Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate

[Richard M. Smith]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_
seen_as_extensive?mode=PF

Infiltration of files seen as extensive
Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 1/22/2004

WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee
infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy
memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told
The Globe.

From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP
committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access
restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through
hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of
private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight --
and with what tactics.

The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched an
investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the
pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website
last November.

With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the US
Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and
seized more than half a dozen computers -- including four Judiciary servers,
one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of
Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.

....

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?~Kevin_Davis=B3?=]

This was clearly not a "hack attack". The title and opening content of this
article is quite intentionally misleading. The phrases "infiltration",
"monitoring secret memos", "exploited computer glitch", "hack attack" are
used. If you read the entire article you will find out the following:

First, "A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy,
Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access
newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both
parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to
those with the right password."

Which means the Democrats screwed up setting up their own share point and
allowed public access to it. There was no "computer glitch" which was
"exploited". This was completely a human screw-up. And there was no
hacking ("exploitation of a computer glitch") done by the Republicans.
Unless you wish to call clicking on a share point configured with public
access and opening it up "hacking".

Additionally the Republicans allegedly "in the summer of 2002, their
computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch".

The Republicans knew that the share was supposed to be protected (why else
would they inform the Democrats of the misconfiguration?) so they certainly
did something wrong despite (supposedly) warning the Democrats of the
problem, but not to the extent that the article - in the way that it was
written - would like you to believe.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@computerbytesman.com>
To: "BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS. COM" <BUGTRAQ@securityfocus.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:25 PM
Subject: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate


>
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_
> seen_as_extensive?mode=PF
>
> Infiltration of files seen as extensive
> Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
> By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 1/22/2004
>
> WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee
> infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret
strategy
> memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials
told
> The Globe.
>
> From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP
> committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access
> restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through
> hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of
> private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would
fight --
> and with what tactics.
>
> The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched
an
> investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the
> pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website
> last November.
>
> With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the
US
> Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and
> seized more than half a dozen computers -- including four Judiciary
servers,
> one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of
> Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.
>
> ...
>
>
>

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?~Kevin_Davis=B3?=]

This was clearly not a "hack attack". The title and opening content of this
article is quite intentionally misleading. The phrases "infiltration",
"monitoring secret memos", "exploited computer glitch", "hack attack" are
used. If you read the entire article you will find out the following:

First, "A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy,
Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access
newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both
parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to
those with the right password."

Which means the Democrats screwed up setting up their own share point and
allowed public access to it. There was no "computer glitch" which was
"exploited". This was completely a human screw-up. And there was no
hacking ("exploitation of a computer glitch") done by the Republicans.
Unless you wish to call clicking on a share point configured with public
access and opening it up "hacking".

Additionally the Republicans allegedly "in the summer of 2002, their
computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch".

The Republicans knew that the share was supposed to be protected (why else
would they inform the Democrats of the misconfiguration?) so they certainly
did something wrong despite (supposedly) warning the Democrats of the
problem, but not to the extent that the article - in the way that it was
written - would like you to believe.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@computerbytesman.com>
To: "BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS. COM" <BUGTRAQ@securityfocus.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:25 PM
Subject: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate


>
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_
> seen_as_extensive?mode=PF
>
> Infiltration of files seen as extensive
> Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
> By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 1/22/2004
>
> WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee
> infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret
strategy
> memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials
told
> The Globe.
>
> From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP
> committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access
> restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through
> hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of
> private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would
fight --
> and with what tactics.
>
> The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched
an
> investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the
> pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website
> last November.
>
> With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the
US
> Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and
> seized more than half a dozen computers -- including four Judiciary
servers,
> one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of
> Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.
>
> ...
>
>
>

[Brian C. Lane]

--=-++mu4K/EE8wzUiJmRa73
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 09:25, Richard M. Smith wrote:
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_fil=
es_
> seen_as_extensive?mode=3DPF
> =20
> Infiltration of files seen as extensive
> Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
> By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 1/22/2004
>=20
> WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commite=
e
> infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strat=
egy
> memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials t=
old
> The Globe.
>=20

[snip]

You left off the most important fact in your snip. The final paragraph
pretty well sums it up:

"A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy,
Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to
access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by
both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict
access only to those with the right password."

I sure wouldn't call this a major hack attack. Someone goofed. Someone
else took advantage of the goof (and according to some reports even
reported it to the bonehead technician).

One one hand you really shouldn't look at someone else's files. On the
other hand if you're cooking up dirty tricks you darn well ought to make
sure your memos are protected, not stored in the clear on a shared
system.

And these are the jokers who want to dictate to us how to secure the
Internet and stop SPAM? Heh!

Brian

---[Office 71.6F]--[Fridge 38.4F]---[Fozzy 88.8F]--[Coaster 71.7F]---
Linux Software Developer http://www.brianlane.com

--=-++mu4K/EE8wzUiJmRa73
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Remember Lexington Green!

iD8DBQBAET2XIftj/pcSws0RAlGCAJ4+oW3Ehqu010EDWNUEy9Dt9+x+DACfQs5n
8KkRKpErXmowOpAt8ayLNJ8=
=AgeX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-++mu4K/EE8wzUiJmRa73--

[Brian C. Lane]

--=-++mu4K/EE8wzUiJmRa73
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 09:25, Richard M. Smith wrote:
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_fil=
es_
> seen_as_extensive?mode=3DPF
> =20
> Infiltration of files seen as extensive
> Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
> By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 1/22/2004
>=20
> WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commite=
e
> infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strat=
egy
> memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials t=
old
> The Globe.
>=20

[snip]

You left off the most important fact in your snip. The final paragraph
pretty well sums it up:

"A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy,
Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to
access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by
both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict
access only to those with the right password."

I sure wouldn't call this a major hack attack. Someone goofed. Someone
else took advantage of the goof (and according to some reports even
reported it to the bonehead technician).

One one hand you really shouldn't look at someone else's files. On the
other hand if you're cooking up dirty tricks you darn well ought to make
sure your memos are protected, not stored in the clear on a shared
system.

And these are the jokers who want to dictate to us how to secure the
Internet and stop SPAM? Heh!

Brian

---[Office 71.6F]--[Fridge 38.4F]---[Fozzy 88.8F]--[Coaster 71.7F]---
Linux Software Developer http://www.brianlane.com

--=-++mu4K/EE8wzUiJmRa73
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Remember Lexington Green!

iD8DBQBAET2XIftj/pcSws0RAlGCAJ4+oW3Ehqu010EDWNUEy9Dt9+x+DACfQs5n
8KkRKpErXmowOpAt8ayLNJ8=
=AgeX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-++mu4K/EE8wzUiJmRa73--

[Daniel.Capo@tco.net.br]

~Kevin Davis=B3 wrote:

> This was clearly not a "hack attack". The title and opening content =
of this
> article is quite intentionally misleading. The phrases =
"infiltration",
> "monitoring secret memos", "exploited computer glitch", "hack attack" =
are
> used. If you read the entire article you will find out the =
following:
>=20
> First, "A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick =
Leahy,
> Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to =
access
> newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both
> parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access =
only to
> those with the right password."
>=20
> Which means the Democrats screwed up setting up their own share point =
and
> allowed public access to it. There was no "computer glitch" which =
was
> "exploited". This was completely a human screw-up. And there was no
> hacking ("exploitation of a computer glitch") done by the =
Republicans.
> Unless you wish to call clicking on a share point configured with =
public
> access and opening it up "hacking".

AFAIK, "hacking" is legally defined in the USA as being unauthorized=20
access to computer resources. It doesn't matter if the resource was=20
adequately protected (or protected at all) in first place or not. If =
you=20
were not given permission to make use of that resource, you are=20
criminally liable.

--
Daniel C. Sobral

[Daniel.Capo@tco.net.br]

~Kevin Davis=B3 wrote:

> This was clearly not a "hack attack". The title and opening content =
of this
> article is quite intentionally misleading. The phrases =
"infiltration",
> "monitoring secret memos", "exploited computer glitch", "hack attack" =
are
> used. If you read the entire article you will find out the =
following:
>=20
> First, "A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick =
Leahy,
> Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to =
access
> newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both
> parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access =
only to
> those with the right password."
>=20
> Which means the Democrats screwed up setting up their own share point =
and
> allowed public access to it. There was no "computer glitch" which =
was
> "exploited". This was completely a human screw-up. And there was no
> hacking ("exploitation of a computer glitch") done by the =
Republicans.
> Unless you wish to call clicking on a share point configured with =
public
> access and opening it up "hacking".

AFAIK, "hacking" is legally defined in the USA as being unauthorized=20
access to computer resources. It doesn't matter if the resource was=20
adequately protected (or protected at all) in first place or not. If =
you=20
were not given permission to make use of that resource, you are=20
criminally liable.

--
Daniel C. Sobral

[Kevin Reardon]

Actually what they did was illegal regardless of the cause. Hopefully
they realized that storing anything on a shared piece of hardware will
subject it to the possibility of attacks due to human failure. Human
failure is a major contributor to computer exploits and the one constant
in the considerations for computer security.

---K

Brian C. Lane wrote:

>On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 09:25, Richard M. Smith wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_
>>seen_as_extensive?mode=PF
>>
>>Infiltration of files seen as extensive
>>Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
>>By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 1/22/2004
>>
>>WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee
>>infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy
>>memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told
>>The Globe.
>>
>>
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>You left off the most important fact in your snip. The final paragraph
>pretty well sums it up:
>
>"A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy,
>Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to
>access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by
>both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict
>access only to those with the right password."
>
>I sure wouldn't call this a major hack attack. Someone goofed. Someone
>else took advantage of the goof (and according to some reports even
>reported it to the bonehead technician).
>
>One one hand you really shouldn't look at someone else's files. On the
>other hand if you're cooking up dirty tricks you darn well ought to make
>sure your memos are protected, not stored in the clear on a shared
>system.
>
>And these are the jokers who want to dictate to us how to secure the
>Internet and stop SPAM? Heh!
>
>Brian
>
>---[Office 71.6F]--[Fridge 38.4F]---[Fozzy 88.8F]--[Coaster 71.7F]---
>Linux Software Developer http://www.brianlane.com
>
>

[Kevin Reardon]

Actually what they did was illegal regardless of the cause. Hopefully
they realized that storing anything on a shared piece of hardware will
subject it to the possibility of attacks due to human failure. Human
failure is a major contributor to computer exploits and the one constant
in the considerations for computer security.

---K

Brian C. Lane wrote:

>On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 09:25, Richard M. Smith wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_
>>seen_as_extensive?mode=PF
>>
>>Infiltration of files seen as extensive
>>Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
>>By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 1/22/2004
>>
>>WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee
>>infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy
>>memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told
>>The Globe.
>>
>>
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>You left off the most important fact in your snip. The final paragraph
>pretty well sums it up:
>
>"A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy,
>Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to
>access newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by
>both parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict
>access only to those with the right password."
>
>I sure wouldn't call this a major hack attack. Someone goofed. Someone
>else took advantage of the goof (and according to some reports even
>reported it to the bonehead technician).
>
>One one hand you really shouldn't look at someone else's files. On the
>other hand if you're cooking up dirty tricks you darn well ought to make
>sure your memos are protected, not stored in the clear on a shared
>system.
>
>And these are the jokers who want to dictate to us how to secure the
>Internet and stop SPAM? Heh!
>
>Brian
>
>---[Office 71.6F]--[Fridge 38.4F]---[Fozzy 88.8F]--[Coaster 71.7F]---
>Linux Software Developer http://www.brianlane.com
>
>

[rsh@idirect.com]

Your view will depend on whether you are a Republican or a Democrat IF
you are in the US. If you are a member of another party in the US you
will likely say a pox on both. If you are not in the US you will sit
there laughing at both sides.

Whether a hack or a bad configuration, from a moral point what the
Republicans did is still dirty pool, and they would be screaming if it
were the other way around. Lets be realistic and call a spade a spade -
in the US both parties are big business and neither will give the other
the time of day if they can help it. This is simply one more example of
what can happen.

Does it really matter if it was a hack or it was a screw-up which gave
the opponents a free entry into what they KNEW was not their material
and they KNEW they were supposed to stay out of? Is anyone suggesting
that its wrong if you hack in to get the info but okay if it does not
require you actually hack in? Get real... moral turpitude has NOT
changed, but then to claim that either the Democrats or the Republicans
are morally better than their opposites is hypocrisy in any event.

Give me a better democracy... Like that in Canada or the UK or New
Zealand or Australia... where we KNOW that the PM is both the head of
the executive and the head of the legislative and the current US bull is
NOT part of the mix.

FWIW

RSH

--------------------

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:29:21 -0500, you wrote:

>This was clearly not a "hack attack". The title and opening content of this
>article is quite intentionally misleading. The phrases "infiltration",
>"monitoring secret memos", "exploited computer glitch", "hack attack" are
>used. If you read the entire article you will find out the following:
>
>First, "A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy,
>Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access
>newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both
>parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to
>those with the right password."
>
>Which means the Democrats screwed up setting up their own share point and
>allowed public access to it. There was no "computer glitch" which was
>"exploited". This was completely a human screw-up. And there was no
>hacking ("exploitation of a computer glitch") done by the Republicans.
>Unless you wish to call clicking on a share point configured with public
>access and opening it up "hacking".
>
>Additionally the Republicans allegedly "in the summer of 2002, their
>computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch".
>
>The Republicans knew that the share was supposed to be protected (why else
>would they inform the Democrats of the misconfiguration?) so they certainly
>did something wrong despite (supposedly) warning the Democrats of the
>problem, but not to the extent that the article - in the way that it was
>written - would like you to believe.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@computerbytesman.com>
>To: "BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS. COM" <BUGTRAQ@securityfocus.com>
>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:25 PM
>Subject: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate
>
>
>>
>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_
>> seen_as_extensive?mode=PF
>>
>> Infiltration of files seen as extensive
>> Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
>> By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 1/22/2004
>>
>> WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee
>> infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret
>strategy
>> memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials
>told
>> The Globe.
>>
>> From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP
>> committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access
>> restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through
>> hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of
>> private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would
>fight --
>> and with what tactics.
>>
>> The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched
>an
>> investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the
>> pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website
>> last November.
>>
>> With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the
>US
>> Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and
>> seized more than half a dozen computers -- including four Judiciary
>servers,
>> one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of
>> Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>
>

================================================== ===
R.S.H. Toronto, ON, Canada

Copyright retained.
My opinions - no one elses...
If this is illegal where you are, do not read it!

[rsh@idirect.com]

Your view will depend on whether you are a Republican or a Democrat IF
you are in the US. If you are a member of another party in the US you
will likely say a pox on both. If you are not in the US you will sit
there laughing at both sides.

Whether a hack or a bad configuration, from a moral point what the
Republicans did is still dirty pool, and they would be screaming if it
were the other way around. Lets be realistic and call a spade a spade -
in the US both parties are big business and neither will give the other
the time of day if they can help it. This is simply one more example of
what can happen.

Does it really matter if it was a hack or it was a screw-up which gave
the opponents a free entry into what they KNEW was not their material
and they KNEW they were supposed to stay out of? Is anyone suggesting
that its wrong if you hack in to get the info but okay if it does not
require you actually hack in? Get real... moral turpitude has NOT
changed, but then to claim that either the Democrats or the Republicans
are morally better than their opposites is hypocrisy in any event.

Give me a better democracy... Like that in Canada or the UK or New
Zealand or Australia... where we KNOW that the PM is both the head of
the executive and the head of the legislative and the current US bull is
NOT part of the mix.

FWIW

RSH

--------------------

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:29:21 -0500, you wrote:

>This was clearly not a "hack attack". The title and opening content of this
>article is quite intentionally misleading. The phrases "infiltration",
>"monitoring secret memos", "exploited computer glitch", "hack attack" are
>used. If you read the entire article you will find out the following:
>
>First, "A technician hired by the new judiciary chairman, Patrick Leahy,
>Democrat of Vermont, apparently made a mistake that allowed anyone to access
>newly created accounts on a Judiciary Committee server shared by both
>parties -- even though the accounts were supposed to restrict access only to
>those with the right password."
>
>Which means the Democrats screwed up setting up their own share point and
>allowed public access to it. There was no "computer glitch" which was
>"exploited". This was completely a human screw-up. And there was no
>hacking ("exploitation of a computer glitch") done by the Republicans.
>Unless you wish to call clicking on a share point configured with public
>access and opening it up "hacking".
>
>Additionally the Republicans allegedly "in the summer of 2002, their
>computer technician informed his Democratic counterpart of the glitch".
>
>The Republicans knew that the share was supposed to be protected (why else
>would they inform the Democrats of the misconfiguration?) so they certainly
>did something wrong despite (supposedly) warning the Democrats of the
>problem, but not to the extent that the article - in the way that it was
>written - would like you to believe.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@computerbytesman.com>
>To: "BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS. COM" <BUGTRAQ@securityfocus.com>
>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:25 PM
>Subject: Major hack attack on the U.S. Senate
>
>
>>
>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_
>> seen_as_extensive?mode=PF
>>
>> Infiltration of files seen as extensive
>> Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
>> By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 1/22/2004
>>
>> WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee
>> infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret
>strategy
>> memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials
>told
>> The Globe.
>>
>> From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP
>> committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access
>> restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through
>> hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of
>> private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would
>fight --
>> and with what tactics.
>>
>> The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched
>an
>> investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the
>> pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website
>> last November.
>>
>> With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the
>US
>> Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and
>> seized more than half a dozen computers -- including four Judiciary
>servers,
>> one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of
>> Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>
>

================================================== ===
R.S.H. Toronto, ON, Canada

Copyright retained.
My opinions - no one elses...
If this is illegal where you are, do not read it!