Phiber, The MOD, and The LOD.

[lex@mindvox.phantom.com (Lex Luthor)]

"L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu> writes:

>
>Anyway, this letter is an attempt to find a topic that someone will not
>flame me about, and is relevant to the cypherpunk list as I understand it!
>
>Phiber Optik
>--
>
>I have been watching the trial of Mark Abene, aka Phiber Optik,
>closely, and I think I even fowarded articles on it to the cypherpunks
>once. This is a very fascinating trial. We learn, for example, of the
>first use of wiretaps for digital data (modem communications) for a                 
>successful prosecution. Also, we learned about how LOD (Legion of Doom)
>-- or was it MOD, Masters of Deception, I get all these criminal
>organizations mixed up! -- infiltrated phone systems. I think I even
>heard in one news report that some in the group performed illicit wiretaps.


Although some people on this list could care less about the details,
since you confused the two ex-hacking groups, I feel the need to set
the record straight.
 
It was MOD *not* LOD that phiber has been recently affiliated with. MOD was
in my opinion a malicious group of hackers who used their
knowlege and abilities to relentlessly harass people, wreak havoc on computer
systems and networks by shirking the 'hacker ethic' of not causing damage,
and allegedly to perpetrate various forms of fraud and theft. Please note that
Phiber Optik was probably the most mellow one of the MOD and having spoke with
him a number of times, it seems that he is not a malicious type. IMHO his
mistake was teaching his 'friends' in the group how to do certain things
without regard to what they intended to do with that knowlege.

LOD was a whole different type of group. If you want to classify us as a
criminal organization due to gaining unauthorized access into various computers
and networks over the years, fine. But the LOD maintained a high standard of
ethical behavior in the way of not intentionally causing damage to computer
system, not violating people's privacy for the sole purpose of harassment or
fraud, and the overall mentality of spreading knowlege and information to
those who were interested. Obviously those ethics were warped as none of
the ex-members that I am in contact with (erik bloodaxe - editor of Phrack, 
the marauder, Lord Digital and Deal Lord - Mindvox owners, etc.) believe that
unauthorized access to computers is/was right nor legal. I am not defending
what we did all those years ago, but just clarifying the degree to which we
were involved. To make this clear, gaining unauthorized access to computer
systems is illegal and wrong under just about any circumstance. Violating
a person or company's privacy is wrong also, even if it was done out of
curiousity or a thirst for knowlege.

One other thing, it was reported in the press a number of times that there
was some sort of war between hacker groups. I think this is silly and 
although I had 'retired' by 1989 which was about the time a lot of the
alleged MOD activity took place, my version is that there was no 'war'. There
are always personality conflicts between people and arguements between erikb
and phiber appears to have been blown way out of proportion as usually happens
when things get reported by the press.

>I find this *fascinating*. Can anyone elaborate to me the wiretapping
>that was going on? who did they wiretap? how did they do it? how did
>they avoid detection? more importantly, have the phone systems been
>upgraded or modified to be protected from this kind of extremely insidious
>crime?

One of the things some MOD members allegedly did was gain access to certain
key computer systems that controlled various functions of BT's Tymnet packet
switching network. There are some systems that allow a privileged user to
monitor network traffic (XRAY for example), by gaining access to these systems
and knowing the correct commands, one can 'wiretap'.

It should be noted, if you read through the old hacker BBS message bases (which
you can do if you contact lod communications who is compiling messages from
the very first phreak boards such as Modem Over Manhattan and 8BBS circa 1980
up through boards such as the Phoenix Project circa 1989/1990, see the review
of the project in Autumn 1993 issue of 2600 or CuD #5.39 for more details or
email lodcom@mindvox.phantom.com) that the LOD had access to those same systems
years before MOD was around, and no one was the wiser simply because it was
more of an exploration of the systems as opposed to an exploitation of the 
systems. I for one operated on the premise that if I didn't know what a certain
command did, I did not type it in. That kind of caution allows you to explore
and learn as safely as possible by helping to avoid accidental damage.

As for tapping phone lines, most any reader of the cypherpunks list can do
this physically. What the MOD *may* have done (or use the word allegedly if
you like), is to gain access to certain phone company systems, such as LMOS
(Loop Maintenance Operating System) which allow a person who has a privileged
account and the correct commands and syntax, to REMOTELY monitor phone lines.
The phone company does this for repair and maintenance reasons and not to spy
on subscribers. As we all know, most technologies can be used for reasons other
than for what they were originally intended, this being a classic example.

As for avoiding detection, if one had access to the Switching Control systems,
they would be able to do a whole host of other things from putting traces on
subscribers served by the particular switch to seeing if there were any
'traces' on their lines. In addition, putting call forwarding onto a network
access port number and then forwarding calls to their computer, would allow
the perpetrator to gain untold amounts of usernames/passwords for systems on
whichever network they forwarded the calls from.


>I read in `Cyberpunk' by K.Hafner and J.Markoff (the latter my favorite
>cyberspatial writer) that K. Mitnick in California also had this
>capability of wiretapping, and used it in an extremely sophisticated
>way. Apparently he actually tapped the lines of police stations and
>knew when they were coming, or knew when they had detected or `sniffed'
>his own illegal wiretapping.
>Did this happen? or is all of this rumor?

 
Back in 1984 or so, a fellow lod member, The Blue Archer, dealt a lot with
Mitnick (using the handle The Condor if I remember correctly). I specifically
recall speaking with Blue Archer when he told me to not discuss certain things
for fear that Condor was listening to his line remotely. Not only this, but
Condor gave Blue Archer a phone number in California that forwarded to his
real phone number which was located 1000 miles east. This number lasted for
a long time and somehow there was never any billing associated with this
long distance forwarding situation.

Therefore, I believe the above happened and was not rumor. What is interesting
is that he was capable of this type of technology manipulation nearly a decade
ago. Condor/Mitnick was one of the 'best' there ever was, but it appears that
he used his knowlege and abilities in ways that he probably should not have.


>I remember Phiber Optik posting to *this list* on the subject of phone
>wiretapping. I think he might have been a bit too knowledgeable for his                 
>own good, eh? What ever happened to K. Mitnick, anyway? He did serve
>federal time, I know that. I remember reading that story and thinking
>-- here is someone we should keep our eyes on, even after he is out of
>prison, *especially* when he is out!
>
>Conspiracy Charges
>--
>
>Another question. I understand that Mr. Abene was charged with
>`conspiracy' or at least that was one of the charges involved in the
>whole affair, perhaps against others. My question: what is the legal
>criterion for a `conspiracy'? what are the penalties? did Abene
>actually get successfully prosecuted for `conspiring'? what was the
>conspiracy? Did it have anything to do with the wiretapping?what are
>famous conspiracy cases?  I'm sure that some cypherpunks may be
>knowledgeable on these subjects. I sincerely hope I haven't offended
>anyone in asking. Mr. Finney posted some outstanding analyses of the
>ITAR (which I subsequently incorporated into a RISKS article), for
>example, so there is definitely some strong legal background here.
>
>please cc: your replies to me or I may not see them.
>

Reply was cc'd to you. 

Lex