VIRUS-L Digest Tuesday, 23 Jan 1990 Volume 3 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Re: Internet worm writer to go to trial Jan 16th. (Internet) the Internet Worm trial Internet Worm Internet Worm Trial Internet Worm Trial (Ethics) Internet Worm Trial Re: Jury for Morris Trial Internet Worm Trial VIRUS-L is a moderated, digested mail forum for discussing computer virus issues; comp.virus is a non-digested Usenet counterpart. Discussions are not limited to any one hardware/software platform - diversity is welcomed. Contributions should be relevant, concise, polite, etc., and sent to VIRUS-L@IBM1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU (that's LEHIIBM1.BITNET for BITNET folks). Information on accessing anti-virus, document, and back-issue archives is distributed periodically on the list. Administrative mail (comments, suggestions, and so forth) should be sent to me at: krvw@SEI.CMU.EDU. - Ken van Wyk --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Jan 90 19:17:56 +0000 From: gwishon@BLACKBIRD.AFIT.AF.MIL (Gordon D. Wishon) Subject: Re: Internet worm writer to go to trial Jan 16th. (Internet) spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: >The reporters (and you) don't understand the situation. I was there >to testify as a witness and spoke at some length with the prosecutors >and some others associated with the case. Gene, in your report (_The Internet Worm Program: An Analysis_), you speculated that the code may have been written by more than one person. Has anything come out in the trial to support this? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 10:12:20 -0500 From: EASTRA@morekypr Subject: the Internet Worm trial interesting how all the computer experts on this list are legal experts as well since the posters to the list have already convicted the defendent, they would clearly be ideal jurors after all, guilty until proven innocent is clearly the attitude here - -- ray easton ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 00:00:00 +0000 From: "Prof Arthur I. Larky" Subject: Internet Worm Just a few comments on the Internet Worm and Mr. Morris: The number of challenges available in Federal Court are more limited than those we have been led to expect from watching Perry Mason. I just finished testifying in a patent suit in which one of the jury members was an inventor with a patent of his own. He was not challenged even though it might have been better to have persons with no knowledge of patents or the field of the patent on the jury. Juries are supposed to decide on FACTS, which depends more on their evaluation of the truthfulness of witnesses than on the technical material. In Morris' case, the jury probably has to decide on things such as willfulness and whether the actions are proscribed under Federal laws. One of the objections to "knowledgeable persons" on a jury is that they might stampede the jury to a hasty decision by insisting that they understand the matter "better". Lawyers use expert witnesses in an attempt to give the jury an understanding of the consequences of the disputed facts. I suspect that it really boils down to credibility - which of the conflicting opinions does the jury believe? IMHO if all Morris wanted to do was to try out a worm, he could have isolated Cornell from Internet and infected their university-wide Ethernet LAN. It would have been just as good a test and would not have crashed the whole country. Alternatively, he could have asked for permission to do a formal experiment on Internet; in which case, Internet sites could have protected themselves from a major crash and would have been pre-warned of the steps to take to stop the beast. Morris acted irresponsibly and deserves to face the consequences of his acts just as a person which is accused of manslaughter has to face a jury and possible consequences. No doubt he is ready to be rehabilitated since he seems not to have considered the consequences of his actions. Without having heard all the evidence, I cannot make a judgement, so we have to wait and see what the jury decides. It would be interesting to know what was the charge to the jury; that is, what facts were they to decide? Obviously, these are my opinions, not those of my employer. Art Larky Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Department Lehigh University ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 90 22:49:52 +0000 From: rickc@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Frederick L. Crabbe) Subject: Internet Worm Trial >>Can he be rehabilitated? > >There seems little doubt that young Morris can be rehabilitated. Just a note: I found out from a rather reliable source that our friend Morris infected the AT&T Bell Labs system when he was a high school student. They responded by hiring him for the summer. So much for one attempt of rehabilitation. - -ric - -- 'I didn't know you had a perfect ass until you walked away. Forgive me for not falling in love with your face or your conversation.' -Leonard Cohen Ric.Crabbe@dartmouth.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 19:21:00 -0500 From: WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.ARPA Subject: Internet Worm Trial (Ethics) Ed Carp N7EKG/5 (28.3-28.5) uunet!cs.utexas.edu!khijol!erc Austin, Texas (512) 832-5884 Writes: >I must disagree. If we held everyone to the same standard of conduct >that you propose, half of the programmers and most of the managers in >the DP arena would immediately lost their jobs. It has not been my intention to propose any standard of conduct, but rather to compare a particular piece of behavior to alternative but possible standards. >Everyone else, it seems, follows their own ethical >code, so why expect someone else to uphold an ethical code in one >area, while refusing to uphold a similar ethical code in another? Indeed, they do not. Most people behave in an orderly and polite manner most of the time, at least to the extent that there is a concensus about what it is. What is at issue here is can we reach one. >He is not necessarily subject to professional sanctions, at >least not those as harsh as would be assessed on yourself (or >me, for that matter). Clearly. >A child is not assessed the same punishment as an adult for >the same crime. If a man drives his car down the street in a >reckless manner, and in doing so runs over and kills someone, >that man is liable for civil damages as well as severe criminal >penalties. A child who does the same thing has a much less >strict penalty accrued to him. Well it is certainly an interesting defense, but I doubt that young Morris would subscribe to it. In the case of the automobile and the child, there is a presumption of ignorance, lack of skill, and immature judgement. While I grant that there is evidence of all three things here, a twenty-four year old doctoral candidate is not presumptively entitled to them. >Even managers, who >should know better, display immature, disorderly, impolite, and >destructive behavior to a much higher degree than does the average >programmer, because their position allows them to escape the >consequences of their childish and irrational behavior. However, we are not talking about all such behavior, but rather that which may be in violation of legal or professional standards. >The Internet is generally regarded as an experimental media for >the proliferation of experimental software and techniques by >students (who are still learning), as well as professionals. Nice people do not blot other peoples' copy books or interfere with their experiments. We do not tolerate students who trash laboratories simply because they are students. Indeed, one of the things that we explicitly judge about a student is whether of not he can be sufficiently socialized to be fit to work with. >Some of the traffic carried by the network is of such low >quality that one questions the professionalism of those >proliferating such traffic. However, *their* integrity is never >questioned. No doubt, but beside the point. It is not the quality of the traffic that is at issue here, but the purpose. Morris may have written the best code that he was capable of. His ONLY defense is that it was only an offense of poor quality. That had it performed as he intended it too, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CAUGHT. Nonetheless, the code was risky at best and it never had a legitimate purpose. >If we insist on judging others, let us be measured by the standards the >wish to impost (sic) upon others. First,I have tried to avoid judging the individual and stick to commenting upon the behavior. Second, it is not my intention to impose a standard of behavior, but rather to compare the behavior to traditional norms. Finally, I fully expect that abherent behavior on my part is likely to be held to far more arbitrary standards than those which I am trying to discuss here. I will not like it, but I can live with it. I doubt that either the Justice Department or the profession take any delight in having been put in the position where there is any behavior to judge. I certainly do not. William Hugh Murray, Fellow, Information System Security, Ernst & Young 2000 National City Center Cleveland, Ohio 44114 21 Locust Avenue, Suite 2D, New Canaan, Connecticut 06840 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 08:14:00 -0500 From: WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.ARPA Subject: Internet Worm Trial Mr. William E. Johnston, a computer manager at LBL is quoted by John Markoff in today's NY Times as saying "An appropriate sentence would be public service in the field of computing." Would this be punishment? Would it deter others? Would it be rehabilitative? Anybody want to join me in nominating LBL as the place for such service? How say you? William Hugh Murray, Fellow, Information System Security, Ernst & Young 2000 National City Center Cleveland, Ohio 44114 21 Locust Avenue, Suite 2D, New Canaan, Connecticut 06840 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 15:13:36 +0000 From: ecl@mtgzy.att.com (Evelyn C Leeper) Subject: Re: Jury for Morris Trial HAMER@Ruby.VCU.EDU (ROBERT M. HAMER) writes: > lawyers (and unfortunately for our legal system) most people with > education manage to get themselves excused from jury duty, leaving the > jury pool composed of the unemployed, homemakers, and the retired. I'm sure this is a slip of the keyboard here, since I know many educated unemployed people, homemakers and retired people. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com - -- If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when? --Hillel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 21:29:14 -0500 From: Bridget Rutty Subject: Internet Worm Trial Morris has been convicted. ------------------------------ End of VIRUS-L Digest ********************* Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253