument, to be a
good thing. I believe the issue deserves much more debate.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 14:53:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jane Aronson Manning <ja4t+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
Subject: File 2--A Much Different Carnegie Mellon "Cyberporn" Study
PITTSBURGH -- Is the average American family devouring pornographic
materials on the Internet?
HomeNet, a new study at Carnegie Mellon University of how ordinary
families use the Internet concludes that families aren't big consumers
of sexual information on computer networks. Nor do they seem likely to
become avid readers.
At the start of the HomeNet field trial in February, 1995, a panel of 50
families in the Pittsburgh area received Macintosh computers, a full
Internet connection and Internet services including electronic mail and
a World Wide Web browser. The families were also encouraged to explore
electronic newsgroups, or discussion groups, on hundreds of topics where
anyone can read and post messages to others.
Detailed electronic audit trails were collected by the researchers to
understand how the 150 individuals in these families used the Internet.
(Subjects all signed consent forms, and the study went through internal
CMU human-subjects review. No results are reported that could in any
way attribute specific behaviors to specific individuals in the study.)
So, what do ordinary people do with the Internet, and with Usenet
newsgroups in particular, when they're there?
o Our population of "regular people" here in Pittsburgh is far less
interested in using the net as a way to access sexually-oriented
material than the recently publicized Rimm study would seem to predict.
And their interest is mostly transient: Most people who do, in fact,
look at sexually oriented newsgroups do so only once or twice (over a
period of months). Those who have looked at any particular sexually
oriented newsgroup more than twice constitute less than 1/5th the sample
population, and are mostly adult males and teenagers. And even for
these people, their usage of sexually oriented groups is a relatively
small portion of their overall activity with newsgroups.
o Newsgroup usage results turn out to be highly sensitive to the
sampling technique used. The HomeNet researchers sampled every 10
minutes. But if a one-week sample interval is used instead, it
*appears* that sexually-oriented newsgroups and other
occasionally-browsed newsgroups are twice as popular as they really are.
The more you sample, the more fine-grained your results are, and the
more fine-grained your results are, the less important sexually oriented
newsgroups become.
o Mostly, people browse newsgroups specific to their interests.
Because there are many such specific newsgroups and diverse interests,
few such groups show up in the "top 40". But in the aggregate, they far
outrank the sexually-oriented groups in popularity. And local groups
which allowed users to exchange information relevant to their day to day
lives (e.g. "where's the easiest place in Pittsburgh to take the
driver's license exam?") were by far the most popular.
o "Lurking": among HomeNet users who both follow (have looked at 3
times or more) Usenet newsgroups and post to them, the median ratio of
groups posted on to groups followed is 1:2 (i.e., among people who both
read and post, people tend to post to about half as many groups as they
read). If we include people who have never posted in the calculation,
then the ratio drops to 1:10 (and in case you're wondering, only three
HomeNet users have ever posted to a sexually oriented newsgroup).
The HomeNet trial is expected to last three years. It is funded through
grants from Carnegie Mellon University's Information Networking
Institute, Bellcore, US West, Bell Atlantic, and the US Postal Service.
For more information about HomeNet, contact Jane Manning at
jane.manning@cmu.edu or 412-268-6186 or Robert Kraut at
robert.kraut@cmu.edu or 412-268-7694.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 21:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: D B McCullagh <declanm@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: File 3--EFF Newsletter Excerpt: Rimm Doesn't Testify
Stanton McCandlish (mech@eff.org) wrote the attached article in the
latest EFFector Online newsletter here. (Good article, Stanton!) It
mentions how Mike Godwin was instrumental in uncovering the truth
about the Rimm study. Following is an excerpt:
-Declan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFector Online Volume 08 No. 14 July 26, 1995 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
A July 24 hearing chaired by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) on the
issues surrounding children's getting access to so-called "indecent" material
on the Internet, did not go exactly as planned for the Senator.
In the absence of Sen. Grassley's planned star witness -- a self-styled
expert on online pornography named Martin Rimm -- ranking minority member
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) effectively controlled the hearing.
Grassley's attempt to center his hearing on Rimm's controversial pornography
study had backfired. Though the Iowa Senator had termed it the "only
comprehensive study dealing with pornography in cyberspace", now,
thanks to recent articles discussing the motives and ethics of its
undergraduate author, Grassley was forced to disavow it: "Now under
criticism, that study is under review as it should be."
EFF lawyer Mike Godwin had taken the lead weeks before in coordinating
efforts to challenge former CMU student Martin Rimm's "study" of
sexually oriented material online and Time magazine's decision to
promote it as the basis of a cover story on "cyberporn." Time has been
widely criticized for promoting the study without allowing any prior
critical review of it by independent experts.
Working with EFF interns Beth Noveck and Ben Manevitz, Godwin had arranged
for copies of the study to get into the hands of reporters and academics
across the country. This in turn had generated press coverage that led both
to the discrediting of the Rimm study (which is riddled with methodological
flaws and unsupportable conclusions) and to Time magazine's seemingly
unprecedented disavowal of its own cover story in a followup article
only three weeks later..
[...]
It is widely believed that the critical response to the Rimm article is
what led to Rimm's removal last week from the witness list for the
July 24 hearing sponsored by Sen. Grassley, who is sponsoring legislation
purportedly aimed at protecting children from so-called "indecent"
content online.
At the hearing, Sen. Leahy commented that, "he [Rimm] got disinvited when
the study that everyone embraced as gospel was a little bit less than
that. I would expect any time now to see _Time_ say that even great media
can be conned." In point of fact, _Time_ Senior Editor Philip Elmer-Dewitt
has essentially done so, in public forums on the WELL, the online
service where much of the dirt on the Rimm study was unearthed and examine.
"The voice you didn't hear at that hearing," Godwin later said, "was that of
would-be star witness Martin Rimm, who may have hoped his study would
establish him as the national expert in online pornography." Once Rimm
and his questionable study were discredited, Godwin said, "the hearing
lost a lot of drama, but it gained a lot of balance."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 95 08:50:29 0000
From: Leigh Waters <harleqnn@HALCYON.COM>
Subject: File 4--(Another Internet Online Game
Electronews release from RayneWaters Studio Arts: Please publish where
appropriate.
IS IT THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS INTERNET GAME ON PLANET EARTH?
Launch date is set for 9/1/95 for TREASURECHEST: QUEST 2000
I am designing an unusual and highly visual "internet game" that can
be played by anyone online, ( but especially by aspiring artists)
right off the internet.
Players will email their interactive game parts as they play, so an
active email account is helpful. It is not required, however.
Finalists and winners receive cash prizes, free web sites, studio
commissions from my graphics firm in Seattle, Washington, USA and
some excellent exposure for their work if they are developing
artists. The game will "launch" officially on 9/1/95, but some of the
pages for it are already going up, although under construction. You
should take a peek and spread the word. Visit the skeleton site to
see a sneak preview of this outrageous and challenging game, which is
called:
TREASURECHEST: Quest 2000
http://www.colossus.net/rwsa/treasurechest/treasurechest.html
Let me know what you think of the art.
Sponsored by Leigh Waters, Owner and Founder of RayneWaters Studio
Arts in Seattle http://www.halcyon.com/harleqnn/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 17:20:30 -0700
From: Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn@teleport.com>
Subject: File 5--felony conviction in Oregon v. Schwartz ("victim" = Intel)
Send email to fund@stonehenge.com to find out about my legal defense
fund, and more importantly, to find out about how a person without
malicious intent became a felon and faces jail time and stiff fines.
There are implications here that can impact anyone working in the
industry.
(Content of message is ignored, although I sometimes read them.)
print "Just another Perl hacker," # but not what the media calls
"hacker!" :-) # legal fund: $3411.03 collected, $72879.50 spent; email
fund@stonehenge.com for
details
--
Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
Keywords: Perl training, UNIX[tm] consulting, video production, skiing, flying
Email: <merlyn@stonehenge.com> Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger merlyn@ora.com)
Web: <A HREF="http://www.teleport.com/~merlyn/">My Home Page!</A>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 01:39:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Computer Underground Digest <cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU>
Subject: File 6--InfoWarCon '95 Program Info (fwd)
Date--13 Jun 95 20:36:11 EDT
From--"Bob Bales [NCSA]" <74774.1326@compuserve.com>
To--BlindCopyReceiver:;
Dear Colleague:
Because of the interest you expressed in NCSAs Information Warfare Conference:
Chaos on the Information Superhighway (held in Montreal in January '95), Dr.
Kabay asked me to provide you with information about NCSAs upcoming conference
InfoWarCon '95. I am enclosing the current version of the program. We hope
to
see you in Washington, DC in September; please redistribute this information
widely:
InfoWarCon '95
September 7-8, 1995
Stouffer Concourse Hotel
Arlington, VA
CONFERENCE OVERVIEW
The Information Warfare Conference (InfoWarCon '95) is our third
international conference dedicated to the exchange of ideas,
policies, tactics, weapons, methodologies and defensive posture
of Information Warfare on a local, national, and global basis.
InfoWarCon will bring together international experts from a broad
range of disciplines to discuss and integrate concepts in this
rapidly evolving field. Attendees will intensely interact with
the speakers and presenters as well as each other to increase each
other's understanding of the interrelatedness of the topics.
While there are many interpretations of Information Warfare by
different groups, the current working definition we employ is:
"Information Warfare is the use of information and information systems
as weapons in a conflict where information and information systems
are the targets".
Information Warfare is broken down into three categories, and
InfoWarCon speakers and attendees will interactively examine them all:
Class I: Personal Privacy. "In CyberSpace, You Are Guilty Until
Proven Innocent." The mass psychology of information. Privacy
versus stability and law enforcement.
Class II: Industrial and Economic Espionage. Domestic and international
ramifications and postures in a globally networked, competitive society.
Class III: Global Information Warfare. Nation-state versus Nation-state
as an alternative to conventional warfare, the military perspective and
terrorism.
THE SPONSORS
National Computer Security Association
Winn Schwartau, Inter.Pact
Robert Steele, OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS, Inc.
CORPORATE SPONSORS (as of 6/13/95)
IBM
THE CONFERENCE
The conference is designed to be interactive - with a healthy dialog
between all participants. The contents and discussions will all be
considered open source.
- What is Information Warfare?
- What Are the Targets?
- Protecting the Global Financial Infrastructure
- Military Perspectives on InfoWar
- InfoWar Vs. Non-Lethal Warfare
- Defending the U.S. Infrastructure
- The Intelligence Community and Information
- Open Source Intelligence
- The Psychology of Information
- Privacy Balances
- Information As the Competitive Edge
- International Cooperation
- Denial of Service
- Cyber-Terrorism
- Offensive Terrorism
- Offensive InfoWar Techniques
- Defensive InfoWar Postures
- Education and Awareness Training
- Corporate Policy
- Government Policy
- Global Policy
- Espionage
- Export Controls of Information Flow
- The Legal Perspective
- The New Information Warriors
Plenary sessions will accommodate all attendees, while the three
break-out session rooms will provide for more intimate presentations
and interactivity on topics of specific interests.
* * * * * * * Tentative Agenda * * * * * * *
Preliminary Schedule (Rev. 4; May 14, 1995)
DAY I: Thursday, September 7, 1995
7:00 - 7:45 Continental Breakfast
7:45 - 8:00 Introductory Remarks:
- Peter Tippett, NCSA
- Robert Steele, OSS
- Winn Schwartau, Inter.Pact
8:00 - 8:30 Keynote Address
Admiral William Studeman, Asst Director of Central Intelligence
"An Overview of the Threat from Information Warfare: An
Intelligence Perspective"
Morning Plenaries
"What Is Information Warfare?"
There is no consensus as to what Information Warfare means; everyone
has a different definition and application which often suits specific
agendas. The morning sessions are to provide attendees with a current
review of what Information Warfare means to different people.
8:30 - 9:30 "The Government Perspective"
How do the various military services see Information Warfare as fitting
within their needs and mission? Moving information rapidly and
efficiently to the modern soldier provides key battlefield advantage.
How does lethal versus non-lethal warfare fit into their models?
9:30 - 10:30 "The Commercial View"
The commercial sector sees Information Warfare from a different
perspective. Business survival is top on the list. How do private
sector leaders view Information Warfare from both a defensive and
offensive standpoint? Government attendees will be especially
interested in this session.
10:30 - 11:00 Morning Coffee Break
11:00 - 12:00 Breakout Sessions I
Class I "Anti-Privacy Technology"
This will be a hands-on demonstration of how to breach personal privacy,
bug and eavesdrop on individuals and corporations. Attendees will see
how easy it is to violate privacy, and how hard it is to detect such
violations.
Class II: "Industrial and Economic Espionage - An Update"
What's new in the world or private spying? Front line experts will
what's better and what's worse. Who's spying on whom? What are they
looking for? What are their techniques and tools? What can you do
to protect your organization from being a victim?
Moderator: Jim Settle
Former head of Natl. Computer Crime Squad, FBI
- Larry Watson, DECA, FBI
Class III "Magnetic Weapon Systems: Risks and Defenses"
The first half will present an overview of the risks of HERF Guns,
EMP/T Bombs and Magnetic Pulse Cannons (MPC). The attendee will
learn how easy they are to build, and why increasingly sophisticated
magnetic weapons will become a choice weapon for terrorists. The
second half will describe fundamental approaches to defensive postures
against such Class 3 Denial of Service Assaults.
- Winn Schwartau, Interpact, Inc.
- Don White, EMC
12:00 - 13:30 Working Lunch
Luncheon Speech 12:30 - 13:00 (TBD)
13:30 - 14:30 Breakout Sessions I
Class I "Well Managed Propaganda"
The media is a powerful filter by which citizens and the government
collect most of their information. Was the media a puppet of the US
in the Gulf War? Does aggressive PR makes media policy? How can the
media be used, or protect itself from being used? What do journalists
have to say about their apparent control over what people hear and see?
Moderated by: Neil Munro, Senior Editor, Washington Technology
Class II "Should the US Spy on the World?"
The US has been the target of economic and indutrial espionage by
military allies and 'friendly' competitors such as France, Japan,
Korea, Israel, Germany, Taiwan among others. With an estimated
intelligence budget of $30 Billion and arguably the most proliferate and
advanced technologies, should we turn our spying 'eyes' on our global
neighbors for the benefit of American economic security? Or, are Mom and
Apple Pie Americans above that?
Class III "Practicing Defensive Information Warfare"
Military lessons for the private sector
This exciting session will show 'real time' security testing with an
active Internet connection. The military has developed an arsonal of
tools for penetration and monitoring and alerting users about intrusions.
Commercial attendees will learn what life is like without these
mechanisms, and how much more secure they can be with them -
with a low increase in overhead. What steps are required to build a
defensive posture, and just how much defense is enough?
14:30 - 15:00 Afternoon Coffee Break
Afternoon Plenaries
15:00 - 15:30 "Denial of Service on Information Systems"
Confidentiality Availability and Integrity, two of the three
pinions of security have been technically solved with advanced
encryption techniques. The third aspect, Availability remains
unsolved because of daunting technical problems. What do DOS
attacks look like? From the Civil-Cyber Disobedience to Accidental
Acts God or Man, a failure of key system components can trigger a
domino-like chain of collapses. This sessions examines the
vulnerability of current US infrastructures and the application
such techniques in offensive military applications.
15:30 - 16:00 "Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism"
Terrorist attacks against the US are now occurring on our home ground.
What can the modern terrorist do which will meet his goals of sowing
fear and distrust? Key infrastructures such as power grids,
communications and transportation systems are attractive targets for
the terrorist minded Information Warrior. What are we doing in planned
response?
16:00-17:00 "What Is the Role of Government in defending National
Economies?"
As evolving global conditions shift competitive value from military
might to economic advantage, how should we redefine national security?
The threats to the private sector increase and become more likely
targets in information warfare of all three classes. What is, and what
should the role of the military be in defending US interests both
domestically and abroad? This session will provide plenty of time for
audience involvement.
17:00 - 19:00 Cocktail Reception
Most speakers will be available for more intimate groups chats,and
authors will be available to sign books. Great opportunity to pursue
those ideas with people from different disciplines.
19:00 - 21:00 Birds of a Feather Dinners
"Dutch" dinners give attendees the chance to dig into more and more
depth in areas of their particular interest.
* * * * *
DAY II: Friday, September 8, 1995
7:00 - 8:00 Continental Breakfast
8:00 - 8:30 Keynote II (TBD)
8:30 - 9:00 "Defending the Financial Infrastructure"
Not only the US is concerned. The world's financial infrastructure are
inextricably linked. If one portion is hurt, the rippling effect is
immediate. Trillions and trillions of dollars are trade every day.
What can Information Warriors do to the global spider-web of electronic
money, and what defenses are in place?
9:00 - 9:30 "PsyOps"
The military and intelligence community have practiced Psychological
Operations against adversaries for decades. How is this done, and how
well does it work? Does PsyOps also have a place in commercial
ventures?
9:30 - 10:00 "CORE WARS:
Practicing Information Warfare in Cyberspace"
The Core War was invented by A.K. Dewdney from the University of
Western Ontario, Canada. As fought today on the Internet, Core Wars
represent the purest intellectual tests of pure strategy, tactics and
capability. Battalions of software programs must genetically breed
themselves for combat knowing that they will go up against fierce
competition. Video examples will be used to portray how Core Wars is
a working model for Information Warriors on the front lines.
Chair:
Stuart Rosenberg, University of Cologne, Germany
Jo Seiler, University of Cologne, Germany
10:00 - 10:30 "Security By Obscurity: Point-Counterpoint"
Should the threats and details of potential vulnerabilities and actual
events be guarded under the shrouds of official government secrecy or
corporate policy of denial? Or is open disclosure the best route for
education, awareness and defense? How can one defend against the
unknown? Strong arguments exist for all views.
10:30 - 11:00 Morning Coffee Break
11:00 - 12:00 Breakout Sessions I
Class I "An Electronic Bill of Rights"
Defining Privacy In Cyberspace
How do we as a nation balance the privacy rights of the individual
against the legitimate needs of the state, and in sync with the
policies of our global trading partners? The views from three
differing positions will stimulate a healthy audience-panelist
dialogue.
Moderated by: Andrew Grosso, Former Asst. US Attorney
Scott Charney, DOJ Computer Crime Unit
Class II: "The 'Third Wave' Approach to Managing
Information Warfare: Building a Commercial War
Room"
Maximizing the flow and control of information's key to competitiveness -
whether it be on the battlefield or in the marketplace. An innovative
tool and approach to planning and managing information in these very
intense, time-sensitive environment is the advent of "war rooms."
These are dynamic facilities which are optimized to channel the
collection, analysis and dissemination of information. 'War rooms'
can be static or field-portable and vary in ergonomic layout and
technical capability.
This session will provide case studies on the use of war rooms in
government and industry. State of the art automated war rooms will be
described which feature the projection of computer-generated
information.
Tools and practices for knowledge discovery, processing and
dissemination will help you understand how you go about planning and
building a competitive intelligence War Room?
Chair: Steve Shakar, KnowledgeBASE, Inc.
Panel: Mark Gembecki, Technology and Security Oversight
Consultant, US Dept of State
Robert Beckman, Alta Analytics, Inc.
Class III "International Cooperation"
All countries have an interest in stability, but rising nationalism
often transcends the greater good. While most countries are becoming
militarily allied, we all remain competitively aggressive. 25% of
the world's population control 75% of the wealth (The Haves) while
nearly 4 billion people share the remaining 25% (The Have-Nots). Where
is the balance, and at what point does Information Warfare become
openly hostile? In an electronically border-less world, how do we
collectively avoid getting to that point?
12:00 - 13:30 Working Lunch
12:30 - 13:00 Luncheon Speech
What are the organizing principles for information security and the
design basis of information systems and networks? The DII is
mandated to provide information services to the war-fighter. The
NII initiative is enhancing the economic posture of the US. The
infrastructures are inter-related and the loss of either
capability could have devastating effect on the economy and
security of the United States. The GII will necessarily find similar
challenges where all nations must develop a viable means of
cooperation. This presentation outlines high level approaches to
successful implementation.
13:30 - 14:30 Breakout Sessions
Class I "The Legal Consequences:
The Lawyers Are Coming, The Lawyers Are Coming."
What are the legal rights of Cyber-citizens in the US and how do those
relate to the laws in other countries? What is the real criminal and
civil recourse and remedies to combat industrial espionage? How do we
legally handle non-physically violent attacks against the interest of
the US on our own soil or overseas? Get the views of the experts.
Moderated by: Daniel Kuehl, PhD, Professor
National Defense University
Scott Charney, DOJ Computer Crime Unit
Class II "Defending Against the Internet"
The chaotic ravages of the Internet constantly knock at the doors of
anyone or any company is connected. What do you have to do to protect
your information resources? What have others done? Is it enough and
what does the future bode?
Chair: Kermit Beseke, President, Secure Computing Corp.
John Nagengast, NSA, Deputy Chief of Network Security
Class III "The First Information War"
The military is attempting to build a global network where intelligence
information from the field is fed back to a War Room, analyzed,
decisions made, and then instructions sent back to the theater: almost
in real time. How well does this work, and how far from reality is the
Pentagon's dream?
Chair: Mich Kabay, Ph.D., NCSA
Alan D. Campen, Col. USAF (Ret.)
Author, "The First Information War."
Former Director of Command and Control Policy
to the Undersecretary of Defense.
14:30-15:00 Afternoon Coffee Break
15:00 - 15:30 "Who Are The Information Warriors?"
Who are the bad guys? Who has the capability and the motivation to
wage any of the Three Classes of Information Warfare? It's time to
name names.
15:30 - 16:00 "Hackers: National Resources or Criminal Kids"
DEBATE
Germany uses professional hackers for their domestic industrial and
economic advantage. What about the US? The kindest words ever uttered
by Mich Kabay, Ph.D., about hackers is, "Amoral, sociopathic scum."
Robert Steele, President of Open Source Solutions, Inc. sees them as national
resources, to be cultivated as a tool for US economic security. Do they
have a value in the protection of the US infrastructure, or can their
specific expertise be found elsewhere? After short opening statements,
the audience will be encourage to ask provocative questions.
Robert Steele, President, OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS, Inc.
Mich Kabay, Ph.D. NCSA Dir of Education
16:00 - 17:00 "The Future of Information Warfare"
Where do we go from here? After two intensive days of interaction,
learning and listening, what's the next step? What do industry and
the government have to do to better understand each other? What steps
can each take to improve individual, corporate and national defensive
postures?
Chair: National Defense University
17:00 - 17:15 Closing remarks
- Peter Tippett
- Robert Steele
- Winn Schwartau
17:15 - 19:00 No host reception.
Hotel Information:
Stouffer Concourse Hotel (Crystal City)
2399 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202
703-418-6800
Conference Fees:
$495.00/445.00 - NCSA Members/OSS Attendees
$595.00/545.00 - All others
($50.00 discount available if payment is received by July 1, 1995)
=========================
InfoWarCon '95 Registration Form:
Name: ___________________________________________________________
Title: ___________________________________________________________
Org: ___________________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________________
City: ___________________________________________________________
State: _______________________________ Zip: _____________________
Country: __________________________ Email: ________________________
Phone: __________________________ Fax: _________________________
FEES:
Payment made BEFORE July 1, 1995:
( ) $445.00 NCSA Members/OSS Attendees
( ) $545.00 All others
Payment made AFTER July 1, 1995:
( ) $495.00 NCSA Members/OSS Attendees
( ) $595.00 All others
Make checks payable to NCSA, or
Charge to: ( ) VISA ( ) MasterCard AMEX ( )
Number: ___________________________________________
Exp date: ___________________________
Signature: ___________________________________________
MAIL OR FAX REGISTRATION TO:
National Computer Security Association
10 South Courthouse Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone 717-258-1816 or FAX 717-243-8642
EMAIL: 74774.1326@compuserve.com
CompuServe: GO NCSAFORUM
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1995 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CUDIGEST
Send it to LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
Brussels: STRATOMIC BBS +32-2-5383119 2:291/759@fidonet.org
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-464-435189
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu:80/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #7.64
************************************
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink