Unconventional Adversaries vs. Conventional Wisdom (Video)

This presentation was given by Joshua Corman at CodenomiCON 2012 in Las Vegas, an invitation-only security mini-conference sponsored by the pen-testing company Codenomicon that ran concurrently with Black Hat USA 2012. Josh is Director, Security Intelligence, for Akamai, and is one of the instigators of Rugged Software. He sympathizes with Anonymous more than with corporate or government forces that are determined to bring order to everything, including the Internet, on their terms. We have no transcript for this video since we only have permission to embed it, not to alter or add to it. But it's well worth watching, including the accompanying slides. And if Joshua Corman is speaking anywhere near you, it's well worth your time to go see him.

Comments

shitty write-up

[heptapod]

Direct link to the video.

Re:shitty write-up

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Thanks for adding value. :-/

I like this talk. I thought I might be the only security professional who hadn't been co-opted by a purely statist, law-enforcement mind-set. Blow it out your "fusion center"! :-)

Re:shitty write-up

[doesnothingwell]

Hey gang! lets put on a show, everybody meet me at yutoob.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We have no transcript for this video since we only have permission to embed it, not to alter or add to it." So don't alter it -- transcribe it!

Re:WTF?

[Jeng]

Yes, but throwing your hands up in the air and declaring yourself incompetent is so much easier though.

Btw, have they ever included a transcript for video submissions? I know I have bitched about it on many occasions.

Re:WTF?

[1u3hr]

"no transcript for this video since we only have permission to embed it, not to alter or add to it."

Bollocks.You don't need "permission" to describe something in a news story. If they want to give you a hard time, tell them to fuck off and promote their video somewhere else.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's worse, is that because they don't have permission to add to it, your comment is illegal.

RUN WHILE YOU CAN.

TL;DW

[mj1856]

TL;DW

Re:TL;DW

[Taco Cowboy]

TL;DW

It's your loss

Terrible summary

[Art3x]

This is a terribly written summary! What's the video about? The only sentence that tells is the middle one, and it is vague. Here is a rewritten summary, putting facts in the order that a reader needs to know them:

Order should not be brought to the Internet, said Josh Corman, Director of Security Intelligence at Akamai, in this talk at CodenomiCON 2012, in Las Vegas. (Transcript unavailable, due to licensing.)

That's the best I can do based on the facts in the summary. I could watch the video and come up with a better one, but I'm not sure it's worth 20 minutes of my time.

Re:Terrible summary

[Zero__Kelvin]

I'm not sure if it's worth twenty minutes of your time either. It depends upon how much you like having a clue. If you are into security then it is well worth IMNSHO.

Transcript, motherfucker. Do you speak it?

[Hillgiant]

We have no transcript for this video since we only have permission to embed it, not to alter or add to it.

Then what good are you?

I watched it, I'm picky-it was well worth my time

[mha]

I wanted to wait for some feedback here before watching this, but after actually going to the (fora.tv) URL I realized that I had watched this exact video only two hours ago, before seeing it on /.

Let me just say that if you like the stuff on fora.tv, especially from Long Now, than this video will be worth your time. The presenter is witty, the arguments make sense, and it is overall a pretty good presentation both in content and in style (HOW is it presented).

It is well balanced (not Fox News style :-) ), not crazy one-sided, and mostly about possible developments and dangers in where IT is going: who owns stuff, who has control? An example which already happened, there was an automated garage and since there was a dispute ab out payments between the makers of that garage and the owner by remote-control they shut down the garage, taking 300 cars hostage. In that context, there will be more and more implants with embedded IT inside YOUR body, from pace makers to other stuff. The video is MUCH MUCH better than my pityful summary though :)

Re:What's the video about?

[TaoPhoenix]

It's about two new classes of security threats, Anonymous and "Persistent Adversaries" aka government sponsored attacks.

There's a nice point in the middle that if you and your buddy are being chased by a bear, you only have to be faster than your buddy. Not anymore. Now there's lots of bears, you're drenched in bacon fat, you poked a few bears in the eye to piss them off, and you only have one decoy buddy. Oops.

Re:I watched it, I'm picky-it was well worth my ti

[Anonymous Coward]

proportional response is not just for military force...

Re:I watched it, I'm picky-it was well worth my ti

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it that if the buyer doesn't fulfill their contractual duty to pay, the seller is in their right to take the product back? Or, as in this case, take control of the product back. Whatever third parties are "taken hostage" in that process are the defaulting buyer's problem. Of course this doesn't apply to vital body implants.

Re:I watched it, I'm picky-it was well worth my ti

[mha]

> Whatever third parties are "taken hostage" in that process are the defaulting buyer's problem.

What you fail to take into account that it is also -and foremost - the "hostages" problem!

I can see that you ignore this tiny little issue - as long as YOU don't end up in that position. Somehow your point of view seems somewhat tilted to one side. I guess such thinking stems from business and economics courses, where other people are nothing but "resources" and "human capital", so it becomes very easy to abstract away their humanness and think its okay when they end up being ignored. I wonder, though, what you are going to say when YOUR car is in that garage.