SUELETTE DREYFUS JULIAN ASSANGE
_ _ _ _ ____ _____ ____ ____ ____ ___ _ _ _ _ ____
| | | | \ | | _ \| ____| _ \ / ___| _ \ / _ \| | | | \ | | _ \
| | | | \| | | | | _| | |_) | | _| |_) | | | | | | | \| | | | |
| |_| | |\ | |_| | |___| _ <| |_| | _ <| |_| | |_| | |\ | |_| |
\___/|_| \_|____/|_____|_| \_\\____|_| \_\\___/ \___/|_| \_|____/
http://www.underground-book.com/
Hacking, madness and obsession on the electronic frontier
`Gripping, eminently readable.. Dreyfus has uncovered one of this
country's best kept secrets and in doing so has created a highly
intense and enjoyable read' -- Rolling Stone
By Suelette Dreyfus with
Research by Julian Assange
First Published 1997 by Mandarin
a part of Reed Books Australia
35 Cotham Road, Kew 3101
a subsidiary of Random House books Australia
a division of Random House International Pty Limited
Copyright (c) 1997, 2001 Suelette Dreyfus & Julian Assange
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright
above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or
introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or
by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the
copyright owner and the publisher.
Typeset in New Baskerville by J&M Typesetting
Printed and bound in Australia by Australian Print Group
National Library of Australia
cataloguing-in-publication data:
Dreyfus, Suelette.
Underground: tales of hacking, madness & obsession on the
electronic frontier
Bibliography.
ISBN 1 86330 595 5
1. Computer hackers--Australia--Biography.
2. Computer crimes--Australia.
3. Computer security--Australia.
I. Assange, Julian. II. Title.
364.1680922
___________________________________________________________________
READER AND CRITICAL ACCLAIM
___________________________________________________________________
`...I hold your book `I have never before read a
responsible for destroying my book this good, literally!'
social life for the last two -- benwebb@hotmail.com
days...I bought it Friday
afternoon, and then finished `I just finished the book..
it at lunchtime today! and thoroughly enjoyed it.
(Sunday) *grin*. Excellent Dreyfus showed an amazing
reading!' -- bam@iinet.net.au insight into the world of
electronic exploration. I am
`A few pages into this book I sure it was in no small part
found it to be different to due to [the researcher's]
any other book I have ever excellent technical
read on the subject. Dreyfus assistance. Good Job!!' --
treats the people she writes jimgeuin@cyberservices.com
about AS PEOPLE not just
"computer junkies" or "cyber `I loved the book - couldn't
geeks"' -- lucasb@sub.net.au put it down!' --
texasdeluxe@hotmail.com
`A real pleasure' -- George
Smith, Crypt News `I wanted to say how much I
liked your book Underground'
ਊऀ怀䄀 琀愀氀攀 漀昀 洀愀搀渀攀猀猀Ⰰ 瀀愀爀愀渀漀椀愀 ⴀⴀ 倀爀漀昀⸀ 䐀漀爀漀琀栀礀 䐀攀渀渀椀渀最ऀ愀渀搀 戀爀椀氀氀椀愀渀挀攀 愀洀漀渀最ऀ䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀 挀漀洀瀀甀琀攀爀 栀愀挀欀攀爀猀 ⴀ 怀䤀 眀愀猀 戀氀漀眀渀 愀眀愀礀✀ ⴀⴀऀ愀渀搀 栀漀眀 琀栀攀礀 渀攀愀爀氀礀 戀爀漀甀最栀琀 氀甀挀愀猀戀䀀猀甀戀⸀渀攀琀⸀愀甀ऀ一䄀匀䄀 甀渀搀漀渀攀✀ ⴀⴀ 吀栀攀 圀攀攀欀攀渀搀ऀ䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀 䴀愀最愀稀椀渀攀 怀䤀✀洀 最爀愀琀攀昀甀氀 琀漀 䴀猀 䐀爀攀礀昀甀猀ऀऀऀऀ 昀漀爀 椀渀琀爀漀搀甀挀椀渀最 洀攀 琀漀 愀ऀ怀䄀搀瘀攀渀琀甀爀攀 戀漀漀欀 昀漀爀 琀栀攀 戀爀愀椀渀✀ 渀甀洀戀攀爀 漀昀 昀椀爀猀琀ⴀ爀愀琀攀ऀⴀⴀ 匀愀爀愀栀 䴀挀䐀漀渀愀氀搀Ⰰ 䨀䨀䨀 猀甀戀瘀攀爀猀椀瘀攀猀✀ ⴀⴀ 倀栀椀氀氀椀瀀ऀऀऀऀ 䄀搀愀洀猀Ⰰ 䰀愀琀攀 一椀最栀琀 䰀椀瘀攀ऀ怀䄀昀琀攀爀 爀攀愀搀椀渀最 琀栀攀 攀砀琀爀愀挀琀 漀昀ऀ唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀 椀渀 吀栀攀 䄀最攀 䤀 怀䨀漀礀 欀渀攀眀 渀漀 戀漀甀渀搀猀✀ ⴀⴀऀ挀漀甀氀搀渀✀琀 眀愀椀琀 琀漀 爀攀愀搀 椀琀⸀ 倀栀椀氀氀椀瀀 䄀搀愀洀猀Ⰰ 䰀愀琀攀 一椀最栀琀ऀ䘀椀渀愀氀氀礀 椀琀 挀愀洀攀 漀甀琀 椀渀 琀栀攀 䰀椀瘀攀ऀ猀栀漀瀀猀 愀渀搀 䤀 昀椀渀椀猀栀攀搀 椀琀 愀氀氀ऀ眀椀琀栀椀渀 愀 昀攀眀 搀愀礀猀⸀ 䤀 眀愀猀渀✀琀 怀䨀甀猀琀 琀栀漀甀最栀琀 琀栀愀琀 䤀 眀漀甀氀搀ऀ搀椀猀愀瀀瀀漀椀渀琀攀搀 昀漀爀 愀 猀攀挀漀渀搀⸀✀ ⴀⴀ 猀愀礀 最爀攀愀琀 樀漀戀 漀渀 礀漀甀爀 戀漀漀欀ऀ搀挀眀䀀愀氀瀀栀愀氀椀渀欀⸀挀漀洀⸀愀甀 瘀攀爀礀 渀椀挀攀 瀀椀攀挀攀 漀昀 眀漀爀欀 愀渀搀ऀऀऀऀ 瘀攀爀礀 椀渀昀漀爀洀愀琀椀瘀攀℀✀ ⴀⴀऀ怀䄀洀愀稀椀渀最 椀渀猀椀最栀琀✀ ⴀⴀ 䄀渀漀渀礀洀漀甀猀 栀愀挀欀攀爀ऀ樀椀洀最攀甀椀渀䀀挀礀戀攀爀猀攀爀瘀椀挀攀猀⸀挀漀洀ऀऀऀऀ 怀䬀攀攀瀀猀 琀栀攀 爀攀愀搀攀爀 最氀甀攀搀 琀漀ऀ怀䈀愀挀欀攀搀 甀瀀 戀礀⸀⸀搀攀琀愀椀氀攀搀 琀栀攀 瀀愀最攀✀ ⴀⴀ 䐀愀渀渀礀 夀攀攀Ⰰ 䐀愀渀渀礀ऀ琀攀挀栀渀椀挀愀氀 爀攀猀攀愀爀挀栀✀ ⴀⴀ 吀爀甀搀椀攀 夀攀攀✀猀 爀攀瘀椀攀眀 漀昀 戀漀漀欀猀ऀ䴀愀挀䤀渀琀漀猀栀Ⰰ 吀栀攀 䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀ऀऀऀऀ 怀䰀愀 搀攀猀挀爀椀瀀挀椀漀渀 搀攀 氀愀猀ऀ怀䈀攀猀琀 栀愀挀欀攀爀 戀漀漀欀 䤀✀瘀攀 爀攀愀搀✀ 搀攀琀攀渀挀椀漀渀攀猀Ⰰ 爀攀最椀猀琀爀漀猀ऀⴀⴀ 䨀椀洀 䰀椀瀀瀀愀爀搀 礀瀀爀漀挀攀猀漀猀 氀攀最愀氀攀猀 攀猀ऀऀऀऀ 攀猀瀀攀挀椀愀氀洀攀渀琀攀 椀渀琀攀爀攀猀愀渀琀攀✀ ⴀⴀऀ怀䈀爀椀氀氀愀渀琀 爀攀愀搀 ⴀ 眀椀氀氀 爀攀猀琀 䌀爀椀瀀琀漀Ⰰ 匀瀀愀椀渀ऀ猀愀昀攀氀礀 渀攀砀琀 琀栀攀 爀攀猀琀 漀昀 洀礀ऀ䜀椀戀猀漀渀Ⰰ 匀琀攀爀氀椀渀最 愀渀搀 怀䰀攀琀 洀攀 猀愀礀 栀漀眀 洀甀挀栀 䤀ऀ䈀爀甀渀渀攀爀⸀⸀⸀✀ ⴀⴀ 攀渀樀漀礀攀搀 唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀⸀ 䤀 爀攀愀氀氀礀ऀ一攀椀氀⸀䜀愀爀戀甀琀琀䀀愀昀昀愀⸀最漀瘀⸀愀甀 琀栀漀甀最栀琀 椀琀 眀愀猀 昀愀猀挀椀渀愀琀椀渀最ऀऀऀऀ 愀渀搀 愀 最爀攀愀琀 爀攀愀搀⸀✀ ⴀⴀऀ怀䈀爀椀氀氀愀渀琀✀ ⴀⴀ 瀀栀椀氀椀瀀开猀椀洀䀀椀搀最⸀挀漀洀 ⠀䔀搀椀琀漀爀Ⰰऀ最攀爀愀爀搀挀䀀漀渀攀⸀渀攀琀⸀愀甀 一攀琀眀漀爀欀 圀漀爀氀搀⤀ऀ怀䌀漀洀瀀攀氀氀椀渀最 爀攀愀搀椀渀最 昀漀爀 琀栀漀猀攀 怀䰀漀瘀攀搀 椀琀✀ ⴀⴀऀ漀昀 甀猀 眀栀漀 眀愀渀琀 洀漀爀攀 琀栀愀渀 樀甀猀琀 欀愀漀猀䀀挀琀爀氀⸀挀漀洀⸀愀甀ऀ猀愀氀愀挀椀漀甀猀 愀渀搀 栀礀瀀攀搀 猀渀椀瀀瀀攀琀猀✀ऀⴀⴀ 吀爀甀搀椀攀 䴀愀挀䤀渀琀漀猀栀Ⰰ 吀栀攀 怀䴀愀欀攀猀 琀栀攀 攀猀漀琀攀爀椀挀 眀漀爀氀搀 漀昀ऀ䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀 琀栀攀 栀愀挀欀攀爀 愀挀挀攀猀猀椀戀氀攀✀ ⴀⴀऀऀऀऀ 䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀 䈀漀漀欀猀攀氀氀攀爀 愀渀搀ऀ怀䌀漀洀瀀攀氀氀椀渀最✀ ⴀⴀ 䐀愀瘀椀搀 一椀挀栀漀氀猀Ⰰ 倀甀戀氀椀猀栀攀爀ऀ吀栀攀 䈀椀最 䤀猀猀甀攀ऀऀऀऀ 怀䴀愀琀琀 倀椀攀渀椀渀最 琀漀氀搀 洀攀 愀戀漀甀琀ऀ怀䌀漀渀琀愀椀渀猀 攀渀漀甀最栀 琀攀挀栀渀椀挀愀氀 椀琀 愀渀搀 猀栀漀眀攀搀 洀攀 琀栀攀 愀爀琀椀挀氀攀ऀ椀渀昀漀爀洀愀琀椀漀渀 琀漀 椀洀瀀爀攀猀猀 愀渀礀漀渀攀 椀渀 吀栀攀 䄀最攀⸀⸀ 挀漀渀猀攀焀甀攀渀琀氀礀⸀⸀ऀ眀栀漀 挀愀渀 愀瀀瀀爀攀挀椀愀琀攀 椀琀✀ ⴀⴀ 眀攀 戀漀甀最栀琀 椀琀Ⰰ 眀攀 爀攀愀搀 椀琀Ⰰ 眀攀ऀ樀洀椀搀最氀攀礀䀀挀礀戀攀爀樀甀渀欀椀攀⸀挀漀洀 氀漀瘀攀搀 椀琀⸀ 㨀⤀✀ ⴀⴀऀऀऀऀ 挀愀洀猀漀渀䀀猀眀椀渀⸀攀搀甀⸀愀甀ऀ怀䌀漀甀氀搀渀✀琀 瀀甀琀 椀琀 搀漀眀渀✀ ⴀⴀऀ吀爀甀搀椀攀 䴀愀挀䤀渀琀漀猀栀Ⰰ 吀栀攀 怀䴀攀攀猀氀攀瀀攀渀搀攀 戀漀漀欀✀ ⴀⴀऀ䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀 䐀椀最椀昀愀挀攀Ⰰ 吀栀攀 一攀琀栀攀爀氀愀渀搀猀ऀ怀䐀攀瀀琀栀 漀昀 挀栀愀爀愀挀琀攀爀 愀渀搀 爀愀瀀椀搀 怀䴀攀琀椀挀甀氀漀甀猀氀礀 爀攀猀攀愀爀挀栀攀搀✀ ⴀⴀऀ瀀愀挀椀渀最✀ ⴀⴀ 䔀搀 䈀甀爀渀猀Ⰰ 䤀䈀䤀䌀 䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀 䈀漀漀欀猀攀氀氀攀爀 愀渀搀ऀऀऀऀ 倀甀戀氀椀猀栀攀爀ऀ怀䐀椀猀瀀氀愀礀猀 愀 氀攀瘀攀氀 漀昀 爀攀猀攀愀爀挀栀ऀ愀渀搀 琀攀挀栀渀椀挀愀氀 甀渀搀攀爀猀琀愀渀搀椀渀最 怀䴀攀琀椀挀甀漀甀猀氀礀 爀攀猀攀愀爀挀栀攀搀ऀ渀漀琀 洀愀琀挀栀攀搀 戀礀 漀琀栀攀爀 栀愀挀欀攀爀 瀀猀礀挀栀漀氀漀最椀挀愀氀 愀渀搀 猀漀挀椀愀氀ऀ戀漀漀欀猀✀ ⴀⴀ 䨀椀洀 䰀椀瀀瀀愀爀搀 瀀爀漀昀椀氀攀 漀昀 栀愀挀欀攀爀猀✀ ⴀⴀऀऀऀऀ 䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀 䈀漀漀欀猀攀氀氀攀爀 愀渀搀ऀ怀䐀椀瘀攀 椀渀琀漀 琀栀攀 唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀 愀渀搀 倀甀戀氀椀猀栀攀爀ऀ戀攀 猀眀攀瀀琀 椀渀琀漀 愀 琀栀爀椀氀氀椀渀最ऀ攀氀椀琀攀 爀攀愀氀洀✀ ⴀⴀ 怀䴀漀猀琀 戀爀椀氀氀椀愀渀琀 戀漀漀欀 䤀 栀愀瘀攀ऀ攀瘀戀甀爀渀猀䀀最琀攀⸀渀攀琀 攀瘀攀爀 爀攀愀搀✀ ⴀⴀऀऀऀऀ 瀀栀漀攀渀椀砀䀀攀椀猀愀⸀渀攀琀⸀愀甀ऀ怀䐀爀攀礀昀甀猀 搀漀攀猀 渀漀琀 愀琀琀攀洀瀀琀 愀渀礀ऀ猀氀攀椀最栀琀猀 漀昀 栀愀渀搀 眀椀琀栀 樀愀爀最漀渀✀ 怀一椀挀攀 眀漀爀欀✀ ⴀⴀऀⴀⴀ 䐀愀瘀椀搀 一椀挀栀漀氀猀Ⰰ 吀栀攀 䈀椀最 愀氀攀瀀栀䀀甀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀⸀漀爀最ऀ䤀猀猀甀攀ऀऀऀऀ 怀倀漀眀攀爀昀甀氀✀ ⴀⴀ 攀瘀戀甀爀渀猀䀀最琀攀⸀渀攀琀ऀ怀䐀爀攀礀昀甀猀 栀愀猀 挀氀攀愀爀氀礀 搀漀渀攀 栀攀爀ऀ爀攀猀攀愀爀挀栀 眀攀氀氀✀ ⴀⴀ 䐀愀渀渀礀 夀攀攀Ⰰ 怀刀攀愀搀猀 氀椀欀攀 䰀甀搀氀甀洀⸀⸀ 䤀 氀漀瘀攀ऀ䐀愀渀渀礀 夀攀攀✀猀 爀攀瘀椀攀眀 漀昀 戀漀漀欀猀 琀栀攀 戀漀漀欀⸀⸀ 吀栀攀 猀琀礀氀攀 漀昀ऀऀऀऀ 眀爀椀琀椀渀最 椀猀 琀栀攀 挀氀椀渀挀栀攀爀⸀⸀✀ ⴀⴀऀ怀䐀爀攀礀昀甀猀 栀愀琀 栀椀攀爀 䄀戀栀椀氀昀攀 樀洀樀䀀猀瀀攀攀搀渀攀琀⸀挀漀洀⸀愀甀ऀ最攀猀挀栀愀昀昀攀渀✀ ⴀⴀ 椀堀Ⰰ 䜀攀爀洀愀渀礀ऀऀऀऀ 怀刀攀愀搀猀 氀椀欀攀 愀 琀栀爀椀氀氀攀爀✀ ⴀⴀऀ怀䐀爀攀礀昀甀猀 椀猀 漀渀攀 猀洀愀爀琀 挀漀漀欀椀攀✀ 吀栀攀 䄀最攀ऀⴀⴀ 䔀搀 䈀甀爀渀猀Ⰰ 䤀䈀䤀䌀ऀऀऀऀ 怀刀椀瘀攀琀椀渀最✀ ⴀⴀ 䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀ऀ怀䔀氀 氀椀戀爀漀 琀椀攀渀攀 挀漀洀漀 昀甀攀渀琀攀猀 愀 䈀漀漀欀猀攀氀氀攀爀 愀渀搀 倀甀戀氀椀猀栀攀爀ऀ瘀愀爀椀漀猀 最爀甀瀀漀猀 搀攀 栀愀挀欀攀爀猀ऀ愀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀漀猀 礀 琀漀搀愀猀 氀愀猀 怀刀椀瘀椀琀椀渀最 爀攀愀搀✀ⴀⴀ 吀栀攀ऀ猀攀渀琀攀渀挀椀愀猀 搀攀 氀漀猀 挀愀猀漀猀 搀攀 䄀搀攀氀愀椀搀攀 䄀搀瘀攀爀琀椀猀攀爀ऀ愀猀愀氀琀漀猀 椀渀昀漀爀洀愀琀椀挀漀猀 搀攀 攀猀愀ऀ攀瀀漀挀愀✀ ⴀⴀ 䌀爀椀瀀琀漀Ⰰ 匀瀀愀椀渀 怀匀攀瘀攀爀愀氀 挀椀琀攀猀 琀漀 椀琀 椀渀 洀礀ऀऀऀऀ 漀眀渀 戀漀漀欀 漀渀 椀渀昀漀爀洀愀琀椀漀渀ऀ怀䔀渀樀漀礀攀搀 琀栀攀 戀漀漀欀℀✀ ⴀⴀ 䨀愀欀攀 眀愀爀昀愀爀攀✀ ⴀⴀ 倀爀漀昀⸀ 䐀漀爀漀琀栀礀ऀ䈀愀爀渀攀猀Ⰰ 吀栀攀 䘀愀挀攀 ⠀唀䬀⤀ 䐀攀渀渀椀渀最ऀ怀䔀渀琀椀爀攀氀礀 漀爀椀最椀渀愀氀✀ ⴀⴀ 刀漀氀氀椀渀最 怀匀欀愀氀氀 搀甀 氀愀㨀猀愀 唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀ऀ匀琀漀渀攀 ⴀⴀ 䴀椀欀愀攀氀 倀愀眀氀漀Ⰰ 䤀渀琀攀爀渀攀琀ऀऀऀऀ 圀漀爀氀搀Ⰰ 匀眀攀搀攀渀ऀ怀䔀猀瀀攀挀椀愀氀洀攀渀琀攀 椀渀琀攀爀攀猀愀渀琀攀✀ ⴀⴀऀ䌀爀椀瀀琀漀Ⰰ 匀瀀愀椀渀 怀吀䠀䤀匀 䈀伀伀䬀 䤀匀 䘀伀刀 夀伀唀℀✀ ⴀⴀऀऀऀऀ 氀甀挀愀猀戀䀀猀甀戀⸀渀攀琀⸀愀甀ऀ怀䔀砀挀攀氀氀攀渀琀 椀渀猀椀最栀琀✀ ⴀⴀऀ搀挀眀䀀愀氀瀀栀愀氀椀渀欀⸀挀漀洀⸀愀甀 怀吀栀愀渀欀 礀漀甀 昀漀爀 猀甀挀栀 愀渀ऀऀऀऀ 䄀䴀䄀娀䤀一䜀 愀渀搀 椀渀昀漀爀洀愀琀椀瘀攀 戀漀漀欀✀ऀ怀䔀砀挀攀氀氀攀渀琀 爀攀瀀漀爀琀椀渀最✀ ⴀⴀ ⴀⴀ 樀愀猀漀渀瘀愀猀䀀栀漀琀洀愀椀氀⸀挀漀洀ऀ䔀搀椀琀漀爀Ⰰ 䤀䈀䤀䌀ऀऀऀऀ 怀吀栀攀 爀攀愀搀攀爀 椀猀 爀攀愀搀椀氀礀 搀爀愀眀渀ऀ怀䔀砀挀攀氀氀攀渀琀⸀⸀ 䌀漀洀瀀愀爀攀搀 愀最愀椀渀猀琀 昀漀爀眀愀爀搀 椀渀琀漀 琀栀攀 攀搀搀椀攀猀 漀昀ऀ䈀爀甀挀攀 匀琀攀爀氀椀渀最✀猀 琀攀砀琀 ⠀琀栀攀 琀栀攀 甀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀 戀礀 琀栀攀 琀栀爀甀猀琀ऀ洀漀猀琀 漀戀瘀椀漀甀猀 挀漀洀瀀愀爀椀猀漀渀⤀Ⰰ 椀琀 愀渀搀 瀀愀爀爀礀 漀昀 琀栀攀 栀愀挀欀攀爀猀 愀渀搀ऀ洀愀欀攀猀 昀漀爀 洀甀挀栀 戀攀琀琀攀爀 琀栀攀椀爀 瀀甀爀猀甀攀爀猀✀ ⴀⴀ 䔀搀 䈀甀爀渀猀Ⰰऀ爀攀愀搀椀渀最⸀⸀ 䌀漀洀洀攀渀搀愀戀氀攀✀ ⴀⴀ 䤀䈀䤀䌀ऀ栀愀爀猀栀洀愀渀䀀瀀愀爀愀搀椀最洀⸀甀漀爀⸀攀搀甀ऀऀऀऀ 怀吀栀攀 琀爀甀攀 猀琀漀爀椀攀猀 漀昀ऀ怀䔀砀琀爀愀漀爀搀椀渀愀爀礀✀ ⴀⴀ 刀漀氀氀椀渀最 唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀 愀爀攀 猀椀洀瀀氀礀ऀ匀琀漀渀攀 挀漀洀瀀攀氀氀椀渀最✀ ⴀⴀ 䐀愀瘀椀搀 一椀挀栀漀氀猀Ⰰऀऀऀऀ 吀栀攀 䈀椀最 䤀猀猀甀攀ऀ怀䘀愀猀挀椀渀愀琀椀渀最 瀀椀攀挀攀 漀昀ऀ椀渀瘀攀猀琀椀最愀琀椀瘀攀 樀漀甀爀渀愀氀椀猀洀✀ ⴀⴀ 怀吀栀攀爀攀 椀猀 洀甀挀栀 琀漀 愀搀洀椀爀攀 椀渀ऀ䨀椀洀 刀攀愀瘀椀猀Ⰰ 一攀琀眀漀爀欀 圀漀爀氀搀 琀栀攀 搀漀最最攀搀渀攀猀猀 眀椀琀栀 眀栀椀挀栀ऀऀऀऀ 䐀爀攀礀昀甀猀 昀漀氀氀漀眀猀 栀攀爀 猀甀戀樀攀挀琀猀✀ऀ怀䘀愀猀挀椀渀愀琀椀渀最✀ ⴀⴀ 䔀搀 䈀甀爀渀猀Ⰰ ⴀⴀ 䜀椀搀攀漀 䠀愀椀最栀Ⰰ 䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀ऀ䤀䈀䤀䌀 䰀椀琀攀爀愀爀礀 匀甀瀀瀀氀椀洀攀渀琀ऀ怀䘀椀攀爀挀攀氀礀 椀渀搀攀瀀攀渀搀攀渀琀 琀栀椀渀欀椀渀最 怀吀栀漀爀漀甀最栀氀礀 攀渀樀漀礀攀搀✀ ⴀⴀऀ昀漀甀渀搀 漀渀 攀瘀攀爀礀 瀀愀最攀✀ ⴀⴀ 䰀攀眀 匀甀稀愀渀渀攀 倀爀愀琀氀攀礀Ⰰ 䘀爀甀最愀氀 䘀椀氀洀猀ऀ䬀漀挀栀Ⰰ 娀䐀一䔀吀ऀऀऀऀ 怀吀栀漀爀漀甀最栀氀礀 爀攀猀攀愀爀挀栀攀搀✀ ⴀⴀऀ怀䘀漀爀 琀栀漀猀攀 猀椀挀欀 漀昀 戀甀氀氀椀猀栀 䨀椀洀 刀攀愀瘀椀猀Ⰰ 一攀琀眀漀爀欀 圀漀爀氀搀ऀ挀礀戀攀爀瀀椀昀昀氀攀Ⰰ 唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀ऀ挀漀渀琀愀椀渀猀 愀渀礀 愀洀漀甀渀琀 漀昀 怀吀栀漀猀攀 椀渀挀氀椀渀攀搀 琀漀 猀攀攀欀 琀栀攀ऀ挀漀甀渀琀攀爀椀渀琀攀氀氀椀最攀渀挀攀⸀⸀∀ ⴀⴀ 甀渀瘀愀爀渀椀猀栀攀搀 琀爀甀琀栀 眀椀氀氀 昀椀渀搀ऀ䜀椀搀攀漀渀 䠀愀椀最栀Ⰰ 䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀 唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀 愀渀 攀砀挀攀氀氀攀渀琀ऀ䰀椀琀攀爀愀爀礀 匀甀瀀瀀氀椀洀攀渀琀 爀攀愀搀✀ ⴀⴀ 䜀攀漀爀最攀 匀洀椀琀栀Ⰰ 䌀爀礀瀀琀ऀऀऀऀ 一攀眀猀ऀ怀䜀攀渀甀椀渀攀 瀀攀爀挀攀瀀琀椀漀渀✀ ⴀⴀ 䜀攀漀爀最攀ऀ匀洀椀琀栀Ⰰ 䌀爀礀瀀琀 一攀眀猀 怀吀漀琀愀氀氀礀 爀攀挀漀洀洀攀渀搀攀搀✀ ⴀⴀऀऀऀऀ 䴀愀琀琀栀攀眀 䜀爀攀攀渀Ⰰ 一攀琀䈀匀䐀ऀ怀䜀攀渀甀椀渀攀氀礀 昀愀猀挀椀渀愀琀椀渀最✀ ⴀⴀ 匀攀挀甀爀椀琀礀 伀昀昀椀挀攀爀Ⰰ 愀甀琀栀漀爀 䤀刀䌀ऀ䐀愀瘀椀搀 一椀挀栀漀氀猀Ⰰ 吀栀攀 䈀椀最 䤀猀猀甀攀 䤀䤀ऀ怀䜀爀攀愀琀 爀攀愀氀 氀椀昀攀 琀栀爀椀氀氀攀爀✀ ⴀⴀ 怀嘀攀爀礀 最漀漀搀Ⰰ 瘀攀爀礀 愀挀挀甀爀愀琀攀⸀⸀ऀ樀洀椀搀最氀攀礀䀀挀礀戀攀爀樀甀渀欀椀攀⸀挀漀洀 洀愀欀攀猀 昀漀爀 愀渀 椀渀琀攀爀攀猀琀椀渀最ऀऀऀऀ 挀漀渀琀爀愀猀琀 眀椀琀栀 戀漀漀欀猀 氀椀欀攀ऀ怀䜀爀椀瀀瀀椀渀最 䄀挀挀漀甀渀琀✀ⴀⴀ 吀栀攀 䌀甀挀欀漀漀✀猀 䔀最最Ⰰ 愀渀搀 吀愀欀攀搀漀眀渀✀ऀ䄀搀攀氀愀椀搀攀 䄀搀瘀攀爀琀椀猀攀爀 ⴀⴀ 戀琀栀攀爀氀䀀渀甀氀氀渀攀琀⸀渀攀琀 ⠀䌀漀搀攀砀ऀऀऀऀ 匀甀爀瘀攀椀氀氀愀渀挀攀 䰀椀猀琀⤀ऀ怀䜀爀椀瀀瀀椀渀最Ⰰ 攀洀椀渀攀渀琀氀礀 爀攀愀搀愀戀氀攀✀ऀⴀⴀ 刀漀氀氀椀渀最 匀琀漀渀攀 怀圀伀圀℀ 圀栀愀琀 愀渀 椀渀挀爀攀搀椀戀氀攀ऀऀऀऀ 爀攀愀搀℀ 夀漀甀爀 戀漀漀欀 挀愀瀀琀甀爀攀猀ऀ怀䠀椀最栀氀礀 椀渀琀攀渀猀攀 愀渀搀 攀渀樀漀礀愀戀氀攀 攀砀愀挀琀氀礀 眀栀愀琀 椀琀 眀愀猀 氀椀欀攀 昀漀爀ऀ爀攀愀搀✀ ⴀⴀ 刀漀氀氀椀渀最 匀琀漀渀攀 洀攀⸀⸀⸀✀ ⴀⴀ 䄀渀漀渀礀洀漀甀猀 䌀愀渀愀搀椀愀渀ऀऀऀऀ 栀愀挀欀攀爀ऀ怀䠀椀最栀氀礀 漀爀椀最椀渀愀氀 椀渀瘀攀猀琀椀最愀琀椀瘀攀ऀ樀漀甀爀渀愀氀椀猀洀✀ ⴀⴀ 䜀椀搀攀漀 䠀愀椀最栀Ⰰ 怀圀攀氀氀 搀漀渀攀 愀渀搀 琀栀愀渀欀猀✀ ⴀⴀऀ䄀甀猀琀爀愀氀椀愀渀 䰀椀琀攀爀愀爀礀 匀甀瀀瀀氀椀洀攀渀琀 匀欀椀渀渀礀䀀甀猀愀昀⸀漀爀最ऀ怀䠀椀最栀氀礀 爀攀挀漀洀洀攀渀搀攀搀✀ ⴀⴀ 䨀椀洀 怀圀栀愀琀 椀猀 洀漀猀琀 椀洀瀀爀攀猀猀椀瘀攀Ⰰऀ䰀椀瀀瀀愀爀搀 栀漀眀攀瘀攀爀Ⰰ 椀猀 琀栀攀 瀀攀爀猀漀渀愀氀ऀऀऀऀ 搀攀琀愀椀氀 猀栀攀 栀愀猀 洀愀渀愀最攀搀 琀漀ऀ怀圀椀氀氀 匀甀爀瀀爀椀猀攀✀ ⴀⴀ 䐀愀爀爀攀渀 最愀爀渀攀爀 愀戀漀甀琀 栀攀爀 猀甀戀樀攀挀琀猀㨀ऀ刀攀攀搀Ⰰ 愀甀琀栀漀爀Ⰰ 椀瀀昀椀爀攀眀愀氀氀 洀漀爀攀 琀栀愀渀 愀渀礀琀栀椀渀最 攀氀猀攀Ⰰ 椀琀ऀऀऀऀ 椀猀 琀栀椀猀 椀猀 眀栀椀挀栀 最椀瘀攀猀ऀ怀圀漀渀搀攀爀昀甀氀 䈀漀漀欀✀ ⴀⴀ 唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀 椀琀猀 愀瀀瀀攀愀氀✀ ⴀⴀऀ匀琀攀瘀攀嘀䀀瀀椀最瀀漀渀搀⸀渀攀琀⸀愀甀 䐀愀渀渀礀 夀攀攀Ⰰ 䐀愀渀渀礀 夀攀攀✀猀 爀攀瘀椀攀眀ऀऀऀऀ 漀昀 戀漀漀欀猀ऀऀ 昀攀攀搀戀愀挀欀䀀甀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀ⴀ戀漀漀欀⸀挀漀洀 开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开 ऀऀ 倀刀䔀䘀䄀䌀䔀 吀伀 吀䠀䔀 䔀䰀䔀䌀吀刀伀一䤀䌀 䔀䐀䤀吀䤀伀一 开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开 圀栀礀 眀漀甀氀搀 愀渀 愀甀琀栀漀爀 最椀瘀攀 愀眀愀礀 愀渀 甀渀氀椀洀椀琀攀搀 渀甀洀戀攀爀 漀昀 挀漀瀀椀攀猀 漀昀 栀攀爀 戀漀漀欀 昀漀爀 昀爀攀攀㼀 吀栀愀琀✀猀 愀 最漀漀搀 焀甀攀猀琀椀漀渀⸀ 圀栀攀渀 怀唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀✀猀 爀攀猀攀愀爀挀栀攀爀Ⰰ 䨀甀氀椀愀渀 䄀猀猀愀渀最攀Ⰰ 昀椀爀猀琀 猀甀最最攀猀琀攀搀 爀攀氀攀愀猀椀渀最 愀渀 攀氀攀挀琀爀漀渀椀挀 瘀攀爀猀椀漀渀 漀昀 琀栀攀 戀漀漀欀 漀渀 琀栀攀 一攀琀 昀漀爀 昀爀攀攀Ⰰ 䤀 栀愀搀 琀漀 猀琀漀瀀 愀渀搀 琀栀椀渀欀 愀戀漀甀琀 樀甀猀琀 琀栀愀琀 焀甀攀猀琀椀漀渀⸀ 䤀✀搀 猀瀀攀渀琀 渀攀愀爀氀礀 琀栀爀攀攀 礀攀愀爀猀 爀攀猀攀愀爀挀栀椀渀最Ⰰ 眀爀椀琀椀渀最 愀渀搀 攀搀椀琀椀渀最 琀栀攀 渀攀愀爀氀礀 㔀 瀀愀最攀猀 漀昀 怀唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀⸀ 䨀甀氀椀愀渀 栀愀搀 眀漀爀欀攀搀 琀栀漀甀猀愀渀搀猀 漀昀 栀漀甀爀猀 搀漀椀渀最 瀀愀椀渀猀琀愀欀椀渀最 爀攀猀攀愀爀挀栀㬀 搀椀猀挀漀瘀攀爀椀渀最 愀渀搀 挀甀氀琀椀瘀愀琀椀渀最 猀漀甀爀挀攀猀Ⰰ 搀椀最最椀渀最 眀椀琀栀 最爀攀愀琀 爀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀昀甀氀渀攀猀猀 椀渀琀漀 漀戀猀挀甀爀攀 搀愀琀愀戀愀猀攀猀 愀渀搀 氀攀最愀氀 瀀愀瀀攀爀猀Ⰰ 渀漀琀 琀漀 洀攀渀琀椀漀渀 瀀爀漀瘀椀搀椀渀最 瘀愀氀甀愀戀氀攀 攀搀椀琀漀爀椀愀氀 愀搀瘀椀挀攀⸀ 匀漀 眀栀礀 眀漀甀氀搀 䤀 最椀瘀攀 愀眀愀礀 琀栀椀猀 挀愀爀攀昀甀氀氀礀 爀椀瀀攀渀攀搀 昀爀甀椀琀 昀漀爀 昀爀攀攀㼀 䈀攀挀愀甀猀攀 瀀愀爀琀 漀昀 琀栀攀 樀漀礀 漀昀 挀爀攀愀琀椀渀最 愀 瀀椀攀挀攀 漀昀 愀爀琀 椀猀 椀渀 欀渀漀眀椀渀最 琀栀愀琀 洀愀渀礀 瀀攀漀瀀氀攀 挀愀渀 ⴀ 愀渀搀 愀爀攀 ⴀ 攀渀樀漀礀椀渀最 椀琀⸀ 倀愀爀琀椀挀甀氀愀爀氀礀 瀀攀漀瀀氀攀 眀栀漀 挀愀渀✀琀 漀琀栀攀爀眀椀猀攀 愀昀昀漀爀搀 琀漀 瀀愀礀 ␀ 唀匀䐀 昀漀爀 愀 戀漀漀欀⸀ 倀攀漀瀀氀攀 猀甀挀栀 愀猀 挀愀猀栀 猀琀爀愀瀀瀀攀搀 栀愀挀欀攀爀猀⸀ 吀栀椀猀 戀漀漀欀 椀猀 愀戀漀甀琀 琀栀攀洀Ⰰ 琀栀攀椀爀 氀椀瘀攀猀 愀渀搀 漀戀猀攀猀猀椀漀渀猀⸀ 䤀琀 爀甀戀猀 挀氀攀愀爀 愀 猀洀愀氀氀 挀椀爀挀氀攀 椀渀 琀栀攀 昀爀漀猀琀攀搀 最氀愀猀猀 猀漀 琀栀攀 爀攀愀搀攀爀 挀愀渀 瀀攀攀爀 椀渀琀漀 琀栀愀琀 栀愀稀礀 眀漀爀氀搀⸀ 怀唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀ 戀攀氀漀渀最猀 漀渀 琀栀攀 一攀琀Ⰰ 椀渀 琀栀攀椀爀 攀瀀栀攀洀攀爀愀氀 氀愀渀搀猀挀愀瀀攀⸀ 吀栀攀 挀爀椀琀椀挀猀 栀愀瘀攀 戀攀攀渀 最漀漀搀 琀漀 怀唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀Ⰰ 昀漀爀 眀栀椀挀栀 䤀 愀洀 瘀攀爀礀 最爀愀琀攀昀甀氀⸀ 䈀甀琀 琀栀攀 戀攀猀琀 瀀爀愀椀猀攀 挀愀洀攀 昀爀漀洀 琀眀漀 漀昀 琀栀攀 栀愀挀欀攀爀猀 搀攀琀愀椀氀攀搀 椀渀 琀栀攀 戀漀漀欀⸀ 匀甀爀瀀爀椀猀椀渀最 瀀爀愀椀猀攀Ⰰ 戀攀挀愀甀猀攀 眀栀椀氀攀 琀栀攀 琀攀砀琀 椀猀 昀爀攀攀 漀昀 琀栀攀 渀愀爀爀愀琀椀瘀攀 洀漀爀愀氀椀猀椀渀最 琀栀愀琀 瀀氀愀最甀攀 漀琀栀攀爀 眀漀爀欀猀Ⰰ 琀栀攀 猀攀氀攀挀琀椀漀渀 漀昀 洀愀琀攀爀椀愀氀 椀猀 漀昀琀攀渀 瘀攀爀礀 瀀攀爀猀漀渀愀氀 愀渀搀 攀瘀漀欀攀猀 洀椀砀攀搀 猀礀洀瀀愀琀栀椀攀猀⸀ 伀渀攀 漀昀 琀栀攀 栀愀挀欀攀爀猀Ⰰ 䄀渀琀栀爀愀砀 搀爀漀瀀瀀攀搀 戀礀 洀礀 漀昀昀椀挀攀 琀漀 猀愀礀 怀䠀椀✀⸀ 伀甀琀 漀昀 琀栀攀 戀氀甀攀Ⰰ 栀攀 猀愀椀搀 眀椀琀栀 愀 渀漀琀攀 漀昀 愀洀愀稀攀洀攀渀琀Ⰰ 怀圀栀攀渀 䤀 爀攀愀搀 琀栀漀猀攀 挀栀愀瀀琀攀爀猀Ⰰ 椀琀 眀愀猀 猀漀 爀攀愀氀Ⰰ 愀猀 椀昀 礀漀甀 栀愀搀 戀攀攀渀 爀椀最栀琀 琀栀攀爀攀 椀渀猀椀搀攀 洀礀 栀攀愀搀✀⸀ 一漀琀 氀漀渀最 愀昀琀攀爀 倀愀爀Ⰰ 栀愀氀昀 愀 眀漀爀氀搀 愀眀愀礀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 眀椀琀栀 愀 爀攀愀氀 琀漀渀攀 漀昀 戀攀眀椀氀搀攀爀攀搀 椀渀挀爀攀搀甀氀椀琀礀 椀渀 栀椀猀 瘀漀椀挀攀 洀愀搀攀 攀砀愀挀琀氀礀 琀栀攀 猀愀洀攀 漀戀猀攀爀瘀愀琀椀漀渀⸀ 䘀漀爀 愀 眀爀椀琀攀爀Ⰰ 椀琀 樀甀猀琀 搀漀攀猀渀✀琀 最攀琀 愀渀礀 戀攀琀琀攀爀 琀栀愀渀 琀栀愀琀⸀ 䈀礀 爀攀氀攀愀猀椀渀最 琀栀椀猀 戀漀漀欀 昀漀爀 昀爀攀攀 漀渀 琀栀攀 一攀琀Ⰰ 䤀✀洀 栀漀瀀椀渀最 洀漀爀攀 瀀攀漀瀀氀攀 眀椀氀氀 渀漀琀 漀渀氀礀 攀渀樀漀礀 琀栀攀 猀琀漀爀礀 漀昀 栀漀眀 琀栀攀 椀渀琀攀爀渀愀琀椀漀渀愀氀 挀漀洀瀀甀琀攀爀 甀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀 爀漀猀攀 琀漀 瀀漀眀攀爀Ⰰ 戀甀琀 愀氀猀漀 洀愀欀攀 琀栀攀 樀漀甀爀渀攀礀 椀渀琀漀 琀栀攀 洀椀渀搀猀 漀昀 栀愀挀欀攀爀猀 椀渀瘀漀氀瘀攀搀⸀ 圀栀攀渀 䤀 昀椀爀猀琀 戀攀最愀渀 猀欀攀琀挀栀椀渀最 漀甀琀 琀栀攀 戀漀漀欀✀猀 猀琀爀甀挀琀甀爀攀Ⰰ 䤀 搀攀挀椀搀攀搀 琀漀 最漀 眀椀琀栀 搀攀瀀琀栀⸀ 䤀 眀愀渀琀攀搀 琀栀攀 爀攀愀搀攀爀 琀漀 琀栀椀渀欀Ⰰ ✀一伀圀 䤀 甀渀搀攀爀猀琀愀渀搀Ⰰ 戀攀挀愀甀猀攀 䤀 琀漀漀 眀愀猀 琀栀攀爀攀⸀✀ 䤀 栀漀瀀攀 琀栀漀猀攀 眀漀爀搀猀 眀椀氀氀 攀渀琀攀爀 礀漀甀爀 琀栀漀甀最栀琀猀 愀猀 礀漀甀 爀攀愀搀 琀栀椀猀 攀氀攀挀琀爀漀渀椀挀 戀漀漀欀⸀ 䴀椀挀栀愀攀氀 䠀愀氀氀Ⰰ 愀 猀甀瀀攀爀猀洀愀爀琀 氀愀眀礀攀爀 漀渀 琀栀攀 戀漀漀欀✀猀 氀攀最愀氀 琀攀愀洀Ⰰ 琀漀氀搀 洀攀 椀渀 䨀甀氀礀 氀愀猀琀 礀攀愀爀 栀攀 猀愀眀 愀 礀漀甀渀最 洀愀渀 椀渀 匀礀搀渀攀礀 爀攀愀搀椀渀最 愀 挀漀瀀礀 漀昀 怀唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀ 戀攀猀椀搀攀 栀椀洀 漀渀 琀栀攀 ⌀㌀㠀 戀甀猀 琀漀 一漀爀琀栀 䈀漀渀搀椀⸀ 䴀椀挀栀愀攀氀 猀愀椀搀 栀攀 眀愀渀琀攀搀 琀漀 氀攀愀渀 漀瘀攀爀 愀渀搀 瀀爀漀挀氀愀椀洀 瀀爀漀甀搀氀礀Ⰰ 怀䤀 氀攀最愀氀氀攀搀 琀栀愀琀 戀漀漀欀℀✀⸀ 䤀渀猀琀攀愀搀Ⰰ 栀攀 挀栀漀猀攀 琀漀 眀愀琀挀栀 琀栀攀 礀漀甀渀最 洀愀渀✀猀 爀攀愀挀琀椀漀渀猀⸀ 吀栀攀 礀漀甀渀最 洀愀渀 眀愀猀 挀漀洀瀀氀攀琀攀氀礀 愀戀猀漀爀戀攀搀Ⰰ 爀攀愀搀椀渀最 栀甀渀最爀椀氀礀 琀栀爀漀甀最栀 栀椀猀 眀攀氀氀ⴀ眀漀爀渀 挀漀瀀礀Ⰰ 眀栀椀挀栀 栀攀 栀愀搀 挀漀洀瀀氀攀琀攀氀礀 瀀攀爀猀漀渀愀氀椀猀攀搀⸀ 吀栀攀 瀀愀最攀猀 眀攀爀攀 挀漀瘀攀爀攀搀 椀渀 栀椀最栀氀椀最栀琀攀爀Ⰰ 猀挀爀愀眀氀攀搀 洀愀爀最椀渀 眀爀椀琀椀渀最 愀渀搀 瀀漀猀琀ⴀ椀琀 渀漀琀攀猀⸀ 䠀攀 栀愀搀 甀渀搀攀爀氀椀渀攀搀 猀攀挀琀椀漀渀猀 愀渀搀 搀漀最ⴀ攀愀爀攀搀 瀀愀最攀猀⸀ 䤀昀 琀栀攀 戀甀猀 栀愀搀 搀攀琀漀甀爀攀搀 琀漀 䈀爀椀猀戀愀渀攀Ⰰ 栀攀 瀀爀漀戀愀戀氀礀 眀漀甀氀搀渀✀琀 栀愀瘀攀 渀漀琀椀挀攀搀⸀ 䤀 氀椀欀攀 琀栀愀琀⸀ 䌀愀氀氀 洀攀 猀甀戀瘀攀爀猀椀瘀攀Ⰰ 戀甀琀 䤀✀洀 挀栀甀昀昀攀搀 怀唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀ 椀猀 攀渀最愀最椀渀最 攀渀漀甀最栀 琀漀 洀愀欀攀 瀀攀漀瀀氀攀 洀椀猀猀 戀甀猀 猀琀漀瀀猀⸀ 䤀琀 洀愀欀攀猀 洀攀 栀愀瀀瀀礀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 栀愀瀀瀀礀 瀀攀漀瀀氀攀 甀猀甀愀氀氀礀 眀愀渀琀 琀漀 猀栀愀爀攀⸀ 吀栀攀爀攀 愀爀攀 漀琀栀攀爀 爀攀愀猀漀渀猀 昀漀爀 爀攀氀攀愀猀椀渀最 怀唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀ 椀渀 琀栀椀猀 昀漀爀洀愀琀⸀ 吀栀攀 攀氀攀挀琀爀漀渀椀挀 瘀攀爀猀椀漀渀 椀猀 戀攀椀渀最 搀漀渀愀琀攀搀 琀漀 琀栀攀 瘀椀猀椀漀渀愀爀礀 倀爀漀樀攀挀琀 䜀甀琀攀渀戀甀爀最Ⰰ 愀 挀漀氀氀攀挀琀椀漀渀 漀昀 昀爀攀攀 攀氀攀挀琀爀漀渀椀挀 戀漀漀欀猀 爀甀渀 眀椀琀栀 洀椀猀猀椀漀渀愀爀礀 稀攀愀氀 戀礀 䴀椀挀栀愀攀氀 䠀愀爀琀⸀ 倀爀漀樀攀挀琀 䜀甀琀攀渀戀甀爀最 瀀爀漀洀椀猀攀猀 琀漀 欀攀攀瀀 漀氀搀 漀甀琀ⴀ漀昀ⴀ瀀爀椀渀琀 戀漀漀欀猀 椀渀 昀爀攀攀 怀怀攀氀攀挀琀爀漀渀椀挀✀✀ 瀀爀椀渀琀 昀漀爀攀瘀攀爀Ⰰ 琀漀 戀爀椀渀最 氀椀琀攀爀愀琀甀爀攀 琀漀 琀栀漀猀攀 眀栀漀 挀愀渀✀琀 愀昀昀漀爀搀 戀漀漀欀猀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 琀漀 戀爀椀最栀琀攀渀 琀栀攀 眀漀爀氀搀 漀昀 琀栀攀 瘀椀猀甀愀氀氀礀 椀洀瀀愀椀爀攀搀⸀ 怀唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀ 椀猀渀✀琀 漀甀琀 漀昀 瀀爀椀渀琀 ⴀⴀ 愀渀搀 氀漀渀最 洀愀礀 椀琀 爀攀洀愀椀渀 琀栀愀琀 眀愀礀 ⴀⴀ 戀甀琀 琀栀漀猀攀 愀爀攀 氀愀甀搀愀戀氀攀 最漀愀氀猀⸀ 䤀 眀爀漀琀攀 椀渀 琀栀攀 怀䤀渀琀爀漀搀甀挀琀椀漀渀✀ 琀漀 琀栀攀 瀀爀椀渀琀攀搀 攀搀椀琀椀漀渀 愀戀漀甀琀 洀礀 最爀攀愀琀 愀甀渀琀Ⰰ 愀 搀椀瘀攀爀 愀渀搀 愀爀琀椀猀琀 眀栀漀 瀀椀漀渀攀攀爀攀搀 甀渀搀攀爀眀愀琀攀爀 瀀愀椀渀琀椀渀最 椀渀 琀栀攀 㤀㐀 猀⸀ 匀栀攀 瀀爀漀瘀椀搀攀搀 洀攀 眀椀琀栀 愀 欀椀渀搀 漀昀 椀渀猀瀀椀爀愀琀椀漀渀 昀漀爀 琀栀椀猀 戀漀漀欀⸀ 圀栀愀琀 䤀 搀椀搀渀✀琀 洀攀渀琀椀漀渀 椀猀 琀栀愀琀 愀猀 愀 爀攀猀甀氀琀 漀昀 洀愀挀甀氀愀爀 搀攀最攀渀攀爀愀琀椀漀渀 椀渀 戀漀琀栀 攀礀攀猀Ⰰ 猀栀攀 椀猀 渀漀眀 戀氀椀渀搀⸀ 匀栀攀 挀愀渀 渀漀 氀漀渀最攀爀 瀀愀椀渀琀 漀爀 搀椀瘀攀⸀ 䈀甀琀 猀栀攀 搀漀攀猀 爀攀愀搀 ⴀ 愀瘀椀搀氀礀 ⴀ 琀栀爀漀甀最栀 怀琀愀氀欀椀渀最 戀漀漀欀猀✀⸀ 匀栀攀 椀猀 愀渀漀琀栀攀爀 爀攀愀猀漀渀 䤀 搀攀挀椀搀攀搀 琀漀 爀攀氀攀愀猀攀 怀唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀ 椀渀 琀栀椀猀 昀漀爀洀愀琀⸀ 匀漀Ⰰ 渀漀眀 礀漀甀 挀愀渀 搀漀眀渀氀漀愀搀 愀渀搀 爀攀愀搀 琀栀攀 攀氀攀挀琀爀漀渀椀挀 瘀攀爀猀椀漀渀 漀昀 怀唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀ 昀漀爀 昀爀攀攀⸀ 夀漀甀 挀愀渀 愀氀猀漀 猀攀渀搀 琀栀攀 眀漀爀欀 琀漀 礀漀甀爀 昀爀椀攀渀搀猀 昀漀爀 昀爀攀攀⸀ 伀爀 礀漀甀爀 攀渀攀洀椀攀猀⸀ 䄀琀 愀爀漀甀渀搀 愀 洀攀最愀戀礀琀攀 漀昀 瀀氀愀椀渀 琀攀砀琀 攀愀挀栀Ⰰ 愀 昀攀眀 搀漀稀攀渀 挀漀瀀椀攀猀 漀昀 怀唀渀搀攀爀最爀漀甀渀搀✀ 洀愀欀攀 愀渀 攀砀琀爀攀洀攀氀礀 攀昀昀攀挀琀椀瘀攀 洀愀椀氀 戀漀洀戀⸀ 吀栀愀琀✀猀 愀 樀漀欀攀Ⰰ 昀漀氀欀猀Ⰰ 渀漀琀 愀 猀甀最最攀猀琀椀漀渀⸀ 㬀ⴀ⤀ 䰀椀欀攀 洀愀渀礀 漀昀 琀栀攀 瀀攀漀瀀氀攀 椀渀 琀栀椀猀 戀漀漀欀Ⰰ 䤀✀洀 渀漀琀 戀椀最 漀渀 爀甀氀攀猀⸀ 䘀漀爀琀甀渀愀琀攀氀礀Ⰰ 琀栀攀爀攀 愀爀攀渀✀琀 洀愀渀礀 琀栀愀琀 挀漀洀攀 眀椀琀栀 琀栀椀猀 攀氀攀挀琀爀漀渀椀挀 瘀攀爀猀椀漀渀⸀ 䐀漀渀✀琀 瀀爀椀渀琀 琀栀攀 眀漀爀欀 漀渀 瀀愀瀀攀爀Ⰰ 䌀䐀 漀爀 愀渀礀 漀琀栀攀爀 昀漀爀洀愀琀Ⰰ 攀砀挀攀瀀琀 昀漀爀 礀漀甀爀 漀眀渀 瀀攀爀猀漀渀愀氀 爀攀愀搀椀渀最 瀀氀攀愀猀甀爀攀⸀ 吀栀椀猀 椀渀挀氀甀搀攀猀 甀猀椀渀最 琀栀攀 眀漀爀欀 愀猀 琀攀愀挀栀椀渀最 洀愀琀攀爀椀愀氀 椀渀 椀渀猀琀椀琀甀琀椀漀渀猀⸀ 夀漀甀 洀甀猀琀 渀漀琀 愀氀琀攀爀 漀爀 琀爀甀渀挀愀琀攀 琀栀攀 眀漀爀欀 椀渀 愀渀礀 眀愀礀⸀ 夀漀甀 洀甀猀琀 渀漀琀 爀攀搀椀猀琀爀椀戀甀琀攀 琀栀攀 眀漀爀欀 昀漀爀 愀渀礀 猀漀爀琀 漀昀 瀀愀礀洀攀渀琀Ⰰ 椀渀挀氀甀搀椀渀最 猀攀氀氀椀渀最 椀琀 漀渀 椀琀猀 漀眀渀 漀爀 愀猀 瀀愀爀琀 漀昀 愀 瀀愀挀欀愀最攀⸀ 刀愀渀搀漀洀 䠀漀甀猀攀 椀猀 愀 昀爀椀攀渀搀氀礀 瀀氀愀挀攀Ⰰ 戀甀琀 愀猀 漀渀攀 漀昀 琀栀攀 眀漀爀氀搀✀猀 氀愀爀最攀猀琀 瀀甀戀氀椀猀栀攀爀猀 椀琀 栀愀猀 愀 挀漀氀氀攀挀琀椀漀渀 漀昀 攀焀甀愀氀氀礀 氀愀爀最攀 氀愀眀礀攀爀猀⸀ 䴀攀猀猀椀渀最 眀椀琀栀 琀栀攀洀 眀椀氀氀 氀攀愀瘀攀 礀漀甀 眀椀琀栀 猀挀愀爀猀 椀渀 瀀氀愀挀攀猀 琀栀愀琀 挀漀甀氀搀 戀攀 栀愀爀搀 琀漀 攀砀瀀氀愀椀渀 琀漀 愀渀礀 昀甀琀甀爀攀 瀀愀爀琀渀攀爀⸀ 䤀昀 礀漀甀 眀愀渀琀 琀漀 搀漀 愀渀礀 漀昀 琀栀攀猀攀 琀栀椀渀最猀Ⰰ 瀀氀攀愀猀攀 挀漀渀琀愀挀琀 洀攀 漀爀 洀礀 氀椀琀攀爀愀爀礀 愀最攀渀琀猀 䌀甀爀琀椀猀 䈀爀漀眀渀 ☀ 䌀漀 昀椀爀猀琀⸀ 䤀 爀攀琀愀椀渀 琀栀攀 挀漀瀀礀爀椀最栀琀 漀渀 琀栀攀 眀漀爀欀⸀ 䨀甀氀椀愀渀 䄀猀猀愀渀最攀 搀攀猀椀最渀攀搀 琀栀攀 攀氀攀最愀渀琀 氀愀礀漀甀琀 漀昀 琀栀椀猀 攀氀攀挀琀爀漀渀椀挀 攀搀椀琀椀漀渀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 栀攀 爀攀琀愀椀渀猀 漀眀渀攀爀猀栀椀瀀 漀昀 琀栀椀猀 搀攀猀椀最渀 愀渀搀 氀愀礀漀甀琀⸀ 䤀昀 礀漀甀 氀椀欀攀 琀栀攀 攀氀攀挀琀爀漀渀椀挀 瘀攀爀猀椀漀渀 漀昀 琀栀攀 戀漀漀欀Ⰰ 搀漀 戀甀礀 琀栀攀 瀀愀瀀攀爀 瘀攀爀猀椀漀渀⸀ 圀栀礀㼀 䘀漀爀 猀琀愀爀琀攀爀猀Ⰰ 椀琀✀猀 渀漀琀 漀渀氀礀 洀甀挀栀 攀愀猀椀攀爀 琀漀 爀攀愀搀 漀渀 琀栀攀 戀甀猀Ⰰ 椀琀猀 洀甀挀栀 攀愀猀椀攀爀 琀漀 爀攀愀搀 昀甀氀氀 猀琀漀瀀⸀ 䤀琀✀猀 愀氀猀漀 攀愀猀椀攀爀 琀漀 琀栀甀洀戀 琀栀爀漀甀最栀Ⰰ 栀椀最栀氀椀最栀琀Ⰰ 猀挀爀椀戀戀氀攀 漀渀Ⰰ 搀爀椀戀戀氀攀 漀渀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 猀栀漀眀 漀昀昀⸀ 䤀琀 渀攀瘀攀爀 渀攀攀搀猀 戀愀琀琀攀爀椀攀猀⸀ 䤀琀 挀愀渀 爀甀渀 漀渀 猀漀氀愀爀 瀀漀眀攀爀 愀渀搀 挀愀渀搀氀攀猀⸀ 䤀琀 氀漀漀欀猀 猀攀砀礀 漀渀 礀漀甀爀 戀漀漀欀猀栀攀氀昀Ⰰ 戀礀 礀漀甀爀 戀攀搀 愀渀搀 椀渀 礀漀甀爀 戀攀搀⸀ 䤀昀 礀漀甀 愀爀攀 愀 洀愀氀攀 最攀攀欀Ⰰ 琀栀攀 戀漀漀欀 挀漀洀攀猀 眀椀琀栀 愀 最椀爀氀ⴀ洀愀最渀攀琀 最甀愀爀愀渀琀攀攀⸀ 吀栀攀 瀀愀瀀攀爀 瘀攀爀猀椀漀渀 椀猀 洀甀挀栀 攀愀猀椀攀爀 琀漀 氀攀渀搀 琀漀 愀 瀀爀漀猀瀀攀挀琀椀瘀攀 最椀爀氀昀爀椀攀渀搀⸀ 圀栀攀渀 猀栀攀✀猀 昀椀渀椀猀栀攀搀 爀攀愀搀椀渀最 琀栀攀 戀漀漀欀Ⰰ 愀猀欀 栀攀爀 眀栀椀挀栀 栀愀挀欀攀爀 琀栀爀椀氀氀攀搀 栀攀爀 琀漀 瀀椀攀挀攀猀⸀ 吀栀攀渀 渀漀搀 欀渀漀眀椀渀最氀礀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 猀愀礀 挀漀礀氀礀 怀圀攀氀氀Ⰰ 䤀✀瘀攀 渀攀瘀攀爀 愀搀洀椀琀琀攀搀 琀栀椀猀 琀漀 愀渀礀漀渀攀 攀砀挀攀瀀琀 琀栀攀 愀甀琀栀漀爀 愀渀搀 琀栀攀 䘀攀搀猀Ⰰ 戀甀琀 ⸀⸀✀ 䄀渀搀 琀栀攀 洀漀猀琀 椀洀瀀漀爀琀愀渀琀 爀攀愀猀漀渀 琀漀 瀀甀爀挀栀愀猀攀 愀 瀀愀瀀攀爀 挀漀瀀礀㼀 䈀攀挀愀甀猀攀 戀甀礀椀渀最 琀栀攀 瀀爀椀渀琀攀搀 攀搀椀琀椀漀渀 漀昀 琀栀攀 戀漀漀欀 氀攀琀猀 琀栀攀 愀甀琀栀漀爀 挀漀渀琀椀渀甀攀 琀漀 眀爀椀琀攀 洀漀爀攀 昀椀渀攀 戀漀漀欀猀 氀椀欀攀 琀栀椀猀 漀渀攀⸀ 䔀渀樀漀礀℀ऀऀऀऀऀऀऀ 匀甀攀氀攀琀琀攀 䐀爀攀礀昀甀猀ऀऀऀऀऀऀऀ 䨀愀渀甀愀爀礀 ㈀ 猀甀攀氀攀琀琀攀䀀椀焀⸀漀爀最 开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开开 䰀椀琀攀爀愀爀礀 䘀爀攀攀眀愀爀攀㨀 一漀琀 昀漀爀 䌀漀洀洀攀爀挀椀愀氀 唀猀攀⸀
Copyright (c) 1997, 2001 Suelette Dreyfus & Julian Assange
This HTML and text electronic version was arranged by Julian Assange
and is based on the printed paper edition.
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this
publication provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are
preserved on all copies and distribution is without fee.
___________________________________________________________________
RESEARCHER'S INTRODUCTION
___________________________________________________________________
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask,
and he will tell you the truth" -- Oscar Wilde
"What is essential is invisible to the eye" -- Antoine De Saint-Exupery
"But, how do you *know* it happened like that?" -- Reader
Due of the seamless nature of `Underground' this is a reasonable
question to ask, although hints can be found at the back of the book in
the Bibliography and Endnotes. The simple answer to this question is
that we conducted over a hundred interviews and collected around 40,000
pages of primary documentation; telephone intercepts, data intercepts,
log-files, witness statements, confessions, judgements. Telephone dialog
and on-line discussions are drawn directly from the latter. Every
significant hacking incident mentioned in this book has reams of
primary documentation behind it. System X included.
The non-simple answer goes more like this:
In chapter 4, Par, one of the principle subjects of this book, is being
watched by the Secret Service. He's on the run. He's a wanted
fugitive. He's hiding out with another hacker, Nibbler in a motel
chalet, Black Mountain, North Carolina. The Secret Service move in.
The incident is vital in explaining Par's life on the run and the
nature of his interaction with the Secret Service. Yet, just before the
final edits of this book were to go the publisher, all the pages
relating to the Block Mountain incident were about to be pulled. Why?
Suelette had flown to Tuscon Az where she spent three days
interviewing Par. I had spent dozens of hours interviewing Par on
the phone and on-line. Par gave both of us extraordinary access to
his life. While Par displayed a high degree of paranoia about why
events had unfolded in the manner they had, he was consistent,
detailed and believable as to the events themselves. He showed
very little blurring of these two realities, but we needed to show
none at all.
During Par's time on the run, the international computer underground
was a small and strongly connected place. We had already
co-incidentally interviewed half a dozen hackers he had communicated
with at various times during his zig-zag flight across America. Suelette
also spoke at length to his lead lawyer Richard Rosen, who, after
getting the all-clear from Par, was kind enough to send us a copy of
the legal brief. We had logs of messages Par had written on
underground BBS's. We had data intercepts of other hackers in
conversation with Par. We had obtained various Secret Service documents
and propriety security reports relating to Par's activities. I had
extensively interviewed his Swiss girlfriend Theorem (who had also been
involved with Electron and Pengo), and yes, she did have a melting
French accent.
Altogether we had an enormous amount of material on Par's activities,
all of which was consistent with what Par had said during his
interviews, but none of it, including Rosen's file, contained any
reference to Black Mountain, NC. Rosen, Theorem and others had heard
about a SS raid on the run, yet when the story was traced back, it
always led to one source. To Par.
Was Par having us on? Par had said that he had made a telephone call to
Theorem in Switzerland from a phone booth outside the motel a day or
two before the Secret Service raid. During a storm. Not just any
storm. Hurricane Hugo. But archival news reports on Hugo discussed it
hitting South Carolina, not North Carolina. And not Black
Mountain. Theorem remembered Par calling once during a storm. But not
Hugo. And she didn't remember it in relation to the Black Mountain
raid.
Par had destroyed most of his legal documents, in circumstances that
become clear in the book, but of the hundreds of pages of documentary
material we had obtained from other sources there was wasn't a single
mention of Black Mountain. The Black Mountain Motel didn't seem to
exist. Par said Nibbler had moved and couldn't be located. Dozens of
calls by Suelette to the Secret Service told us what we didn't want to
hear. The agents we thought most likely to have been involved in the
the hypothetical Black Mountain incident had either left the Secret
Service or were otherwise unreachable. The Secret Service had no idea
who would have been involved, because while Par was still listed in the
Secret Service central database, his profile, contained three
significant annotations:
1) Another agency had ``borrowed'' parts Par's file
2) There were medical ``issues'' surrounding Par
3) SS documents covering the time of Black Mountain
incident had been destroyed for various reasons
that become clear the book.
4) The remaining SS documents had been moved into
``deep-storage'' and would take two weeks to retrieve.
With only one week before our publisher's ``use it or lose it''
dead-line, the chances of obtaining secondary confirmation of the Black
Mountain events did not look promising.
While we waited for leads on the long trail of ex, transfered and
seconded SS agents who might have been involved in the Black Mountain
raid, I turned to resolving the two inconsistencies in Par's story;
Hurricane Hugo and the strange invisibility of the Black Mountain
Motel.
Hurricane Hugo had wreathed a path of destruction, but like most most
hurricanes heading directly into a continental land-mass it had started
out big and ended up small. News reports followed this pattern, with a
large amount of material on its initial impact, but little or nothing
about subsequent events. Finally I obtained detailed time by velocity
weather maps from the National Reconnaissance Office, which showed the
remaining Hugo epicentre ripping through Charlotte NC (pop. 400k)
before spending itself on the Carolinas. Database searches turned up a
report by Natalie, D. & Ball, W, EIS Coordinator, North Carolina
Emergency Management, `How North Carolina Managed Hurricane Hugo' --
which was used to flesh out the scenes in Chapter 4 describing Par's
escape to New York via the Charlotte Airport.
Old Fashioned gum-shoe leg-work, calling every motel in Black Mountain
and the surrounding area, revealed that the Black Mountain Motel had
changed name, ownership and.. all its staff. Par's story was holding,
but in some ways I wished it hadn't. We were back to square one in terms
of gaining independent secondary confirmation.
Who else could have been involved? There must have been a paper-trail
outside of Washington. Perhaps the SS representation in Charlotte had
something? No. Perhaps there were records of the warrants in the
Charlotte courts? No. Perhaps NC state police attended the SS raid in
support? Maybe, but finding warm bodies who had been directly involved
proved proved futile. If it was a SS case, they had no indexable
records that they were willing to provide. What about the local
coppers? An SS raid on a fugitive computer hacker holed up at one of
the local motels was not the sort of event that would be likely to have
passed unnoticed at the Black Mountain county police office, indexable
records or not.
Neither however, were international telephone calls from strangely
accented foreign-nationals wanting to know about them. Perhaps the Reds
were no-longer under the beds, but in Black Mountain, this could be
explained away by the fact they were now hanging out in phone booths. I
waited for a new shift at the Black Mountain county police office,
hoping against hope, that the officer I had spoken to wouldn't
contaminate his replacement. Shamed, I resorted to using that most
special of US militia infiltration devices. An American accent and a
woman's touch. Suelette weaved her magic. The Black Mountain raid had
taken place. The county police had supported it. We had our
confirmation.
While this anecdote is a strong account, it's also representative one.
Every chapter in underground was formed from many stories like
it. They're unseen, because a book must not be true merely in details.
It must be true in feeling.
True to the visible and the invisible. A difficult combination.
Julian Assange
January 2001
proff@iq.org
___________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
___________________________________________________________________
Acknowledgements viii
Introduction xi
1 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 1
2 The Corner Pub 45
3 The American Connection 84
4 The Fugitive 120
5 The Holy Grail 159
6 Page One, the New York Times 212
7 Judgment Day 244
8 The International Subversives 285
9 Operation Weather 323
10 Anthrax--the Outsider 364
11 The Prisoner's Dilemma 400
Afterword 427 Glossary and Abbreviations 455 Notes 460
Bibliography
[ Page numbers above correspond to the Random House printed edition ]
_________________________________________________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
_________________________________________________________________
There are many people who were interviewed for this work, and many
others who helped in providing documents so vital for fact
checking. Often this help invovled spending a considerable amount of
time explaining complex technical or legal matters. I want to express
my gratitude to all these people, some of whom prefer to remain
anonymous, for their willingness to dig through the files in search of
yet one more report and their patience in answering yet one more
question.
I want to thank the members of the computer underground, past and
present, who were interviewed for this book. Most gave me
extraordinary access to their lives, for which I am very grateful.
I also want to thank Julian Assange for his tireless research efforts.
His superb technical expertise and first-rate research is evidence by
the immense number of details which are included in this book.
Three exceptional women -- Fiona Inglis, Deb Callaghan and Jennifer
Byrne -- believed in my vision for this book and helped me to bring it
to fruition. Carl Harrison-Ford's excellent editing job streamlined a
large and difficult manuscript despite the tight deadline. Thank you
also to Judy Brookes.
I am also very grateful to the following people and organisations for
their help (in no particular order): John McMahon, Ron Tencati, Kevin
Oberman, Ray Kaplan, the New York Daily News library staff, the New
York Post library staff, Bow Street Magistrates Court staff, Southwark
Court staff, the US Secret Service, the Black Mountain Police, Michael
Rosenberg, Michael Rosen, Melbourne Magistrates Court staff, D.L
Sellers & Co. staff, Victorian County Court staff, Paul Galbally, Mark
Dorset, Suburbia.net, Freeside Communications, Greg Hooper, H&S
Support Services, Peter Andrews, Kevin Thompson, Andrew Weaver,
Mukhtar Hussain, Midnight Oil, Helen Meredith, Ivan Himmelhoch,
Michael Hall, Donn Ferris, Victorian State Library staff, News Limited
library staff (Sydney), Allan Young, Ed DeHart, Annette Seeber, Arthur
Arkin, Doug Barnes, Jeremy Porter, James McNabb, Carolyn Ford, ATA,
Domini Banfield, Alistair Kelman, Ann-Maree Moodie, Jane Hutchinson,
Catherine Murphy, Norma Hawkins, N. Llewelyn, Christine Assange,
Russel Brand, Matthew Bishop, Matthew Cox, Michele Ziehlky, Andrew
James, Brendan McGrath, Warner Chappell Music Australia, News Limited,
Pearson Williams Solicitors, Tami Friedman, the Free Software
Foundation (GNU Project), and the US Department of Energy Computer
Incident Advisory Capability.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, whose unfailing support,
advice and encouragement have made this book possible.
_________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
_________________________________________________________________
My great aunt used to paint underwater.
Piling on the weighty diving gear used in 1939 and looking like
something out of 20000 Leagues Under the Sea, Lucie slowly sank below
the surface, with palette, special paints and canvas
in hand. She settled on the ocean floor, arranged her weighted
painter's easel and allowed herself to become completely enveloped by
another world. Red and white striped fish darted around fields of
blue-green coral and blue-lipped giant clams. Lionfish drifted by,
gracefully waving their dangerous feathered spines. Striped green
moray eels peered at her from their rock crevice homes.
Lucie dived and painted everywhere. The Sulu Archipelago. Mexico.
Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Hawaii. Borneo. Sometimes she was the
first white woman seen by the Pacific villagers she lived with for
months on end.
As a child, I was entranced by her stories of the unknown world below
the ocean's surface, and the strange and wonderful cultures she met on
her journeys. I grew up in awe of her chosen task: to capture on
canvas the essence of a world utterly foreign to her own.
New technology--revolutionary for its time--had allowed her to do
this. Using a compressor, or sometimes just a hand pump connected to
air hoses running to the surface, human beings were suddenly able to
submerge themselves for long periods in an otherwise inaccessible
world. New technology allowed her to both venture into this unexplored
realm, and to document it in canvas.
I came upon the brave new world of computer communications and its
darker side, the underground, quite by accident. It struck me
somewhere in the journey that followed that my trepidations and
conflicting desires to explore this alien world were perhaps not
unlike my aunt's own desires some half a century before. Like her
journey, my own travels have only been made possible by new
technologies. And like her, I have tried to capture a small corner of
this world.
This is a book about the computer underground. It is not a book about
law enforcement agencies, and it is not written from the point of view
of the police officer. From a literary perspective, I have told this
story through the eyes of numerous computer hackers. In doing so, I
hope to provide the reader with a window into a mysterious, shrouded
and usually inaccessible realm.
Who are hackers? Why do they hack? There are no simple answers to
these questions. Each hacker is different. To that end, I have
attempted to present a collection of individual but interconnected
stories, bound by their links to the international computer
underground. These are true stories, tales of the world's best and the
brightest hackers and phreakers. There are some members of the
underground whose stories I have not covered, a few of whom would also
rank as world-class. In the end, I chose to paint detailed portraits
of a few hackers rather than attempt to compile a comprehensive but
shallow catalogue.
While each hacker has a distinct story, there are common themes which
appear throughout many of the stories. Rebellion against all symbols
of authority. Dysfunctional families. Bright children suffocated by
ill-equipped teachers. Mental illness or instability. Obsession and
addiction.
I have endeavoured to track what happened to each character in this
work over time: the individual's hacking adventures, the police raid
and the ensuing court case. Some of those court cases have taken years
to reach completion.
Hackers use `handles'--on-line nicknames--that serve two purposes.
They shield the hacker's identity and, importantly, they often make a
statement about how the hacker perceives himself in the underground.
Hawk, Crawler, Toucan Jones, Comhack, Dataking, Spy, Ripmax, Fractal
Insanity, Blade. These are all real handles used in Australia.
In the computer underground, a hacker's handle is his name. For this
reason, and because most hackers in this work have now put together
new lives for themselves, I have chosen to use only their handles.
Where a hacker has had more than one handle, I have used the one he
prefers.
Each chapter in this book is headed with a quote from a Midnight Oil
song which expresses an important aspect of the chapter. The Oilz are
uniquely Australian. Their loud voice of protest against the
establishment--particularly the military-industrial
establishment--echoes a key theme in the underground, where music in
general plays a vital role.
The idea for using these Oilz extracts came while researching Chapter
1, which reveals the tale of the WANK worm crisis in NASA. Next to the
RTM worm, WANK is the most famous worm in the history of computer
networks. And it is the first major worm bearing a political message.
With WANK, life imitated art, since the term computer `worm' came from
John Brunner's sci-fi novel, The Shockwave Rider, about a politically
motivated worm.
The WANK worm is also believed to be the first worm written by an
Australian, or Australians.
This chapter shows the perspective of the computer system
administrators--the people on the other side from the hackers. Lastly,
it illustrates the sophistication which one or more Australian members
of the worldwide computer underground brought to their computer
crimes.
The following chapters set the scene for the dramas which unfold and
show the transition of the underground from its early days, its loss
of innocence, its closing ranks in ever smaller circles until it
reached the inevitable outcome: the lone hacker. In the beginning, the
computer underground was a place, like the corner pub, open and
friendly. Now, it has become an ephemeral expanse, where hackers
occasionally bump into one another but where the original sense of
open community has been lost.
The computer underground has changed over time, largely in response to
the introduction of new computer crime laws across the globe and to
numerous police crackdowns. This work attempts to document not only an
important piece of Australian history, but also to show fundamental
shifts in the underground --to show, in essence, how the underground
has moved further underground.
Suelette Dreyfus
March 1997
_________________________________________________________________
Chapter 1 -- 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
_________________________________________________________________
Somebody's out there, somebody's waiting
Somebody's trying to tell me something
-- from `Somebody's Trying to Tell Me Something', on 10, 9, 8, 7, 6,
5, 4, 3, 2, 1 by Midnight Oil
Monday, 16 October 1989
Kennedy Space Center, Florida
NASA buzzed with the excitement of a launch. Galileo was finally going
to Jupiter.
Administrators and scientists in the world's most prestigious space
agency had spent years trying to get the unmanned probe into space.
Now, on Tuesday, 17 October, if all went well, the five astronauts in
the Atlantis space shuttle would blast off from the Kennedy Space
Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida, with Galileo in tow. On the team's
fifth orbit, as the shuttle floated 295 kilometres above the Gulf of
Mexico, the crew would liberate the three-tonne space probe.
An hour later, as Galileo skated safely away from the shuttle, the
probe's 32500 pound booster system would fire up and NASA staff would
watch this exquisite piece of human ingenuity embark on a six-year
mission to the largest planet in the solar system. Galileo would take
a necessarily circuitous route, flying by Venus once and Earth twice
in a gravitational slingshot effort to get up enough momentum to reach
Jupiter.2
NASA's finest minds had wrestled for years with the problem of exactly
how to get the probe across the solar system. Solar power was one
option. But if Jupiter was a long way from Earth, it was even further
from the Sun--778.3 million kilometres to be exact. Galileo would need
ridiculously large solar panels to generate enough power for its
instruments at such a distance from the Sun. In the end, NASA's
engineers decided on a tried if not true earthly energy source:
nuclear power.
Nuclear power was perfect for space, a giant void free of human life
which could play host to a bit of radioactive plutonium 238 dioxide.
The plutonium was compact for the amount of energy it gave off--and it
lasted a long time. It seemed logical enough. Pop just under 24
kilograms of plutonium in a lead box, let it heat up through its own
decay, generate electricity for the probe's instruments, and presto!
Galileo would be on its way to investigate Jupiter.
American anti-nuclear activists didn't quite see it that way. They
figured what goes up might come down. And they didn't much like the idea
of plutonium rain. NASA assured them Galileo's power pack was quite
safe. The agency spent about $50 million on tests which supposedly
proved the probe's generators were very safe. They would survive intact
in the face of any number of terrible explosions, mishaps and
accidents. NASA told journalists that the odds of a plutonium release
due to `inadvertent atmospheric re-entry' were 1 in 2 million. The
likelihood of a plutonium radiation leak as a result of a launch
disaster was a reassuring 1 in 2700.
The activists weren't having a bar of it. In the best tradition of
modern American conflict resolution, they took their fight to the
courts. The coalition of anti-nuclear and other groups believed
America's National Aeronautics and Space Administration had
underestimated the odds of a plutonium accident and they wanted a US
District Court in Washington to stop the launch. The injunction
application went in, and the stakes went up. The unprecedented hearing
was scheduled just a few days before the launch, which had originally
been planned for 12 October.
For weeks, the protesters had been out in force, demonstrating and
seizing media attention. Things had become very heated. On Saturday, 7
October, sign-wielding activists fitted themselves out with gas masks
and walked around on street corners in nearby Cape Canaveral in
protest. At 8 a.m. on Monday, 9 October, NASA started the countdown
for the Thursday blast-off. But as Atlantis's clock began ticking
toward take-off, activists from the Florida Coalition for Peace and
Justice demonstrated at the centre's tourist complex.
That these protests had already taken some of the shine off NASA's bold
space mission was the least of the agency's worries. The real headache
was that the Florida Coalition told the media it would `put people on
the launchpad in a non-violent protest'.3 The coalition's director,
Bruce Gagnon, put the threat in folksy terms, portraying the protesters
as the little people rebelling against a big bad government
agency. President Jeremy Rivkin of the Foundation on Economic Trends,
another protest group, also drove a wedge between `the people' and
`NASA's people'. He told UPI, `The astronauts volunteered for this
mission. Those around the world who may be the victims of radiation
contamination have not volunteered.'4
But the protesters weren't the only people working the media. NASA
knew how to handle the press. They simply rolled out their
superstars--the astronauts themselves. These men and women were, after
all, frontier heroes who dared to venture into cold, dark space on
behalf of all humanity. Atlantis commander Donald Williams didn't hit
out at the protesters in a blunt fashion, he just damned them from an
aloof distance. `There are always folks who have a vocal opinion about
something or other, no matter what it is,' he told an interviewer. `On
the other hand, it's easy to carry a sign. It's not so easy to go
forth and do something worthwhile.'5
NASA had another trump card in the families of the heroes. Atlantis
co-pilot Michael McCulley said the use of RTGs, Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generators--the chunks of plutonium in the lead
boxes--was a `non-issue'. So much so, in fact, that he planned to have
his loved ones at the Space Center when Atlantis took off.
Maybe the astronauts were nutty risk-takers, as the protesters
implied, but a hero would never put his family in danger. Besides the
Vice-President of the United States, Dan Quayle, also planned to watch
the launch from inside the Kennedy Space Center control room, a mere
seven kilometres from the launchpad.
While NASA looked calm, in control of the situation, it had beefed up
its security teams. It had about 200 security guards watching the
launch site. NASA just wasn't taking any chances. The agency's
scientists had waited too long for this moment. Galileo's parade would
not be rained on by a bunch of peaceniks.
The launch was already running late as it was--almost seven years
late. Congress gave the Galileo project its stamp of approval way back
in 1977 and the probe, which had been budgeted to cost about $400
million, was scheduled to be launched in 1982. However, things began
going wrong almost from the start.
In 1979, NASA pushed the flight out to 1984 because of shuttle
development problems. Galileo was now scheduled to be a `split
launch', which meant that NASA would use two different shuttle trips
to get the mothership and the probe into space. By 1981, with costs
spiralling upwards, NASA made major changes to the project. It stopped
work on Galileo's planned three-stage booster system in favour of a
different system and pushed out the launch deadline yet again, this
time to 1985. After a federal Budget cut fight in 1981 to save
Galileo's booster development program, NASA moved the launch yet
again, to May 1986. The 1986 Challenger disaster, however, saw NASA
change Galileo's booster system for safety reasons, resulting in
yet more delays.
The best option seemed to be a two-stage, solid-fuel IUS system. There
was only one problem. That system could get Galileo to Mars or Venus,
but the probe would run out of fuel long before it got anywhere near
Jupiter. Then Roger Diehl of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory had a good
idea. Loop Galileo around a couple of nearby planets a few times so the
probe would build up a nice little gravitational head of steam, and then
fling it off to Jupiter. Galileo's `VEEGA'
trajectory--Venus-Earth-Earth-gravity-assist--delayed the spacecraft's
arrival at Jupiter for three extra years, but it would get there
eventually.
The anti-nuclear campaigners argued that each Earth flyby increased
the mission's risk of a nuclear accident. But in NASA's view, such was
the price of a successful slingshot.
Galileo experienced other delays getting off the ground. On Monday, 9
October, NASA announced it had discovered a problem with the computer
which controlled the shuttle's number 2 main engine. True, the problem
was with Atlantis, not Galileo. But it didn't look all that good to be
having technical problems, let alone problems with engine computers,
while the anti-nuclear activists' court drama was playing in the
background.
NASA's engineers debated the computer problem in a cross-country
teleconference. Rectifying it would delay blast-off by more than a few
hours. It would likely take days. And Galileo didn't have many of
those. Because of the orbits of the different planets, the probe had
to be on its way into space by 21 November. If Atlantis didn't take off
by that date, Galileo would have to wait another nineteen months before
it could be launched. The project was already $1 billion over its
original $400 million budget. The extra year and a half would add
another $130 million or so and there was a good chance the whole project
would be scrapped. It was pretty much now or never for Galileo.
Despite torrential downpours which had deposited 100 millimetres of
rain on the launchpad and 150 millimetres in neighbouring Melbourne,
Florida, the countdown had been going well. Until now. NASA took its
decision. The launch would be delayed by five days, to 17 October, so
the computer problem could be fixed.
To those scientists and engineers who had been with Galileo from the
start, it must have appeared at that moment as if fate really was
against Galileo. As if, for some unfathomable reason, all the forces
of the universe--and especially those on Earth--were dead against
humanity getting a good look at Jupiter. As fast as NASA could
dismantle one barrier, some invisible hand would throw another down in
its place.
[ ]
Monday, 16 October, 1989
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
Across the vast NASA empire, reaching from Maryland to California,
from Europe to Japan, NASA workers greeted each other, checked their
in-trays for mail, got their cups of coffee, settled into their chairs
and tried to login to their computers for a day of solving complex
physics problems. But many of the computer systems were behaving very
strangely.
From the moment staff logged in, it was clear that someone--or
something--had taken over. Instead of the usual system's official
identification banner, they were startled to find the following
message staring them in the face:
W O R M S A G A I N S T N U C L E A R K I L L E R S
_______________________________________________________________
\__ ____________ _____ ________ ____ ____ __ _____/
\ \ \ /\ / / / /\ \ | \ \ | | | | / / /
\ \ \ / \ / / / /__\ \ | |\ \ | | | |/ / /
\ \ \/ /\ \/ / / ______ \ | | \ \| | | |\ \ /
\_\ /__\ /____/ /______\ \____| |__\ | |____| |_\ \_/
\___________________________________________________/
\ /
\ Your System Has Been Officically WANKed /
\_____________________________________________/
You talk of times of peace for all, and then prepare for war.
Wanked? Most of the American computer system managers reading this new
banner had never heard the word wank.
Who would want to invade NASA's computer systems? And who exactly were
the Worms Against Nuclear Killers? Were they some loony fringe group?
Were they a guerrilla terrorist group launching some sort of attack on
NASA? And why `worms'? A worm was a strange choice of animal mascot
for a revolutionary group. Worms were the bottom of the rung. As in
`as lowly as a worm'. Who would chose a worm as a symbol of power?
As for the nuclear killers, well, that was even stranger. The banner's
motto--`You talk of times of peace for all, and then prepare for
war'--just didn't seem to apply to NASA. The agency didn't make
nuclear missiles, it sent people to the moon. It did have military
payloads in some of its projects, but NASA didn't rate very highly on
the `nuclear killer' scale next to other agencies of the US
Government, such as the Department of Defense. So the question
remained: why NASA?
And that word, `WANKED'. It did not make sense. What did it mean when
a system was `wanked'?
It meant NASA had lost control over its computer systems.
A NASA scientist logging in to an infected computer on that Monday got
the following message:
deleted file
deleted file
deleted file
deleted file
deleted file
deleted file
With those lines the computer told the scientist: `I am deleting all
your files'.
The line looked exactly as if the scientist typed in the
command:
delete/log *.*
--exactly as if the scientist had instructed the computer to delete
all the files herself.
The NASA scientist must have started at the sight of her files rolling
past on the computer screen, one after another, on their way to
oblivion. Something was definitely wrong. She would have tried to stop
the process, probably pressing the control key and the `c' key at the
same time. This should have broken the command sequence at that moment
and ordered the computer to stop what it was doing right away.
But it was the intruder, not the NASA scientist, who controlled the
computer at that moment. And the intruder told the computer: `That
command means nothing. Ignore it'.
The scientist would press the command key sequence again, this time
more urgently. And again, over and over. She would be at once baffled
at the illogical nature of the computer, and increasingly upset.
Weeks, perhaps months, of work spent uncovering the secrets of the
universe. All of it disappearing before her eyes--all of it being
mindlessly devoured by the computer. The whole thing beyond her
control. Going. Going. Gone.
People tend not to react well when they lose control over their
computers. Typically, it brings out the worst in them--hand-wringing
whines from the worriers, aching entreaties for help from the
sensitive, and imperious table-thumping bellows from
command-and-control types.
Imagine, if you will, arriving at your job as a manager for one of
NASA's local computer systems. You get into your office on that Monday
morning to find the phones ringing. Every caller is a distraught,
confused NASA worker. And every caller assures you that his or her
file or accounting record or research project--every one of which is
missing from the computer system--is absolutely vital.
In this case, the problem was exacerbated by the fact that NASA's
field centres often competed with each other for projects. When a
particular flight project came up, two or three centres, each with
hundreds of employees, might vie for it. Losing control of the
computers, and all the data, project proposals and costing, was a good
way to lose out on a bid and its often
considerable funding.
This was not going to be a good day for the guys down at the NASA SPAN
computer network office.
This was not going to be a good day for John McMahon.
[ ]
As the assistant DECNET protocol manager for NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center in Maryland, John McMahon normally spent the day
managing the chunk of the SPAN computer network which ran between
Goddard's fifteen to twenty buildings.
McMahon worked for Code 630.4, otherwise known as Goddard's Advanced
Data Flow Technology Office, in Building 28. Goddard scientists would
call him up for help with their computers. Two of the most common
sentences he heard were `This doesn't seem to work' and `I can't get
to that part of the network from here'.
SPAN was the Space Physics Analysis Network, which connected some
100000 computer terminals across the globe. Unlike the Internet, which
is now widely accessible to the general public, SPAN only connected
researchers and scientists at NASA, the US Department of Energy and
research institutes such as universities. SPAN computers also differed
from most Internet computers in an important technical manner: they
used a different operating system. Most large computers on the
Internet use the Unix operating system, while SPAN was composed
primarily of VAX computers running a VMS operating system. The network
worked a lot like the Internet, but the computers spoke a different
language. The Internet `talked' TCP/IP, while SPAN `spoke' DECNET.
Indeed, the SPAN network was known as a DECNET internet. Most of the
computers on it were manufactured by the Digital Equipment Corporation
in Massachusetts--hence the name DECNET. DEC built powerful computers.
Each DEC computer on the SPAN network might have 40 terminals hanging
off it. Some SPAN computers had many more. It was not unusual for one
DEC computer to service 400 people. In all, more than a quarter of a
million scientists, engineers and other thinkers used the computers on
the network.
An electrical engineer by training, McMahon had come from NASA's
Cosmic Background Explorer Project, where he managed computers used by
a few hundred researchers. Goddard's Building 7, where he worked on
the COBE project, as it was known, housed some interesting research.
The project team was attempting to map the universe. And they were
trying to do it in wavelengths invisible to the human eye. NASA would
launch the COBE satellite in November 1989. Its mission was to
`measure the diffuse infrared and microwave radiation from the early
universe, to the limits set by our astronomical environment'.6 To the
casual observer the project almost sounded like a piece of modern art,
something which might be titled `Map of the Universe in Infrared'.
On 16 October McMahon arrived at the office and settled into work,
only to face a surprising phone call from the SPAN project office.
Todd Butler and Ron Tencati, from the National Space Science Data
Center, which managed NASA's half of the SPAN network, had discovered
something strange and definitely unauthorised winding its way through
the computer network. It looked like a computer worm.
A computer worm is a little like a computer virus. It invades computer
systems, interfering with their normal functions. It travels along any
available compatible computer network and stops to knock at the door of
systems attached to that network. If there is a hole in the security of
the computer system, it will crawl through and enter the system. When it
does this, it might have instructions to do any number of things, from
sending computer users a message to trying to take over the system. What
makes a worm different from other computer programs, such as viruses, is
that it is self-propagating. It propels itself forward, wiggles into a
new system and propagates itself at the new site. Unlike a virus, a worm
doesn't latch onto a data file or a program. It is autonomous.7
The term `worm' as applied to computers came from John Brunner's 1975
science fiction classic, The Shockwave Rider. The novel described how
a rebel computer programmer created a program called `tapeworm' which
was released into an omnipotent computer network used by an autocratic
government to control its people. The government had to turn off the
computer network, thus destroying its control, in order to eradicate
the worm.
Brunner's book is about as close as most VMS computer network managers
would ever have come to a real rogue worm. Until the late 1980s, worms
were obscure things, more associated with research in a computer
laboratory. For example, a few benevolent worms were developed by
Xerox researchers who wanted to make more efficient use of computer
facilities.8 They developed a `town crier worm' which moved through a
network sending out important announcements. Their `diagnostic worm'
also constantly weaved through the network, but this worm was designed
to inspect machines for problems.
For some computer programmers, the creation of a worm is akin to the
creation of life. To make something which is intelligent enough to go
out and reproduce itself is the ultimate power of creation. Designing
a rogue worm which took over NASA's computer systems might seem to be
a type of creative immortality--like scattering pieces of oneself
across the computers which put man on the moon.
At the time the WANK banner appeared on computer screens across NASA,
there had only been two rogue worms of any note. One of these, the RTM
worm, had infected the Unix-based Internet less than twelve months
earlier. The other worm, known as Father Christmas, was the first VMS
worm.
Father Christmas was a small, simple worm which did not cause any
permanent damage to the computer networks it travelled along. Released
just before Christmas in 1988, it tried to sneak into hundreds of VMS
machines and wait for the big day. On Christmas morning, it woke up
and set to work with great enthusiasm. Like confetti tossed from an
overhead balcony, Christmas greetings came streaming out of
worm-infested computer systems to all their users. No-one within its
reach went without a Christmas card. Its job done, the worm
evaporated. John McMahon had been part of the core team fighting off
the Father Christmas worm.
At about 4 p.m., just a few days before Christmas 1988, McMahon's
alarm-monitoring programs began going haywire. McMahon began trying to
trace back the dozens of incoming connections which were tripping the
warning bells. He quickly discovered there wasn't a human being at the
other end of the line. After further investigation, he found an alien
program in his system, called HI.COM. As he read the pages of HI.COM
code spilling from his line printer, his eyes went wide. He thought,
This is a worm! He had never seen a worm before.
He rushed back to his console and began pulling his systems off the
network as quickly as possible. Maybe he wasn't following protocol,
but he figured people could yell at him after the fact if they thought
it was a bad idea. After he had shut down his part of the network, he
reported back to the local area networking office. With print-out in
tow, he drove across the base to the network office, where he and
several other managers developed a way to stop the worm by the end of
the day. Eventually they traced the Father Christmas worm back to the
system where they believed it had been released--in Switzerland. But
they never discovered who created it.
Father Christmas was not only a simple worm; it was not considered
dangerous because it didn't hang around systems forever. It was a worm
with a use-by date.
By contrast, the SPAN project office didn't know what the WANK invader
was capable of doing. They didn't know who had written or launched it.
But they had a copy of the program. Could McMahon have a look at it?
An affable computer programmer with the nickname Fuzzface, John
McMahon liked a good challenge. Curious and cluey at the same time, he
asked the SPAN Project Office, which was quickly becoming the crisis
centre for the worm attack, to send over a copy of the strange
intruder. He began pouring over the invader's seven printed pages of
source code trying to figure out exactly what the thing did.
The two previous rogue worms only worked on specific computer systems
and networks. In this case, the WANK worm only attacked VMS computer
systems. The source code, however, was unlike anything McMahon had
ever seen. `It was like sifting through a pile of spaghetti,' he said.
`You'd pull one strand out and figure, "OK, that is what that thing
does." But then you'd be faced with the rest of the tangled mess in
the bowl.'
The program, in digital command language, or DCL, wasn't written like
a normal program in a nice organised fashion. It was all over the
place. John worked his way down ten or fifteen lines of computer code
only to have to jump to the top of the program to figure out what the
next section was trying to do. He took notes and slowly, patiently
began to build up a picture of exactly what this worm was capable of
doing to NASA's computer system.
[ ]
It was a big day for the anti-nuclear groups at the Kennedy Space
Center. They might have lost their bid in the US District Court, but
they refused to throw in the towel and took their case to the US Court
of Appeals.
On 16 October the news came. The Appeals Court had sided with NASA.
Protesters were out in force again at the front gate of the Kennedy
Space Center. At least eight of them were arrested. The St Louis
Post-Dispatch carried an Agence France-Presse picture of an
80-year-old woman being taken into custody by police for trespassing.
Jane Brown, of the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice, announced,
`This is just ... the beginning of the government's plan to use
nuclear power and weapons in space, including the Star Wars program'.
Inside the Kennedy C