A blogger (krach.in) was condemned by French justice, 750 euros of fine, after some tutorials on computer security and hacking.
The case is much talked about on social networks, illustrating the eyes of many observers the discrepancy that exists between the world of justice and the digital ecosystem. On the blog Krach.in today completely emptied of its contents, its author appears to have been recently fined 750 euros.
His mistake, according to his explanation? Having written some articles about computer security, explaining to the public how methods to bypass certain protections through already known weaknesses or taking advantage of the carelessness of users. Three publications in particular have caught the attention of the High Court:
** The first concerned the security risks with WiFi, when no authentication is required or when it is content of WEP as it is no longer considered safe. According to the author of Krach.in his article explained the use of open-source utility (probably Aircrack-ng, ed) to test the safety of its WiFi network.
** The second had a script written with the Python programming language in order to recover the plain text into an MD5 hash. "It was just a piece of python code a few dozen lines using a web service of the many sites (legal!) To seek equivalence in their database," he says.
** The third focused on the Teensy 3.0 tool, and the fact "that using a microcontroller of this type, it is possible to simulate a user typing on a keyboard." According to the blogger, it was a simple demonstration to show interest to monitor the machine and lock in case of absence.
According to preliminary information, it appears that the blogger has made a Plea (CRPC), which means that it acknowledged having committed the offense. It is a kind of pleading guilty, which is presented as a way to avoid the standard procedure of the trial, but sealed the fate of the accused.
It is noted that the lawyer Maître Eolas, on Twitter. "He is guilty only because he admitted. He preferred to plead guilty to save money. It's absurd." But Olivier Laurelli, which also meets her judicial pressure with bluetouff case ensures that the author of Krach.in did not enjoy the best advice of his lawyer, who would have oriented CRPC.
Given the description of facts by the Krach.in blogger and content of the articles, the conviction by the High Court of Saint-Brieuc first seems exaggerated view and raises the question of risk when publishing documents dealing with computer security. However, the fact of being passed by the CRPC box has probably weighed heavily in the final decision.
Finally.
I hope so that this story can serve other, if I had known that the community would bounce back with as much vigor on this story, I would have tried to go about it differently, knowing that I would have had significant support.
The case is much talked about on social networks, illustrating the eyes of many observers the discrepancy that exists between the world of justice and the digital ecosystem. On the blog Krach.in today completely emptied of its contents, its author appears to have been recently fined 750 euros.
His mistake, according to his explanation? Having written some articles about computer security, explaining to the public how methods to bypass certain protections through already known weaknesses or taking advantage of the carelessness of users. Three publications in particular have caught the attention of the High Court:
** The first concerned the security risks with WiFi, when no authentication is required or when it is content of WEP as it is no longer considered safe. According to the author of Krach.in his article explained the use of open-source utility (probably Aircrack-ng, ed) to test the safety of its WiFi network.
** The second had a script written with the Python programming language in order to recover the plain text into an MD5 hash. "It was just a piece of python code a few dozen lines using a web service of the many sites (legal!) To seek equivalence in their database," he says.
** The third focused on the Teensy 3.0 tool, and the fact "that using a microcontroller of this type, it is possible to simulate a user typing on a keyboard." According to the blogger, it was a simple demonstration to show interest to monitor the machine and lock in case of absence.
According to preliminary information, it appears that the blogger has made a Plea (CRPC), which means that it acknowledged having committed the offense. It is a kind of pleading guilty, which is presented as a way to avoid the standard procedure of the trial, but sealed the fate of the accused.
It is noted that the lawyer Maître Eolas, on Twitter. "He is guilty only because he admitted. He preferred to plead guilty to save money. It's absurd." But Olivier Laurelli, which also meets her judicial pressure with bluetouff case ensures that the author of Krach.in did not enjoy the best advice of his lawyer, who would have oriented CRPC.
Given the description of facts by the Krach.in blogger and content of the articles, the conviction by the High Court of Saint-Brieuc first seems exaggerated view and raises the question of risk when publishing documents dealing with computer security. However, the fact of being passed by the CRPC box has probably weighed heavily in the final decision.
Finally.
I hope so that this story can serve other, if I had known that the community would bounce back with as much vigor on this story, I would have tried to go about it differently, knowing that I would have had significant support.
I founded the Blog DepoTech in January 2015. Self-taught in development, I have always pushed my curiosity about the topics,Web and Tech news.
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon