Re: Navy hacked by Air Force?

[fc@all.net (Fred Cohen)]

...
Not to be picky, but...

> 1) The correction makes a difference in the credibility of the
> statement, as you must have felt, since you made the change.

I agree that the change was important, but...

>  Saying
> that a reporter called a 40-ish Navy captain a 'whizzkid' is foolish,
> while questioning the reasonableness of a reporter calling a 20-ish Air
> Force captain a 'whizzkid' is a difference of opinion (see below).

We don't yet know how old he or she was - let's wait and see before we
jump the gun. 

> Since you said it was the 'actual text', you should have posted the
> actual text, not your correction of it.

My text was the one published in the IW forum - Risks published first,
the error was apparently found and corrected, and thus the IW forum had
the corrected text.  I will ask iw to inform Risks of the correction -
however, I did post the actual text that I got from IW!  This IT is
so complex, isn't it?

> If they sent out two messages,
> one correcting the other, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that
> they didn't at least preface it with a "sorry, we goofed" tag.

They were to different forums, hence the "I goofed" tag would seem
inappropriate in IW.  Perhaps the next risks will include an 'I goofed'
let's wait and see.

> FC> Even with only 4 years of service (after graduating from College),
> FC> 25-27 years old is no longer whizzkid age in my book.
> 
> 2) As I said before, had I remained in ROTC, I would have been 24 when
> I was eligible to make captain.
> 
> 3) At 26, I was still being referred to, by non computer-savvy people,
> in terms comprable to 'whizzkid'.

I must be getting old.  When I was growing up, all Wiz kids had to be 21
or less.  I guess the media is running out of 18-year olds making a big
splash.

...
> 5) The second independent source backs up the report that the connection
> was made through the Internet, involving email connectivity, and with a
> personal computer and modem, all of which were specifically denied in
> the message from IW.

I must have read it differently.  I thought that IW said something like
not all email messages, and email messages did not reproduce, not that
there were no email messages involved.  I guess we both have to start
reading more carefully.

> 	Now that I've addressed ALL of the points in the 'denial' from
> IW, do you see why I characterized it as a military smokescreen?  The
> only thing in it which remains unchallenged is that the original report
> is inaccurate in detail, and that there is a question as to whether
> someone in their mid-20s is a 'whizzkid'.

I think that the whole issue is still pretty questionable - whether the
experiment was authorized - whether it was a wiz kid - whether they
actually took control - whether it came from the Internet or a Mil net -
whether there was insider knowledge - etc.  One thing I am becoming more
certain of though - that there are no active battleships.

-> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net/
Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236