>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: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:05:31 -0700 > From: [email protected] > 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" <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > 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
