"60 Minutes" and Web Site Evaluations

[Earl Young]

     I agree with Mr. Dowling on this.  This story attracted the interest 
     of some deputy assistant producer on the 60 Minutes staff, and they 
     (assuming normal procedures were followed) were able to interest 
     enough others on the staff that they decided to do a story.  My hunch 
     is that most of the dangerous hackers already knew about this by the 
     time 60 Minutes decided it merited air time.  Coverage of Satan and a 
     number of the other stories over the last couple of years have made it 
     easier for system security people to fix their systems because they 
     highlighted things that those who would attack typically already knew.
     
     They also make it easier to justify the time spent on security to 
     management.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: "60 Minutes" and Web Site Evaluations
Author:  tdowling at ohiolink.edu at INTERNET
Date:    3/4/97 1:23 AM


> Hello:
> 
> Yes, I saw most of it, and there were several things that I was appalled 
> at:
> 
> 1- Why were they showing how easy it was to "spoof" someone else? There 
> are enough problems with it without the "this is how you do it" being
> shown on National tv.
> 
> 2- Then they talk and show how to route through another mail server. 
Thank
> you very much. I'm sure there are other computer security people out 
there
> that are pretty ticked with the show.
     
If there are any computer security people out there running open SMTP 
servers and hoping no one will figure out how to abuse them, they've got 
more serious problems than worrying about what 60 Minutes is showing.  From 
the Internet Worm to SATAN, publicizing security holes has proven to be the 
fastest way to get them sealed.  Just think how many people on this list, 
who should have been disabling Netscape's config menus months or years ago, 
have started investigating how to do it in the last 24 hours.
     
> 4- I missed the beginning where they introduced the "expert". Who was he? 
> But I noticed that he was never introduced again. Nor were his 
credentials
> ever mentioned again.
> 
     
I'm not clear why this appalled you--isn't this standard practice for 60 
Minutes?  He was Andrew Kantor, senior editor of Internet World.
     
Thomas Dowling
Ohio Library and Information Network 
tdowling at ohiolink.edu