|
''Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Anderson, et al.'', Civil Action No. 08-11364, was a challenge brought by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to prevent three Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) students from publicly presenting a security vulnerability they discovered in the MBTA's Charlie Card automated fare collection system. The case concerns the extent to which the disclosure of a computer security flaw is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The MBTA claimed that the MIT students violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and on August 9, 2008, was granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the students to prevent them from presenting information to DEFCON conference attendees that could have potentially been used to defraud the MBTA of transit fares. The MIT students contended that submitting their research for review and approval by a government agency before publication is unconstitutional prior restraint. The case garnered considerable popular and press attention when the injunction unintentionally became a victim of the Streisand effect, increasing the dissemination of the sensitive information of the students' presentation because the slides had been both distributed to conference organizers in the weeks before the injunction as well as inadvertently posted to the district court's public website as exhibits to the MBTA's original complaint. On August 19, the judge rejected the MBTA's request to extend the restraining order and the TRO likewise expired, thus granting the students the right to discuss and present their findings.〔 〕 ==Background== In December 2007, cautions were published separately by Karsten Nohl〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Karsten Nohl webpage )〕 and Henryk Plotz regarding the weak encryption and other vulnerabilities of the particular security scheme as implemented on NXP's MIFARE chip set and contactless electronic card system. In March 2008, articles on the vulnerabilities appeared in newspapers and computer trade journals. A comparable independent cryptanalysis, focused on the MIFARE Classic chip, was performed at the Radboud University Nijmegen. On March 7 the scientists were able to recover a cryptographic key from the RFID card without using expensive equipment. With respect to responsible disclosure the Radboud University Nijmegen published the article six months later. NXP tried to stop the publication of the second article through a preliminary injunction. In the Netherlands, the judge ruled on July 18 that publishing this scientific article falls under the principle of freedom of expression and that in a democratic society it is of great importance that the results of scientific research can be published. In May 2008, MIT students Zack Anderson,〔(Zack Anderson homepage at MIT )〕 Russell J. Ryan,〔(Russell J. Ryan homepage )〕 Alessandro Chiesa,〔(Alessandro Chiesa page at MIT )〕 and Samuel G. McVeety presented a final paper in Professor Ron Rivest's ''6.857: Computer and Network Security'' class demonstrating weaknesses in the MBTA's automated fare collection system. The report identified four problems: the value is stored on the card and not in a secure database, the data on the card can be easily read and overwritten, there is no cryptographic signature algorithm to prevent forgeries, and there is no centralized card verification system. Anderson, Ryan, and Chiesa submitted a presentation entitled "Anatomy of a Subway Hack: Breaking Crypto RFID's and Magstripes of Ticketing Systems" to the DEF CON hacker convention which claimed to review and demonstrate how to reverse engineer the data on the magstripe card, several attacks to break the MIFARE-based Charlie Card, and brute force attacks using FPGAs.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Speakers for DEFCON 16 )〕 Before the complaint was filed in August 2008, Bruce Schneier wrote on the matter that "Publication of this attack might be expensive for NXP and its customers, but it's good for security overall. Companies will only design security as good as their customers know to ask for." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Anderson」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|