backtop


Print 33 comment(s) - last by SandmanWN.. on Apr 29 at 9:16 AM


“I never got money for reprogramming Echostar cards. Someone is trying to set me up,” said Christopher Tarnovsky with regards to the allegations leveled against him.
News Corp claims hackers only assisted in internal network security

The world’s “second best hacker” says he was hired under the table by media conglomerate News Corp, which owns the Wall Street Journal, MySpace, Fox News, and DirecTV.

Christopher Tarnovsky, testifying in Echostar v. NDS, says he was paid $20,000 -- mailed inside electronics sent from Canada -- to break into DISH Network’s satellite system and steal security codes necessary for pirating DISH Network’s satellite signals. EchoStar communications, which owned the DISH Network before a split in December of 2007, alleges that hackers from NDS Group, owned by News Corporation, employed hackers to flood the market with smart cards for satellite receivers designed specifically to steal paid DISH content. Both EchoStar and DISH, as separate entities, are plaintiffs in the case.

The suit alleges that the smart cards cost DISH $900M in lost sales and network repairs.

Tarnovsky says that while he was employed to develop “pirating software,” it was not used against DISH or any other rival – instead, it was designed to secure DirecTV’s network.

DISH attorneys said Tarnovsky constructed a device called “The Stinger” – which Tarnovsky admitted to doing – that was able to interface with any smart card, regardless of which company it was designed to work with. Tarnovsky says his actions with The Stinger were aboveboard, but DISH attorneys claimed that hackers and/or NDS employees used it to reprogram at least 50 DISH Network smart cards.

“I never got money for reprogramming Echostar cards,” Tarnovsky testified. “Someone is trying to set me up.”

Patent records reveal Tarnovsky received patent protection on a “system for testing, verifying legitimacy of smart card in-situ and for storing data therein” in 2005.

Earlier, fellow hacker and associate Tony Dionisi testified that he recalled Tarnovsky bragging to him about The Stinger, and told the court that he knew of “another hacker and NDS employee” who used the machine to reprogram DISH’s smart cards.

Tarnovsky says he was paid on a regular basis for 10 years, and received paychecks from Harper Collins, News Corp’s publishing company.

DISH lead attorney Wade Welch, speaking earlier this month, said NDS’ plan was to take hackers “off the streets” and “turn them on the competitors.”

“They called it the Black Hat Team,” said Welch.

NDS says it’s done nothing wrong. “Because this is a competitive business, NDS also monitors competitors,” said NDS attorney Richard Stone. “NDS has done nothing to illegally harm or damage EchoStar. All NDS has done is compete hard and fair in the marketplace.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why News Corp?
By SandmanWN on 4/24/2008 9:13:46 PM , Rating: 0
quote:
alleges that hackers from NDS Group, owned by News Corporation, employed hackers to flood the market with smart cards for satellite receivers designed specifically to steal paid DISH content. Both EchoStar and DISH, as separate entities, are plaintiffs in the case.

The people involved are Echostar/NDS and Dish... What does News Corp have to do with this? Is this more sensational BS in a title meant to help garner more viewer ship again???

When NBC reports a half cocked story do you automatically blame GE for owning them? How bout Disney when ABC screws up? How bout Viacom for CBS?

I just dont understand why so much extra BS that has nothing to do with the issue at hand gets dragged into the article because it has a catchy phrase. It gets so dull.




RE: Why News Corp?
By TomCorelis on 4/24/2008 9:20:50 PM , Rating: 5
News Corp owns NDS Group and a controlling stake in DirecTV. NDS provides satellite systems, DirecTV sells satellite TV service. Tarnovsky was paid by Harper Collins.

What do those three companies have in common?


RE: Why News Corp?
By SandmanWN on 4/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why News Corp?
By SandmanWN on 4/24/2008 9:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
From Reuters:
quote:
"I never got money for reprogramming EchoStar cards," Tarnovsky said. "Someone is trying to set me up."

Dish attorney Chad Hagan asked, "This is all a big conspiracy?"

"Yes," Tarnovsky answered. He conceded that he constructed a device called "the stinger" that could communicate with any smart card in the world.

Another hacker, Tony Dionisi, testified on Tuesday that Tarnovsky bragged about creating "the stinger" and that he knew of another hacker and NDS employee who reprogrammed 50 EchoStar smart cards with the device.

Can a hacker be sued for making a device to read smart cards if he doesn't it? I would think creating a tool and using the tool is completely different scenario. Sounds like Tony Dionisi will be seeing the stand in this case very soon.

If he admits he did this behind Tarnovsky's back then this whole case is a wash.


RE: Why News Corp?
By SandmanWN on 4/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why News Corp?
By TomCorelis on 4/25/2008 3:33:48 AM , Rating: 2
If all that were true, why would he receive paychecks from Harper Collins?


RE: Why News Corp?
By SandmanWN on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why News Corp?
By JonnyDough on 4/24/2008 11:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
If you make a bomb that you know will be used in a bombing, I think you're called an accomplice. The same applies here I would imagine.


RE: Why News Corp?
By SandmanWN on 4/24/2008 11:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm lets expand on that a bit. There are companies that do indeed make bombs. The Armies of the world use these bombs to kill people. Does that make those companies accomplices? How bout the companies that distribute chlorine and ammonia? Are they accomplices for people that use their products to make bombs.

It works both ways you know.


RE: Why News Corp?
By SiN on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why News Corp?
By theapparition on 4/25/2008 7:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
Possibly dumbest reply to an analogy ever.

quote:
Hmm lets expand on that a bit. There are companies that do indeed make bombs. The Armies of the world use these bombs to kill people.

If you ILLEGALLY construct a bomb in your house and give it to someone and know thier intent is ILLEGAL you are absolutely an accomplice. At the very least, you are guilty for constructing that bomb, at worst, liable for how it's used.

You dare to compare that to a company that is LEGALLY LICENCED to make WEAPONS and GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT approves the sale to ARMIES.

quote:
Does that make those companies accomplices?

No, and if you can't see the difference you need professional help.

quote:
How bout the companies that distribute chlorine and ammonia? Are they accomplices for people that use their products to make bombs.

If they are licenced to produce chlorine and ammonia (controlled chemicals) then no.......however, if they fail to report the sales to the appropriate agencies, or they know the intent of the use of thier chemicals is ILLEGAL, then they absolutely can be held liable.

quote:
It works both ways you know.

The OP's point was completely valid, your's......not so much.


RE: Why News Corp?
By nah on 4/25/2008 9:14:34 AM , Rating: 1
By that definition the people at Thyssen Corp who produced Zyklon B gas were also legal--as they were legally licenced by the Nazi Govt of Germany to make those--not to mention the V2s and other really nice stuff--
This argument won't work unless you define which governments are so-called 'rogue' ones and which ones aren't---in those days Germany and Italy weren't called rogue govts--until the war actually started---yet before that Italy poison-gassed Ethiopia and Germany Spain--yet they bombed and killed more people than the 'rogue' ones of today


RE: Why News Corp?
By littlebitstrouds on 4/25/2008 11:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are they accomplices for people that use their products to make bombs.

Welllll of course that all depends on who won the war, and got to write the history books.


RE: Why News Corp?
By JonnyDough on 4/28/2008 2:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
The reply to my post about becoming an accomplice was silly. We weren't talking about backing governments, we were talking about backing a corporation in an illegal motion against another. This isn't World War II, and nobody is dying from this hacking. It's illegal according to U.S. law. Whether or not you agree with the laws of the U.S. is irrelevant. I was simply stating that, per our government system - this is illegal and he could be charged as an accomplice. He is to blame as well, just as IBM was back when they were helping Hitler. The question of guilt lies within the hacker's knowledge. If it can be proven that he was aware of the intended use, then he cannot plead the fifth.


RE: Why News Corp?
By SandmanWN on 4/29/2008 9:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
Which law is that btw? Must be the one about presumption of guilt I suppose. You are assuming he is guilty because he created a tool to read smart cards. He actually has to use it for financial gain or wrong doing before its illegal.


RE: Why News Corp?
By afkrotch on 4/28/2008 2:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking it'd be illegal to break into another person's network and use that data for the creation of a device. The former would definitely be illegal, but the latter is a bit iffy.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki