Slashdot Mirror
IP Lawfirm Sues Typosquatting Security Researcher
First time accepted submitter scottbee writes "A major New York intellectual property lawfirm has filed a $1m lawsuit against domain squatter/security researcher Wesley Kenzie (aka Securikai). Kenzie registered domain names to collect misaddressed email, and then holding companies to ransom claiming he had found security vulnerabilities and would consult for five figure engagements. Lockheed Martin handled it with a simple UDRP, but the Gioconda Law Group decided instead to file a lawsuit for 'cybersquatting, trademark infringement and unlawful interception of a law firm's private electronic communications in violation of federal laws,' along with a permanent injunction. Kenzie had also tried the same tactic against Rapid7's HDMoore, but was shamed out of the domain names earlier this year."
Well this Kenzie guy seems to exhibit some pretty scummy behavior. However that bad behavior does not equate to "unlawful interception of a law firm's private electronic communications in violation of federal laws" (at least as I understand the law). He received emails addressed to his legally acquired domain. I don't know if intent plays into the law on this or not - obviously he did intend to get these emails, so maybe that does make him culpable. I am obviously not a lawyer. But as an average citizen, I can say that bad behavior like his should not be rewarded. So hopefully he doesn't make any more money on schemes like this. Just because the way things are setup allows people to be an asshole doesn't mean that they should act like an asshole.
The title makes it sound like this guy is a legitimate academic who just wants to cure cancer for the benefit of all WomynKind is being harrassed by whatever evil megacorp is at the top of the 2 minutes of hate list today on Slashdot. Then you figure out that this guy is just another scumbag fraudster and he doesn't sound like such an innocent "researcher" at all.
How about a "bank security researcher" who does vital Nobel prize winning research about the response time of police and ambulances when he shoots up a bank during a robbery? I'm sure everyone on this site wants there to be more "research" to make things interesting.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
He own the domain. People send the mail to him. So I hope that they trow that part out. The receiver can not be responsible, the sender should be.
This does not mean that I agree with what he does. He did a lot things wrong, but unlawful interception isn't one of them.
If they will allow it, whenever you get a mail by mistake, YOU will be responsible. For now the stoopid signatures that legal adds to your external mail mean nothing. For now!
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
What this guy did is certainly not ethical but shouldn't be illegal. You shouldn't have a right to every domain similar to one that you have bought just because you are a big corporation. If a company wants to own all variations of a domain, fucking pay for all of them.
He specifically took action to create a destination for the incorrectly addressed emails.
If he had not done that then the emails would have been rejected by the sender's system and kicked back to the sender.
And the way he did that was to register misspellings of legitimate email domains.
He is responsible because he chose to do that.
First, he's not a security researcher; calling him that gives him an air of credibility he DOES NOT deserve. He's a sleazy typosquatter giving himself the title of "researcher" to gain a veneer of respectability. I am the risk manager for an organization hit by this guy; his intent is made perfectly clear in the extortion snail-mail he sends his victims: I have your mail, pay me what I ask or I go public. He might wrap it up in a "i'm just an unsolicited security researcher trying to help you", but any attempts to discuss the "vulnerability" with him (the "vulnerability" being that my company didn't register every possible misspelling of our trademarks across all possible TLD's), he will refuse to do so until we signed a consulting contract with him.
Complete scumbag who abuses the system for his own benefit. He started this scam going after smaller companies with no InfoSec staff or Risk Managers, offering to settle for $295; once that worked a couple of times, he moved up to mid-sized companies, provincial government assets, international law firms, banks, and finally the big boys like Lockheed Martin. While he may have succeeded on some of the smaller companies, every bigger organization saw through his scam and either passively ignored his demands or is suing him into oblivion.
He is not welcome in the information security or information risk management communities as long as persists in this behaviour. HDMoore at Attrition.org has has been acting as a clearinghouse for this dude's activities; one read-through and you'll understand that Kenzie has unclean hands.
This guy is a Sith and does not deserve your empathy. When justice is meted out, he will never work in IT again.
This is one in a class of issues where the conclusion that makes perfect sense to an (intelligent and educated) technician is directly opposed to the conclusion that makes perfect sense to an (intelligent and educated) non-technician.
The technician sees a system with clear and unambiguous rules. You get an address, you send to an address, stuff goes to that address. Breaking THOSE rules seems obviously punishable to a technician (like making stuff go to a different address than the one to which it was sent, for example), but when following those rules (to the letter) all is fair. If you send to the wrong address (which nobody forced or tricked you into doing), that is your own fault, all responsibility is on you.
The non-technician sees the deliberate and conscious setting of a trap that will result in the receipt of communication that was not intended for you. Furthermore, if the trap had not been set, those communications would have harmlessly bounced-back and gone to nobody. The setting of the trap created a hole that was not there before, because now that the trap is set the communications will seem to be delivered when in fact they were "intercepted." The technical details of how this trap was set are completely irrelevant. The fact that someone else (an actual criminal) could easily have set the same trap and spied on you without your knowledge indefinitely is also completely irrelevant.
Generally speaking, the non-technical position is the one that wins whenever such issues go to trial.