Sprint security faulted in Vegas hacks

[InfoSec News <isn () c4i org>]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/26746.html

By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Online
Posted: 20/08/2002 at 08:36 GMT

Citing the "compelling, credible testimony" of ex-hacker Kevin
Mitnick, state officials urged Nevada regulators to force a series of
dramatic security reforms on Las Vegas telephone company Sprint of
Nevada last week, as final arguments were filed in the case of an
in-room adult entertainment operator who believes he's being driven
out of business by phone hackers.

Sprint would be required to retain outside computer security
consultants, launch a security training program for company employees,
develop a process for detecting a deterring intrusion attempts into
its network, and begin documenting its security investigations, if the
Public Utilities Commission follows the recommendations of its
regulatory operations staff, acting as independent investigators in
the case.

Plaintiff Eddie Munoz first complained to the commission in 1994 that
the phone company was allowing mercenary hackers to cripple his
business by diverting, monitoring and blocking his phone calls - a
complaint that's been echoed by private investigators, bail bondsmen
and some of Munoz's competitors over the years. Sprint has maintained
that Munoz's problems are in his own equipment, and that as far as
they know their systems have never suffered a single intrusion.

But the company's invulnerability was brought into question in a
series of hearings earlier this year in which Sprint officials
admitted that they'd lost or destroyed years of investigatory records
in a reorganization of their security department, and that they
permitted dial-up access into their switches for maintenance purposes
with little logging.

The hearings concluded in June with testimony by Mitnick -- hired by
Munoz as a consultant and an expert witness. The ex-hacker testified
that prior to his 1995 arrest he had illicit control of the company's
Las Vegas switching systems through the dial-ups, and also enjoyed
unfettered access to a computerized testing system manufactured by
Nortel Networks called CALRS -- pronounced "callers" -- that allows
users to monitor phone lines and intercept or originate calls.

Sprint: Mitnick's a Liar

Challenged to prove his claims, Mitnick used a break in the hearing to
visit an old rented storage locker, returning with a list of passwords
he said unlocked the CALRS system at the time of his arrest (Contacted
by SecurityFocus Online, Nortel Networks spokesman David Chamberlin
declined to comment on CALRS, writing in an email, "I'd point you back
to Sprint to discuss their phone network with them.")

Sprint opposes a new docket to supervise their security, and slammed
Mitnick's testimony. In the company's closing arguments Friday,
outside counsel Patrick Riley described the ex-hacker as an unreformed
"con artist," reminded the commission of Mitnick's criminal record,
and pointed accusingly to his authorship of the upcoming Wiley book on
social engineering titled "The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human
Element of Security."

The company also claimed Mitnick lacked the technical know-how to be
an expert witness on Sprint's security ills because the hacker never
worked as a "switch engineer" for a telephone company. "Although Mr.  
Munoz presented Mr. Mitnick as an 'expert' witness, Mr. Mitnick is an
expert in only one thing-- lying," wrote Riley.

But PUC staff attorney Louise Uttinger found Mitnick's detailed
testimony -- coupled with Sprint's admissions in some areas, and
silence in others -- credible enough to raise serious questions about
the security of Sprint's Nevada network. Those questions, Uttinger
wrote, "could impact economic, social, and national matters of
importance to all Nevadans and to anyone conducting business in
Nevada."

While they disagree on Mitnick's credibility as a witness, commission
staff agreed with Sprint that Munoz never produced a smoking gun in
his case. Pointing to undisciplined testing procedures and unclear
record-keeping by Munoz, as well as several tests that failed to show
any unexplained dropped calls, Uttinger recommended that the complaint
be dismissed.

In his closing argument, Munoz attorney Peter Alpert argued that his
client had limited resources and access, and asked the commission to
compel Sprint to conduct a battery of additional tests under PUC
supervision. "It is respectfully suggested that Mr. Munoz has come
upon a flaw in Sprint's system which only Sprint is capable of
detecting since only it has access to the network."

The commission is expected to rule this fall.



-
ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org

To unsubscribe email majordomo () attrition org with 'unsubscribe isn'
in the BODY of the mail.