|=-----------------------------=[ Judgment Day ]=-----------------------------=|
|=-------------------------=[ Free Hackers Manifest ]=------------------------=|
Free Hackers versus "Ethical-Corporate-Hackers"
In respect with the spirit of the manifest Authors will remain forever
anonymous. The manifest is offered to the community under the Free
Documentation License (FDL) [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html].
0 - Facts
1 - Accused, to whom the crime profits
1.1 - Software Vendors
1.2 - Security Service Firms
1.3 - Fallacious "hackers"
2 - Defendants, the rights at stake
2.1 - User Land, hear my cry
2.2 - Hacker Space, free as in freedom
3 - Indictment
4 - Verdict
5 - Reference
--[0 - Facts
Some will share, others will keep gems to themselves.
We are judge to none.
Today some wish to force the ones that shares, not to, for it depreciate the
value of greed.
We will defend freedom, and fight to preserve the open-space, that air we
-What happened ?-
Once upon a time many of those "Chief Technologists/Hacking Officers" of the
flourishing security industry were just a bunch of young pranksters eager for
And the pranksters collected into groups lurking on some computing specifics:
hacking. Many good things arose from those groups, sweets for the brain.
And the groups got respect, for their findings came atop a pyramid of knowledge
that every one helped build. Recognition by peers, ultimately being called a
"hacker", was the highest retribution.
And the kids went to high school to get an MBA, get a car, get a job, get
money, try to make an aggressive buy-up on that pyramid, trade it for a buck.
In the same course raise of communication and Internet growth had Corporations
began to fear those strange pizza-cola eaters: The corporate knowledge, they
called "trade secrets", they did not want to trade with hackers - at all.
Secret service has a saying: "kiss the hand you couldn't cut", and so
corporations cunningly inflated pizzas with money, and some "old school-full
disclosure-non profit hackers" turned to security firms belly dancing with
Some started regulating with "disclosure policies"  , their publishing of
knowledge. Not yet "Non-Disclosure Agreements" though, but a step forward into
the semantics. And called it "ethic" ... toward whom ?
-The unthinkable happened-
In a more radical move a bunch tried to -how funny- hack IETF and push for a
generic disclosure policy . Can you see that -how strange- Microsoft's
employee in the " Aknowledgement " section of the document ? All bullets for
the underground, all benefits for the corporate. No commitments to the people.
Thankfully IETF reacted strongly, the draft is no more, for now .
-A putsch from above-
Helped in that by what once was the "elite", a – pretending - general agreement
emerged to restrict hacking publications without "ethical" peer review .
They want to moderate your mind, the newsgroups, the mailing lists, all main
vectors for public information not in accordance with strong content but with
disclosure policies compliance. Legislation is on its way too. Can you say
lobbying ? Can you see the ten villains ?
This will not go through.
--[1 - Accused, to whom the crime profits
--[1.1 - Software Vendors
Side note: In trying to sell you hype some uses confusion of terms. Very
simple psychology: sell shit and call it a rose -or- say the rose is made of
shit. It's amazing how many people calls free software programmers "Software
Vendors". Don't get confused, one of them is not asking for money.
Here's a trade secret: out of a 100 found software vulnerabilities almost 100
will initially come from end users experiencing a bug, and passing the
information around (also count disgruntled ex-employees passing code around).
There was a time when information couldn't flow, and as an end user you would
have to pay to get a patch. Software Vendors are really longing this time.
How does "software insurance" smells to you ?
-So they want hackers to adopt "disclosure policies"-
The most candid argument is in warning the vendor will help to get the patch
out before the vulnerability hurts. Everyday experience proves this to be a
nonsense, because systems are actively exploited LONG before any kind of
announcement , because vendors can sit for months on an unpublished bug .
The reasons why vendors are pushing for "d.p." is ... well more down to earth:
Without vulnerability announcements, products looks more secure: it helps the
Working hand in hand with "ethical hackers" increases the credibility of the
vendor: it helps the sales.
Forcing vulnerability authors to help vendors  allow them to benefit from a
free task force: it helps to cut down the costs.
Asking for a delay between discovery and disclosure lets vendors have a happy
face in front of the press. Good press helps the sales.
At last, knowing who authors the advisories helps vendors for more spin
--[1.2 - Security Service Firms
You can get software for intrusion detection, penetration tests, firewalling
(etc ..) for free .
You can read from the Internet all necessary documents on security, and become
an expert yourself.
Security Service Firms sells consultancy services and security software. Where
does the competitive advantage stands ? Mainly in the level of expertise
between you and them. Would it help those firms sales to restrict public access
to "valuable" piece of information ?
It helps their sales to have access to early releases of security issues before
It helps to cut down their costs to have the free community research those bugs
So they want the community to submit all findings to a central intelligence
that would sell early release of information to security firms, whom in turn
sells you pattern updates for their tools and try to discredit free projects
. Already, they are reports of big gaps between the sending of some advisory
to a well known security mailing list and the time it finally get published.
To discourage you from publishing information or to try access it those firms
will work with governments to rule it illegal. Saying its military grade
secrets . Which also fits political agenda to protect interests of "big
business", and further control any free speech that could modify the current
balance of power.
To force you into buying consultancy you will see those firms soon working hand
in hand with insurance companies that require "independent an professional peer
review" of you entire computing infrastructure. As we know audit firms reports
are the most qualified and trustworthy items one could find.
Then, what if running a software would require it to be "tested and approved",
as well as the hardware  ?
--[1.3 - Fallacious "hackers"
Granted social engineering is part of hacking, you would be surprised how many
renown "Ethical Hacker" have so poor coding skills.
The truth is they take credit for code anonymous writes, or better even, they
say how bad they manage to exploit a bug but they won't publish for "ethical"
reasons. The truth is that ruling it illegal to release exploits fits them
perfectly, so they can still have you think they are "hackers" when they can't
make the difference between a shell code and some ASCII art.
On a larger scale its the very understanding of what a "hacker" is that gets
compromised. Until recently you would be called a "hacker" by peer review of
your work, retribution by recognition of an intellectual elite. In the avail of
, a "hacker" would not be a skilled individual but someone respectful of the
"ethical" rules, accredited by security firms.
--[2 - Defendants, the rights at stake
--[2.1 - User Land, hear my cry
User rights is mostly unheard in the security world.
Everyone must have a rightful access to information to protect themselves
against vulnerabilities and patch their systems in time.
Curiously security firms breaks their own disclosure policies when the affected
software is free software  . What does that two-face attitude means ?
Early release in the event of free software (even before a patch is available),
moderated information when money is engaged.
Without a warning, users are in a false sense of security.
When someone finds a bugs the only certainty is that the bug exists for as long
as the software was initially released. As security firms recognize ,
underground exploits exists before any users hear publicly about the bug.
Keeping a vulnerability private is just an open door to crackers.
Ironically crackers can even be tough new tricks by the "Ethical Hackers",
granted they spawn a few thousands bucks for the exclusives .
--[2.2 - Hacker Space, free as in freedom
Hacking is a kind of science, and as such should be discussed on its logical
basis by anyone that wish to participate where ever anonymously or not.
Discovering a vulnerability should not imply obligations of any kind for the
discoverer - except publishing it, as an engagement towards the scientific
Hackers need anonymity for his own personal security - We've seen to many
people in trouble with secret service and justice for publishing scientific
facts, see the DeCSS case  or the Russian e-book hacker .
Also, some disclosure policies makes it compulsory for the bug discoverer to
help vendors in reproducing and/or solving the bug. This is just not
acceptable, discovering a vulnerability should follow military rule: fire and
forget. It's not a hacker's job to solve the issue, he's not responsible for
the existence of the bug in the first place.
--[3 - Indictment
Free hacking is in danger, not directly by an opposing force, not in a struggle
of power, but by ex-hackers that have turn their face from scientific curiosity
into greed. The very ones that took part in building the foundations of our
common knowledge, want to steal our dreams and wrap it in a shiny paper.
The many ways in which they try to enforce control upon free hackers may be
found throughout the reading of their "disclosure policies", that includes:
- The infamous "30 days delay" between informing a software vendor of a bug and
the public at large -
This is ridiculous and should be a mere "30 days delay" after the initial
release of the software before anything gets published simultaneously to all
possible audience, because any bug could have been discovered and exploited at
any time since then.
- Removal of exploit codes -
Users need to check if their systems are vulnerable: software and version
numbers as included in announcement are not enough, a check is mandatory since
software programmers often re-use the same code between various software .
Hence, between bug announcement and proof of concept code release one could
choose for -no more than- a week delay.
- Multi-level moderation -
Usual media used for hacking discussion should never be moderated nor censored
for anything else than accuracy. Would the information flow come to a stop, be
prepared to wide open your wallet, because those would be the time of the
Would some try to enforce their "disclosure" rules upon all, a new hacker
network has to arise, totally free. For this purpose we prepare, and invite
free hackers to join in the manifest below.
--[4 - Verdict
--- Free Hackers Manifest ---
This Manifest is published under the Free Documentation License (FDL)
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), any publication made explicitly in
respect with the terms hereby will also follow the FDL.
The author of a published document has the right to remain anonymous, and
protect himself from further prosecution or pressure of any kind. His
communication should be regarded as a scientific work and treated as such.
(3) Respect of others
The minimum amount of time before a software bug is published can not exceed 30
days after the initial software release, in respect of users protection whom
systems are already exposed. Past the 30 days delay of the initial software
release a security bug must be published as soon as possible.
A delay between the bug announcement and the proof of concept code (if
available at the time) must not exceed 1 week for users to test the
vulnerability of their systems.
Although announcement will be made by all means possible, Free Hackers freedom
must be ensured at all times and as such some mediums of information might just
be not suitable (as taking contact with vendors directly).
The Free Hackers recognize their scientific work was made possible thanks to
the contribution of many others and will pursue the construction of that common
knowledge for free. The Free Hackers will not participate in actions that goes
against the spirit of this Manifest (such as holding restricted details of
public announcements for private firms).
(4) Dormant network
A dormant network of Free Hackers is to be built, for this purpose everyone
that agrees with the spirit of the manifest is encouraged to add his e-mail
ROT-13 encoded (to foil spammers) below with the ones already there, and to
show the document on his/her web site as u.r.l.
Anonymous Free Hackers that wish to support the Manifest are encouraged to do so
by having their e-mails added by a fellow Free Hacker on his/her web site.
Whenever it will be made clear that traditional means of public information are
compromised to the point the above rules are systematically broken (like
enforcing any kind of disclosure policies, delaying transmission of information
or retaining technical details), the below list of e-mails will be used to
activate a Free Hacker Network as such:
(a) Using a web search engine, one will look for every instance of
"Free-Hackers-Manifest.html" were he could easily extract a list
of Free Hackers e-mail. The web search engine could help in
determining the most pertinent lists as being the most linked to,
(b) The group will work on releasing a client tool for a peer-to-peer
network such as the freenet project (http://www.freenet.org), the
release name for the tool will be
"Free-Hackers-Manifest-.tgz". The tool will be made
available by a link on the Manifest web page.
That network will allow for anonymous posting from web based mail
client and user base moderation on source e-mails (per original
posts and threads).
It must not be possible for any individual to alter the content
of any message nor block its diffusion to others.
Spammers will be blocked on the client side, much like one does
it with anti-spam code on his mail client, as well restrictions
could be set on the number of message one individual is allowed
to post per day.
(c) If a group name is required on that network it will be of
(5) ROT-13 e-mail list
--[5 - Reference
 Full Disclosure Policy (RFPolicy) v2.0
 Extract from "RFPolicy for vulnerability disclosure",
> My intent is not to push this policy onto the community. Everyone can
> obviously do whatever they feel like. But *I* will be using this
> disclosure policy in all future security disclosures, and I encourage
> anyone wishing to use or modify it, to do so.
 Responsible Vulnerability Disclosure Process,
 Bug-reporting standard proposal pulled from IETF
 Re: Remote Compromise Vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server
 Remember when RootShell claimed to be victim from a hack via ssh back in
1998, how long before the first advisories on SSH weaknesses ?
 Compare CVE assignement dates of
Also notice the synchronicity of assignements dates for different research
groups, all released under Microsoft the same day.
 http://www.nessus.org, http://www.nmap.org, http://www.openwall.com,
http://www.snort.org, http://netfilter.samba.org, ...
 No pointer - but http://www.nessus.org was not accessible to "unfair
companies", which used nessus to generate a lot of cash, without helping the
community in any way.
 Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA)
 Digital rights management operating system
> A fundamental building block for client-side content security is a secure
> operating system. If a computer can be booted only into an operating
> system that itself honors content rights, and allows only compliant
> applications to access rights-restricted data, then data integrity within
> the machine can be assured. This stepping-stone to a secure operating
> system is sometimes called "Secure Boot." If secure boot cannot be
> assured, then whatever rights management system the secure OS provides,
> the computer can always be booted into an insecure operating system as a
> step to compromise it.
 ISS Advisory clarification
Klaus, Chris (ISSAtlanta)
 ON THE CUTTING EDGE 2001: A Security Odyssey
> Under the proposal, coalition members would have a 30-day grace period to
> disclose vulnerabilities with law enforcement agencies, government
> agencies and their trusted client. In theory, this will give software
> vendors a head start in correcting the problem before anyone knows it
> So far, Microsoft has drafted the support of BindView (www.bindview.com),
> Foundstone (www.foundstone.com), Guardent (www.guardent.com), @stake
> (www.atstake.com) and Internet Security Systems (www.iss.net).
 Apache HTTP Server Exploit in Circulation
> ISS X-Force has learned that a functional remote Apache HTTP Server
> exploit has been released. This exploit may have been in use in the
> underground for some time.
 DVD hacker Johansen indicted in Norway
 Russian Author of Adobe eBook Password-Removing Software Held Without Bail,
Faces Possible 5-Year Prison Term
 see numerous vulnerabilities announced after initial snmp bug, apache,