🚀 go-pugleaf

mikec@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Michael CIAVARELLA) writes:

>Hi all,

>I have a (hypothetical) situation which I'd appreciate
>some comment on.  I've tried to be as exact as possible,
>but if you want any clarification just mail away.

>Machines XX and YY belong to different departments - each
>machine's maintenance, support and associated staff being  
>paid for by the relevant department.  Whilst each machine
>is run separately, they do have some users in common.  
>There are no shared filesystems between XX and YY though
>they are on the same network, and it is possible to 
>login to each machine from the other.  

>Let's say A is a non-administrative user who has an acount
>on both XX and YY.  The administration on XX has specifically
>forbade the use of program I on their machine, either directly
>or while remote-logged in to program YY.  There is no such
>restriction on machine YY.  So, user A logs into
>host YY, compiles up program I, and leaves the binary in his
>account on YY.  The next day, A logs on to YY to use his
>newly-installed program, only to find that the binary has
>been deleted during the night.

>So, person A questions the administrator on YY as to why his 
>binary was deleted.  YY's admin is surprised at the question
>because he certainly didn't do it.  In fact, on checking
>through the system logs, it looks like A deleted his own file.
>A knows he didn't do it either, and that the chances of his
>password being cracked are infinitesimal, since he only changed
>it yesterday, and it was a reasonable password.

>He does, however, have a .rhosts entry on YY allowing him to 
>login from XX, and indeed, the system logs show that this 
>took place last night. However again, A didn't perform this login.
>In fact, he'd changed his password on machine XX yesterday, 
>and on checking through the system logs on XX which just 
>happen to be publicly readable, the only person using XX 
>at the time of the remote login, was XX's system administrator.

>Now, all questions of technical security aside, the evidence
>seems to point to the admin on XX impersonating A and removing 
>the file belonging to A.

>If this is in fact the case, then:
>	1)	What are the legal implications (if any)
>		of the XX admin's actions?
Probably a breach of some Cth legislation (Criminal) concerning communications.
This is pretty precarious and given the prosecution's competence not likely to
get to court.
Possibly an offence under the Victorian forgery provisions but again I suspect
judges will be quite lenient on sys.ops. who have authority to do an awful lot
on the system. THere may be informal understandings about mutual management of
resources. (These are pretty normal at Melbourne)

>	2)	If A logs in to YY from XX and uses his
>		program, does this give the XX admin the
>		right to act as he did?

If YY sysop deletes the binaries (or denies access by a group) there is a
clear prohibition to that group using that service on that machine.
Given the Victorian provision on computer trespass (s.9 Computer Crimes Act)
A is in a lot of hot water if A goes to court so I suggest that A should cut
their losses. :-) 1/2

If XX sys.op. is employed to maintain the system and the use on the machine
is provided for course purposes then the sysop has every right to ensure that
the system operates the way he authorizes it. If there is some implied
authority but no other way for him to remove the file then why not?
>	3)	What would you do in the XX admin's place?
Alert the YY admin of the breach and suggest they delete the binary and suspend
the students account indefinitely.
>	4)	What would you do in A's place?
I wouldn't be in A's place. I'm not that stupid.
>	5)	What would you do in the YY admin's place?
Delete the binary and suspend the student's account pending an explanation.
After making the student sweaty a little I'd restore the account. If it
happened again I'd refer the student to the Head of Department after
suspending the account recomending disciplinary action or prosecution.

>If the admin didn't in fact "do it" then the question remains:
>		"whodunnit?" ;-)
Unix is not secure. There are a lot of backdoors.

# This is not legal advice. If you intend to act on these statements you should
obtain appropriate legal advice from a qualified solicitor. I am not
responsible for damages arising from reliance on these  statements.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Arnold        | Law/Science (Computer Science)   |  simul iustus
tja@cs.mu.oz.AU   | The University of Melbourne      |  et peccator
=============================================================================

tja@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Tim Arnold) writes:

>mikec@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Michael CIAVARELLA) writes:

>>Hi all,
Hi Mike!

>>I have a (hypothetical) situation which I'd appreciate
>>some comment on.  I've tried to be as exact as possible,
>>but if you want any clarification just mail away.

>>Machines XX and YY belong to different departments - each
>>machine's maintenance, support and associated staff being  
>>paid for by the relevant department.  Whilst each machine
>>is run separately, they do have some users in common.  
>>There are no shared filesystems between XX and YY though
>>they are on the same network, and it is possible to 
>>login to each machine from the other.  

>>Let's say A is a non-administrative user who has an acount
>>on both XX and YY.  The administration on XX has specifically
>>forbade the use of program I on their machine, either directly
>>or while remote-logged in to program YY.  There is no such
>>restriction on machine YY.  So, user A logs into
>>host YY, compiles up program I, and leaves the binary in his
>>account on YY.  The next day, A logs on to YY to use his
>>newly-installed program, only to find that the binary has
>>been deleted during the night.

>>So, person A questions the administrator on YY as to why his 
>>binary was deleted.  YY's admin is surprised at the question
>>because he certainly didn't do it.  In fact, on checking
>>through the system logs, it looks like A deleted his own file.
>>A knows he didn't do it either, and that the chances of his
>>password being cracked are infinitesimal, since he only changed
>>it yesterday, and it was a reasonable password.

>>He does, however, have a .rhosts entry on YY allowing him to 
>>login from XX, and indeed, the system logs show that this 
>>took place last night. However again, A didn't perform this login.
>>In fact, he'd changed his password on machine XX yesterday, 
>>and on checking through the system logs on XX which just 
>>happen to be publicly readable, the only person using XX 
>>at the time of the remote login, was XX's system administrator.

>>Now, all questions of technical security aside, the evidence
>>seems to point to the admin on XX impersonating A and removing 
>>the file belonging to A.

>>If this is in fact the case, then:
>>	1)	What are the legal implications (if any)
>>		of the XX admin's actions?
>Probably a breach of some Cth legislation (Criminal) concerning communications.
>This is pretty precarious and given the prosecution's competence not likely to
>get to court.
>Possibly an offence under the Victorian forgery provisions but again I suspect
>judges will be quite lenient on sys.ops. who have authority to do an awful lot
>on the system. THere may be informal understandings about mutual management of
>resources. (These are pretty normal at Melbourne)
  Yeah, but common courtesy would be for XX to send mail to YY saying:
  "A has a binary on YY called I. The use of this program is forbidden on
  XX. He also has a .rhosts file between YY and XX. I am going to {} and
  would you take steps to []?

  XX
  " where {} and [] are XX's problem, not mine.

>>	2)	If A logs in to YY from XX and uses his
>>		program, does this give the XX admin the
>>		right to act as he did?
XX has the authority to do what they want on their system. The binary is
not on their system.
>If YY sysop deletes the binaries (or denies access by a group) there is a
NONONO! Read the problem. It's XX who denies the use of the program. YY has
no such restrictions. It was also XX who deleted the binary, not YY.
>clear prohibition to that group using that service on that machine.
>Given the Victorian provision on computer trespass (s.9 Computer Crimes Act)
>A is in a lot of hot water if A goes to court so I suggest that A should cut
>their losses. :-) 1/2
Garbage. IF it was YY who had deleted the file, A would have no recompense.
The question is: if XX (henceforth called the paranoid sysadmin, or PS)
deletes a file ON A SYSTEM NOT UNDER THE PS's CONTROL, to enforce restrictions
that the PS imposed on THE SYSTEM UNDER THIER CONTROL, is it moral/legal?

Well, I'm not qualified to give a legal opinion, but morally:
  * the sysadmin is entitled to take action within the limits of their power
  and their domain to enforce their policies.
  * YY's system is not within the domain of XX.
  * Remote logins from XX to YY are within the domain of XX.
  * The prohibition is on RUNNING program I.
  Therefore, PS had no right (morally speaking) to remove the binary. The
  only right the PS had was to remove the .rhosts file. If A had actually
  run I from a session on XX, he would have been in trouble; but the
  things that PS can do should be restricted to the things under their control.

>If XX sys.op. is employed to maintain the system and the use on the machine
>is provided for course purposes then the sysop has every right to ensure that
>the system operates the way he authorizes it. If there is some implied
>authority but no other way for him to remove the file then why not?
   Because the PS has no authority on YY's system. I understand the meaning
   of a .rhosts file to be that account M has the same access priveleges that
   account N has, but not that they are the same account.

>>	3)	What would you do in the XX admin's place?
>Alert the YY admin of the breach and suggest they delete the binary and suspend
What breach? Has A a) used program I on XX? b) used program I via a remote
login from XX?
>the students account indefinitely.
& get ready for serious flamage from the ENTIRE computing community.
>>	4)	What would you do in A's place?
>I wouldn't be in A's place. I'm not that stupid.
I'd get YY to do the same thing to my account on XX as XX did to my account
on YY. I'd arrange to be talking with XX at the time, and then complian to
them about it. If XX starts breathing fire [someone touched MY system]
then gently remnind them, in the presence of witnesses (preferably
including YY) what they did....

>>	5)	What would you do in the YY admin's place?
>Delete the binary and suspend the student's account pending an explanation.
Why? what rules of YY's system has A broken?
>After making the student sweaty a little I'd restore the account. If it
After that, I'd get my CV together & start looking for a new job.
>happened again I'd refer the student to the Head of Department after
>suspending the account recomending disciplinary action or prosecution.
And the student union refers you to the Head of Department after suspending
the account recommending discipliinary action or dismissal.
  I'd request XX to refrain from treading on my system, or better still,
  report a security violation on his machine.... preferably on an international
  newsgroup.
  First, I'd try and duplicate the incident.
>>If the admin didn't in fact "do it" then the question remains:
>>		"whodunnit?" ;-)
>Unix is not secure. There are a lot of backdoors.
True. But one that works when the sysadmin is the only one logged on? One
that "just happens" to be targetted on A? Strange things do happen.
Probalbly someone logged into machine YY? (Given that it is none of
A, XX, or YY who actually deleted the file).

># This is not legal advice. If you intend to act on these statements you should
>obtain appropriate legal advice from a qualified solicitor. I am not
>responsible for damages arising from reliance on these  statements.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tim Arnold        | Law/Science (Computer Science)   |  simul iustus
>tja@cs.mu.oz.AU   | The University of Melbourne      |  et peccator
>=============================================================================
* These opinions belong to pdt@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU unless otherwise specified.
"Such energies correspond to velocities at almost 95% of the speed of light,
far faster than the speed of sound." - Scientific American, Nov. 1991.

pdt@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Peter David THOMPSON) writes:

>MikeC originally wrote:
>Machines XX and YY belong to different departments - each
>machine's maintenance, support and associated staff being  
>paid for by the relevant department. 
This suggests different departments of a single organisation to me!

>Whilst each machine
>is run separately, they do have some users in common.  
This only strengthens that assumption.

>There are no shared filesystems between XX and YY though
>they are on the same network, and it is possible to 
>login to each machine from the other.  

>PdT's Note: This applies to almost any machine on the InterNet, doesn't it?
This alone might suggest any two machines on the Internet but not read with
the above.

>tja@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Tim Arnold) writes:

>>>If this is in fact the case, then:
>>>	1)	What are the legal implications (if any)
>>>		of the XX admin's actions?
>>Probably a breach of some Cth legislation (Criminal) concerning communications.
>>This is pretty precarious and given the prosecution's competence not likely to
>>get to court.
>>Possibly an offence under the Victorian forgery provisions but again I suspect
>>judges will be quite lenient on sys.ops. who have authority to do an awful lot
>>on the system. There may be informal understandings about mutual management of
>>resources. (These are pretty normal at Melbourne)

I refer you to your comments below about what you think I said. Technically
XX has committed a criminal offence absent any informal authority. The 
likelihood of a conviction is extremely low. I made no comment as to whether
that matters or not. I just stated my opinion on the likely outcome.

The Cth legislation is the Crimes Act (Cth) 1974 (I think). I didn't quote
sections because I don't have my personal law library here :-) and because
I was arguing that there would probably be no trial let alone a consideration
of the relevant sections. The offences relate to use of communications and
Cth facilities (the latter assumes University or similar, the former assumes
at least phone,  leased line or satelite  connections).

See Crimes Act (Vic) 1958 as amended in 1988 by the Act I referred to further
down. I think the forgery provisions are around 116, 117. Their content is
as relevant as that of the Cth legislation in this context.
There are a number of cases which consider the pre-statute offence which
I could refer you to if you would like.

>>GIVEN THE FLAMES LET ME EXPAND ON THIS.
>>We are talking about a situation where XX and YY have gotten together
>>and agreed on uids (thankyou Grenville). Now even given that XX admin has no 

>Have they? Really? You don't need to have the same uid to access an account;
>e.g. foo@xx.dec.oz.au & bar@yy.inc.oz.au can access each other's accounts
>freely provided that the .rhosts file is set up correctly. I quote from
>man rhosts under Sun 4.1:

>If the line is in the form:

>   hostname username

>then the named user from the named host can access the  sys-
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>tem.   This  form may be used in individual .rhosts files to
>allow remote users to access the system as a different local
>user.   If  this  form is used in the /etc/hosts.equiv file,
>the named remote user will be allowed to access  the  system
>as any local user.

>end quote (^^^^^^ mine)

I'm sorry I was miss informed on this issue. gja has already mailed I see.
If they are departments of the same organization my assumptions are not
unreasonable given my experience of the way sys.admins work together.
Certainly on a University campus where some are more competent than others at
plugging security holes.


>>explicit authority on YY it is highly unlikely (obviously in a court you
>>would have to prove this) that there is not some sort of mutual assistance
					      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>in management of the network and hence an understanding between the two
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>admins. Whether that extends to the conduct of XX admin is debatable but
>Understanding about what?
See the underlining.
>>is probably sufficient to establish that XX admin is not guilty of a crime.
Note the use of the words "unlikely" and the relationship to the context.
>>Ethically of course she should have contacted YY admin and notified her of
>>the breach and requested that she deal with the problem.
>(Nice PC bit there Tim. Try using they... It's even more PC. ;')
Its also wrong :-)

>>>>	2)	If A logs in to YY from XX and uses his
>>>>		program, does this give the XX admin the
>>>>		right to act as he did?
>>The offence of Computer Trespass prohibits a person "entering or accessing a 
>>computer system or part of a computer system" without authority.
>Precisely. XX admin has no authority to access A's accounts on system YY.

Sorry about failing to give a citation. I would have thought substantial
quotation was sufficient. This appears in the Crimes (Computer Amendment) Act
1988 s.9 amending (in this case) the Summary Offences Act (1958?)

>>XX admin has prohibited the use of WIDGET on XX. A runs WIDGET binaries on YY
>>but A is still accessing WIDGET (a part of a computer system) on XX (a 
>>computer system or part of a computer system) to run WIDGET despite an express 
>>prohibition!
>>No court in the land will fail to decide that a Computer Trespass has been
>>committed here.
>Prove it. ;'). I betcha I could find a lawyer to argue that that applies to
>systems over which XX has control. A sure has authority to use WIDGET on YY..

But not via XX.

I'm sorry. I was using an extention of the facts scenario assumed in most of
the flames that A accessed YY via XX. If that is not the case A has probably
not committed an offence unless XX admin speaks for YY as well which may be the
case but is unlikely to be the extent of XX's authority in the scenario as 
given.


>>A is in a lot of hot water if A goes to court so I suggest that A should cut
>>their losses. :-) 1/2
>>If XX sys.op. is employed to maintain the system and the use on the machine
>>is provided for course purposes then the sysop has every right to ensure that
>>the system operates the way he authorizes it. If there is some implied
>>authority but no other way for him to remove the file then why not?
> Because it's an act of computer tresspass on XX's part.
Only if there is no implied authority. Read carefully esp. if you are going to 
be so critical of other people's reading.
> Suppose I am a gardener, working for both XX and YY. XX has forbidden
> me to use any electric power tools, on pain of having them smashed. XX
> and YY are adjacent, and I keep keys handy to get between XX and YY.
> Suppose someday I run an extension cord from XX's property to YY's, and use
> power tools there. Is XX entitled to come into YY's property and smash the
> offending tool? No. Is XX entitled to pull the plug and fire me? Yes.
This is not quite analogous. XX would never have the authority to smash power
tools owned by A in any situation (he'd always have atleast an action in 
damages although some circumstances would not be criminal - Destruction of
property belongin to another, Theft c.f. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) I forget the 
sections.
Nice emotive  aside though :-)

>>Obviously a mail message to YY admin would be more courteous but if there is an
>>understanding between the two then this is quite reasonable.
>   Who said there was any? 
I justified this quite extensively (all be it with some errors) and qualified my
comments with the all important word IF! Go through and see how often I used 
that and words like "likely", "unlikely" "debatable" etc.

>>>>	3)	What would you do in the XX admin's place?
>>Alert the YY admin of the breach and suggest they delete the binary and suspend
>>the students account indefinitely.
>   Yup. Fair enough. I'd watch out for the student's rights bodies, though...
The students rights bodies would have no comeback. The student is given
use of facilities for limited purposes (most sign or are alerted to a statement
of this nature both here in other Unis) and breach of a clear prohibition in 
this context is completely analogous to breach of a prohibition in say a library
which might lead to access being denied to the library (or prosecution if the
behaviour involved is criminal).
>   Besides, nothing in the original problem said it was a student, just
>   an "non-administrative user". Suppose XX and YY are DECR & CITRI?
A sys.admin should be a little more careful about dealing with an employee as
the extent of their authority is slightly different. Prohibition is also
quite unlikely in such blatant terms as is the run around.

Prohibition usually occurs where the program either creates unacceptable
network traffic (=> XX admin will want to avoid it running on the network not
just XX) or unaccaptable CPU time or storage (or both) (=> XX admin will want
to help YY admin avoid problems of the shifting load common when such 
prohibitions take place).

If I'm not mistaken this situation is less than hypothetical and did involve
access using X from XX to YY of a program which created large amounts of 
net traffic but you will have to confirm that with mikec.

>>>>	4)	What would you do in A's place?
>>I wouldn't be in A's place. I'm not that stupid.
>>FLAME ALL YOU LIKE. I intend to practice law in the near future and I am not
>>stupid enough to risk committing a criminal offence.
>   Assuming that A actually did log on to YY from XX AND USED THE PROGRAM.
>   In the original posting, A had not used the program forbidden by XX via
>   the systems and services provided by XX (at least the way I read it).
Acknowledged but c.f. above.
>>>>	5)	What would you do in the YY admin's place?
>>Remove access to the binary and suspend the student's account pending an 
>>explanation.  After making the student sweat a little I'd restore the account. 
>>If it happened again I'd refer the student to the Head of Department XX after
>>suspending the account recommending disciplinary action or prosecution.
>  Why? What rules has A voilated? 
>>I changed the subject because I was concerned about amatuer lawyers conjecture
>>about what is or is not criminal behaviour. 

>>A few closing remarks:
>> - if you are going to suggest certain behaviour is criminal refer to 
>>   legislation not to wanky ideas about what is or isn't ethical
>  Ok. Give us some Act/Section/Subsection references then.
Sorry I thought quotations were sufficient. My original post referred to Acts.
>> - judges always take informal understandings into consideration in a case,
>>   users are rarely told about such arrangements
>  Yeah, but whether XX and YY have any such arrangements is something else.
Did I comment here in that respect?
>> - what appears to be criminal on the face of the legislation is not always
>>   what the courts will find to be criminal! 
>> - judges in Australia (unlike those on LA Law) are not petty legalists and 
>>   quite rightly take a simplistic approach. XX admin is acting to ensure her 
>>   directions are complied with and A is trying to circumvent them.
>>   XX wins, A loses.
>How was A acting to circumvent them? 
Oh come on!
>does XX have power over all accounts 
>that A has? 
You need to look up the meaning of "if"
>If I have an account on a system that forbids FTP can I never
>use FTP on any system I have an account on?
It would be unwise to access it via that account, yes. If you don't then go 
for it.

>To summarise:
>  tja believes that A has broken the law, and even if XX has, it doesn't
>  matter.
This has already been dealt with.
>  I believe that A has not broken the law, but XX has.
I outlined some situations where A definitely could be convicted. A is not
necessarily guilty of an offence without further information. However, given
the role of A with respect to XX admin (XX is a machine :-) XX admin is less
likely to be convicted of an offence than A so unless A's behaviour is spotless
(in the court's eyes not vague ethical terms) A should not pursue the matter.
>  that a fair summary?
Not quite.

>>AS TO FLAMES ABOUT MY DISCLAIMER
>>I know enough about law to know that most of you are up for awfully big law 
>>suits if somebody relies on your advice. Until I am practicing and can provide 
>>indemnity insurance I'm not giving advice carte blanche.
>>This does not illustrate lack of confidence in my advice, just realistic
>>expectations that I am human (as the mix-up illustrates) and so are judges.
>>You want indemnity come and see me when I charge you by the hour.
>  No thanks. So far, I think that you haven't even grapsed the problem.
Or maybe you haven't read my answer very carefully to see what information was
added or assumed.
>># This is not legal advice. If you intend to act on these statements you should
>>obtain appropriate legal advice from a qualified solicitor. I am not
>>responsible for damages arising from reliance on these  statements.
>  Don't worry. You're safe with me.
I know. I included the disclaimer.

Tim.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Arnold        | Law/Science (Computer Science)   |  simul iustus
tja@cs.mu.oz.AU   | The University of Melbourne      |  et peccator
=============================================================================

Obviously the system administrator on the other machine was cracking once he
left his own machine.

Barry
--
 email : bwa@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU | snail :     PO Box 7184,
---------------------------------              St Kilda Rd, 
 phone : +61 3 489-5875 (a.h.)         |       VIC 3004 Australia

Guys this is fascinating BUT isn't the XX admin (point well taken Tim 8-)
impersonating user A on machine YY, and is this not a crime i.e. Computer
Trespass? If the YY admin had intended the XX admin to have powers such as the
deletion of user's binaries, then would he or she (ugly but grammatically
correct unlike "they" and less blatant than "she") not have created an account
on YY for the XX admin with at least some administrative priveleges?

Anyway, the discussion was interesting...

Barry
--
 email : bwa@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU | snail :     PO Box 7184,
---------------------------------              St Kilda Rd, 
 phone : +61 3 489-5875 (a.h.)         |       VIC 3004 Australia

mikec@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Michael CIAVARELLA) writes:
}I have a (hypothetical) situation which I'd appreciate ...

[... a short paraphrase ...
    User A has accounts on machines XX & YY operated by separate departments.
    Admin of XX forbids use of program P on XX or while using XX.
    User A compiles P on YY.
    Admin of XX impersonates A on XX and deletes P from A's account on YY.
...]

Were I the Admin of YY I would have the Admin of XX called on the carpet
post haste where I would urge that s/he be fired on the spot.

If, as someone else suggested, the XX admin called me and asked me to
delete P from A's account on YY, I would politely refuse (assuming P
was allowed on YY).

John

In article <9210013.1347@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> pdt@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Peter David THOMPSON) writes:

[situation deleted for brevity]

>>>He does, however, have a .rhosts entry on YY allowing him to 
>>>login from XX, and indeed, the system logs show that this 
>>>took place last night. However again, A didn't perform this login.
>>>In fact, he'd changed his password on machine XX yesterday, 
>>>and on checking through the system logs on XX which just 
>>>happen to be publicly readable, the only person using XX 
>>>at the time of the remote login, was XX's system administrator.

A question that needs to be considered is whether another accouct besides
the one to XX and YY are in the .rhosts file. If so, then breaking that 
account would give access to XX and YY also. And if this person is breaking in,
it is likely that they could cover their tracks, even with the sysadmin on,
depending on the experience of the sysadmin.

>>>Now, all questions of technical security aside, the evidence
>>>seems to point to the admin on XX impersonating A and removing 
>>>the file belonging to A.

I don't see how this can be set aside. In the US, you have to show beyond a 
reasonable doubt that something illegal happened. If this relates to some
crime be considered for prosecution, it wouldn't take more that a 3rd
year undergrad w/ an understanding of Unix to give reasonable doubt.

[stuff about australian law deleted here]

>>>	2)	If A logs in to YY from XX and uses his
>>>		program, does this give the XX admin the
>>>		right to act as he did?
>XX has the authority to do what they want on their system. The binary is
>not on their system.
>>If YY sysop deletes the binaries (or denies access by a group) there is a
>NONONO! Read the problem. It's XX who denies the use of the program. YY has
>no such restrictions. It was also XX who deleted the binary, not YY.

The way I intrepreted the problem, there is no direct evidence to establish
that XX removed the file, only the fact that he was on. Changing the 
times on files and contents of the system logs are easy for a sysadmin to
do, or more importantly, an outsider who as root priviledges (breakin).
You cannot really separate the technical questions from the ethical ones,
especially if you plan to use the results of the former in legal actions.

>Garbage. IF it was YY who had deleted the file, A would have no recompense.
>The question is: if XX (henceforth called the paranoid sysadmin, or PS)
>deletes a file ON A SYSTEM NOT UNDER THE PS's CONTROL, to enforce restrictions
>that the PS imposed on THE SYSTEM UNDER THIER CONTROL, is it moral/legal?
>
>Well, I'm not qualified to give a legal opinion, but morally:
>  * the sysadmin is entitled to take action within the limits of their power
>  and their domain to enforce their policies.
>  * YY's system is not within the domain of XX.
>  * Remote logins from XX to YY are within the domain of XX.
>  * The prohibition is on RUNNING program I.
>  Therefore, PS had no right (morally speaking) to remove the binary. The
>  only right the PS had was to remove the .rhosts file. If A had actually
>  run I from a session on XX, he would have been in trouble; but the
>  things that PS can do should be restricted to the things under their control.

It still has not been established to me that PS was one removing the file. The
evidence presented here suggests it as a possibility, but I find it very hard
to believe that this person actually did it. If the two sites are independent,
it is unlikely that PS has root access on YY. He could log into it as A, but
there would really be no reason to do so. It is more likely that the accounts
have been broken into from somewhere outside.

I do not believe that admin XX would breech the security of another system,
and maybe put his own job in danger, to remove a program. This just doesn't
seem reasonable to me, even though it might be possible.
  
[stuff deleted for brevity]

>>>If the admin didn't in fact "do it" then the question remains:
>>>		"whodunnit?" ;-)
>>Unix is not secure. There are a lot of backdoors.

Something to remember............

>># This is not legal advice. If you intend to act on these statements you should

Ditto here.

>* These opinions belong to pdt@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU unless otherwise specified.

-pmm

-- 
Paul M. Mickel				Internet:mickel@oes.orst.edu
Oregon State University                 UUCP: ...hplabs!orstext!mickel
Corvallis, OR 97331   USA               #include <stddisclaimer.h>

john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:

>Were I the Admin of YY I would have the Admin of XX called on the carpet
>post haste where I would urge that s/he be fired on the spot.

(a) This is not easy, because it is a university.
(b) It is inadvisable, because the other sysadmin is a colleague and has
    the same employer.

>If, as someone else suggested, the XX admin called me and asked me to
>delete P from A's account on YY, I would politely refuse (assuming P
>was allowed on YY).

I might do it that way, but would probably also carpet student A for
having a .rhosts file. 

I think student A would be best cutting his/her losses and hoping admin XX
doesn't have his/her account pulled on machine XX. You think the
University is going to push charges against itself? The *student* has no
rights in this case, because all resources used belong to the
university.

cheers,



--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.oz.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Si fractus illabatur orbis impavidium ferient ruinae.  -- Horace

[After some discussion of a hypothetical case ...]

miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:

> The *student* has no
>rights in this case, because all resources used belong to the
>university.
[...]

In the U.S., students have contractual rights, Constitutional rights
(at state schools), and (harder to defend) academic-freedom rights.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/constraints.contractual
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract
between the student and school. The University can be liable for a
breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules).

=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring.  (College Administration Publication, 1985).  Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.

=================
student.freedoms
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.

=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?

=================
=================

To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):

  send caf-law constraints.contractual
  send caf-law constraints.constitutional
  send acad-freedom student.freedoms
  send acad-freedom caf

The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
  pub/academic/law/constraints.contractual
  pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
  pub/academic/student.freedoms
  pub/academic/caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>[After some discussion of a hypothetical case ...]

>miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:

>> The *student* has no
>>rights in this case, because all resources used belong to the
>>university.
>[...]

>In the U.S., students have contractual rights, Constitutional rights
>(at state schools), and (harder to defend) academic-freedom rights.

This hypothetical case didn't happen in the US. It is also very unlikely
to fall under any academic-freedom or contractual rights, because the
object of dispute was a *game*. Now if the student can prove that he has
some right, constitutional, contractual, or academic, to use University
resources to play *games*, then good luck to him. In many places this is
explicitly *forbidden*.

Be real.

cheers,


--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.oz.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Si fractus illabatur orbis impavidium ferient ruinae.  -- Horace

miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:

>john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:

>>Were I the Admin of YY I would have the Admin of XX called on the carpet
>>post haste where I would urge that s/he be fired on the spot.

>(a) This is not easy, because it is a university.


WHOA right there - the original post said _nothing_ about the type 
of organisation in the (hypothetical) example.  

Mike
The original poster ;-)  

miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:

>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>>[After some discussion of a hypothetical case ...]

>>miw@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:

>>> The *student* has no
>>>rights in this case, because all resources used belong to the
>>>university.
>>[...]

>>In the U.S., students have contractual rights, Constitutional rights
>>(at state schools), and (harder to defend) academic-freedom rights.

>This hypothetical case didn't happen in the US. It is also very unlikely

Again, there were no mentions of _where_ the (hypothetical) example
took place.  The example was phrased with this specifically in mind
in order to solicit (bad word?) responses from as many viewpoints as
possible.


>to fall under any academic-freedom or contractual rights, because the
>object of dispute was a *game*. Now if the student can prove that he has

aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggh - who said it was a game?
It may have been a productivity tool (eg. a c compiler) or a front-end
to mail(1) or something of the like.  WHAT it was doesn't matter.

Mike
The original poster (yet again)

ps.  No Mark I'm not flaming you it's just that you're one of the 
     few who's _posted_ something with assumptions, rather than 
     e-mailed :-)



>--
>Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.oz.au
>+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
>+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
>Si fractus illabatur orbis impavidium ferient ruinae.  -- Horace

>	2)	If A logs in to YY from XX and uses his
>		program, does this give the XX admin the
>		right to act as he did?

Without knowing the context of how A was told not to run the
program its hard to say but remember if A is using XX facilites
(eg terminal and processor (rlogin or whatever)) 
and presumably xx premises.  Also good chance A is using 
xx printers and disk space in gathering output (when no one is
around?). The question also refers to "his program". Is this
some extra-curricular activity A is involved with?
Perhaps a commercial enterprise using university computers?

Who knows, the point I would like to make however is that when someone
with the appropriate authority tells A not to chop down 
the apple tree with an axe and then A goes ahead and cuts it down
with a saw instead then in general A is not in any position to 
claim he has been wronged! (unless of course you are an ex WA
gov politician |-) )

As for the admin's actions it probably would have been better
to do what someone else suggested, ie the cut off A's access to
system xx and assess the situation again.
As for A, if YY indeed had no objections to your activities then
the real smart thing to do would have been to log onto YY directly.
After all why wave a red flag at a bull?
doug@psy.uwa.oz.au