in reply to Oregon Supreme Court declines to hear my case

Interesting to see this case mentioned in Maximum Security, 3rd edition (In chapter 14 - the password cracking process):

The problem with distributed cracking is that it makes a lot of noise. Remember the Randal Schwartz case? Mr. Schwartz probably would never have been discovered if he were not distributing the CPU load. Another system administrator noticed the heavy processor power being eaten. (He also noted that one process had been running for more than a day.) Distributed cracking really isn't viable for a cracker unless he is the administrator of a site or he has a net work at home...

Unfortunately it doesn't appear the publicity helped to reverse Intel's or the justice department's position. Hopefully other people did learn something from the case though, I know I did.

  • Comment on Re: Oregon Supreme Court declines to hear my case

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Oregon Supreme Court declines to hear my case
by merlyn (Sage) on Sep 19, 2002 at 14:12 UTC
    It's also incorrect. I was not "distributing the CPU load". I was using the shared server that we had just installed but not yet deployed for its designated task, partially as a test of the new server, and partially as a test of the new Crack version which I had not used. And it was the only server on which I was running crack. There's no "distributing" there.

    While I appreciate that my case has been written up in at least half a dozen books, I do wish some of them had come to me for a bit of fact-checking first.

    -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

      Doesn't surprise me, almost half the statements in that book are flawed in some way.