Indy Strikes in the Borcon Lab!

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Vincent Parrett(AtoZed)

unread,
May 22, 2002, 12:29:27 PM5/22/02
to

Vincent Parrett(AtoZed)

unread,
May 22, 2002, 1:35:47 PM5/22/02
to
"Vincent Parrett(AtoZed)" <vin...@nospam-atozedsoftware.com> wrote in
message news:3cebc6e5$1_1@dnews...
> http://www.atozedsoftware.com/images/borcon2002/after_lab.jpg

BTW, for those that didn't get it... this was a joke, the bsod's were not
real!!


--
Regards

Vincent Parrett
AtoZed Software
Email vin...@atozedsoftware.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Automate your build process with FinalBuilder
http://www.atozedsoftware.com


Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)

unread,
May 22, 2002, 2:15:19 PM5/22/02
to
In article <3cebd6f2$1_2@dnews>, "Vincent Parrett\(AtoZed\)"
<vin...@nospam-atozedsoftware.com> says...

> BTW, for those that didn't get it... this was a joke, the bsod's were not
> real!!

Hard to tell with that resolution and a 17". <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)

"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack
the time to make it shorter." -- Blaise Pascal

Levend Sener

unread,
May 28, 2002, 1:52:22 PM5/28/02
to
I heard that _something_ happened in the Lab ... but _what_ exactly ?

Levend.

"Ritchie A." <ritc...@spamcop.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1105_10...@forums.borland.com...


> On Wed, 22 May 2002 20:15:19 +0200, "Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)"
<rvel...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > In article <3cebd6f2$1_2@dnews>, "Vincent Parrett\(AtoZed\)"
> > <vin...@nospam-atozedsoftware.com> says...
> > > BTW, for those that didn't get it... this was a joke, the bsod's were
not
> > > real!!
> > Hard to tell with that resolution and a 17". <g>
>

> Those who went to the Advanced Servers in Indy were forewarned :)
>
> That was a *really* fun session. Learning about Indy's UDP components
*and* practical jokes at the same time.
>
> The Eliza demo made me nostalgic :)
>
> -- Ritchie Annand
>
>
>


Kudzu

unread,
May 29, 2002, 8:13:06 AM5/29/02
to
"Levend Sener" <LSener@_NO_SPAM_think-factory.de> wrote in news:3cf3c573_1
@dnews:

> I heard that _something_ happened in the Lab ... but _what_ exactly ?

Soon. :)

Vincent did a write up that I'll be editing and posting as well as source code.


--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

IntraWeb & FinalBuilder - http://www.AToZedSoftware.com

Posted by ELKNews 1.0.4-B
Empower your News Reader! http://www.atozedsoftware.com

Joi Ellis [TeamB]

unread,
May 29, 2002, 8:52:52 AM5/29/02
to
In borland.public.conference Ritchie A. <ritc...@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2002 19:52:22 +0200, "Levend Sener" <LSener@_NO_SPAM_think-factory.de> wrote:
>> I heard that _something_ happened in the Lab ... but _what_ exactly ?
>>
>> Levend.

> I didn't hear precisely, but if it's the same thing Chad was demoing, all computers in the lab would have come up with a
> big, scary NT-style blue screen.

> But the error message would be a haiku.

> IIRC, it would say to press any key to continue... and then when you hit one, it would say "No, I said hit the ANY key" :)

> Bad, bad, naughty Chad :)

That sounds like the time some engineers from my department were in an
NT 4 Server administration class, and one of them got bored and hacked into
the instructor's server (the one whose display is projected to the class)
and installed one of those bsod screensavers. Then he asked the guy a
detailed question that took so long to answer the screensaver kicked in...

--
Joi Ellis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com/
No direct email, please.
For best results, post on news server newsgroups.borland.com!
Newsgroup Guidelines: http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
Only posts which violate the rules in guide.html are subject to cancelation.

Scott Taylor

unread,
May 29, 2002, 9:39:51 AM5/29/02
to
Here's my favorite, possibly the simplest and most insidious practical joke
of this sort:

1. Open a few random windows on your boss's PC and take a full screenshot
(PRTSCRN)
2. Paste the screenshot into Paint and save as a BMP
3. Open the display properties and set this BMP to be the desktop wallpaper
4. Close all the windows you opened. The corresponding copies in the
wallpaper will remain "open".
(4a. For extra devious fun, delete a few critical desktop shortcuts...
their non-working counterparts will remain visible as well.)
5. Sit back and watch the fun as your boss clicks madly on the wallpaper
trying to close the open windows (and/or open new desktop applications).
6. If asked for your assistance, suggest a reboot. :)

Hours of fun.

st


"Joi Ellis [TeamB]" <j...@aravox.com> wrote in message
news:3cf4cf23_1@dnews...

Nick Hodges (TeamB)

unread,
May 29, 2002, 10:53:07 AM5/29/02
to
On Wed, 29 May 2002 11:52:18 GMT, Ritchie A. <ritc...@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>
>Bad, bad, naughty Chad :)

The lab staff was not amused.


Nick Hodges
Lemanix Corporation
How to ask questions of techies --
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Robert Kozak

unread,
May 29, 2002, 11:31:47 AM5/29/02
to
I was in the lab when the event took place and I didn't hear anyone
complaining or getting upset.. I heard laughter.

Then again the whole event lasted less than 20 seconds I think so maybe some
people were just stunned.

Robert Kozak

"Nick Hodges (TeamB)" <nickh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6qq9fu85n02u5566n...@4ax.com...

JoeH

unread,
May 29, 2002, 11:38:42 AM5/29/02
to
"Nick Hodges (TeamB)" wrote in message

> The lab staff was not amused.

LOL. Indy-ana Jones and the Temple of DOM :-)
JoeH


Gus

unread,
May 29, 2002, 8:18:34 PM5/29/02
to
>
> The lab staff was not amused.

Part of the lab staff was in the know the night before. I was there working
on my BoaF presentation and witnessed the preparation. It all in good fun.

Paul Gustavson


Iman L Crawford

unread,
May 30, 2002, 2:27:13 AM5/30/02
to
"Nick Hodges (TeamB)" <nickh...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:6qq9fu85n02u5566n...@4ax.com:

> The lab staff was not amused.

Those without a sense of humor?

--
Iman
"Tragedy is when I stub my toe.
Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die."

Mike Orriss (TeamB)

unread,
May 30, 2002, 5:28:51 AM5/30/02
to
In article <Xns921EF26D...@207.105.83.65>, Iman L Crawford wrote:
> Those without a sense of humor?
>

No, those with a sense of responsibility.

It does not make Borland look good that somebody can interfere with all
the lab machines simultaneously, especially when they take a photograph
and then make it available to the whole world via newsgroups.

It was totally unprofessional and the people concerned should be ashamed,
not parade their glee!

Mike Orriss (TeamB and DevExpress)


Kudzu

unread,
May 30, 2002, 6:17:02 AM5/30/02
to
"Mike Orriss (TeamB)" <m...@3kcc.co.uk> wrote in
news:VA.00002af6.0dbff64c@pcmike1:

> No, those with a sense of responsibility.
>
> It does not make Borland look good that somebody can interfere with all
> the lab machines simultaneously, especially when they take a photograph
> and then make it available to the whole world via newsgroups.
>
> It was totally unprofessional and the people concerned should be ashamed,
> not parade their glee!

I'm glad that such an unbiased party is able to clear the issue up again.

Bob Dawson

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:31:29 AM5/30/02
to
"Mike Orriss (TeamB)" <m...@3kcc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.00002af6.0dbff64c@pcmike1...

>
> No, those with a sense of responsibility.

Exactly right. People rely on the lab machines to do things like check into
their respective companies' secure mail servers and conduct other business.
Shame on anyone involved in this unprofessional conduct--and if Borland knew
who did it and did not immediately bar them from the lab, then shame on them
as well.

And as for Indy, am I supposed to trust my secure communications needs to a
group of individuals who think it funny to hack strangers' machines for
their own amusement? Not likely.

bobD

JoeH

unread,
May 30, 2002, 8:47:48 AM5/30/02
to
"Mike Orriss (TeamB)" <m...@3kcc.co.uk> wrote in message
> not parade their glee!

Well, I think it helps BorCon's reputation,
providing a harmless hacker practical joke.

Makes me want to go next year,
thinking about all the colorful character names
I missed this year - "Dr Bob", "Allessandro.Net",
"Jimmy Used-Disks", etc,
and now "The Great Masked Kudu Bandit" :-)

From the pics shared online, these are not
2-piece-suit-pointy-hair-boss conferences, thankfully.

JoeH


Mike Orriss (TeamB)

unread,
May 30, 2002, 9:04:02 AM5/30/02
to
In article <Xns921E86F...@127.0.0.1>, Kudzu wrote:
> I'm glad that such an unbiased party is able to clear the issue up again.
>

I admit that I'm biased - but only because I have my TeamB hat on. At the
time I was first trying to cancel the newsgroup message, I had no idea that
you were involved. Quite frankly, I was amazed to soon find that you were
associated with the action.

In actual fact, knowing that you would inevitably accuse me of bias has
kept me far quieter on this issue than I would have liked. I will say it
again - this was childish, unprofessional conduct by whoever did it.

This is my last word on the subject.

Ralph Friedman

unread,
May 30, 2002, 9:42:22 AM5/30/02
to
JoeH,

in article <3cf61efb$1_1@dnews>, you wrote:

> From the pics shared online, these are not
> 2-piece-suit-pointy-hair-boss conferences, thankfully.
>

The problem is that, more-and-more, that is the crowd to which Borland is
pointing its attention. The days of the Barbarians are, sadly, long gone.
Borland seems to have forgotten that the individual developer exists.

--
Regards
Ralph (Garlin Software)
==
Man soll die Dinge nicht so tragisch nehmen wie sie sind
--Karl Valentin--

David R. Robinson

unread,
May 30, 2002, 10:19:33 AM5/30/02
to
> Vincent did a write up that I'll be editing and posting as well as
source code.

Great. That's just what we all need -- some template code for people to
use to try to one up this year's stunt.

David R.


David R. Robinson

unread,
May 30, 2002, 10:18:14 AM5/30/02
to
> Shame on anyone involved in this unprofessional conduct

Not only that, but stunts like that are what cause freedoms and
privileges that other people have to go away. Don't be surprise next
year if the lab has a lot of new restrictions thanks to this lovely
"joke". If so, we'll all know who to thank for it.

> And as for Indy, am I supposed to trust my secure communications needs
to a group of individuals who think it funny to hack strangers' machines
for their own amusement? Not likely.

Absolutely.

David R.


William Meyer

unread,
May 30, 2002, 12:08:21 PM5/30/02
to
Ralph Friedman (Garlin Software) wrote:

> The problem is that, more-and-more, that is the crowd to which Borland is
> pointing its attention. The days of the Barbarians are, sadly, long gone.
> Borland seems to have forgotten that the individual developer exists.

Sad, but true, but that dates from the first name change, I'm afraid. Not
only the name was changed, but the culture, as well. It seems never to have
recovered.

--
Bill
The "pursuit of happiness" is a guarantee, not of a happy life, but of the
right to labor for your own benefit.
- Posted with XanaNews -

Mark Boler

unread,
May 30, 2002, 2:23:49 PM5/30/02
to
"Kudzu" <cp...@hower.org> wrote in message
news:Xns921E86F...@127.0.0.1...

> I'm glad that such an unbiased party is able to clear the issue up again.

When will someone publish what actually happened? I'd like to know.

Mark

Iman L Crawford

unread,
May 30, 2002, 4:09:55 PM5/30/02
to
"Mike Orriss (TeamB)" <m...@3kcc.co.uk> wrote in
news:VA.00002af6.0dbff64c@pcmike1:
> It was totally unprofessional and the people concerned should be
> ashamed, not parade their glee!

I take you don't like any practical jokes? This souned harmless. If
Borland over reacts this is thier loss, as everything doesn't have to be
associated with furthering someone financial gain.

Mike Williams

unread,
May 30, 2002, 4:24:30 PM5/30/02
to
> I take you don't like any practical jokes? This souned harmless. If
> Borland over reacts this is thier loss, as everything doesn't have to be
> associated with furthering someone financial gain.

I think it depends on how much trouble was caused: were people prevented
from doing work, did the lab staff have to do extra work to clean things up,
etc. I wasn't in the lab when this happened so I don't have the answers.

-Mike


Nick Hodges (TeamB)

unread,
May 30, 2002, 4:45:28 PM5/30/02
to
On 30 May 2002 09:08:21 -0700, "William Meyer"
<wmhm...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>Sad, but true, but that dates from the first name change, I'm afraid. Not
>only the name was changed, but the culture, as well. It seems never to have
>recovered.

I disagree. Borcon was +all about+ the individual developer.

Ray Lischner

unread,
May 30, 2002, 4:55:30 PM5/30/02
to
On Thursday 30 May 2002 01:09 pm, Iman L Crawford
<ilcrawford.at.hotmail.dot.com> wrote:

> ...This soun[d]ed harmless.

The same argument is used by hackers who break into corporate networks.
It's "harmless" if they don't download any credit card numbers or other
corporate secrets.

Or it could by used by someone who breaks into your home, rummages around
but decides that your stuff isn't worth stealing. Because they didn't take
anything, is was "harmless."
--
Ray Lischner, author of Delphi in a Nutshell
http://www.tempest-sw.com/

Atanas Stoyanov

unread,
May 30, 2002, 4:48:51 PM5/30/02
to
> It was totally unprofessional and the people concerned should be ashamed,
> not parade their glee!

Very disappointing - if I had known uncontrolled third-parties are having
access to install and run whatever they like on the computer lab machines
and then broadcast across the network, I would have certainly not used my
web e-mail.

Don't know about the legal status of this action, but Borland should put a
prominent notice/disclaimer next year that conference attendees should not
use those computers for any personal activities (check email/make online
purchases etc.).

Atanas


William Meyer

unread,
May 30, 2002, 4:58:42 PM5/30/02
to
Nick Hodges (TeamB) wrote:

> I disagree. Borcon was +all about+ the individual developer.

We live in hope :)

Vincent Parrett(AtoZed)

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:25:02 PM5/30/02
to
"David R. Robinson" <david@nospam_ibinstall.defined.net> wrote in message
news:3cf6350b$1_1@dnews...

It's not rocket science! Anyone who has done any programming with Indy could
knock together such a program in very short order. Maybe we should pull Indy
and for that matter, Borland should stop selling programming tools in case
someone writes a virus or something.... gimme a break!

--
Regards

Vincent Parrett
AtoZed Software
Email vin...@atozedsoftware.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Automate your build process with FinalBuilder
http://www.atozedsoftware.com


Douglas Development Group, L. L. C.

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:22:37 PM5/30/02
to
Not to nitpik but...

You should ALWAYS assume the computers and/or network connection in a public
setting are NOT secure. It is just the nature of the service. This
especially goes for webcafe's. Just because your web connection is
ssl-secured it does not mean the data isn't cached in the clear on that
computer or a proxy server. As the Indy team showed a simple tcp-port based
application can capture and activate processes with no user involvement
except for the initial application load (Question all website auto uploads).

If you want security
1) use your own equipment
2) link into your network through a SECURED VPN connection
3) go out to the internet from there.

Thats it.

Douglas T. Pavik
President/CIO
Douglas Development Group, L. L. C.
http://www.douglasdevelopmentgroup.com

FYI-- The #1 source of hackers gaining access to a system is not from the
outside but from access within the front doors.

P.S. I thought it was funny.


Douglas Development Group, L. L. C.

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:29:19 PM5/30/02
to
Indy components are not at issue. Any IP/Port protocol application can
activate an application on a win/x box if the application has rights. Just
take a look a the functions available in the base winsock.dll which has been
around since 1990 (year?).

Doug


Luk Vermeulen

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:51:24 PM5/30/02
to
"Vincent Parrett(AtoZed)" wrote:
>
> It's not rocket science!

It's not polite either, to do such a thing without consent and without
warning. I believe the matter is not that such a thing was written (which is
indeed, as you say, easy), but rather that it was installed on someone
else's computers and at the expense of unsuspecting users.

I do NOT have the benefit of all the facts in this matter, but so far my
opinion is that it was a joke in rather bad taste, and that no attempt
should be made to glorify or defend it, either in posts, write-ups or
pictures. Let it go.

-Luk-

Mark Boler

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:52:52 PM5/30/02
to
"Vincent Parrett(AtoZed)" <vin...@nospam-atozedsoftware.com> wrote in
message news:3cf6b4cc$1_2@dnews...

> "David R. Robinson" <david@nospam_ibinstall.defined.net> wrote in message
> news:3cf6350b$1_1@dnews...
> > > Vincent did a write up that I'll be editing and posting as well as
> > source code.
> >
> > Great. That's just what we all need -- some template code for people to
> > use to try to one up this year's stunt.
>
> It's not rocket science! Anyone who has done any programming with Indy
could
> knock together such a program in very short order. Maybe we should pull
Indy
> and for that matter, Borland should stop selling programming tools in case
> someone writes a virus or something.... gimme a break!

While at it, let's ban guns, and knives, and scissors, and rocks, and pass
laws to make it against the law to decrypt anything, and how about face
recognition software - yeaa! Let's put it everywhere. Let's pass laws to
make people put special backdoors in their programs and give the backdoor
passwords to government officials. And expel students from schools for
possessing butter knives, that are locked in their cars, or for pointing
their fingers at another student in the shape of a gun and say "Bang!" -
Those things are certainly "unprofessional" and we DON'T want anyone to be
seen doing something unprofessional in public now would we?

The people that think these things are necessary, feel that anything that
might possibly disrupt, in the most innocous way, their cocoon of life,
should be banned, or is "unprofessional."

What part of having "fun" *is* professional? Who said everyone has to be
professional at ALL TIMES? Is their no way to have any fun any more? I don't
think the fun that was had was to anyone's detriment.

I just can't see how some people choose to lead such sterile lives. And then
expect others to do the same. I don't mean allowing peopple to viloate
someone else's rights, but allow them to have a little fun sometime.

Didn't mean to offend anyone, although I'm sure I probably did. I just wish
people would lighten up a little. We're PEOPLE; not ROBOTS.

Mark

Mark Boler

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:41:51 PM5/30/02
to
"Atanas Stoyanov" <asto...@earthlink.remove.com> wrote in message
news:3cf6915d$1_2@dnews...

> > It was totally unprofessional and the people concerned should be
ashamed,
> > not parade their glee!
>
> Very disappointing - if I had known uncontrolled third-parties are having
> access to install and run whatever they like on the computer lab machines
> and then broadcast across the network, I would have certainly not used my
> web e-mail.

I've been following these threads, but it appears to me that some of the
responses are getting a little bit ridiculous also.

For instance "security"

People should not assume that the lab computers are secure, and cannot have
anything installed on them. If you want top security, use your own laptop
and hook into their ethernet or use the hotel's. When you use a computer in
the lab, expect that it could have had anything installed on it, whether or
not it was intentional, people use those machines to write untested
software, to try out new techniques they learned at the conference, etc. And
also to have fun. Sometimes fun means that they write software to remove
peoples hat's, or whatever.

You are also in a room where people can peer over your shoulder, etc. So if
you think you should be able to open secure mail, etc. there you are
mistaken. Those computers aren't intended to be secure.

As for profesionalism. I don't know exactly what happened, but it sounds
like an innocent enough stunt. I doubt anyone lost anything of value
(information, etc.). So you shouldn't expect those machines to hold, say,
important source code, emails, etc. would you? Then why the shock at
something being done to harmlessly have fun? I could see maybe if they did
this to your personal computers, which could compromise your security, but
then, these computers weren't meant to be secure now were they?

> Don't know about the legal status of this action, but Borland should put a
> prominent notice/disclaimer next year that conference attendees should not
> use those computers for any personal activities (check email/make online
> purchases etc.).

Why? Isn't it common sense to think they are shared computers? Do you need a
sign to tell you this?

Mark

David R. Robinson

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:57:01 PM5/30/02
to
> It's not rocket science!

Neither is writing a real virus, but that doesn't mean you should
publish the source to encourage others to do the same.

David R.


Atanas Stoyanov

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:58:50 PM5/30/02
to
> You should ALWAYS assume the computers and/or network connection in a
public
> setting are NOT secure. It is just the nature of the service.

Sure, and your company's network can get hacked too, and you should not
trust your corporate infrastructure as well, or somebody can be hacking your
home ISP etc.

In practice one makes conscious decisions who to trust - in this case
Borland and their staff. However, Chad Hower says the Lab staff knew about
the hack attack and were even amused by having those third-party programs
run on the computers in the lab. If this is true - then I would expect
Borland's staff to inform me clearly that a third-party software is
currently snooping all the network traffic.

I find it very offensive that my personal information was not regarded as
something precious that Borland should conduct due diligence and try to keep
safe. Or if it was indeed decided that the computers are intended to play
with, then at least put a notice to warn potential users that they are being
spied upon.

Atanas


Atanas Stoyanov

unread,
May 30, 2002, 8:14:12 PM5/30/02
to

>>
I could see maybe if they did this to your personal computers, which could
compromise your security, but then, these computers weren't meant to be
secure now were they?
<<

Agreed - and if the computers are intended for making jokes, then it should
be said so and I could join in.

Or if the computers are intended to check mail, then I expect that if
Borland staff knows about running third party software to either inform me,
or stop said software.

Atanas


Gus

unread,
May 30, 2002, 8:43:57 PM5/30/02
to
> Not only that, but stunts like that are what cause freedoms and
> privileges that other people have to go away. Don't be surprise next
> year if the lab has a lot of new restrictions thanks to this lovely
> "joke". If so, we'll all know who to thank for it.

The policy should be that no one should install software on the lab machines
other than what's been improved (and to do so you must wear a red shirt).

But I'd like to share my take on what happened...
I was a witness to what I saw these gentlemen do the night before in
preparation (I was there from 11pm to 1:30am). It appeared to be in the
up-and-up. That is to say there were a few red shirts who appeared to be
aware of what they were doing (around midnight), and I thought at least a
few of them who encouraged the operation. In fact, there was at least one
shirt in the lab when I left. If there hadn't been a sense of "approval",
perhaps I would have likely questioned their actions. But I was focused
more on putting together my own presentation and felt no threat with what
they were doing.

I suppose if they had any idea what "can of worms" they would open up, they
would have restrained from playing their practical joke. I know I wish I
had the for-knowledge, but like the few of us in the lab at that time, I
thought it was designed to create a fun, well-timed, "kodak" moment to be
laughed by all and not be taken seriously by anyone (I was also under the
assumption that the Red Shirts would all be in the know when the event
occured).

But this is a case where it goes to show you "perception is reality". They
didn't really hack in, but it appeared that way. They didn't cripple the
machines, but it appeared that way. I guess there's a big lesson learned
for all of us, which, can be easily avoided next time. The bottom line is
that policy should be "Red Shirt install only", and if you see strange
activity by a non-Red shirt report it to the appropriate authorities.

> > And as for Indy, am I supposed to trust my secure communications needs
> to a group of individuals who think it funny to hack strangers' machines
> for their own amusement? Not likely.

These guys shouldn't be crucified for what they did. I say let them
apologize, and let's forgive them.

That's my take,

Paul Gustavson


Luk Vermeulen

unread,
May 30, 2002, 8:55:49 PM5/30/02
to
"Gus" wrote:
>
> I say let them apologize, and let's forgive them.

I agree.

-Luk-

Iman L Crawford

unread,
May 30, 2002, 10:51:28 PM5/30/02
to
Ray Lischner <donts...@spam.you> wrote in
news:1568.3cf6...@prospero.island.local:
> The same argument is used by hackers who break into corporate
> networks. It's "harmless" if they don't download any credit card
> numbers or other corporate secrets.

Was anything illegal done in the Borland labs? If not, then it was a
harmless prank.


> Or it could by used by someone who breaks into your home, rummages
> around but decides that your stuff isn't worth stealing. Because they
> didn't take anything, is was "harmless."

I don't equate physically breaking into a home and getting past someones
computer security. One could result in the immediate loss of life, either
the intruder or the home owner. 90+% of network snooping will result in
nothing.

Hadi Hariri

unread,
May 31, 2002, 2:58:56 AM5/31/02
to
> 90+% of network snooping
> will result in nothing.
There was NO snooping going on. I don't know how that word popped up
suddenly.

Hadi Hariri

unread,
May 31, 2002, 2:53:21 AM5/31/02
to
> In practice one makes conscious decisions who to trust - in this case
> Borland and their staff. However, Chad Hower says the Lab staff knew
> about the hack attack and were even amused by having those third-party
> programs run on the computers in the lab. If this is true - then I
> would expect Borland's staff to inform me clearly that a third-party
> software is currently snooping all the network traffic.
>
There was no hack attack and there was no snooping going on. If that were
the case I'm sure no Borland staff that were at the computer lab would have
permitted such a thing.

> users that they are being spied upon.
>

What spying? I'm not sure you realize what the joke was but please don't go
around accusing neither the authors nor Borland of allowing snooping
applications to be installed on the computer labs.


--
Hadi Hariri
http://www.hadihariri.com

Atanas Stoyanov

unread,
May 31, 2002, 4:14:21 AM5/31/02
to
> There was no hack attack and there was no snooping going on. If that were
> the case I'm sure no Borland staff that were at the computer lab would
have
> permitted such a thing.

I am at a loss why the software was allowed to run hidden in the background
for the next day while unsuspecting users were checking their email.

If the goal of the so-called joke was to take a picture with all the
computers in the lab blue-screening, then this could have been done as soon
as the software was installed (late at night) under the supervision of the
Borland staff and then the software should have been promptly removed.


>>
> users that they are being spied upon.

What spying? I'm not sure you realize what the joke was but please don't go
around accusing neither the authors nor Borland of allowing snooping
applications to be installed on the computer labs.
<<

Unless there is an official endorsement of the action from Borland, please
don't go around and associate Borland's name with the action.

Atanas


Kudzu

unread,
May 31, 2002, 4:48:01 AM5/31/02
to
"Atanas Stoyanov" <asto...@earthlink.remove.com> wrote in
news:3cf6bde5$1_2@dnews:
> about the hack attack and were even amused by having those third-party

What hack attack? This is the irritating part is the fact that certain parties
(Im not pointing fingers or naming names, so dont assume such) with axes to
grind have taken something simple and turned it into a hack attack.

Nothing was hacked, nothing was captured, etc.

Until the facts are posted, assumptions just further the rumor mill.

--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

IntraWeb & FinalBuilder - http://www.AToZedSoftware.com

Posted by ELKNews 1.0.4-B
Empower your News Reader! http://www.atozedsoftware.com

Kudzu

unread,
May 31, 2002, 4:47:59 AM5/31/02
to
"Mark Boler" <mbo...@vocaldata.com> wrote in news:3cf6bbba$1_1@dnews:

> I just can't see how some people choose to lead such sterile lives. And
> then expect others to do the same. I don't mean allowing peopple to
> viloate someone else's rights, but allow them to have a little fun
> sometime.

I also find it interesting that those who were there found it quite funny.
While most of those on the extreme offensive were not there and are acting on
assumptions and possible biases.

Kudzu

unread,
May 31, 2002, 4:47:58 AM5/31/02
to
"Mark Boler" <mbo...@vocaldata.com> wrote in news:3cf66e41_1@dnews:

> When will someone publish what actually happened? I'd like to know.

Im working on it, along with posting the MUCH requested source code with
instructions etc... give me a few more days.

Kudzu

unread,
May 31, 2002, 4:48:00 AM5/31/02
to
"Mike Orriss (TeamB)" <m...@3kcc.co.uk> wrote in
news:VA.00002af7.0e84f6bd@pcmike1:
>> I'm glad that such an unbiased party is able to clear the issue up
>> again.
>>
> I admit that I'm biased - but only because I have my TeamB hat on. At the
> time I was first trying to cancel the newsgroup message, I had no idea

I didnt accuse of of being biased.

Kudzu

unread,
May 31, 2002, 4:48:01 AM5/31/02
to
"Atanas Stoyanov" <asto...@earthlink.remove.com> wrote in news:3cf6915d$1_2
@dnews:

> Very disappointing - if I had known uncontrolled third-parties are having
> access to install and run whatever they like on the computer lab machines
> and then broadcast across the network, I would have certainly not used my
> web e-mail.

Uncontrolled third parties? Anyone who sits down at the machine had access to
it. You make it sound as though someone snuck it at 6 am with special access
or such.

Kudzu

unread,
May 31, 2002, 4:48:02 AM5/31/02
to
"Mike Williams" <mi...@remove.aps-soft.com> wrote in
news:3cf68a7d$1_1@dnews:
> I think it depends on how much trouble was caused: were people prevented
> from doing work, did the lab staff have to do extra work to clean things
> up, etc. I wasn't in the lab when this happened so I don't have the
> answers.

No data was lost, and no machines were crashed. And as soon as the machines
were rebooted, all traces were gone. Nothing was installed.

Atanas Stoyanov

unread,
May 31, 2002, 6:46:32 AM5/31/02
to
>>
You make it sound as though someone snuck it at 6 am with special access or
such.
<<

You make it sound as if my privacy should be willfully disregarded without
even a warning and I am expected to sheepishly smile and say "its ok, as
long as you had some fun". We will have to disagree on that.

>>
Nothing was hacked, nothing was captured, etc.

Until the facts are posted, assumptions just further the rumor mill.
<<

Fair is fair and I will further await for the unbiased facts to be posted by
Borland's staff that were there.

Atanas

Bob Dawson

unread,
May 31, 2002, 7:57:29 AM5/31/02
to

"Iman L Crawford" <ilcrawford.at.hotmail.dot.com> wrote in message
>
> I take you don't like any practical jokes? This souned harmless.

You miss the point--neither you nor the indy team has the right to rule on
whether hacking a machine I'm using is 'harmless.' Only I can assent to
that, and I wasn't given the chance. And this has nothing to do with
having a sense of humor or liking a joke--it has to do with indy's total
lack of respect for the privacy of the collegues with whom it was sharing
computer resources.

bobD

Bob Dawson

unread,
May 31, 2002, 8:04:17 AM5/31/02
to
"Kudzu" <cp...@hower.org> wrote in message

>
> I also find it interesting that those who were there found it
> quite funny.

As a matter of fact I was connected to my business's secure mail server when
the blue screen popped up and I realized I was working on a compromised
machine, and no, I did not think it the least funny.

And as for it being 'harmless fun,' I paid good money to attend the Indy
tutorial. But now that I know that the Indy team has no problem with
interfering with someone else's business for its own amusement, there's not
a bloody chance that I'd ever introduce Indy components into any app my
business relies on. So, are you going to give me the tutorial fee back that
I wasted? Does your notion of harmless include the irreparable damage you've
done to the Indy team's reputation as a source serious, professional, and
trustworthy code?

bobD


Bob Dawson

unread,
May 31, 2002, 8:05:02 AM5/31/02
to
"Kudzu" <cp...@hower.org> wrote in message
>
> Nothing was hacked, nothing was captured, etc.

We have only your word for that. Now, since for no motivation but your own
amusement you've intentionally interfered with a machine I was using as a
part of my livelihood, how much do you think your word is worth to me?

Do you have any glimmer of understanding at all as to why, 'harmless' or
not as you see it, this prank was a bad idea and something you owe the
community an apology for?

bobD

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen

unread,
May 31, 2002, 8:05:37 AM5/31/02
to
"Bob Dawson" <RBDa...@prodigy.net> wrote in news:3cf7666f$1_2@dnews:

<snip>

What was the computers meant to be used for?

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
PGP KeyID: 0x0270466B

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen

unread,
May 31, 2002, 8:07:23 AM5/31/02
to
"Bob Dawson" <RBDa...@prodigy.net> wrote in news:3cf76670$1_2@dnews:

> "Kudzu" <cp...@hower.org> wrote in message
>>
>> I also find it interesting that those who were there found it
>> quite funny.
>
> As a matter of fact I was connected to my business's secure mail
> server when the blue screen popped up and I realized I was working on
> a compromised machine, and no, I did not think it the least funny.
>

Why does your business have a secure mail server?

Nick Hodges (TeamB)

unread,
May 31, 2002, 8:10:27 AM5/31/02
to
On 31 May 2002 01:48:02 -0700, Kudzu <cp...@hower.org> wrote:

>No data was lost, and no machines were crashed. And as soon as the machines
>were rebooted, all traces were gone. Nothing was installed.

Perception is very important with regard to situations like this.


Nick Hodges
Lemanix Corporation
How to ask questions of techies --
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

JoeH

unread,
May 31, 2002, 8:20:32 AM5/31/02
to
"Bob Dawson" <RBDa...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3cf76670$1_2@dnews...

> Does your notion of harmless include the irreparable damage you've
> done to the Indy team's reputation as a source serious, professional, and
> trustworthy code?

Wow, you are really pissed off. It's a shame.
SO out of proportion. As far as the 'community' goes
you don't speak for me. And after years of dedicated
FREE work to bring us rock solid Winshoes/Indy
resources I hardly think Chad or the rest of the Indy
squad deserves such hyperbole for having a sense of humor
different from yours. Lighten up or take it private.
JoeH


Joi Ellis [TeamB]

unread,
May 31, 2002, 8:32:35 AM5/31/02
to

I think you're blaming the wrong people. Blame Microsoft for having such
a crappy, insecure platform and touting it as network secure in the first place.
This sort of hack doesn't need indy, anyone with a few windows clues could have
written it.


--
Joi Ellis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com/
No direct email, please.
For best results, post on news server newsgroups.borland.com!
Newsgroup Guidelines: http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
Only posts which violate the rules in guide.html are subject to cancelation.

Bob Dawson

unread,
May 31, 2002, 9:50:15 AM5/31/02
to
"Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen" <la...@vkarlsen.no> wrote in message

>
> What was the computers meant to be used for?

A wide variety of reasons (personal and business communication, code
testing, Borland product exposure, access to session papers, web research,
whatever), none of which has anything to do with one user intentionally
interfering with another's work uninvited. As a matter of fact, the latter
appears to me to be incompatible with _any_ legitimate use.

bobD


Bob Dawson

unread,
May 31, 2002, 10:00:21 AM5/31/02
to
"JoeH" <ser...@thassoc.com> wrote in message

> resources I hardly think Chad or the rest of the Indy
> squad deserves such hyperbole for having a sense of humor
> different from yours. Lighten up or take it private.

I do not interfere with Chad or the indy team by imposing my 'sense of
humor' on them, nor do I see that they have the right to interfere with me.
And I'd think that after the thousands of hours the team has worked on the
indy components, they would be more mindful of the reflection their actions
cast on their codebase.

bobD


Bob Dawson

unread,
May 31, 2002, 10:08:38 AM5/31/02
to
"Joi Ellis [TeamB]" <j...@aravox.com> wrote in message

> I think you're blaming the wrong people. Blame Microsoft for having
> such a crappy, insecure platform and touting it as network secure in

Nonsense. Microsoft's manifest failings are not the issue.

> This sort of hack doesn't need indy, anyone with a few windows clues could
> have written it.

Of course, just like anyone with a crowbar or lockpick toolset can invite
themselves into your house. So all thieve's are all innocent because some
locks aren't strong enough?

bobD


Bob Dawson

unread,
May 31, 2002, 10:10:58 AM5/31/02
to
"Nick Hodges (TeamB)" <nickh...@yahoo.com> wrote

>
> Perception is very important with regard to situations like this.
>
And rightly so. A man with his hand in your pocket is in a poor position to
say "Trust me, I'm not taking anything."

bobD


Joi Ellis [TeamB]

unread,
May 31, 2002, 9:55:08 AM5/31/02
to
In borland.public.conference Bob Dawson <bda...@idtdna.com> wrote:
> "Joi Ellis [TeamB]" <j...@aravox.com> wrote in message
>> I think you're blaming the wrong people. Blame Microsoft for having
>> such a crappy, insecure platform and touting it as network secure in

> Nonsense. Microsoft's manifest failings are not the issue.

Of course they are. MS platforms are inherently insecure out of the box, and
even if one tries to lock them down, they're still a security seive full of
holes.

When I was at BorCon last year, I don't recall seeing or reading anything about
Borland promising the machines in the lab were safe or secure.

If you're this bent out of shape over a public product demo, questionable
though it may be, then why were you in a wide-open, insecure computer lab
in the first place?

>> This sort of hack doesn't need indy, anyone with a few windows clues could
>> have written it.

> Of course, just like anyone with a crowbar or lockpick toolset can invite
> themselves into your house. So all thieve's are all innocent because some
> locks aren't strong enough?

Um, no. You aren't blaming the maker of the crowbar because some thief is
mis-using it. But, you're blaming Indy because you think someone misused it.

Hadi Hariri

unread,
May 31, 2002, 10:19:49 AM5/31/02
to
> Unless there is an official endorsement of the action from Borland,
> please don't go around and associate Borland's name with the action.
>
I'm not associating Borland's name with the action. I'm saying that the
staff at the lab would NOT allow for any snooping software to be installed
on the computer. I'm saying that if the Borland staff in the lab thought
that this was malicious or was a sniffing software they would not allow it.
I'm not saying that Borland endorsed it.


--
Hadi Hariri

Hadi Hariri

unread,
May 31, 2002, 10:24:10 AM5/31/02
to
> We have only your word for that.

One of the reasons the article is going to be posted is so that you don't
need to take anyone's word on it.

> Do you have any glimmer of understanding at all as to why, 'harmless'
> or not as you see it, this prank was a bad idea and something you owe
> the community an apology for?
>

First of all, if an apology is due it would be to the lab users. Second of
all, again people are over-exagerating and jumping to conclusions. I
honeslty did not expect that there is such a lack of humour in the Borland
community. Even if some don't find it funny, I'm still amazed at the
reactions I'm seeing.

--
Hadi Hariri

Hadi Hariri

unread,
May 31, 2002, 10:25:34 AM5/31/02