Harrison City man pleads guilty to ‘logic bombing’ Siemens software | TribLIVE.com

Harrison City man pleads guilty to ‘logic bombing’ Siemens software

Patrick Varine
Computer code

A Harrison City man pleaded guilty Friday in U.S. District court to sabotaging Siemens’ computers in a bid to drum up extra contracting work.

David Tinley, 62, pleaded to one count before District Judge Peter J. Phipps.

Tinley, a contract employee for Siemens’ Monroeville location, was charged with intentionally inserting “logic bombs” into programs he designed for the company.

A “logic bomb” is a piece of computer code inserted into a software system that sets off a malicious function when certain conditions are met.

Below, a video from the Professor Messer channel on YouTube explains how a logic bomb works.

In Tinley’s case, prosecutors said, the logic bombs would “ensure that the programs would malfunction after the expiration of a certain date. As a result, Siemens was unaware of the cause of the malfunction and required Tinley to fix (it).”

Prosecutors said Tinley inserted logic bombs into work he performed for Siemens between 2014 and spring 2016.

He is scheduled for sentencing on Nov. 8, and faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

Patrick Varine is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Patrick at 724-850-2862, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.