Slashdot Log In
Two Europeans Indicted In US For 2003 DDOS Attacks
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:32 AM
from the how-about-some-shrimp-echouafni dept.
from the how-about-some-shrimp-echouafni dept.
narramissic writes "In a continuation of the first successful U.S. investigation ever into DDOS attacks, Axel Gembe, 25, of Germany and Lee Graham Walker, 24, of England were indicted Thursday by a grand jury in Los Angeles, California, on one count of conspiracy and one count of intentionally damaging a computer system. The two men were allegedly hired by Jay R. Echouafni, owner of Orbit Communication, a Massachusetts-based company that sold home satellite systems, to carry out DDOS attacks against two of Orbit's competitors."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Criminal Minds (Score:5, Insightful)
It takes a genius to hire a couple of people to do your dirty work. It takes even greater genius to accept money to damage computer systems, from a complete stranger who would never rat you out.
Re:Criminal Minds (Score:4, Insightful)
Why has this been modded flamebait? it seems like a valid point to me and also to most legal systems (including the US). The person who commissioned a crime to be committed is surely just as guilty as the people who committed it?
All three of them should be tried together and face the same penalty.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What surprises me is that A. Gembe went to the US. After all it is constitutionally impossible to get deported to third nations for a crime. So why didn't he stay at home? I would not suspect to get a fair trial in the States because the criminal enforcement system is broken.
Remember kids... (Score:2, Funny)
... always stop around 1995 DOS attacks or you'll be indicted !
Better safe than sorry !
Revoke (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems like a good time to consider revoking Orbit Communications' corporate charter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Revoke (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe he can run a lemonade stand.
Well, right now, he's running... like the fugitive scum that he is.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/cyber/echouafni_s.htm [fbi.gov]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
He's running from the FBI. Guns aren't that hard to get.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think there will be any repercussions for Orbit, considering they are a Saudi-based company (http://www.zawya.com/cm/profile.cfm/cid1001503/). They couldn't go after the company, so they went after the people. I wish that's how it worked in US corporations.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
and all they had to do was post a made-up "home satellite" article to slashdot.
Technicality (Score:2)
Call me dense, but how did it damage the system? It unreasonably increased load on it, meaning it couldn't handle all its requests, but afterwards the system was still, one assumes, functioning.
Re:Technicality (Score:5, Interesting)
The server was subjected to intentional unusual activities that caused a loss of business services. Is it actual physical damage? I'm not sure. I don't know what the legal definition the law is using.
Either way, they caused business loss using non-legal practices. "Physical" damage or not, they should have know this would've been the recourse.
One of my old co-workers decided to delete all the accounts on our Lotus server in China before he left (no, he wasn't trying to do us any favors either) the company. Sure, the "repair" was to reload the database from backup but that constituted damage under national and international law. He got nailed to the wall for it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Software can damage hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
It really depends on the type of hardware involved.
One example - Limited write memory can be intensely overwritten until it's worn out and rendered useless, resulting in financial loss.
I don't know if it has anything to do with this case, or if any damage actually occurred.
Just speaking in terms of technicalities.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certainly no lawyer, but I'd imagine that numerous things fall under the term "intentionally damaging a computer system." And that rendering the machine unusable, even for a limited time, counts as damage. If not, then there certainly would have to be a sister law that covered that sort of thing, as well as the integrity of software and data. That being the case, why wouldn't they combine it all under one law?
Messing with data is often times more "damaging" to the victim than the hardware would be. It
Extradition from the UK to US (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we don't want to execute them they seem to not really care. It is a classic attitude of the British to not want to keep (unconvicted) criminals in their country. Plus you can hardly blame them for honoring a treaty and all. Do you think they only do this for the US? I don't have the data, but I suspect they extradite people to France as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Watch me.
We should never have signed up to such a wide-ranging treaty (a fact which has become abundantly clear recently) - I expect our government to frustrate the process of complying with the treaty as much as possible whilst simultaneously working to get out of it.
The French justice system is a damn-sight more civilised than the US one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"The last executions took place in 1977"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_France [wikipedia.org]
I think that's a good place to start.
Of course that depends if you consider killing peeople 'civilized'.
Re: (Score:2)
And the US has executed people for equally dubious reasons in the past. The point at issue though is which is more civilized RIGHT NOW, and the one which doesn't execute people at all comes out on top there.
*shrug* any trial actually run on the
Re: (Score:2)
It is a classic attitude of the British to not want to keep (unconvicted) criminals
Uhh, no such thing in British law?!?
Re:Extradition from the UK to US (Score:4, Informative)
I wish this particular idea would quietly give up the ghost. It's just not true.
There is a valid, reciprocal, extradition treaty between the USA and the UK. The UK has, in addition, ratified a revision to that Treaty that the US Senate hasn't bothered to ratify yet. Which means the revision is valid in the UK (assuming the brits choose to treat it as valid - they don't have to, since it hasn't been ratified here), but the original treaty is still valid in the USA (and in the UK, assuming the brits choose to treat the revision as not yet valid, since it hasn't been ratified by the Senate).
Which means that people can be (and are) extradited to the UK from the USA when the appropriate paperwork is submitted to whatever department of the US government handles such things. Just like happens when the USA wants to extradite someone from the UK.
Parent
The interesting part (Score:5, Insightful)
While I think it's a good thing that international cyber-vandalism (or whatever you want to call it) is being investigated in regular courts (instead of some super-world thingy), I think the most interesting part is the charges against Lee Graham Walker. According to the article, his crime was using IRC to chat with Gembe about the botnet's code. Now, I'm not a legal expert or even legal savvy, but that sounds like a charge that would easily apply to a lot of geeks who IM with geeks short on ethics. I don't think it's being misused in this case, but it does sound like a pretty wide net.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's quite clearly misuse. Any IRC recording by the investigation entitiy would result in inadmissable evidence, at least under the US constitution. Since the "criminals" (as everyone likes calling them) are not US citizens, they aren't covered by the constitution.
More importantly, a botnet could be used for any number of things. Depending on the actual conversation, Gembe may not have revealed his use, or lied saying it was to test a network he administered.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because the defendants are not US citizens does not mean that Constitutional protections don't apply. The Constitution does not talk about the rights of citizens, but the rights of people. If US law is going to be applied to someone, then the entirety of US law, including the Constitution and its Supremacy Clause, apply.
So you are wrong. They are covered by the Constitution.
satellite companies (Score:2)
Should of hired the captain midnight guy or the ma (Score:2)
Should of hired the captain midnight guy or the max headroom to take over there satellite signal.
Bleys Bolton (Score:2)
Sheer Genius! (Score:2)
Well, I guess I am stumped. I give up. Who might have done such a thing?
Re:Tax Dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a criminal investigation. If Company A vandalizes Company B, do you expect Company B to "bring their own evidence to court"?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps it wasn't that easy to figure out the real $ource of the attack. --I am very curious as to what may happen to Orbit though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Judging by the fact that the Grand Jury is in California, the crime was committed against a party in another state. Thus federal jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Except when it is a civil matter The Man acts as a mediator between parties and/or settles the dispute with a trial. In my state the Docket would read "[Party 1] vs [Party 2]".
In the case of a felony, The Man would be the second party. The docket in my state would read "The State of Ohio vs. [Party 2]"
Only in very special matters is there ever "The United States vs. [Party 2]" in which case Party 2 is fucked for even having their name on the paper.
Re: (Score:2)
My God!...
Slashdot....
It's full of lawyers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:extradition (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong. Germany does extradite citizens, as long as a couple of conditions are met.
Specifically, the suspect must have committed a crime that is punishable in both countries, must not be tortured or executed after the extradition, needs a fair trial and so on...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Artikel 16
(2) Kein Deutscher darf an das Ausland ausgeliefert werden. Durch Gesetz kann eine abweichende Regelung für Auslieferungen an einen Mitgliedstaat der EuropÃischen Union oder an einen internationalen Gerichtshof getroffen werden, soweit rechtsstaatliche GrundsÃtze gewahrt sind.
Re:extradition (Score:4, Informative)
"No German can be extradited to another country. The law can create a different arrangement for extraditions to the EU or an international court, as long as fair trial [rule of law] is guaranteed."
[not a german native speaker, apologies for any mistakes]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the constitution (offical translation) [bundestag.de]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, here [bundestag.de].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, so it is possible at all that a German citizens gets extradicted to the US? I am shocked!
Re: (Score:2)
But, joke aside, my guess is the Germans will probably prosecute him anyway for what he did, what would proscribe prosecution here under double jeopardy.
Re: (Score:2)
s/Germany/Israel
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lee Graham Walker, a British citizen, and the German malware programmer Axel Gembe have appeared in a federal court in San Francisco...
I'm guessing yes.
This article [heise.de] also notes that Gembe may have been the HL2 thief, and that he's been on the hook for this DDoS attack since 2006: this was just their (first?) court appearance for it.
I have no particular premonition about how this will all turn out. On the one hand, German courts were taking it easy on him as long as he straightened his life out... on the other, the FBI with its "first successful investigation" into a DDoS may wish to make example of. We'll see.