What's New!

Chat with

How to Defend
Your Computer 

The Guides
to (mostly) 
Harmless Hacking

Happy Hacker 
Digests (old stuff) 

Hacker Links 


Meet the 
Happy Hacksters 

Help for 



It Sucks 
to Be Me!

How to Commit
Computer Crime (not)! 

What Is a 
Hacker, Anyhow? 

Have a 
Great Life! 

News from the 
Hacker War Front

From: "M Peterson" <apalamen@sbcglobal.net>
To: "'Carolyn Meinel'" <cmeinel@cmeinel.com>
Subject: Ok
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:42:58 -0600

Dear Carolyn,

You entire argument will be the defense that you can print falsehoods about me without verification. I have told you that I am who I am – but in a public forum you have chosen to produce falsehoods about me until you are proven otherwise.

This is not protected under US Constitutional First Ammendment articles.

Carolyn replies: Peterson still doesn't understand. He says he was breaking into NIPRnet from 1980 through 1982. NIPRnet was first created in 1995. Then he says he misspoke, it was MILnet he was breaking into, and that he mispoke about the dates, it was 1983. MILnet, according to reliable historical documents, was first created in 1984.

Even if I let him slide past me by believing he simply misspoke those two times, someone appears to be lying -- either Peterson or all those historical documents. I prefer to believe the historical documents. I have a First Amendment right to refuse to let Peterson extort me into saying he's telling the truth when there is so much evidence that he is lying. Oh, and extortion is not protected under the First Amendment. But I'll just blow off his extortion attempts unless he drags me into court.

I have no recourse at this time but to simply sue you for libel per se - against my hopes of getting you to correct your false allegations and uninformed statements. I will provide the documentation in court – you will be found to represent yourself with what? Lies until proven otherwise? You should know better. Burden of proof is on me, which I do have. One document which will be at the center of the case. Damage has already been done. As confirmed in my letter of concern, letter of intent, letter of jurisdiction to you.

Just like Kevin Mitnick, Peterson is trying to frighten me by saying he has proof. PROOF! But he'll keep it secret until he drags me into court. And the judge, Peterson imagines, will say, "My, my, what a cruel woman, she actually believed all these historical documents instead of your secret document you just sprung on us. Why, I'll make her give you the money you demand!"

Also, note that Peterson says he will sue me "per se." That is a legal term for saying that he will represent himself instead of getting a lawyer. That is probably because no lawyer will take a case that appears to be an attempt at extortion, because that puts the lawyer in danger of losing his license to practice law -- or worse.

Your links to your “man-in-the-middle” do not refer to this exact vulnerability I have uncovered. I am sorry to say that I think you should learn basic Internet 101. Do you actually understand the Internet? I was under the impression that you didn’t know a lot of what you were writing about when I first contacted your firm during the very first emails.

Since Peterson is keeping his "exact vulnerability" secret, who can say whether it even exists? Show us the proof of concept code! Or is he going to wait until he's before a judge to spring it. "Mr. Judge, this mean old lady refused to believe in my secret discovery of a computer vulnerability. Make her give me a bunch of money for being so mean." Peterson can end this whole charade by simply submitting his vulnerability to CERT or Bugtraq for analysis. But, noooo, he keeps on demanding that I endorse it.

I have asked repeatedly for you to correct the NIPRNET misunderstanding – it was a general term I used to represent MILNET/ARPANET – which to my understanding is what they eventually came to be called. I was on MILNET in 1982-1983 – they were dial-up numbers. Your allegation is that MILNET never existed in 1982. A falsehood and technical blunder on your end. It did exist, you think they all of a sudden just split MILNET and ARPANET in 1983 without having MILNET in 1982? That is a sign of ignorance of this area.

Woo hoo! I'll bet you folks reading this can use Google to pull up all sorts of documents on the histories of ARPAnet, MILnet and NIPRnet.

I have three firms that have verified the Backdoor. Your flagrant disregard for the truth regarding the backdoor in search of some basic javascript.php.html code to create a program to exploit the vulnerability is a non-issue, and shows marked ignorance of the basic network technology of the Internet. I came to your consulting firm regarding the Banking Vulnerability - nothing else nothing more.

All the people Peterson told me to contact for confirmation of his Amazing Discovery denied having confirmed it.

I know I spent a week [he actually harassed me for four weeks, demanding that I endorse his secret discovery, before I posted his emails here] trying to educate you on these matters, but none of the URL’s you have provided discuss this exact webservices vulnerability that I sent your firm or gave to the FBI. This is another example of marked lack of intelligent expertise in this area.

The firms that have verified the Backdoor Vulnerability:

Yours - or don’t you remember stating this?
Whitehatsec (Carolyn's note: They denied confirming it.)
NSRG-Security (Carolyn's note: They denied confirming it.)
(Where's firm number three?)


Mark Peterson

If you are tired of this Peterson thing, click here for other examples of why, when I open my email, I sometimes moan, "It sucks to be me."

Carolyn's most
popular book,
in 4th edition now!
For advanced
hacker studies,
read Carolyn's
Google Groups
Subscribe to Happy Hacker
Visit this group

© 2013 Happy Hacker All rights reserved.