[LinuxUsers] Dan Tentler's script kiddie antics last night

Tue Dec 30 21:56:21 UTC 2008

>Yes, Dan Tentler says he didn't log any of the data and that he erased
>his capture session - but I don't know him well enough to trust his
>words on face value like that.  I certainly don't find his actions
>(either online or in person) that trustworthy.I my original message I wrote the following: The above position is obviously correct, and
I was not there, so I really can't comment on what happened. 

In the interest of shortening my email, I cut it, which I obviously should not have. 
But now that you have told me what happened, I am surprised. What I had read in
the thread didn't give me any Idea of what really happened. After reading this email, it
seems to me that Roger was completely justified for being alarmed.

I will also add that the following is something else that I deleted from my original
message:

Roger's original message seems to amount to good policy principals. 

Someone also asked if the group had gone to any corporate meetings.
I got the idea that he was implying that if the group ever wants to participate
in corporate meetings, then it needs to have a squeaky clean rap sheet.

My 1 cent  (newbies only have 1 cent)

> To: linuxusers at socallinux.org
> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:05:31 -0700
> From: dkaiser at cdk.com
> Subject: Re: [LinuxUsers] Dan Tentler's script kiddie antics last night
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Detecting sniffing is really difficult to do.  It would be like two
> people talking in a room and you want to know if a 3rd person in the
> room is eavesdropping.  That someone else is not an active participant,
> and without being able to see inside the head of that person or know
> what they are thinking, you don't know if they were listening in or not.
> 
> As far as giving someone the benefit of the doubt - if you are still
> interested in my opinions, read the remainder of this e-mail.
> 
> When the issue with Dan Tentler being dishonest and stealing people's
> passwords first arose on Saturday night, he had numerous chances to be
> honest, contrite, forthcoming, and at least try to explain himself
> properly - and he didn't.
> 
> When Chris first asked who was running nessus, he just looked down and
> ignored the question - when he should have immediately responded and
> explained what he was doing.
> 
> When the question was repeated he looked over in the direction of Chris
> Louden and myself as if to deflect some blame towards one of us.
> 
> When Chris really found that he was the culprit, he passed it off as if
> it was some research project.  When the issue of having intercepted
> gmail passwords and such came up - he made the comment that it was all
> harmless because he wasn't going to save the log of his capturing
> activity.  Yet he didn't - he kept right on capturing other packets,
> and didn't actually demonstrate that he had cleared the captured log.
> 
> So - let's revisit back to giving someone the benefit of the doubt -
> there were numerous chances during the conversation as it developed that
> evening, where he could have provided us with a reason to supply that
> benefit, where we would be generous with our opinions of him - but every
> time he chose the wrong course, with either denial or dishonesty.
> 
> In further discussions about the issue Dan is still not coming clean or
> apologizing, but instead accusing people of being on a witch hunt and
> accusing people of starting a flame war.
> 
> If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, please do - but people
> that started off trying to give the benefit of the doubt were quickly
> convinced that he didn't deserve it based on his actions.
> 
> I still don't have any proof that Chris's gmail password wasn't sent
> off to Chinese hackers or something by the time we got home that evening.
> 
> None of us observed if Dan actually deleted his logs, or that he proved
> to anyone that he hadn't captured anything else of ours that evening.
> 
> He has not provided any proof of deniable culpability - and when someone
> like him is observed doing the activities he was doing - proving to
> everyone that he was clean should have been the very first thing he did.
> 
> All in all, it's a shameful act for someone who claims to be a security
> professional.  Security professionals only do what's within their
> bounds, and don't shrug at legalities like Dan Tentler did.  Security
> professionals don't infringe on people's privacy for sport like Dan
> Tentler did.
> 
> Also on the topic of lending someone the benefit of the doubt - I think
> when it comes to a person's privacy (and each one of us has to evaluate
> this as it equates to our own personal information and how we choose to
> guard it) - people also need to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone
> who is guarding their personal info.
> 
> I've been generous with giving that benefit to Chris and Roger as they
> were most affected by Dan Tentler's mischievous and borderline-illegal
> actions.   Based on how they are handling things with a professional
> manner, and how Dan is not - I continue to give them the benefit of the
> doubt that they may have had something more serious than a gmail
> password be compromised, and they have the right to be upset about the
> potential serious loss of privacy.
> 
> Thanks,
> DK
> 
>  ____________________________________________________
>    Insert your own stupid MSN Hotmail or Windows Vista ad here
>  ____________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/30/2008, "Paul Saenz" <downtoearthman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Interesting. I was wondering if maybe a few links to good tutorials about
> >ARP spoofing, and/or sniffing detection could be posted to the socallinux
> >webpage, with maybe a little intro as to why it's there for newcomers.
> >
> >It would be cool if the group was set up to detect sniffers. I think it would 
> >be fun if we actually caught someone in the act who was outside the group, 
> >and were actually able to identify the person in a public setting: Put a little 
> >fun in your White Hat  :~).
> >
> >As for Dan Tentler, I usually like to give people the benefit of the doubt on
> >first offenses, but that's just me.
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Life on your PC is safer, easier, and more enjoyable with Windows Vista®. 
> >http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032870/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxUsers mailing list
> LinuxUsers at socallinux.org
> http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers

_________________________________________________________________
It’s the same Hotmail®. If by “same” you mean up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_122008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://socallinux.org/pipermail/linuxusers/attachments/20081230/cfacdc8f/attachment.htm>