12
INTRODUCTION Tampering with source code involves the changes in the source code i.e. the source code is altered. Computer source code means the listing of programmes, computer commands, design and layout and programme analysis of computer resource in any form.

Prs Ntation 1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 1/12

INTRODUCTION

•Tampering with source code involves the changes in the

source code i.e. the source code is altered.

•Computer source code means the listing of programmes, computer commands, design and layoutand programme analysis of computer resource in any

form.

Page 2: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 2/12

Tampering of source code

includes: Conceal 

Destroy 

Alter 

Page 3: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 3/12

Penalty: 

Imprisonment up to 3 years and / or fine up to Rs 2 lakh

Relevant authority: 

Judicial Magistrate First Class

Appeal lies to: 

Court of Session

Page 4: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 4/12

Points to mention in complaint: 

Complainant details

Suspect details

How and when the contravention was discovered and bywhom

Damage suffered

Other relevant information

Page 5: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 5/12

Case 1:

The case is of china.

In 2003, a computer user in China

obtained the “Lineage” source code from an unprotected

website. He then passed it along to his business partner in

California, who set up a website, www.l2extreme.com,

to offer the “Lineage” game at a discount.

Page 6: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 6/12

Case 2

It is the case of Tata indicom. Theemployees of Tata indicom were arrestedbecause they manipulated the electronic

32-bit number programmed into cellphones that were exclusively franchised toreliance infocomm. The court held that

such manipulation amounted to tamperingwith computer source code as envisagedby section 65 of the informationtechnology act 2000

Page 7: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 7/12

Issues raised by the defence:

Subscribers had an option to change from one service provider to

another.

A telephone handset is neither a computer nor a computer systemcontaining a computer programme. They said that the section 65 of the information technology act does not apply here because there isno law in force which requires the maintenance of computer source

code.

The subscriber who wants to change from Tata indicom always takeshis handset to other service providers to get service connected andto give up Tata services.

The handsets brought to Tata by reliance subscribers are capable of accommodating two separate lines and can be activated on principalassignment mobile(NAM1 or NAM2). The mere activation of NAM1or NAM2 by Tata in relation to a handset brought to it by a reliancesubscriber does not amount any crime.

Page 8: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 8/12

Findings of the court:

When the person moves from one cell to another cell in

the same city, the system i.e., Mobile TelephoneSwitching Office (MTSO) automatically transfers signalsfrom tower to tower.

Mobile Identification Number (MIN) is a 10-digit number

derived from cell phone number given to a subscriber.MIN is programmed into a phone when one purchases aservice plan.

If the phone cannot find any control channels to listen to,

the cell phone displays "no service" message as it is outof range

Electronic Serial Number (ESN) is a unique 32-bit numberprogrammed into the phone when it is manufactured by

the instrument manufacturer. ESN is a permanent part of the phone.

Page 9: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 9/12

Case 3

 The complainant (Software company basedin Bangalore) alleged that some of thecompany's former employees had accessedthe company's IT system and tampered withthe source code of the software underdevelopment.

Page 10: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 10/12

Investigation:

The investigating team visited the complainant'spremises and scanned the logs of e-mails. They identifiedthe IP address and using tracing software traced the ISP

and the address of the place where the e-mails had beensent.This address was of a Hyderabad based company. Onvisiting the company the investigating team found 13computers and a server. Using specialised forensic tools

the disks were imaged and analysed by the team. Theanalysis revealed that the original source code as well asits tampered version had been stored from thesesystems.

Page 11: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 11/12

Current status: 

The investigating team arrested the accusedin India and efforts are underway to arrest theothers who are presently in the US.

The case is in its final stages awaiting theopinion report from C-DAC.

Page 12: Prs Ntation 1

8/2/2019 Prs Ntation 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prs-ntation-1 12/12