Slashdot Mirror


Meet the Hackers Who Get Rich Selling Spies Zero-Day Exploits

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Forbes profiles Vupen, a French security firm that openly sells secret software exploits to spies and government agencies. Its customers pay a $100,000 annual fee simply for the privilege of paying extra fees for the exploits that Vupen's hackers develop, which the company says can penetrate every major browser, as well as other targets like iOS, Android, Adobe Reader and Microsoft Word. Those individual fees often cost much more than that six-figure subscription, and Vupen sells them non-exclusively to play its customers off each other in an espionage arms race. The company's CEO, Chaouki Bekrar, says Vupen only sells to NATO governments and 'NATO partners' but he admits 'if you sell weapons to someone, there's no way to ensure that they won't sell to another agency.'"

8 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Spook BackDoors In Cisco Routers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Spook BackDoors In Cisco Routers
    - Older news, but still relevant!!
    Please save this story and repost it everywhere
    Especially in Security Discussion Forum Sites
    - You should use OpenBSD or a hardened Linux distro
    For a router, NOT these blackboxes offered with
    proprietary hardware & firmware!

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/03/hackers-networking-equipment-technology-security-cisco.html

    "Special Report
    Cisco's Backdoor For Hackers
    Andy Greenberg, 02.03.10, 01:45 PM EST
    The methods networking companies use to let the Feds watch suspects also expose the rest of us.

    ARLINGTON, Va. -- Activists have long grumbled about the privacy implications of the legal "backdoors" that networking companies like Cisco build into their equipment--functions that let law enforcement quietly track the Internet activities of criminal suspects. Now an IBM researcher has revealed a more serious problem with those backdoors: They don't have particularly strong locks, and consumers are at risk.

    In a presentation at the Black Hat security conference Wednesday, IBM ( IBM - news - people ) Internet Security Systems researcher Tom Cross unveiled research on how easily the "lawful intercept" function in Cisco's ( CSCO - news - people ) IOS operating system can be exploited by cybercriminals or cyberspies to pull data out of the routers belonging to an Internet service provider (ISP) and watch innocent victims' online behavior.

    But the result, Cross says, is that any credentialed employee can implement the intercept to watch users, and the ISP has no method of tracking those privacy violations. "An insider who knows the password can use it without an audit trail and send the data to anywhere on the Internet," Cross says.

    Cross told Cisco about his findings in December 2008, but with the exception of the patch Cisco released following the revelation of its router bug in 2008, the security flaws he discussed haven't been fixed. In an interview following Cross' talk, Cisco spokeswoman Jennifer Greeson said that the company is "confident in its framework." "We recognize that security is complicated," she said. "We're looking at [Cross'] findings and we'll take them into account."

    Cisco isn't actually the primary target of Cross' critique. He points out that all networking companies are legally required to build lawful intercepts into their equipment.

    Special Report
    Cisco's Backdoor For Hackers
    Andy Greenberg, 02.03.10, 01:45 PM EST
    The methods networking companies use to let the Feds watch suspects also expose the rest of us.

    ARLINGTON, Va. -- Cisco, in fact, is the only networking company that follows the recommendations of the Internet Engineering Task Force standards body and makes its lawful intercept architecture public, exposing it to peer review and security scrutiny. The other companies keep theirs in the dark, and they likely suffer from the same security flaws or worse. "Cisco did the right thing by publishing this," says Cross. "Although I found some weaknesses, at least we know what they are and how to mitigate them."

    The exploitation of lawful intercept is more than theoretical. Security and privacy guru Bruce Schneier wrote last month that the Google ( GOOG - news - people ) hackings in China were enabled by Google's procedures for sharing information with U.S. law enforcement officials. And in 2004 and 2005, a group of hackers used intercept vulnerabilities in Ericsson ( ERIC - news - people ) network switches to spy on a wide range of political targets including the cellphone of Greece's prime minister.

    All of that, argues IBM's Cross, means that Internet-related companies need to be more transparent about their lawful intercept procedures or risk exposing all of their users. "There are a lot of other technology companies out there that haven't published their architecture

  2. Re:Kind of shady? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Informative

    Espionage agencies are lawfully chartered. The activities they undertake in other countries are usually illegal in those countries, but so what, you do it to us, we do it to you, when you catch one of ours, we catch one of yours, trade, and back to business.

    In the case of the french bombing a ship in new zealand that was illegal, even though New Zealand would be a "NATO Partner" in the parlance of TFA. Two of the agents were caught, and charged.

    Of course had they got back to france (like the rest of the team) likely nothing would have happened to them, although with a more valuable ally like the UK that may not hold true. Countries act in their own interests, and if they're smart they are under no illusion about having any friends.

    The reason people still remember the rainbow warrior incident is because it was a major scandal in france, and might not even have been legal in france. Depends on the agreements they had with New Zealand.

  3. Re:Kind of shady? by meerling · · Score: 4, Informative

    The military has very strict rules, and you are only required to follow lawful orders. In fact, if you are given an unlawful order, you are, by military law, required to refuse to follow it and report it to the appropriate military authority. Nobody is protected by "I was just following orders" for performing an unlawful action.
    At least with regards to the US Military. I don't know about other countries.

  4. Re:The true faith of an armorer by forand · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone wondering where this is from it is from the play Major Barbara by George Bernard Shaw. You can find the full script on Gutenberg.

  5. Re:$100,000 is not rich. by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's just the membership fee. How much is the actual product?

  6. There are companies in the U.S. doing this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Check out this company: Siege Technologies (http://www.siegetechnologies.com/). I had never heard of them before and have no idea how big they are. But they openly advertise that they have a "Vulnerability Discovery Incentive Plan" in their benefit package (http://www.siegetechnologies.com/careers).

    They claim to do work for private companies and the U.S. government. They advertise a "Five year contract awarded to provide DoD with training material on Offensive/Defensive Windows Kernel Security and Development" and are advertising for jobs looking for Reverse Engineers.

  7. Re:Kind of shady? by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Summary executions by officers for anything are of extremely doubtful legality today, at least in the US. If an officer simply executed you for some cause and expected that to hold, he would face a guaranteed court-martial. If he tried to pretend that he merely apprehended you and you "escaped", there would still be an investigation at the very least. Unless the whole unit was on the side of the officer, it is unlikely that an officer would get away with it.

    As far as "friendly fire" incidents... those are always possible, but the shooter could still get found out.

    In short, if you turned the officer in for an offense that they might get execution, or life, or 20 years for, you may want to watch your back. Otherwise, no one is going to shoot you unless they are also unbalanced. In which case, you're pretty fucked anyway.

    That said, while it is actually required to refuse an unlawful order, you will still likely have to prove that at court-martial. So, you might well simply obey the officer ordering you to do something technically illegal, but petty. But, if he wants you to start shooting people, I'd suggest taking the court-martial.

  8. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ugh.
    securityfocus.com

    select vendor microsoft
    framework .net

    whatever version you use

    there's about a dozen vulnerabilities in version 4.0 alone, including this one overrunning an array

    http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/48212/discuss

    Shithead fanboy. Understand the tools you use. Marketing theory is not implementation reality.

    Yes, they've been found. Yes, they're open. And your question reveals absolutely horrific ignorance and shows that you've drank the kool-aid instead of doing some research.

    Next time you choose a platform, ask yourself what the possible vulnerabilities are, and then do a google search for them. Had you done this, you'd realize that Java is one of the exploit platforms of choice, second only to flash -- and has been for years.