Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Usenix and EFF Reps Talk About VW's Attempt to Suppress a Presentation (Video)

Posted by Roblimo on from the even-if-everybody-knows-the-secret-it-is-still-a-secret dept.

You may have read about this on Slashdot: Three researchers were going to present a paper next week at the USENIX Security '13 conference about security holes they found in one of Volkswagen's anti-theft systems, but a British court said they couldn't. One of the presenters works at a British university, and the court may have jurisdiction over him. The other two are not U.K. residents, and the Usenix conference is being held in Washington D.C., so jurisdiction questions are flying thick and fast. Amusingly, whether the paper is published and presented or not, the security holes and crack codes it is supposed to contain have been available on the Internet for quite a while, so bad guys who want to learn about them most likely have done so already. Then, last week, we heard that one of the presenters was going to show up at the conference and possibly ignore the injunction. Meanwhile, USENIX co-executive director Casey Henderson and EFF intellectual property director Corynne McSherry talked with Slashdot's Timothy Lord via Zoom and discussed this situation, and how this sort of problem might be prevented in the future.

29 comments

  1. "You may have read about this on Slashdot"? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    >> You may have read about this on Slashdot

    I think I just did.

    1. Re:"You may have read about this on Slashdot"? by icebike · · Score: 0

      >> You may have read about this on Slashdot

      I think I just did.

      All your discussions are belong to Barbra.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:"You may have read about this on Slashdot"? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      So... they're telling us in advance that this may be a dupe?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:"You may have read about this on Slashdot"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK should demand the other two be extradited to stand trial if they go forward with the presentation. You know, because they are terrorists for leaking information to the public.

  2. The advertisement in the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1 minute and 11 seconds of forced advertisement in the video made me just ignore the video in its entirety, as well as the transcript underneath.

    1. Re:The advertisement in the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is a video?

    2. Re:The advertisement in the video by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Kind of funny considering it's supposed to be something about suppressing a video, when throwing an advertisement into it did just that.

    3. Re:The advertisement in the video by djh2400 · · Score: 1

      There is a video, but it says "A plugin is needed to display this content." for me, so I didn't watch the video...

  3. Number of cars stolen using this exploit = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amount of time and money wasted discussing the legal ramifications of blocking a presenation on this hypothetical exploit = countless

    captcha: gadget

  4. page Barbra Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Barbra Streisand, white phone please.

    Congrats, corporate entity... you have now increased the audience by at least one order of magnitude,

  5. Only read the -1 comments by doesnothingwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The trash is better than this summary, video, and transcript. Will somebody please save us from Dice, I'm watching /. die.

    --
    They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    1. Re:Only read the -1 comments by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That would be a good feature. Currently I can't filter for only -1 comments.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. censorship by donaggie03 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fucktard Timothy opens with "..., I don’t know if censorship is exactly the right word for it, but an incident that recently took place to do with publication of some security information – can you talk about what happened exactly?"

    In whose deluded mind would censorship NOT be "exactly the right word for it"??

    --
    Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    1. Re:censorship by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

      Because some would argue that the term "censorship" only applies to suppression by the government.

    2. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, that's not a private court's injunction.

    3. Re:censorship by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Because some would argue that the term "censorship" only applies to suppression by the government.

      And as this is a case of the *British government* telling these people, "no, you can't talk about this," how is this not censorship?

    4. Re:censorship by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1

      Gimme a break. All we learn from the transcript (I don't watch videos anyway, but definitely avoid them when all my bandwidth goes to sucking down an obligatory advertisement) is that Timothy isn't a great interviewer. Surprised? He's a geek, not a journalist. I think, despite all the hoo-haa about how blogging is going to destroy conventional journalism, etc. the fact is that quality journalists are trained in how to ask good questions and shape an interview, and there's value in that. Here's what you get when you don't have quality, trained journalists doing an interview: it's weak, poorly worded, not that fun to read. This bodes poorly for that company that decided to do away with its photographer team and give journalists an iphone to capture a couple of pics. It's the same mentality that is making good quality journalism harder and harder to find, but more worthwhile when you find it. I pay for a subscription to the NYT and don't regret it, and the BBC is still high quality. But anybody who thinks you can give a geek a laptop and an iphone and get the same results is seriously deluded.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
  7. prove it by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    have been available on the Internet for quite a while,

    If you are going to make a statement like this, shouldn't it link to the information it claims is available? After all, the all powerful Brits didn't order you not to release the information, did they?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:prove it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The BBC reported the same:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23487928

      Car break-ins using it are already in the news:
      http://www.today.com/news/police-admit-theyre-stumped-mystery-car-thefts-6C10169993
      http://jalopnik.com/whats-the-secret-device-thieves-in-california-are-usin-471782175
      http://news.msn.com/science-technology/high-tech-car-thieves-break-into-vehicles-without-leaving-a-trace

      Here is the device built using the same code these researchers discovered:
      http://www.vag-info.com/BMW%20Group%20products.htm
      and a video how to use it:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVmPfCFFkqQ

    2. Re:prove it by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      Not sure that's the same thing. I've known of tools to recode alarm fobs to a car for VW for years (and have used them when I've broken a transponder and didn't want to pay £200 for a replacement from the dealer) but they all require access to the car - e.g. either ODBII interface that's usually under the steering wheel on the underside of the dash (and which needs the key present to power up), or need the old physical key to be inserted and flicked on / off in the ignition. Both options need the car to be unlocked and a key of some sort present. This isn't the same as a drive-by tool that automagically unlocks cars on the street, unless I'm missing something?

  8. and your point is? by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    My schooling was a long time ago, but as best I remember, a court order is issued by a court, and the courts are part of the government.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  9. If at first by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > director Corynne McSherry talked with Slashdot's Timothy Lord

    I first read that as "Slashdot's Time Lord..."

    "Well, that's rather arrogant of him."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:If at first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I first read that as "Slashdot's Time Lord..."

      ... bringing you yesterdays dupes today!

  10. i love everything about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God. Fucking. Damnit.

    1 minute unskippable ad. Ok, i'll mute it and scroll down to comments. Scroll up, press play again(?), another ad. After all that the video isn't engaging or entertaining.

    Shitty player is shitty.
    Blatant adrevgrab is blatant.

  11. show me your t**s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good god, after that long forced add I felt like throwing a dollar and shouting at the video like the whore it is.