Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Michael R. Farnum's picture
Michael R. Farnum

Hitting the Security Nerve

More child pr0n fallout

Imagine you are just a normal, everyday person working away at your job.  You're not an information security professional.  Just a guy or gal trying to make a living.  Then, all of a sudden, you are accused of downloading child pornography on your compnay laptop, you're fired, you are brought up on charges for kiddie porn, your friends and family shun you, and you wife gets sick because of all the stress caused by the issue. Well, that is exactly what happened to Michael Fiola while working for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as an investigator for the Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA).  His old laptop had been stolen, and he was issued a new one.  Very soon thereafter, someone noticed an unusally high wireless bill (he used a broadband card through Verizon for Internet access) on his account, so they started investigating.  Lo and behold, they found child porn.

Fiola claimed he did not download the porn, and he also claimed that he would not even know HOW to download it.  So he hired his own forensic investigator to prove his innocence.  And that investigator came up with some interesting facts.  Here are some key excerpts:

In her examination, Loehrs noted that on certain dates, porn appeared "in the temporary Internet files with no apparent origin or user interaction preceding the pornographic activity. There were no Web site addresses typed into the browser, no searches conducted, no other pages accessed that led to the pornography appearing on the laptop. There are no Symantec logs for this date."

In addition, "Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT)'s Systems Management server had previously been installed on September 20, 2006 with the computer name BOLLE04 and it appears that the new computer name BOLIN17 was not changed in the SMS software. According to the registry settings, the Windows Firewall was turned off."

"With no preceding activity by Fiola, a file titled smp[1].htm appears in the temporary Internet files folder," Loehrs wrote in her report. "The forensics software identifies this file type as unknown and the file is not viewable. However, the underlying HTML code includes several URLs in addition to several other unusual files. Because there was no user activity that prompted these files to appear such as an Internet search, access to other Web sites, checking e-mail or downloading files, this suspicious activity is indicative of a virus and/or Trojan that was likely resident on the Laptop when Fiola received," stated Loehrs.

 "It is evident from reviewing the Symantec logs that the virus protection software was either not configured correctly or was not functioning properly. Log files for November and December are missing and entries for November are incomplete."

It goes on to say that more than likely the malware erased the logs.  It also makes me wonder whether the malware smacked Symantec or if it was just not configured correctly in the first place.

You can read the rest in the article, but the general conclusion was that Fiola had not downloaded the bad content, but that it was caused by malware installed on the machine.  After the investigation, all charges against Fiola were dropped. 

But what really irks me most about this case is the following:

According to her assistant, forensic analyst John Hansen, Fiola's computer was initially examined for "a grand total of three hours" by the DIA's IT department and never checked by forensic investigators. By contrast, Hansen said that he and Loehr examined the computer for over a month. Hansen also said that "no one was bothering to check" logs to see if the laptop was experiencing problems.

That just tears me up.  Not only had this lazy IT department not done their job when they configured Fiola's computer, the investigative team (likely someone who didn't know what they were doing) looked at it for only three hours.  "Yep, there's some kiddie porn.  GUILTY!!!"

And the DIA is standing by its decision to fire Fiola!  WHAT?  Man, talk about prideful.  Why didn't they hire their own investigator?  Why didn't the police hire one?  This is just crazy.

What People Are Saying

Prosecutorial Misconduct

The problem, as I see it, is indicative of the zero tolerance society we have become. Give even hint of impropriety and you are guilty and have to prove your innocence. Two recent incidents with similar outcomes, all defendants were found to be innocent of the charges but not before their lives were made a shamble by overzealous individuals.

First the lacrosse players that were convicted by the press, their school, and the prosecutor for what turned out to be a false accusation. Talk about overzealous; the prosecutor apparently was bound and determined to lock the boys away even in the face of evidence that proved their innocence. The only good to come of this is the prosecutor is no longer a prosecutor.

Second, the public school teacher charged with much the same crime as the current case. Accused of showing porn to her students she was tried and convicted in public opinion without so much as a how do you do. Go figure, malware was at the root of the incident. Great, she was exonerated but not before suffering untold humiliation, her professional demise, as well as I must believe, financial hardships.

One would think, especially in view of the teacher incident, that a prosecutor in this case would ask the question; could this be a mistake or out of the control of the defendant? Find out the facts; consult an expert in computer forensics, read the CSI/FBI report on security threats or for that matter read the newspaper. A prosecutor’s zeal must be tempered by the fact that things might not be what they appear to be on the surface. This is especially true when it comes to computer related crimes.