Conference noted::hackers_v1

    Of course, there is the SET BROADCAST=NOPHONE to prevent the message
    from being blasted on a terminal.
    
    I can understand where you are coming from. In the DECNET account
    directory you can find the NETSERVER.LOG files to see where this
    message came from. All you need to know is the time of the infraction
    and who it went to. Then you look at the NETSERVER.LOG file and
    see who was talking to the PHONE server at that time. Then you can
    severely chastise the perpetrator and use him/her as an example
    so no one else wil do this.
    
    It is really hard for PHONE and MAIL to verify if the information
    coming to them is valid. If 2 machines are networked together, one
    can lie to the other. Networks are "hostile". Clusters are not.
    Clusters are "friendly". Of course, "hostile" and "friendly" are
    relative terms to each other (from a network/ethernet and a CI
    standpoint that is).
    
    Good luck.
    Mike

    I don't have the answer, but does the PHONE object have PROXY enabled,
    or does it use a default account?  If it uses a default account,
    make a UAF cpy of the account, and assign PHONE to that copy.  Then
    in the LOGIN.COMdo a DEFINE FAL$LOG 17_32.  This will cause a lot
    of data to be generated, but some of the data will point to the
    origine.  Also a SHOW LOGICAL SYS$NET.
    
    Then next time it occurs, find the correct .LOG file, and trace
    the user.  If you use PROXY, you will have to look in the accounting
    file to find information.  You can do it, and then once 1 person
    is caught and is taken care of, publisize it.  You will not have
    the problem again!  (Unless nothing is done about it, in which case
    you have a managment problem more than a computer problem)
    
    FJBlando
    
    P.S.	What site is having the problem?

Don't chastize the person, fire him.  The word will get around.

M.

    Thanks for the suggestions.  .2, the site is Brevard, NC.  Aren't
    you at a duPont site?  I seem to remember seeing the name Blando
    in duPont conferences.  
    
    Patrick

    Re .4:
    
    Yes Pat, Frank is at the Beaumont Texas site, and I am at the Jackson
    Labs site (Deepwater NJ).  I also am very concerned to hear about
    this misuse of our customers system and our DECnet product.  There
    are a lot of folks at Dupont Corporate headquarters who would love
    to embarass us with this kind of information.
    
    Maybe we should get together and stop whoever the hell is doing
    this before WE start getting a bad rep.
    
    Re .2:
    
    Are you sure that FAL$LOG will work for a non-fal image like PHONE
    and MAIL, Frank?  Also if you do use this trick I would recommend
    getting rid of the 2nd bit and the byte count, thus;
    	Define FAL$LOG 13
    This will disable the hex dumps which generate a huge amount of
    logging, while still keeping all of the other information.
    
    --  Barry
    

    FAL$LOG will do nothing for PHONE. The way to catch the person is to go
    sifting through the NETSERVER.LOG files and looking for accesses to the
    PHONE object. Now, of course, you have to find the right one, but if
    this person is in the habit of doing it, you should be able to find a
    pattern. 
    
    	Jon

A friend of mine was having similar trouble and I did

$def/key/terminate pf4 "mc ncp show known links"

in their login.com, then, whenever they got a bother they hit pf4, the link 
lasts long enough to spot whoever was coming in.

They caught the offender straight away and used a bother variant to send 
the offenders terminal into self-test. 

Jerry

    oops!  I was in the ozone layer, taking a deep breath.  FAL$LOG
    is not looked at by PHONE!
    
    FJBlando

    
    .7
    
    	"a bother variant"???
    	is it better?  less detectable?  Fill us in...
    
    Peter
    

    Reluctant moderator here...
    As this little toy has made it's way to customers, and is becoming
    an embarrasment to Digital, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't post
    copies here. Thanks.
    Note 531.10 was a copy of same, and is now hidden.
    	-Rick

    Re: .10
    
    Could you please email me a copy since big brother has
    hidden your posting.  I will not be bothering anyone
    with it, but will be using it to see if my DECnet-
    Ultrix implementation of PHONE is fooled in the same
    way as VMS.
    
    				Thanks,
    
    				jeff
    				decnet-ultrix

    couldn't you do something with replacing the phone object definition
    back to the old style, and to SYS$SYSTEM:PHONE.COM?
    
    You could then hack away at whatever logicals, and things needed
    to be run to try and find the perpetrators...
    
    (haven't tried this one myself, but think it might help...)
    
    				- Lou