Slashdot Mirror


Contents of Leaked HBGary Emails Reveal Wrongdoing

chargersfan420 writes "Ars Technica has sifted through the contents of the HBGary emails leaked last week in the attack by Anonymous and posted an interesting story about some of the things they were up to (which include rootkit development, selling rootkits to the private sector, and an entire list of 0-day exploits in a variety of OSes and other software, among a variety of other devious plans). Today they are reporting a democratic push for a congressional investigation of HBGary Federal."

62 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. Careful what you wish for by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    a democratic push for a congressional investigation of HBGary Federal

    You're going to dig for info on their union-busting, but you're going to be very embarrassed if you find out that the Obama administration was in bed with these scumbags on some other sleazy project(s) that come up too. They were working for the banks, but some of these firms were (or at least had been) working for the government too. Might want to check with the White House before you start digging too deep.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Careful what you wish for by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How better to hide incriminating evidence if you're the one in charge of the investigation in the first place?

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    2. Re:Careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an "Obama supporter" (if that even makes sense) I would like this investigation, so that this comes to light if it is true. Since my support of people is not axiomatic, I would like evidence supporting their trustworthiness. I understand this position may appear alien.

    3. Re:Careful what you wish for by spun · · Score: 2

      Some democratic members of Congress claim to want an investigation. Easy enough to claim to want that as a democratic congressman in a republican congress. Nota bene, the White House hasn't called for an investigation. You think these kinds of investigations are totally partisan? You think there won't be members of the investigative committee who are gunning for Obama? Okay, you might think that, but I doubt Obama does.

      Anyone want to take bets on this, what are the odds that there will be an investigation of HBGary? Anyone want to put up some money on the "Sure, there will be an investigation" side?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Careful what you wish for by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      They won't be in charge of a Congressional investigation, the Republicans would be.

    5. Re:Careful what you wish for by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's why we need 2 congressional investigations in parallel. One run by Republicans digging up any dirt they can find on Democrats, and one by Democrats digging dirt on Republicans.

      What we really need is a Highlander style competition amongst politicians. That way there's just one we need to feed to a tree chipper to restore democracy in the U.S.

    6. Re:Careful what you wish for by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've been occasionally hearing this argument lately. "Yeah, we know these guys are doing bad things, but what if you find out that your guys are doing bad things, too? That would prove that you're even more evil, now wouldn't it!" It sounds like an attempt to conflate a hypothetical situation with what's actually going on. You know, things that there are no evidence for yet do not deserve equal weight with things that are actually evident.

      This is in no way to say that I think the Obama administration is completely blameless and angelic in all things. If we were to discover that this firm was working on some of the same hacking and propaganda techniques on behalf of the government, then I'd damned well like to know about that as well. If the Obama administration was using these tactics on American citizens, I hope the investigation uncovers it somehow. And if you, parent poster, murdered a bunch of people ten years ago, I would hope that you are sent to jail for it. You know, if you did that. But in the meantime, we've got documents pointing to fraud being done by this firm on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, so why don't we start with that?

      --
      Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    7. Re:Careful what you wish for by bertoelcon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anyone want to take bets on this, what are the odds that there will be an investigation of HBGary? Anyone want to put up some money on the "Sure, there will be an investigation" side?

      Can I be on the "There will be an investigation, but not a good one." side?

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    8. Re:Careful what you wish for by dachshund · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're going to dig for info on their union-busting, but you're going to be very embarrassed if you find out that the Obama administration was in bed with these scumbags on some other sleazy project(s) that come up too. They were working for the banks, but some of these firms were (or at least had been) working for the government too. Might want to check with the White House before you start digging too deep.

      Have you ever considered that we might like to know about government malfeasance even if it's done by people we voted for? (hell, especially in that case).

      If this radical idea had occurred to the Republican voter base back in 2001, maybe they wouldn't have to deal with a Democratic President in the first place.

    9. Re:Careful what you wish for by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're going to dig for info on their union-busting, but you're going to be very embarrassed if you find out that the Obama administration was in bed with these scumbags on some other sleazy project(s) that come up too.

      If Obama has unclean hands he deserves whatever he gets.

      In reality, this is nothing but empty sabre rattling.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Careful what you wish for by tyme · · Score: 2

      congressional investigations don't have to adhere to the same rules of evidence that apply in a court of law, so "inadmissibility" isn't a concern here.

      --
      just a ghost in the machine.
    11. Re:Careful what you wish for by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      How is the evidence tainted?
      You have fourth amendment protection from the state, not from random hoodlums.

    12. Re:Careful what you wish for by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you may be mistaken. It may fall under bulletpoint #3, but I doubt that covers a corporation.

      Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rules

      Courts will sometimes allow illegally-obtained evidence to be used in a criminal trial. This usually occurs when the court realizes that the information is vital to incriminating a person who may be guilty of a serious offense.

      Evidence obtained illegally may be excluded from the exclusionary rule when it:

              * Comes from a private person who was not acting for the government
              * Comes from the state government, which turns the evidence over to the federal government
              * Violated a person’s rights, but the person is not the one who is on trial
              * Would have been found eventually through legal means
              * Cannot be used to the defendant’s advantage because of other evidence

      In short, when the federal government has jurisdiction over a case, any evidence that a third-party obtained can be used in the case as long as the federal government did not ask that third party to commit the act.

      http://www.lassiterlawoffice.com/articles/the-exclusionary-rule/

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    13. Re:Careful what you wish for by Noughmad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then why didn't they name it the 9999/10000 commission?

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    14. Re:Careful what you wish for by stumblingblock · · Score: 2

      Please don't assume that anyone favoring an investigation must have a political motivation. Some people are really concerned about rights violations.

    15. Re:Careful what you wish for by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2

      After an exhaustive investigation, they will determine that is was a single gunman who fired all of the rounds, acting alone. See, all congressional investigations aren't a waste of time and money!

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    16. Re:Careful what you wish for by Weedhopper · · Score: 2

      In one post, you've managed to encapsulate a lot of what's wrong with modern political followership.

      Question nothing. Follow the tribe. Abdicate your responsibility as a citizen. Hide inconvenient truths. Look the other way. Be a sheep.

      Does that sound about right? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

    17. Re:Careful what you wish for by MeateaW · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Did you read the other article where they were hired by a law firm to spy on and defame unions?
      I think the main wrongdoing is not the *acts* themselves, but using knowledge gained/obtained by funding of their government military contracts (ostensibly to be used on the non american enemy) and then going around and selling those services for private companies to use against american businesses/corporations/individuals.

      I think it is sort of a research to make sure the military isn't effectively funding private espionage. Forget the part where it is American businesses. What's even worse is it is possibly espionage against unions (political speech)

    18. Re:Careful what you wish for by PraiseBob · · Score: 2

      Just because somebody in "the government" was involved, it doesn't make it legal, no matter what Nixon says. If a company was selling dangerous weapons to the Dept of Agriculture, they would get investigated for their practices, and the government employees involved would be subject to legal penalties.

      It is the role of congress to investigate and give oversight to governmental agencies. The whole point of an investigation is to see if there was wrongdoing.

      Proposing an idea is legal. Proposing an illegal idea may be subject to criminal penalties involving the words 'conspiracy to commit'. Government employees are subject to the rule of law just like the citizens.

    19. Re:Careful what you wish for by spun · · Score: 2

      Feeling a bit threatened? Perhaps the key to your inadequacies lies with you, and not other people. There's really nothing you can do to change the facts, as far as I know, those pills, weights, and pumps don't work. You may as well just accept your shortcomings. I've even heard *snicker* some women prefer it that way *chortle*.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    20. Re:Careful what you wish for by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      A CEO, a republican and a unionised worker sit down in a cafe in front of a plate of 12 cookies. The CEO takes eleven of the cookies then whispers to the republican "hey, watch out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie!"

      If you think unions are unnecessary, and that they hold as much lobbying power and effectiveness as the "special interests" who eat from a much finer table then you really do need to look at reality, because you sure aren't seeing it right now.

    21. Re:Careful what you wish for by sjames · · Score: 2

      You might not have gathered from my over the top suggestion that it's not entirely sincere. While the tree chipper is tempting, I would actually advocate equally hands on and personal but considerably less violent interaction.

      I do believe constituencies need be kept small enough that the representative cannot help but to come into social contact with them regularly. It's harder to screw someone over if you might need a favor from him later, want to be able to look him in the eye when you meet at the corner store, or at least if you would like him to not trench your yard. Our congresscritters don't screw their neighbors over and they don't screw over the people who have their home phone number, they screw the people on the other side of the gate over. If you are found on their side of the gate, they call the cops.

      That does in turn suggest bringing the decisions back to the lower levels starting at communities and working outward. On the other side, limits on the size of businesses are also needed. Too big to fail is too big to be permitted. Big enough to ignore outcry from it's "neighbors" is too big.

      If any of this is going to work properly, we will also need a restoration of work/life balance. When a typical household has both adults putting in 40 hours a week there isn't enough left over to raise kids, maintain the household, and be active in the community.

    22. Re:Careful what you wish for by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 2

      The Republican is fine with the fact the CEO got 11 cookies, because he's harboring the delusion that he'll be a CEO too one day.

    23. Re:Careful what you wish for by moortak · · Score: 2

      The fruit of the poison tree doctrine doesn't apply if the aren't agents of the state. If you break into my house and find a bunch of bodies, then go to the police with it , they can use it.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    24. Re:Careful what you wish for by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would have modded you up, but you're already at 5.

      Evidence based support of politicians. Evidence based policy. Evidence based... stuff in general.

      If it turns out that the folks I voted for are scumbags, I'd like to know so they can be kicked out, taken to court, discredited, whatever. It's not "my team" and "their team", this is not about tribes or who's dad can beat up who else's dad, this is about the governance of of the USA.

      If more people thought like this we wouldn't have the ridiculous spectacle of politicians throughout the western world getting away with all sorts of dodgy behaviour because "if you don't vote for me the other tribe will win!" and we might actually get a government we want.

    25. Re:Careful what you wish for by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      You think that commerce within a state is unrelated to commerce without a state?

      Wickard v. Filburn is the ultimate manifestation of that detestable slippery slope logic. Do you think it was within the authority of the commerce clause to use the full power of the state to prevent a man from simply growing a crop on his own land to feed his own animals? After all, that "affects interstate commerce" according to the FDR administration because of what he wasn't buying. By this standard everything is interstate commerce, all the way down to a windowbox full of herbs or the software you might write for your own use. After all, your doing something for yourself means you're not buying it from somebody else, and that hypothetical seller might have been from out-of-state, so it's magically interstate commerce. It's a sick, tyrannical interpretation, antithetical to everything the nation was founded on, and was made by a court more afraid of FDR's appointees than their own consciences.

      Interstate commerce should be interpreted as interstate commerce, not "whatever" happens to affect interstate commerce. The commerce clause is not license to do absolutely anything based on mere links to interstate commerce. It's this kind of indirect thinking that has led to other abuses, like Kelo v. New London, wherein several centuries of precedent regarding eminent domain as being applicable for direct public use only were thrown away, because the taxes and revenue from that wholly private development were considered to be in the public interest. So the takings clause is subverted to the point where anybody can use the power of the state to force the sale of anything for any reason, provided the taxes involved grease the palm of government.

      Everyone that is represented in Congress (at least by a voting member; non-voting delegates don't amount to much) is represented by three members: Two senators and one representative.

      For somebody who is so liberal with the important words of the Constitution, you're sure strict about the interpretation of rants on the internet (where intent was clear enough that you mention it on the second line, but I waste my breath, you have no appreciation of intent). I'm sure the million people of the 3rd congressional district in Nevada will take comfort knowing that their level of representation is really a cozy and personal one person for every 333,000+.

      If you're talking about a limit in the House, though, where are you planning on putting them? Does the Capitol get a new wing? Or would you gut the existing south wing and make it into one big chamber? (Assuming that's enough room; the maximum number of representatives allowed is something like 10,000)

      So, for you the barrier to representative balance and justice is... a building? In the first place, the capitol of the United States wasn't even Washington until 1800, and it was sized for not much more than the requirements of the government at the time, which is why it had to be enlarged in 1850 (among several other smaller expansions). Would you have frozen it in time in its post-1812, pre-1850 configuration, regardless of the harm it would have done to proper government of the country? Are you that petty? Then why would you suggest that the building as it is now is some kind of ultimate, insurmountable obstacle, more important than the nation it was built to serve? (Yes, that's a strawman, but I'm at full rhetorical height here.) I have worked in the capitol building, and while it is architecturally inspiring, the simple fact is that the core of it was designed before there was even electricity, let alone phones or networks. It is a barely functioning patchwork, especially the House offices, which are being practically crushed under the burden of staff that they are supposed to house, I know that already better than you do.

      The point is that it's probably time the original capitol building be turned into a museu

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  2. Score one for Anonymous. by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    eventually anonymous would become a V for vendetta mask behind which vigilantes would do things that needed to be done, like this. Where are the people who were foaming at the mouth against Anonymous just a few weeks ago huh ? Here is anonymous justice, packed up and ready to go. The justice which was in no way delivered by the normal means you were speaking about that people should follow.

    of course good guys, indifferent guys, and bad guys will do things by hiding behind such a mask. but, that doesnt make the presence of that mask, something bad.

    1. Re:Score one for Anonymous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget ACS:Law as well.
      Us Britons had to suffer their bullshit and lies for many years.
      No more people suffering their crap anymore. And they will get the punishment they deserve.
      Now if only someone would go after Global Debt Recovery AKA Tower Investigations AKA a bunch of other terrible companies who buy off loans legally out of date and scare people in to paying up or face "harsh punishments"...

      The Anonymous Movement isn't one group, it is many, there are no members, just people with the same ideals.
      This gives them power.
      Of course, no doubt many countries are in the process of getting rid of any anonymity online.
      It won't work, but they will try. Even many ISPs are against some of the crap governments try to pull.
      The moment a "No-Anonymity" law is mentioned, all rights groups it applies to will instantly shoot it down. (you can bet your ass EFF will be on it in a heart beat)

    2. Re:Score one for Anonymous. by unity100 · · Score: 2

      its not that they are better and more capable. its just that law enforcement is at the hands of governments which are lackeys of corporations. they just are not prosecuting the filthy.

    3. Re:Score one for Anonymous. by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      One that is competent at computer security would be nice.

      Being able to break into something isn't just about breaking into stuff. It's also about making sure your stuff doesn't get broken into.

      With "chain of custody" sorts of things, that's rather important.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Score one for Anonymous. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      No, law enforcement is hampered by the law and Constitution.

      Anonymous aren't shackled by laws.

    5. Re:Score one for Anonymous. by Omnifarious · · Score: 2

      No, I get that point, but that's not what's going on here. Law enforcement is not only hampered by issues like this. They're totally incompetent in general. It's quite sad.

      I want warrants and due process. Yes, Anonymous has the advantage of not having to bother with these things. And it is a large advantage. And even if law enforcement had the same advantage, I still think they'd fall all over themselves and be completely incompetent.

      I mean, basically law enforcement already has that advantage. There are enough people that think like you in the field that I assume that they violate the constitution a a nearly continuous basis anyway. There certainly has been enough evidence this is the case that's come out over the years. But they are still complete failures.

    6. Re:Score one for Anonymous. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2

      Law enforcement is empowered by the law. Discard the law because it 'hampers' them, and they're just another group of thugs with no legitimacy.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  3. Countermeasures against HBGary by gatkinso · · Score: 2

    1) Don't use Windows
    2) Don't use Facebook

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Countermeasures against HBGary by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      3) Don't use Flash
      4) Don't use Java

      Interesting what they have unpublished 0-day exploits for.

    2. Re:Countermeasures against HBGary by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 2

      4. Don't be evil and you won't have anything that could be used against you

    3. Re:Countermeasures against HBGary by Leafheart · · Score: 4, Funny

      4. Don't be evil and you won't have anything that could be used against you

      Oh man. That was funny. You had me a moment there.

      --
      --- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
    4. Re:Countermeasures against HBGary by gknoy · · Score: 2

      It's true. If you set out to behave ethically in all your endeavours, and are honest and forthright with people, the only attacks people can make against you will be lies. Sure, you'll face attacks, but you don't have anything that you would need to be actively hiding to stay "safe".

    5. Re:Countermeasures against HBGary by Securityemo · · Score: 2

      5. Don't hire admins that will let "you" reset your SSH password through an insecure medium without verification that it's actually you.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    6. Re:Countermeasures against HBGary by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you set out to behave ethically in all your endeavours, and are honest and forthright with people, the only attacks people can make against you will be lies. Sure, you'll face attacks, but you don't have anything that you would need to be actively hiding to stay "safe".

      That only holds true if

      1. "ethically" is the same as "legally".
      2. You're version of "ethically" is the same as everyone else's version of "ethically".

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Countermeasures against HBGary by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      3. You are omniscient and avoid running afoul due to ignorance.

      No matter how ethically you behave, if someone wants to nail you to the wall because they don't like you, they can probably dig up something you've failed to do -- some tax law you fail to meet, some paper you failed to sign before you did something, some place you happened to be that you didn't know you shouldn't be, etc.

      Also, in some countries, you can get in trouble for failing to pay bribes. I consider bribes unethical. See the problem?
      Of course, neither of these run afoul of the "actively hiding" clause -- they depend on the "ignorantly hiding" clause. But once you realize that the only reason you're not in trouble is because you failed to disclose something, do you disclose it (acting ethically) and pay the penalty (no longer being safe), or do you hide it (no longer acting ethically) and fly under the radar?

      Ethics are social. This world has many societies, and they aren't all compatible.

      Hey, for a historical example, Jesus was killed because he was condemning the unethical acts of the Jewish elite. They accused him of things he readily admitted to (as well as a bunch of lies) that were punishable by their law by death by stoning. Of course, if they'd followed that law (ethical to them) then they would have been guilty of murder under Roman law -- Romans considering stoning both unethical and illegal.

      Those who are truly willing to live by their ethical code have to be willing to die by it. They are by no means "safe".

    8. Re:Countermeasures against HBGary by tombeard · · Score: 2

      And what about the day when you log in to your account and discover you have posted pictures of yourself doing illegal things, and that you have ongoing conversations with criminals and terrorists. You can yell your innocence all you want, but can you "prove" those weren't your posts? The fact that I don't have a facebook account offers me no real protection if HBG or someone else decides to make one for me, all transacted off of my apparent IP address.

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
  4. Wow. by Tolkien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So they were clearly and intentionally on the more shady end of ethical boundaries. They aren't a security firm, they're crackers for hire.

    1. Re:Wow. by bberens · · Score: 2

      I don't see how any of this should be surprising. My understanding is that these guys were contract spooks hired out by the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. to do work they either wouldn't or couldn't do. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the NSA and their private counterparts have databases of 0-day vulnerabilities and rootkits lying around to use for whatever "legitimate" spooking purposes arise.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    2. Re:Wow. by andrea.sartori · · Score: 2

      The two are not mutually exclusive though.

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    3. Re:Wow. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      So they were clearly and intentionally on the more shady end of ethical boundaries.

      Yes, exactly! They were CLEARLY, and INTENTIONALLY, on the... uhh.. well, the "more shady" end of what we like to call "ethical boundaries". Clearly!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  5. Small d ? by mbone · · Score: 2

    I suspect that what was meant was that there is a Democratic push (by big D Democrats) to investigate HBGary. I haven't heard of any sit-ins over the issue, at least as yet.

  6. And i TOLD you. by unity100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    i told you that, going after anonymous would cause more hardcore circles, which are in constant rebellion to anything that is establishment, to take up the cause of the anonymous.

    Anyone spending a few years in the early stages of internet, in which those underground circles were not so underground like today, would be able to know and tell the same. Its the rebel net culture. That underground is multitudes over the level of what the private lackey corps or govts. can afford to hire or educate. They are of a sort that grows/breeds on its own.

    Despite their roads have diverged with most of us the early netizens like me, i indeed learned to develop a deep respect for their kind. For, even if they do a lot of shady stuff, they do have a very strong attachment to some principles. and that's something to be respected.

    Anyway. see, what they have done. good luck to govt and their lackeys in finding who did it. they may even be inside hbgary itself. you'll never know. once a rebel, always a rebel.

    1. Re:And i TOLD you. by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

      > For, even if they do a lot of shady stuff, they do have a very strong attachment to some principles. and that's something to be respected.

      That is, to me, the ultimate conundrum in a nutshell. What is better? A democratic government comprised of people selected by a process which severely inhibits principles, or a renegade cabal of vigilantes whose unity derives from a set of moderately respectable (if often conflicting and sometimes harmful) principles.

      Sure, the "right" answer is a principled democratic government; but the very process of being elected and re-elected to a position with sufficient power inherently -- as a natural matter of the evolution of organic systems -- does not select for principled people.

      My current thinking is that the two balance each other. At present, vigilantes are what the fourth estate is supposed to be (it, too, having been usurped as a natural systemic response to its power).

      Blah, blah, blah -- mostly just posting to say I appreciate your insight and reflection on the issue.

  7. Haha. Read the memo they left in the conference by unity100 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/02/16/lessons-to-learn-from-the-hbgary-federal-hack/

    down below.

    http://sophosnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hbgary-rsa-sign.jpg?w=640

    "A group of AGGRESSIVE hackers known as 'Anonymous' illegally broke into blah blah ..... blah blah and stole proprietary and 'confidential' information which was STOLEN by us by using ROOTKITS and VIRUSES and 0 DAY EXPLOITS from private citizens' computers ....."

    corporate lack of shame. you produce rootkits, viruses, 0 day exploits, malware to spy on people, steal their confidential, legally private information to SELL them, and then you dub that information 'proprietary' information belonging to you ....

    i wonder what will they say in their defense in front of senate committee. what's more, i wonder what will the senate committee say to them, in regard to their dealings with this filthy outfit.

    whats the slogan of hbgary anyway ? "hey - we produce viruses, rootkits, 0 day exploits and malware to steal your private information to sell to corporations and government !!!" ?

    1. Re:Haha. Read the memo they left in the conference by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > i wonder what will the senate committee say to them, in regard to their dealings with this filthy outfit.

      Here's my guess: "When Blackwater got caught doing evil shit, they had to split up into a bunch of shell companies with different names so we could keep paying them enormous sums of taxpayer money to keep doing business as usual. Now you are going to have to do the same. One of the contractors from one of the new Blackwater shells who works for the CIA just got caught shooting non-combatants in the back, and we are having a motherfucker of a time keeping people from making the connection. Like that guy, we'll give you diplomatic immunity or state secrets protection, or whatever we need to do to prevent justice from being served, but it is a pain in the ass. Don't get caught again."

      Of course, that's not going to be the public part.

  8. I call shenanigans by retardpicnic · · Score: 2

    The problem I have with this is that I think its just noobs selling shit to boobs.The more this story develops I become more and more uncertain that HBGary had te technical know how to make working root kits, and 0-days for multiple OS's. I betcha these guys would just sit waiting for bugtraq to update and hurriedly package it, that i do believe they are capable of. Some of the things that were apparently willing to sell or selling require superior technical understanding, and if the twats at HBG had that, they wouldn't be so chock full of epic loss right now

    --
    sig loading.......
    1. Re:I call shenanigans by gartogg · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFA.

      There were contracts and delivered goods with 0-day kits to both government and corporate sources.

      --
      I'm a concientious .sig objector.
  9. And the problem with this is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men

    The Yes Men often deploy a satirical approach: they pose as a powerful entity (typically a corporate or government representative or executive) and make ridiculous and shocking comments that caricature the ideological position of the organisation or person. Furthermore, they acknowledge the idea that many corporate or government entities manipulate their ideology using spin; in response, the Yes Men use this power of spin to their own advantage, and use media outlets to disseminate their personal interpretation of the situation. A sense of humor and shock value is usually employed to make these issues more palatable to the general public and to call greater media attention to stories of interest.[1] Some of these outrageous ideas include the possibility to sell one's vote or that the poor should consume recycled human waste. On most occasions, little to no shock or outrage is publicly evoked in response to their prank.

    On occasion, the Yes Men's phony spokesperson will make announcements that represent fictitious scenarios for the anti-globalization movement or opponents of corporate crime. The result often heed false news reports which cover the demise of the World Trade Organization, or Dow Chemical paying compensation to the victims of the Bhopal disaster, which the Yes Men intend to provide publicity for problems concerning these organizations. One of the effects of apologizing and promising support on behalf of an organization is that the organization is then later forced to re-acknowledge the event in question and retract all of the proposed good will. This served to further publicize the negative event of the organization and sets-up the organization to look bad for taking back any support The Yes Men offered under the name of their organization.

    --

    There are people who attack corporations in this way, and are not investigated by the Democrats on anything like a regular basis.

  10. So what about the DoJ by elashish14 · · Score: 3

    Are they gonna be investigated too?

    --
    I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
  11. Democratic != democratic by winkydink · · Score: 2

    Capitalization is important. Consider the sentence:

    i helped my uncle jack off a horse

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  12. Re:Explains why Aaron Barr left in a hurry by lowtekk · · Score: 2

    I thought he ran after he shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

  13. Re:Explains why Aaron Barr left in a hurry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure there's an analogy to be made there between Brown Rats and Investment Bankers, but maybe that's all that needs to be said.

  14. Re:Somehow by spun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Really? It doesn't have anything to do with justice? You DO realize that there are several eastern religions that talk about karma, and that while it isn't the same in all of them, most conceptions of karma can be boiled down to "you reap what you sow." How is that not justice?

    It still stems from the misconception that the self is separate from the universe. Being separate, the self is an uncaused cause. We all understand how cause and effect work, if that were all karma were, there would not be a separate word for it, it would just be "causation." No, karma springs from the idea that the self is a separate uncaused cause, and therefore, there needs to be some spiritual method of restoring balance caused by the unbalancing actions of the separate self. That method is karma.

    The most common conception of karma is in relation to reincarnation, that how you act in this life determines what you are reincarnated as. That is a form of wishing after justice. The next most common conception is of a kind of universal enforcement of "you reap what you sew," which posits that if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you. As we can see that bad things do not always happen to bad people, that leads right back into believing in reincarnation, karma will ensure those bad people are punished, if not in this lifetime, then the next. That is the sense the OP was using it in.

    If you take the self out of the picture, then all the concept of karma is saying is that bad things are bad, while good things are nice. Bad things lead to hurt, while good things lead to happiness. As there is no "self" in this discussion, it doesn't matter who perpetrates the action and who receives the bad feelings. I kick you in the nuts, you feel nut-pain, THAT is real karma. And also not how the OP was using the term at all.

    Are we done with school yet, or would you like another lesson?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  15. Re:Explains why Aaron Barr left in a hurry by Securityemo · · Score: 2

    In one of the mails published, I don't remember which one, someone wrote something to the effect of "his arrogance is getting the best of him again, and we all know how that turned out". I wonder what incident that was referring to? Elsewhere, it seems like he was aware he was really hot-headed and impulsive though. Maybe he has some actual issues, and isn't just a "generic asshole"?

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
  16. Re:Wait, there is more! by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you still believe climategate was anything other than a political beat up then you haven't even bothered to do your own investigation.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  17. The Facebook "Revolution"... by advocate_one · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the existence of personna management software makes you wonder about the useage of facebook and other social media in the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya doesn't it...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.