British hacker Gary McKinnon might be facing a 70 years jail sentence alongwith a damage compensation fine of $1.75 million, if convicted. Gary has been charged with the "biggest military Hack of all time."

Apparently, he broke into the US Military computers and jammed up their defense systems in the wake of the Sept. 11th attack. Gary went by the nickname of Solo and has broken into a wide-range of military systems (Government figures estimate 97 computers) - including Pentagon, U.S. army, navy and NASA systems - causing $700,000 worth of damage.

Gary admits to having broken into these systems - but denies that he had any malintent. According to him, he's "just an ordinary computer nerd who wanted to find out whether UFOs and aliens existed." That was his whole point of illegally accessing these systems.

US wants him to be extradited so they can put him up on trial at homeground and currently negotiations are on with UK to get him deported. Gary's lawyers have been putting up a strong fight against the extradition saying that he runs the risk of not standing a fair trail in US.



Read the full story at: InformationWeek

Hahaha omg man when I first read about that a week or two or whenever ago I was so proud I mean, hacking into the US's most "secure" system to check for alien info? THAT IS FREAKING GOLD haha! I can't imagine how stupid they felt after that hahaha, man everytimne I think about it I burst out laughing, the girls here at work are looking at me like I'm insane hahaha.

Oooooh man I just keep picturing them "That bastard, what was he thinking? He could never get our nuclear codes by hacking us!"
subordinate- "uhh...sir...he only accessed files...uh...pertaining to aliens...sir..."
sir - "....oh....well....PATRIOT ACT OMG GUANTANAMO BAY HIS BUTT!!!"

Stupid U.S. trying to extradite him. I say give him a free ticket to Sweden or Finland, whichever it is that has legalized hacking, if they're going to make him leave the country. I hope the UK has the balls to refuse the extradition request. Definitely he runs a 100% of no fair trial in the states.

I see the where the problem is.
Even if he had no malintent, if he was able to enter the computers, then people with bad intentions could learn from him. What he did could be done again by somebody else, and some people could feel that not comfortable at all!

Whether or not he gets extradited may be at issue, but whether or not he gets prosecuted is not.



I agree that under the current administration with the Patriot Act chances are he will not receive a fair trial in the United States. However, Britain has laws against against hacking, so he will be at least prosecuted for hacking in Britain if he is not extradited.

As for the malintent, let us reveiw the systems he gained access to: NASA, army, navy, and Pentagon. Now, I don't know about you guys, but I'd be more inclined to hack into SETI than the army server to look for evidence of aliens. Anything found by one government aliens will be replicated almost immediately to the NASA server no matter which agency finds it. So he's either the dumbest hacker in recent history, or most likely had malintent.

And for his claim that no password means no security, that is totally false. All it means is he either tricked the system into not checking for a password, or he found a way to skirt by the password. Either way it is illegal.

I disagree, as I am sure the government will attempt to fix the hack, however, they are trying ot make a show of the deprotation to discourage other would be hackers.

~Viz

P.S. If he's dumb enough to get caught, he's dumb enough to get prosecuted.

I saw him being interviewed on BBC World for their weekly IT program - Click. He mentioned that most of what he was able to accomplish was nothing more than taking advantages of holes and exploits that were allowed to remain unplugged and unpatched. Such a level of ineptitude in terms of computer access security only invites probes from people wanting to know.

This guy will undoubtedly become the Kevin Mitnick of this decade. He will be made an example of and possibly be charged with "potential damages", a term used not infrequently in a case of this type resulting from the fear generated by an unauthorised acccess.

There's a good line in one of Tom Clancy's earlier novels - "The probability of a secret being known is directly proportional to the square of the people who know it."

In this day and age of interconnectivity and shrinking horizons, nothing strikes greater fear in to the hearts and minds of people in possession of knowledge as other people gaining said knowledge.

I would say it differently. Frequently when I am surfing on the net, I see a site saying "your computer is not secured. Click here and I will show you all the security holes in your computer". And when I click, I really see that my computer has a lot of security holes and that my secret info have really been seen by somebody else.
This means that these people looking for security holes do a correct job if they look into my computer, and they are allowed to act that way. But if they happen to do the same thing on the army computer they will do illegal things and will be punished ?

More likely, you've been tricked. If as you say, you're surfing and a random pop-up appears disguised as a window or a dialog box, saying that you must click here - I caution you not to fall for such inane tricks. If you do want to check out any security holes or exploits that might be existing on your system, visit sites such as:

Steve Gibson's excellent Shields UP! which scans for open ports and recommends optimum firewall settings.
ScanIT's browser security test is a reputed site to check for weaknesses.

SYmantec also has an online virus and internet security check available for free

Secunia - the industry leader in notifying and testing of security exploits especially in browsers has lots of feeds and info on these browser holes.


Now, regarding the last part of your comments - if you click YES on any of these prompts you are giving your permission for these people to access your machine. Most crackers don't ask for permission while undertaking unauthorised access of remote machines. See the difference? If you're in a computer system in which you should not have access -- you're breaking the law. Simple, wot?

This post has been edited by sparx: May 12 2006, 10:37 AM

Awesome.. thanks for those sites sparx. I ran my browser through ScanIT's browser security test and came up with negative on all counts of High, Medium & Low threats. So I should feel a little safe now

Good doke... But the thing I can't figure out is that the Pentagon IS NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD A SECURE SYSTEM!!!! And I guess this guy was't the first... The problem is with the Pentagon, not with him. I think dear Mr. Blair should have the balls not to do what Uncle Sam says... If those secrets are so important how the hell you can't afford the best men for the task...