From: Modify (
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 05:35:05 -0600 (MDT)

Okay, this is the last time im going to explain this to any journalist,
security professional, and/or hacker. is NOT a hacker 
group/gang/spec ops hired by the gov.  We are users on the same box/server 
and thats it!  Brian Martin isn't our gang leader.. he's a friend
and user of  Just because we happen to be on the same box
doesnt mean that we are a gang.  Just because one journalist writes a bad 
story doesnt mean all journalists are terrible [understand what im saying?]  

Second, I'd like to know how John P. Vranesevich is considered a 'security
professional'? How many sites has he audited?  How many boxes has he secured?  
How many classes has he taught to govt type agencies?  How can you call 
yourself a security professional and haven't even practiced in the field?  Thats 
like me calling myself a doctor because I have read a medical journal.  
[understand what im saying?]

John P. Vranesevich put out a call for people to help with his site before
it went 'full time' online.  When this call was presented there was talk to 
pay.  This is from his site, one of the bio's of his staff:

'Brad Davis Brad is the Staff and Operations Manager of AntiOnline. His
primary area of interest is in network services administration, and is "fluent" 
in a variety of different platforms. A former police officer, Brad moved to 
Beaver PA from his home in Nashville TN to work full time with 
AntiOnline. Brad's primary job functions include organizing the freelance
staff members, and helping to oversee the day to day operations of AntiOnline.'

Okay, so you mean to tell me that an ex-police officer from Nashville TN
moved all the way to Beaver PA to volunteer his work to Antionline?  I very much doubt
that!  Especially when he is called 'Full Time Staff'.  

Ugh, your full of errors... This is what you wrote and I quote 
"Martin based his claims on two emails that allegedly show Vranesevich 
had a business relationship with "So1o," the hacker accused of breaking
into last year." based its claims at FIRST on the hack itself [read the
comparison on of the two web hacks] and then Martin acquired more 
data to make things MUCH MORE clear! wasnt hacked last year... it 
was a this year.  From the 'Hacked Web Pages' section of
we see that here.  

[99.05.27]  [MOD]                   US Senate (

The only other Senate hack was the Ohio Senate which was done this year
also so I dont know where you are getting 'last year'?

In conclusion, I would make an extra effort in error checking and source
checking next time if I were you.  How come there are NO 'direct quotes' from ANY staff members in your news story?  Seems like you are trying 
to piece together what YOU feel is. We did our homework and JP 
knows this... now he's scared and is back peddling.  Im sure he's 
thinking 'well, I was directing my site towards hackers and since ive
pissed them all off.. heck, im a security site devoted to helping track hackers.. 
yeah, thats it!' geeez...


"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he
uses to frighten you..."

From: "B.K. DeLong" ( To: Cc:,,, Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:14:52 -0400 Subject: Ashamed to see such an article in Wired Ms. Sprenger, I read your article yesterday regarding the report that Attrition.Org released about AntiOnline owner and president John Vranesevich. As a member of New England Science Writers and Investigative Reporters and Editors I am ashamed to see such a poorly researcher and fact-checked article appear on the pages of a news organization as esteemed as Wired. First, you claimed that the entire report was based on two e-mails. This is incorrect. As members of the computer security industry, we are quite aware that e-mails can be forged so we made sure we had further proof of Vranesevich's involvement with Chris McNab AKA so1o including close comparisons of various Web page cracks perpetrated by so1o, direct discussions with so1o via IRC, an IRC log with Vranesevich himself, and of course, the e-mails. I also noticed that you gave Vranesevich several opportunities to defend himself from the report but chose not to take the time to allow Brian Martin nor Erik Ginorio to clarify any questions or rebuke Vranesevich's claims. Nor does it appear that any attempt was made to contact Chris McNab in the UK for his comments. You seem to place Vranesevich's credibility in the number of times he has been quoted by media sources yet when provided with the opportunity to contact some of the most esteemed technology reporters in the business to ask their opinion on Vranesevich you chose not to. Brock Meeks of MSNBC, Chris Allbritton formerly of the Associated Press, and Ted Bridis of the Associated Press as well as countless other reporters have been burned one too many times by Vranesevich and have deemed him the "Matt Drudge of the hacking community." What does that make Wired look like relying almost solely on him for a story? Your reporting also mentions that Vranesevich has been helping the Air Force and NASA "profile" hackers yet a quick e-mail to a NASA security professional resulted in finding out that they only rely on the Office of the Inspector General and the FBI for outside intelligence information. Yet you blindly printed Vranesevich's claim. What has happened to responsible journalism when a (formerly) esteemed publication like Wired blindly takes the word of a 20-year-old computer security enthusiast, (yes...Vranesevich always has and continues to refer to himself as an enthusiast...not an expert and far from it. He has never worked in or for the security industry and has not even completed college.) without any or very little fact checking. I hope in the future you will be more careful. -- B.K. DeLong 360 Huntington Ave. Director Suite 140CSC-305 New England Chapter Boston, MA 02115 World Organization (617) 247-3753 of Webmasters