Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HBGary Federal Forces Aaron Barr Out of DEFCON

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the we'd-rather-you-not-say-anything dept.

Security 65

Trailrunner7 writes "Former HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr says he will withdraw from a planned appearance at the DEFCON conference in the face of threatened legal action over his plans to take part in a panel discussion there. Barr notified DEFCON organizers on Wednesday that he was withdrawing from the Aug. 6 panel discussion after attorneys representing HBGary Federal threatened to file an injunction against him if he did not withdraw from the panel immediately. The incident is just the latest in a series of conflicts between Barr and HBGary Federal following attacks by the anarchic hacking group Anonymous on February 5."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Aaron Barr lives another day... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36901876)

I can only imagine what would happen if he were to get up on stage and start speaking about security practices..

Re:Aaron Barr lives another day... (1)

kernelphr34k (1179539) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901914)

Dunno about you, but I'd prolly punch him in the face with a Guy Fawkes Mask. Should get the point across.

Re:Aaron Barr lives another day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906182)

Now you wouldn't, you're not so tough when you're not behind a monitor.

Re:Aaron Barr lives another day... (4, Interesting)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902036)

I can only imagine what would happen if he were to get up on stage and start speaking about security practices..

That's just the thing. Security isn't his specialty, or the specialty of most of the "security" industry. They deal in exploits and writing trojans.

Think of them like you think of the US Department of Defense. Again, dealing with the complete opposite of what the name implies.

Re:Aaron Barr lives another day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36947326)

Speaking as a presenter who will STILL be presenting at the upcoming DefCon, I can say that you are only partially right. There is a large portion of the security industry which makes its business on being able to perform the same attacks that malicious parties are: those who you identify as "dealing in exploits and writing trojans".

While that is part of it, there are also those who simply identify the vulnerabilities. There are those who use the exploits, trojans, and a healthy dose of cleverness to attack client systems after being contracted to do so. There are those who create and maintain defense systems. There are those who analyze malware found in the wild to determine more about how attacks are working. There are those who forensically analyze compromised systems to determine who was there for how long, and what they were able to access.

Those who focus on offense are not "most" of the security industry, but in your defense they are certainly the loudest ones, and they might not actually know how to defend themselves well. It's like expecting weapons manufacturers to be able to keep out burglars (which I would hope they could).

That said, Aaron Barr is an idiot. The attackers compromised one system with trivially simple attacks, and then were able to compromise ALL of Aaron's accounts because he used the password "kippy4hax" on ALL of them. If you think he represents the cream of the crop in infosec, I suggest you rethink that stance.

Re:Aaron Barr lives another day... (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902098)

I imagine it would be very much like that scene in Takedown where Tsutomu Shimomura is giving a talk somewhere, and Alex Lowe asks what was copied from his systems when they were breached, and Tsutomu says 'I'm sorry, but that's classified.' And Alex Lowe says, 'Not anymore! BAH HA HA HA!'

Re:Aaron Barr lives another day... (1)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904388)

Was that released under Hackers II as well? Or is that just a different directors interpretation of the story?

Re:Aaron Barr lives another day... (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904474)

It was released as Hackers II, Takedown and Track down.

Re:Aaron Barr lives another day... (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907462)

If he were to get up on stage, he'd likely be shot by Alexander Humilton.

If they're not operating illegally (3, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#36901898)

...what do they have to hide? Whats good for the goose is good for the...oh fuck it. Who am I kidding. That ideology hasn't applied for years when in comes to revolving door deals between the Feds and Corps. vs. The People.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (2)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902072)

I'm still trying to figure out how anyone can stop a person from exercising their Freedom of Speech Rights? What's next, the U.S.S.R.'s version of the legality of Thought Crime, but applied to U.S. cititzens?

Re:If they're not operating illegally (0)

chispito (1870390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902112)

I'm still trying to figure out how anyone can stop a person from exercising their Freedom of Speech Rights? What's next, the U.S.S.R.'s version of the legality of Thought Crime, but applied to U.S. cititzens?

Well you can't go blabbing about trade secrets you were given in confidentiality, for one.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (4, Insightful)

todrules (882424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902152)

Unless the attorneys at HBGary can see the future, they don't know what he is going to discuss. How do they know he'll be blabbing about trade secrets? Who knows, he could just go up on stage and start cracking jokes about nothing for the entire time, and that, he has every right to do.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902196)

If he signed a contract that says he won't work in the same field for x period of time, then they could say that getting paid to speak on an industry topic is working the same field, and go after him even if he does not discuss specific proprietary information.

The fact that he bowed out before things went further suggests that he was indeed going to break the terms of a contract he signed with the company, or at least be close enough to breaking them that the company legal team would have a fair chance in court.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (3, Funny)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902330)

There are lots of theories of law that might prohibit him from speaking. Contracts with three-letter agencies might prohibi

Re:If they're not operating illegally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36903370)

It looks like they got him t

Re:If they're not operating illegally (1)

irockash (1265506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905316)

"too" I think he was trying to say. Pardon me, looks like it's my turn and the agents actually have the decency to knock.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (2)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906956)

A tricky one of that field might not be considered legal. "Initiating for profit quasi-legal computer based attacks against individuals and groups, that endanger corporate investments in false image public relations and disingenuous marketing" not really what any so called security organisation would want brought up in public and a topic upon which Aaron Barr would certainly be challenged on when sitting on a discussion panel.

From a normal, moral and sane viewpoint, that is the kind of behaviour most people and companies are trying to defend against. Honest companies of course want to be able to thrive in an honest market and not continually be forced to compete against lying, cheating corporations which pretty much is the whole of the market when it comes to the big end of town.

HBGary Federal of course wants everybody to forget exactly what kind of ass hats they are, otherwise their attack campaigns would be substantially weakened from the get go, they just need to be recognised as the originator and everyone would assume it was all lies and the party they were defending is a guilty as can be.

Of course a company like that and you would assume everyone is stabbing everyone else in the back in order to try to survive. It really is a surprise that any even partially competent staff haven't already jumped shift and that there is anything left to defend.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902592)

The title of the panel was "Whoever Fights Monsters... Aaron Barr, Anonymous and Ourselves", so it is pretty clear what general topic he was going to talk about. He also signed a separation agreement when leaving HBGary where he stated that he would not disclose certain information about that exact affair.

HBGary can't force him to not participate in the panel, but they can sue him for it after the fact, and they can forewarn him that they will sue him if he says anything he shouldn't.

He obviously decided that it wasn't worthwhile to hold the panel given the limitations on what he can say. The real question is why he agreed to it to begin with. Either he didn't think it through (not the first time for him), or he interpreted his separation agreement differently than HBGary, but decided it wasn't worth a fight.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (1)

todrules (882424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902728)

And that was my point. They could definitely sue him after the fact. I'm not disputing that. My argument was how can they stop him beforehand?

Re:If they're not operating illegally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36903692)

Threats

Re:If they're not operating illegally (2)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902254)

Trade secrets like the socke-puppet armies? [dailykos.com] Or perhaps targeting Americans for the banks and CIA [pacificfreepress.com] ? Or perhaps false flag operations, government sanctioned hacking for the alphabet soup agencies, etc. Blackmailing journalist not touting the party line [colbertnation.com] .

Trade Secrets. Right. If the trade is protecting the good 'ole boy network. What the hell are security trade-secrets? Security through obscurity? I doubt this guy was about to provide a list of documents with the nuclear codes. This is about how the tools are being wrongfully used.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (3, Funny)

genner (694963) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902124)

I'm still trying to figure out how anyone can stop a person from exercising their Freedom of Speech Rights? What's next, the U.S.S.R.'s version of the legality of Thought Crime, but applied to U.S. cititzens?

Your free to speak and they're free to sue.
USA! USA!

Re:If they're not operating illegally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36902250)

> Your free to speak and they're free to sue.

which is essentially the point - anyone can threaten to sue, and then if you answer their challenge, and they have the wherewithall ($), they take action, time comes to a stop, your legal fees grow, and ...

assuming, of course that this is not just a cover story. it's easy to imagine both more and less compelling stories.

which is sad because the panel might actually have been more interesting than the presentation he had originally intended earlier this year.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903172)

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. In the US you also have the freedom to shut the hell up. (laws against requiring self incrimination)

Re:If they're not operating illegally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905932)

This is bullshit, you either have freedom of speech or you don't. The way you define freedom of speech could be said about ANY country, so its useless!! You can say publicly in North Korea that Kim Jong-il is a retarded monkey sniffing coke and according to you that is a free speech right there, except you'd have to live with its consequence, that is die.

Its not free speech if I can get shot or get harassed in any other way for what I'm saying. No matter the instrument, communist state, police/military force or a lawyer, suppressing free speech is just that.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907422)

"Its not free speech if I can get shot or get harassed in any other way for what I'm saying" Did I imply this in anyway? All I said was that In the real world speech has consequences of varying degrees. If your not ready to accept the consequences you should probably keep it to yourself. Freedom of speech guarantees, with a few exceptions, that you can pretty much say what ever you want. If the government arrests you or kills you because of what you are threatening to say or have actually said it is against the law and there are remedies. However, just because a law or statute exists does not mean someone will never break it. You can only claim foul if someone denies your right of free speech and is not properly investigated and charged with violating the law. Freedom of speech does not protect you from charges of defamation, libel, or slander. In case's such as this you can be required to backup your speech with some facts and if you can't you will have to deal with the consequences laid out in the legal system. The person mentioned in this article is not being stopped from saying anything by anyone. He signed a non-disclosure agreement and if he breaks that agreement he will face the consequences but he is free to knowingly break his agreement and say anything he wants. Nobody forced him to sign the agreement but I imagine the agreement was tied to a financial exit package. Walking up to someone and calling them a fuck face and getting your teeth knocked out is another example of free speech and it's consequences. In this case you exercised free speech and the target violated the law by striking you. You might have some remedy against the person who hit you but not until after you finish picking up your teeth. It's also possible that in the end the person who hit you suffers no consequences because a jury or judge might just decide your provocative statement was responsible for your extended trip to the dentist. Lately freedom of speech has turned into the freedom to whine constantly and expect to be taking seriously because of your right to whine. Unless you lived in a state where freedom of speech is prohibited and punished as a matter of policy you can't really appreciate the freedom of speech provided by countries who do provide it.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (2)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902378)

I'm still trying to figure out how anyone can stop a person from exercising their Freedom of Speech Rights?

Because he agreed not to discuss the issues most likely in return for some financial benefit, FTFA:
On Wednesday, however, Barr received a legal written notice of intent to file an injunction to prevent him from appearing at DEFCON, citing his separation agreement with his former employer.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905902)

You also have the right to only answer questions about haircuts from the 70s

Re:If they're not operating illegally (4, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903240)

Where have YOU been? Thought Crime is alive and well in the USA and has been for quite awhile. For a couple of examples just look at the guy sitting in prison for writing the "pro pedo" book, which while I disagree with the man's views arresting him for putting his thoughts on paper is a pretty text book definition of Thought crime. Then there was the guy arrested for doing as his therapist told him to and writing his fantasies down in a journal, and then there was the Russian afraid to come here because he dared to write about encryption covered by the DMCA.

So you see Thought Crime is alive and well here in the USA. How sad is it that we went from "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to actually throwing people in jail over words on a page.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (1)

pulse2600 (625694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907420)

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The government can not violate your freedom of speech. A private person or organization can do whatever the hell they want.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907994)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The first Amendment only means Congress won't deal with matters of cencorship, those writing the constitution wanted to leave that to the individual states, which is why the wording is slightly unconventional: not because they were against cencorship.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (1)

pulse2600 (625694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36908838)

That's not true. Congress can not pass any law that would cause freedom of speech to be abridged. That also means any government entity created by a law Congress passes is held to the First Amendment. That also includes funding of other government entities, including state or municipal entities which accept federal funding which happens to violate someone's freedom of speech. My point still stands. I can tell you to be silent, I can tell you I will sue you if you do not silence yourself. It is not a violation of your freedom of speech. There are no legal ramifications to that. If I own a company, and my company tells you that we will sue if you disclose xyz, we would be within our legal right to say that.

What happens in court if you actually disclose xyz and it goes in front of a judge may be another matter, but the threat is not a violation of your freedom of speech.

Re:If they're not operating illegally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36904944)

I have to kill your "what do they have to hide" fake argument here.
We don't allow that for our privacy, so it's also not OK to use it on our enemies.

It's not about what they have to hide. It's about what we want to find.
Yes, even HBGary has a right to privacy. And do be ashamed of its failures and trying to hide them away.

We can, of course, demand that they tell us. Try to find out. Or whatever.
But we cannot ever deny the right of privacy. Even to our worst enemies.
Because not upholding our basic rights in easy times shows our virtues. But upholding them in the worst times, and against the worst enemies.

And of course, HBGary still is a bunch of assholes for trying to limit the free speech rights of Aaron Barr.

So, HBGary should be ashamed of themselves. BUT: So should you too. For throwing away rights, as soon as it fits your agenda. Just like those you say you hate.

EPIC Stanford prison experiment FAIL

Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36902070)

You don't fuck with our rights and freedom.

No guts no glory (2)

gottspeed (2060872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902138)

The measure of a man is the path he takes in the face of inconvenience. Nice try anyway. Wish someone would harden up and do something good for the world. The occult shall inherit the earth, and we'll do nothing because of normalcy bias.

Re:No guts no glory (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903434)

Well, surely you didn't expect Aaron Barr to do anything good for the world? I've seen nothing to indicate that HB Gary (and/or HB Gary Federal) has anything good to offer the world, but Barr was a giant douchebag from start to finish. His one talent seems to have been talking a good line of shit, and parting fools from their money.

All I have to say is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36902190)

Alexander Hamilton is laughing in his grave.

Cancel the wedding (1)

starfishsystems (834319) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902206)

I guess they're not the best of pals any more.

How can there be an injunction (2)

xevioso (598654) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902210)

Yes, I don't understand how they were going to get an injunction against him. The only way they would know the content of his speech is if it was on the agenda. Why not just list him as a "Featured Speaker" with no topic. How can a judge grant an injunction in that case?

Re:How can there be an injunction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36902224)

"National Security"

Re:How can there be an injunction (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902258)

Yes, I don't understand how they were going to get an injunction against him. The only way they would know the content of his speech is if it was on the agenda. Why not just list him as a "Featured Speaker" with no topic. How can a judge grant an injunction in that case?

Halt! Ihre papier bitte!

Re:How can there be an injunction (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36902336)

Ripped from the DC19 website, since his agenda is still up for now.
http://www.defcon.org/html/defcon-19/dc-19-speakers.html#Roberts

"Whoever Fights Monsters..." Aaron Barr, Anonymous, and Ourselves

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." - Friedrich Nietzsche.

Aaron Barr returns for the first time in what's sure to be a gritty and frank (and heated) panel. How can we conduct ourselves without losing ourselves? How far is too far - or not far enough? IT security has finally gotten the attention of the mainstream media, Pentagon generals and public policy authors in the Beltway, and is now in mortal danger of losing (the rest of) its soul. We've convinced the world that the threat is real - omnipresent and omnipotent. But recent events suggest that in their efforts to combat a faceless enemy, IT security firms and their employees risk becoming indistinguishable from the folks with the Black Hats. The Anonymous attacks and data spilled from both private— and public sector firms raise important questions that this panel will try to answer. among them: how to respond to chaotic actors like Anonymous and LulzSec, what the U.S. gains (and loses) by making "APTs" the new "Commies" and cyber the forefront of the next Cold War and APTs the new commies. Aaron, Josh and Jericho will debate whether we in the security community can fight our "monsters" without sacrificing the civil liberties and the freedoms we enjoy here at home.

Paul Roberts , Editor, Threatpost.com - Paul is an editor at Threatpost.com, Kaspersky Lab's security news blog. Paul is a thought leader with a decade of experience as a technology reporter and analyst covering information technology security. Before joining Threatpost, Paul was a Senior Analyst in the Enterprise Security Practice at The 451 Group, an industry analyst firm. As a reporter and editor, he has worked for leading technology publications including InfoWorld, eWeek and The IDG News Service. Paul's writing has appeared in The Boston Globe, Salon.com and Fortune Small Business. He has been interviewed on issues relating to technology and security for publications ranging from The Wall Street Journal, to NPR's Marketplace to the Oprah Show. When he's not writing about security, Paul runs the occasional marathon and edits bloggingbelmont.com, a citizen powered blog in Belmont, Massachusetts, where he lives with his wife and three daughters.
Facebook: facebook.com/pfroberts
Twitter: @paulfroberts

Aaron Barr has spent the last 20 years in the intelligence and federal space of the cyber security community in positions ranging from intelligence analyst, UNIX system administrator and technical director. With degrees in Field Biology and computer security, his path would have drastically changed in 1997 had the Navy accepted his request to extend his educational program towards a degree in Mycology. Alas the Navy had no open billets for mushroom experts. He separated from the Navy in 2001 and chartered a course in IT and IT security in the defense industry. An agitator/collaborator, not afraid to express an opinion, but open to adopt better ones, he is enthusiastic and passionate about technology and its positive and negative effects on society, including security. An analyst at heart and by trade, he is focused on security as an intelligence problem.

Joshua Corman Research Director, Enterprise Security Practice, The 451 Group - Joshua Corman is the Research Director of the 451 Group's enterprise security practice. Corman has more than a decade of experience with security and networking software, most recently serving as Principal Security Strategist for IBM Internet Security Systems. Corman's research cuts across sectors to the core challenges of the industry, and drives evolutionary strategies toward emerging technologies and shifting economics. Corman is a candid and highly coveted speaker and has spoken at leading industry events such as RSA, Interop, ISACA, and SANS. His efforts to educate and challenge the industry recently lead NetworkWorld magazine to recognize him as a top Influencer of IT for 2009. Corman also serves on the Faculty for IANS and is a staunch advocate for CISOs everywhere. In 2010, Corman also co-founded Rugged www.ruggedsoftware.org - a value based initiative to raise awareness and usher in an era of secure digital infrastructure. Corman received a bachelor's degree in philosophy, Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude, from the University of New Hampshire. He lives with his wife and two daughters in New Hampshire.

Jericho has been poking about the hacker/security scene for 18 years (for real), building valuable skills such as skepticism and alchohol tolerance. As a hacker-turned-security whore, he has a great perspective to offer unsolicited opinion on just about any security topic. A long-time advocate of advancing the field, sometimes by any means necessary, he thinks the idea of 'forward thinking' is quaint (we're supposed to be thinking that way all the time). No degree, no certifications, just the willingness to say things most of the industry is thinking but unwilling to say themselves. He remains a champion of security industry integrity and small misunderstood creatures.
Twitter: @attritionorg

Parade 'Em Out (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902264)

Announcer 1: "I'd like to welcome all our viewers to this auspicious event ..."
Announcer 2: "That's right, Tom, as the attendees roll up we're likely to see some--oh wait, who's that getting out of that limo as we speak?"
Announcer 1: "I believe that's former CEO of Diebold Walden O'Dell."
Announcer 2: "Yes, yes it is, that's certainly a 2004 Bush/Haliburten logo on the side of his limo!"
Announcer 1: "A good start to the evening but who is this chauffeuring himself around?"
Announcer 2: "Well, the person handing his keys to the valet right now is none other than Darl McBride!"
Announcer 1: "You know, you wouldn't believe it but these people -- these infamous people sound so large in print and yet they look and act just like regular people. No fake smiles here."
Announcer 2: "You know, McBride has fallen on some hard times but rest assured that he will be back to his full potential at some point in his career."
Announcer 1: "I do not believe it. Is that Jack Thompson right behind McBride?"
Announcer 2: "Well, somebody take a picture, I don't think these two titans have ever even been seen together."
Announcer 1: "I will never forget Jack Thompson's disbarment from practicing law in Florida. Clearly, there walks a man willing to sacrifice it all."
Announcer 2: "And, oh, look at this newcomer. Some say he will walk away with the golden trucker hat tonight, Tom. It is none other than Aaron Barr."
Announcer 1: "The man that exemplified being a dbag to such a degree, he was not afraid to literally rip the constitution out of its display case and wipe his ass with it publicly. Words cannot describe the feeling of awe I am experiencing right now."
Announcer 2: "His swagger, his grease-backed hair, his beady eyes, the way they shift back and fourth. I'm trying hard to describe this prima donna but I am failing. No other person in my life has caused me to want to turn and lay tracks anymore than this magnificent dbag."
Announcer 1: "Well, that means a lot, you hosted the Serial Murderer Awards two years ago, right?"
Announcer 2: "That's right, the 2009 Stabbies."
Announcer 1: "Well, this is just going to be one amazing night with Aaron Barr vying for 2011 dbag of the year."

A little late (1)

rachit (163465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902388)

A little late... he shot Alexander Hamilton two centuries ago.

He should go in as Anonymous.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36902578)

Well, he can still take part in the panel by wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. No one would know!

Re:He should go in as Anonymous.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906206)

They'd know, he'd be the only Guy Fawkes with a need to fist himself.

Spineless Anonymous (1)

john82 (68332) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902706)

FTA: The group was angered after reading an interview Barr gave with the Financial Times regarding his plans to give a presentation at the Security B-Sides conference in San Francisco earlier this year that promised to divulge the identities of Anonymous's leadership.

I wasn't aware that Anonymous attacked HBGary after Barr threatened to out their leadership. I guess it's okay for them to put others at risk, but they're not willing to have themselves at risk.

Re:Spineless Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905606)

Great comment bro!
Oh hang on a fucking second, no it isn't, it is fucking inane.
This is a group whose goal is anonymity on the internet. (An admirable task. Once we lose this, we will lose the freedoms we currently possess regarding this amazing tool.) How dare they defend themselves against a corrupt, evil company. He also didn't have this information, so was talking out his ass.
What the shit do you mean with your 'putting others at risk'?

Wake up.

Re:Spineless Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905750)

how about you read of the shit the way aaron was going about it? running fake identities, in fact, running as part of anon with multiple names so that he could use one name to be the best. it's like.. dunno, remember some morons in irc in mid '90s who connected with multiple clients to buff their personas? it's exactly like that what he was doing. on top of it, he didn't even have a clue who they were. he was pretending to be a master social hacker while he was just a douche.

he had some hunches based on pretty much just occasional writing styles of people, maybe because he couldn't master more than one writing style or even one lingo. and then he got owned and his childish plans got exposed.

Why announce it at all? (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902740)

If you are a high profile target or will cause massive controversy, why cant you sign up as "Anonymous speaker XYZ"? Identity revealed at the beginning of show/panel.

Aaron who? (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#36902866)

At first glance, I read it as Aaron Burr [wikipedia.org] and thought maybe they went out into the countryside and had a duel.

Old feuds... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36903350)

An interesting side note is that HBGary is handle for Alaxender Hamaltun.

Was it wise ? (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903874)

HBGary morons threatened a panelist out of a defcon conference.

as much as i came to learn the hackers from these events, such an act in hacker language has the meaning of 'come fuck me'.

these idiots will never learn.

Re:Was it wise ? (2)

Zorque (894011) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903998)

He used to work for them, he's the idiot that tried to keep tabs on Anonymous and ended up getting hacked and leaking sensitive information himself.

Re:Was it wise ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904204)

still he was going to talk in defcon as panelist. defcon cant let this slide - if they do, any private party may attempt to sue any panelist out of defcon.

Re:Was it wise ? (1)

soleblaze (628864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904412)

still he was going to talk in defcon as panelist. defcon cant let this slide - if they do, any private party may attempt to sue any panelist out of defcon.

It's not the first time a talk has been pulled due to legal action and it won't be the last.

Re:Was it wise ? (1)

kmoser (1469707) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904494)

If they do, any private party may attempt to sue any panelist out of defcon.

Welcome to the USA, where any private party may attempt to sue anybody for anything.

Re:Was it wise ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905878)

defcon is happy he doesn't come.

Re:Was it wise ? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904810)

I think this is just a ruse to give him a way out of weaseling out from the public appearance. he would have been just laughed at.

Re:Was it wise ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905180)

I think this is just a ruse to give him a way out of weaseling out from the public appearance. he would have been just laughed at.

He will still get laughed at, at least he would had been able to defend himself... Now Aaron has backed out of RSA and Defcon... I think he deserve a Nomination to Pwnies Awards for most lame and coward security professional(But for that he would probably need to prove he is a Pro).

Datadiary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36904108)

This is very nice Blog and information
I like this

Thanks for sharing

http://www.datadiary.com

This is your "freedom" (1)

luk3Z (1009143) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904528)

This is your "freedom" in the USA...

Just making it up as you go along (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915648)

So first, Aaron Barr was going to give a talk about Anonymous at BSides SF, and the Anonymous tinfoil hat brigade got all up in arms and attacked him and his company because he wanted to excercise his right to free speech.

Now, Aaron Barr has been forced to cancel a talk about Anonymous at DEFCON, and the Anonymous tinfoil hat brigade is all up in arms because his freedom of speech is being infringed?

Guys, you really have to decide what it is you care about, and not have your passionate belief one week be in stringent opposition to your passionate belief the next. HBGary Federal told Aaron Barr that if he chose to pursue Action A, he would face Consequence B, and Aaron Barr decided that Consequence B was not worth the benefits from Action A, and that's the way grown-ups operate. It's not a major shock that most of you don't recognize this as normal behavior.

Here's a tip that might help those of you who don't understand how his freedom of speech isn't being infringed upon. You should have learned this in middle school, but since obviously you didn't, here you go: the only entity that can unlawfully infringe on your freedom of speech is the government. If you want to publish something in the local newspaper and they say no, that is not a free speech issue, and if you want to sing ballads in the middle of your local mall, they have every right to tell you to stop and make you leave. People tend to forget that the First Amendment is intended to protect our right to free speech from the government, not from each other. I have every right to try to stop you from voicing your opinion, and you have no legal recourse against me if I do.

Grow Up. Learn. Then Speak.

Good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36916418)

I'm glad they are keeping that idiot from speaking.. We need smart people at defcon, not dumbass corporate spies and world cyber war doomsayers robbing the taxpayers. Besides, all he knows how to do is run a few process monitoring apps and paste it in a report for the DoD...

Defcon is supposed to be a space for intelligent free-thinkers, not dubious corporate criminals that fancy themselves as spies.

To those of you that consider it a freedom of speech issue, you can cry about your rights all you want, but what you should do instead of post on a forum is organize to fight for them. The battle isn't over... Get in the streets. Think of how long it's taken for the civil rights movement, and how little it's accomplished (sure segregation was bad, but it still exists). Look at how long we still have to go in the fight for social justice...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?