HBGary Federal Forces Aaron Barr Out of DEFCON

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."

Comments

Aaron Barr lives another day...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[jojoba_oil]

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.

If they're not operating illegally

[cosm]

...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

[LifesABeach]

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

[genner]

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

[todrules]

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

[ElectricTurtle]

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

[cosm]

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

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

[postbigbang]

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

[exomondo]

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

[hairyfeet]

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

[rtb61]

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.

How can there be an injunction

[xevioso]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ch

Parade 'Em Out

[eldavojohn]

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."

Was it wise ?

[unity100]

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 ?

[Zorque]

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.