Punishing Excess
I guess no one could anticipate that university administrators would have much of a sense of humour. Or humility, for that matter. But it is somewhat troubling when evidence of a lack of proportional response is exercised, along with an utter disregard of their own responsibility in a matter that has brought embarrassment to them. University administrators after all, appointed to direct the institution toward instilling a sense of adventure in learning to its students, also serve, through their function, as guarantors of sound academic practise.
Granted, there will always be students, from those in elementary school on through secondary and those at the college or university level, so secure in their opinion of their level of intelligence and knowledge that it pleases them to confront and challenge the authority of those in academia whose function it is to expose them to learning situations. So here's a mature student at Carleton University who is interested in a career in information security.
For his pains in pointing out directly to the university administration that their security is inadequately shoddy, and very vulnerable to predation, he has been charged under the Criminal Code with mischief to data along with unauthorized use of a computer. Charges which, if proven, can carry a prison sentence of up to ten years. So much for student presumption, so much for shrilly aggrieved academic administrators.
The student, Mansour Moufid, in his second year of math at the university, forwarded a sixteen-page "report" to the university's administrators and to students. The report outlined the fact that he had accessed Campus Card accounts of no fewer than 32 students. And while he demonstrated that he was able to access those accounts, he took no steps to enrich himself in any way by acquiring unauthorized information, academic or financial.
Instead of recognizing their deficiency in adequately protecting student accounts, the university righteously accused Mr. Moufid of deliberately undertaking criminal activities and then boasting about it. He claims his intention was to alert the administration; else why would he have brought the matter directly to their attention? The administration is intent on papering over their lack of information safety accountability by victimizing the perpetrator.
Insisting that he pay for the cost of new student cards, along with the cost of extra security staff "due to the unknown risk caused by the breach of the campus card system"; commit to community service at a food bank, and complete an ethics course. The university would retain the right to monitor all of his online activity through the use of Carleton's server for as long as he remained a student there. Under the circumstances that might seen reasonable, but it smacks of a vendetta.
"I wrote the report because I wanted people to know; Carleton has to know that there's a problem. Obviously they didn't know that certain things were possible with their system, and I thought students should also know because it directly concerns them. To be clear: I did not create any security problem, but simply revealed it. I did not alter or destroy any data although I could have.
I did not take any advantage of any student, either financially or otherwise, although I could have. I was acting in good faith, with the interests of the student body - of which I am a part of - in mind", according to a statement released by Mr. Moufid - who further mentioned it hadn't presented any difficulty for him to crack the system.
He claims also that he respected the information security industry's practise of "full disclosure" through informing the university and the students of his activities in revealing the flaws in the security system. It's the university administration that has created a furore over this matter, rather than take their lumps for inadequate security.
One might imagine it to be in their best interests to take Mr. Moufid's research under advisement; in fact, to confer with him how best to strengthen the security process since it has eluded them thus far. Rather than succumb to meting out the kind of discipline one might impose upon on an undisciplined, recalcitrant child deserving of punishment.
Small minds, alas.
Granted, there will always be students, from those in elementary school on through secondary and those at the college or university level, so secure in their opinion of their level of intelligence and knowledge that it pleases them to confront and challenge the authority of those in academia whose function it is to expose them to learning situations. So here's a mature student at Carleton University who is interested in a career in information security.
For his pains in pointing out directly to the university administration that their security is inadequately shoddy, and very vulnerable to predation, he has been charged under the Criminal Code with mischief to data along with unauthorized use of a computer. Charges which, if proven, can carry a prison sentence of up to ten years. So much for student presumption, so much for shrilly aggrieved academic administrators.
The student, Mansour Moufid, in his second year of math at the university, forwarded a sixteen-page "report" to the university's administrators and to students. The report outlined the fact that he had accessed Campus Card accounts of no fewer than 32 students. And while he demonstrated that he was able to access those accounts, he took no steps to enrich himself in any way by acquiring unauthorized information, academic or financial.
Instead of recognizing their deficiency in adequately protecting student accounts, the university righteously accused Mr. Moufid of deliberately undertaking criminal activities and then boasting about it. He claims his intention was to alert the administration; else why would he have brought the matter directly to their attention? The administration is intent on papering over their lack of information safety accountability by victimizing the perpetrator.
Insisting that he pay for the cost of new student cards, along with the cost of extra security staff "due to the unknown risk caused by the breach of the campus card system"; commit to community service at a food bank, and complete an ethics course. The university would retain the right to monitor all of his online activity through the use of Carleton's server for as long as he remained a student there. Under the circumstances that might seen reasonable, but it smacks of a vendetta.
"I wrote the report because I wanted people to know; Carleton has to know that there's a problem. Obviously they didn't know that certain things were possible with their system, and I thought students should also know because it directly concerns them. To be clear: I did not create any security problem, but simply revealed it. I did not alter or destroy any data although I could have.
I did not take any advantage of any student, either financially or otherwise, although I could have. I was acting in good faith, with the interests of the student body - of which I am a part of - in mind", according to a statement released by Mr. Moufid - who further mentioned it hadn't presented any difficulty for him to crack the system.
He claims also that he respected the information security industry's practise of "full disclosure" through informing the university and the students of his activities in revealing the flaws in the security system. It's the university administration that has created a furore over this matter, rather than take their lumps for inadequate security.
One might imagine it to be in their best interests to take Mr. Moufid's research under advisement; in fact, to confer with him how best to strengthen the security process since it has eluded them thus far. Rather than succumb to meting out the kind of discipline one might impose upon on an undisciplined, recalcitrant child deserving of punishment.
Small minds, alas.
posted by Pieface @ 6:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home