Slashdot Mirror
Interview: John Vranesevich Doesn't Really Answer
Question #1
by manitee
Having read many accounts of your interactions with the staff of attrition.org, it seems to me that your claims against them are generally unproven and rash. Their rebuttals are always filled with detailed fact and systematic, step by step analysis of the topic at hand. Please clarify why you feel that attrition.org is such a dangerous force, yet you have never been able to present HARD EVIDENCE to that point.
Question #2
by davidu
Many of us in the hacker community (not cracker) used the Packet Storm security site for information and research. You had it shut down for some alleged things in the /jp directory. Explain to us why you called [Harvard] to shut it down rather than dealing with the maintainer. What did you accomplish by threatening to sue other than futher harm your image and remove any creditbilily you had?
Question #3
by Kintanon
What is the basis for your attacks on security Experts such as Attrition.org?
To Clarify the question: Why do you proclaim them to be 'dangerous hackers' while they do essentially the same thing you claim to do, except that they do so better, faster, and more professionally?
Question #4
by mattc
Why did you deliberately block links from Slashdot, HNN, and any other site who criticized you during the closure of Packetstorm?
#5
by WH
How do you respond to allegations that the FBI is
investigating your knowledge of attacks before they happened
and the accusations by some hackers who performed said
attacks that you paid them or otherwise coerced them to do
it in order to have coverage for your website?
#6
also by WH
Why do you feel that sites containing satirical humor based [on] antionline are not protected by law and therefore open to your threats of legal action?
#7
by Hard_Code
Are the rumors that you will be spinning off a sister site called Anti-Anti-Anti-Online to dispell the malicious accusations and deprecations of your obviously magnanimous professionalism and intellect and to further bolster the image of Anti-Online and your integrity as a computer- security- expert- guru- enthusiast, true?
#8 - #11
by Jeff -
(Heavily edited - RM)
I have several questions which I will ask within the narrative below. The narrative is important to understand the context of the questions, and to support my arguments.
Several months ago I was raided by FBI for supposed involvement with the "hacker" group gh. The extent of my involvement was participating, as a caller only, in illegally funded phone conferences. JP, who also participated in this conferences, labeled me as a hacker, and a member of gh on his "news" site. Neither of these accusations are true. He has many more ties to this and other hacker groups than I have ever had....
#8 - How can you pretend to be taking a stand against "hackers" while you are involved in the same activities?
#9 - My third question is in regards to your coverage of the situation. You posted unconfirmed information from an unreliable source in regards to the status of my employment at a prominent software development company. As a result of this I was contact by several news agencies, and immediately stereotyped as a hacker even though I have never illegally penetrated any computer system, nor had I been charged with, or accused of any crimes by the FBI. In response to this I granted one news agency an interview, which I thought went well, but also backfired. As a result of the negative press my former employer could not even consider allowing me to stay. My question being, Do you expect people to consider you as a reliable news source even though you report data which you receive through unreliable channels?
#10 - Did you ever stop to think what the impact of your coverage might be? It seems to me that in your rush for the big story you have failed to check for the correctness in your articles, and as a result of this you are hurting innocent people, such as myself. I'm sure this has gone on in other cases, but mine is the only one I have enough knowledge to comment on. I don't attribute these unfortunate events to you, but you certainly did not follow good news practices in reporting them. You have only served to injure my credibility and your own.
11 - Lastly, have you ever considered what legal action may be taken against you for your involvement with these criminals? Do you even recognize the hypocrisy of your stance on hackers being one yourself by your own definition?
Question #12
by sonoffreak
Why did you decide to let Slashdot interview you? How did the response you got compare to what you expected?
John Vranesevich's Response:
Greetings All
Well, I've seen many people say that I can't take criticism. Believe me, if
that were true, I surely never would have opened myself up to a SlashDot
inquisition. I knew before I even agreed to the interview, that things would
be ugly. Needless to say, I was right on the money. However, I will say
this. I was very disappointed in the downright lack of maturity that many of
the posts showed. I like to believe that most people who frequent this type of
forum are of an intellectual nature. I found it very disheartening to hear
nearly every rumor ever voiced about myself or my company being regurgitated as
if they were all fact. An educated bunch of people should understand that not
everything that they hear is true at all, and that almost nothing that they
hear is totally accurate. But, some of that could be my fault. Many posts
pointed out the fact that I have never "given explanations of" or provided
"blow-by-blow responses" to any of the things that have been written about me.
This is true. If I spent my life defending myself from every individual who
had a nasty thing to say about me, my life would end up pretty meaningless in
the end. I think that's true for most people. I decided a long time ago that
I wouldn't allow myself or my website to become dedicated to those who would
seek to bring me down. I have a lot of goals in my life, and I'm not about to
let nonsense get in their way. But, never the less, I saw this SlashDot
invitation as the perfect opportunity to talk about some of those very issues.
It's not that I feel that people who posted negative comments will read what I
have to say, and then decide that they were totally wrong about me. Those who
despise me for whatever reason will continue to do so no matter what I ever say
or do. Even SlashDot faced the wrath of dozens of people who are "no longer
going to visit this site" for one reason or another after reading the interview
bio on Monday. So much for loyalty in this day and age I suppose.
Yours In CyberSpace,
John Vranesevich
Founder, AntiOnline
Now, On To The Questions
I received a list of "questions" from Robin earlier this week, and to put it
bluntly, they were just stupid. I'm not going to waste my time writing up
ridiculous answers to ridiculous questions that no one really cares about. For
example, here is one of the questions posed to me
"Are the rumors that you will be spinning off a sister site
called Anti-Anti-Anti-Online to dispel the malicious
accusations and deprecations of your obviously magnanimous
professionalism and intellect and to further bolster the
image of Anti-Online and your integrity as a
computer-security-expect-guru-enthusiast, true?"
Now how stupid is that? What would my answer be, something like "Um, no". Not
a very stimulating Q&A if you ask me.
So, instead of wasting my time and yours, I decided that I'd simply cut to the
chase, and answer what appear to be some of the major allegations, accusations,
and other such tidbits that some people seem obsessed over.
AntiOnline & PacketStorm
First off, let me say that I didn't shut down PacketStorm, and neither did
Harvard. Ken Williams is the sole person responsible for that site being shut
down. He chose to take a popular forum which was designed to disseminate
information related to computer security, and abuse his own creation in order
to harass someone. Sure, post satire about myself or my website. I truly
don't care, and in many cases, I have even promoted such websites on
AntiOnline. One such satire site that I've linked to several times is
"AntiOffline.com". Personally, I consider satire as one of the greatest type
compliments one can get. However, what Ken did far surpassed simple satire.
By posting a photo of my younger sister (who was a minor at the time), along
with her full name and address, he successfully started a mass campaign of
harassment against her and my family. This I wouldn't tolerate. I don't care
how popular of a site it was, or how valuable of a resource it was. It was
abused by Ken Williams for his own perverse sense of amusement, at the cost of
my family.
As for all of this "threaten to sue" hype which soon followed. I never did any
such thing. I'm not sure which University Official ever told Ken Williams
that, if any, but he was certainly mistaken. I sent a simple one page e-mail
to the provost's office asking them to review the contents of the site against
their acceptable use policy. Despite Ken's claims that there wasn't any
"offending" material on the site, the university reviewed it, and chose to shut
it down. A major and prestigious university like Harvard wouldn't simply shut
down a site because some pissant like myself sent them an e-mail, unless there
was a very good reason to do so. Use your common sense people.
However, what Ken Williams did was a very successful campaign of pity
afterwards. I will admit that. "A poor college student who's website was shut
down by an evil corporation called AntiOnline. Who's college career has been
ruined, and all of his hard work lost". Truth of the matter is that Ken is in
his 30s, and isn't some naive little college freshmen. He got his site
shut-down by harassing a 17 year old girl, which shortly after being shutdown,
Ken sold for a reported $125,000 to Kroll.
Poor Ken.
AntiOnline & Attrition
This is even more stupid than Ken Williams. Despite all of the crap, and there
really isn't a better word for it, which has pored out of Brian Martin and his
Attrition.org site, I think I can sum up events in one small paragraph
AntiOnline was asked by the FBI to help investigate a group called "HFG" which
broke into the New York Times' Website. AntiOnline does some digging, and
turns over its findings. Shortly there after, Brian Martin, founder of
Attrition.org, and someone that no one at AntiOnline had ever had any contact
with before, was raided by the FBI. Ever since then, for some strange reason,
Brian Martin has attempted to do anything and everything he can to discredit
myself and AntiOnline. Wonder why? Is it because I'm an evil menace to
society that threatens the very existence of the internet and all that is
good? I wouldsubmit to you that Brian Martin's motivations are far more geared
towards protecting his own ass, than they are geared towards protecting
society's ass. Once again, use your common sense.
What exactly does AntiOnline Do?
That's something I see asked a lot on "underground" type webpages. To be
frank, we're not a public company, and it really isn't anybody's business
except those that we work with. I can, however, tell you this. The fact that
nearly every malicious hacker (or cracker if you prefer the term) dislikes
AntiOnline is actually good for us, and is the exact position I want to be in.
Some people even "joke" that I intentionally try to "piss off large groups of
people at a time". Well, it's not just a joke, it's the truth. I think I'm
pretty good at doing it too. We average between 200-500 intrusion attempts
against one of our systems AN HOUR, and every time I piss another segment of
the cyber-population off, that number skyrockets. We probably have one of the
most targeted networks on the internet today, and we take full advantage of
that. Do you think that we let the type of data that we're able to collect and
log just go to waste? I don't ;-)
Is AntiOnline Being Investigated By The FBI?
To tell you the truth, I doubt it, but I don't know for sure. But, there's a
reason why I don't know for sure. The FBI doesn't talk to anyone about who
they are/have investigated. Anyone that has ever worked with the FBI in any
manner, can tell you that they, as a rule, keep quite in order to protect any
investigation. If they were to deny reports about us being investigated, that
would confirm in the minds of others that they are being investigated, when the
FBI comes up with a "no comment" answer. Make sense?
Here's where things get funny. The person that "blew the lid off of the story"
that AntiOnline was being investigated by the FBI is none other than, you
guessed it, Brian Martin of Attrition. He told a reporter that an FBI agent
"informed him" about the active investigation.
Common sense time. Would the FBI raid someone (like Brian Martin was), and
then shortly there after begin telling that person about all of the other
investigations that they are doing so that they could spread the word all over
the Internet and ruin their case?
Personally, I would highly doubt that the FBI would consult with us if they
suspected, or were investigating the possibility, that AntiOnline was some evil
criminal empire that paid people off to break into high profile websites so
that we could post an interview.
Get real people.
Does it bother you that everyone hates you. Why or why not?
This is something that I actually saw posted on the message board. To be
honest, at this point in my life, my goal is not to become loved in the hearts
of the masses. I'm not running for political office, so popularity doesn't
count. I have goals in my life that I want to achieve. Some of these goals
are short-term, some of them are long-term. Right now, at the age of 21 (as of
October), I'm exactly where I want to be. My professional career is on track,
financially I'm in good shape, my personal life is where I want it to be, and I
can say that every day brings me closer to the goals that I have set for
myself. Who could ask for more? Sure, I have to put up with a lot more flack
and B.S. than the average 21 year old. But I'll tell you this, every minute is
worth it.
To learn more about John Vranesevich as he was seen through the eyes of at least one reporter for a respected news outlet, read this Forbes article. - RM
--------------
Next week a panel of antitrust experts headed by our friend Don Weightman will answer your questions about what might happen to Microsoft next. We've had many requests for this, but held off for a week to let all the "regular" media have their say first. This promises to be a hugely informative interview session!
He seems a politician.. he doesn't really answer the questions asked of him, simply says the same old things over and over and over again.. Reminds me of gates at the press conference MS held after being declared a monopoly.. his answer to every questions was something along the lines of "We are simply trying to make innovative software".
Taking criticism by calling every single question you recieved 'stupid?' Some of those looked valid to me...
Yeah, whatever, I'm not wasting any more of my day on you.
Now compare that with last week's interview. Oh well, you win some, you lose some, I guess.
11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000
JP> He got his site shut-down by harassing a 17 year old girl, which shortly after being shutdown, Ken sold for a reported $125,000 to Kroll. Does this mean he sold the 17 year old girl? Isn't $125k a bit high-priced? ^_^
So, to all the people in the question article who complained about those of us who chose not to ask questions or participate in this fiasco...
Is anyone really surprised at this? He doesn't answer serious accusations from people who are qualified to comment on his reputation. Is he going to answer ours?
Instead, he continues to be validated in his own mind. I feel sorry for those of you who thought he might honestly respond.
I'm not sure what to think of him and his belief (and judgement) that all of our inquiries are immature and stupid. I would say that the same could be said of him (which leads to a lot of childish "i know you are but what am i" type arguments). In any event, I haven't seen any decent example of skill on his part.
And that's what gets to the security community: lack of skill while professing to know it all. Skill is the only real currency infosec people know. Well, that and money.
Still and all, if he's getting attacked a lot (and he is), then even a complete moron could learn more *in that environment* than any of us could *in this cubicle I'm in* and that's important: he's under fire, and is probably learning modes and methods from it...including stuff we've never seen.
Now if he would just stop being so darned *smug* about it, I'd feel better. Personally. But that's not his job, or yours, or anyone else's...it's mine. And I don't need to hire or recommend him.
It was a mistake to ask him for an interview to begin with. It's rather obvious that this guy lives on seeing his name in print, so giving him any attention at all is just feeding him exactly what he craves.
Slashdot ain't me call, but I've got to recommend that Rob & Co. pick and choose their interviewees a bit more carefully. There are a ton of people out there who'd be an insightful read, even beyond the Three Initial Mafia (you know, RMS, ESR, JWZ, etc... what the hell is Linus' middle name?). JP is more of a thug than a creator -- he represents an awful lot that is contrary to /.'s principles: lawsuits, legal threats, shameless self-promotion, misinformation, collaborating with government hoods, etc.
In short, we ought to be ignoring this guy.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I had formed the impression, from interviews in the press, from his conduct over the PacketStorm affair, that JP was not a great deal more than a script kiddie with attitude.
This was an opportunity to rectify that perception.
Instead, he attacks as some form of defence. Sorry, but when I see someone getting *this* defensive, there's usually something to defend. Weakness and inadequacy.
A shame, really. Instead of defusing all those negative opinions, he's reinforced them.
Oh, well.
--
Peter
"I was very disappointed in the downright lack of maturity that many of the posts showed. I like to believe that most people who frequent this type of forum are of an intellectual nature."
How about you show a some maturity and answer the questions you *agreed* to answer?? Dismissing them all as "stupid" is not only immature, it's downright rude.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
#7 by Hard_Code
Are the rumors that you will be spinning off a sister site called Anti-Anti-Anti-Online to dispell the malicious accusations and deprecations of your obviously magnanimous professionalism and intellect and to further bolster the image of Anti-Online and your integrity as a computer- security-expert- guru- enthusiast, true?
Why was this question submitted? If slashdot is going to arrange an interview, the least it should do is submit serious questions. They can leave the jokes for others.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
We probably have one of the most targeted networks
on the internet today, and we take full advantage of that. Do you think that we let the type of data that we're able to collect and log
just go to waste? I don't
It seems to me that if you hacker folk want this guy to fail you should just ignore him. Otherwise he'll be able to continue feeding off your anger. He can only benefit from being labeled, "the most hated figure in the hacker community."
"Why did you..." tends to piss people off, especially if it's not something they did. The question assumes the other person is "guilty" of the alleged offence, without being open to the possibility that they aren't.
Frankly, if I ever got a questionnaire like that, I'd probably feel disapointed by the quality and matuity of the questions, too.
I -would- like to know his version of events, for some of the more hotly-debated incidents which he was allegedly involved with, but the chances are that unless he ever writes an autobiography, the full accounts of events will never really be known.
All in all, I think it's unfair to say that John never really answered, because there were never really any questions.
As for what AntiOnline does, I think that that is probably more easily deduced than obtained from questions. It clearly has a security focus, with a confidential client-specialist relationship with it's customers. From that, it seems fairly clear that the exact nature of the operations are considered sensitive, by either AntiOnline or those who it works with. That's a lot of information, and you can deduce a lot more still.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
At least it is according to the Linus Torvalds FAQ
--
Peter
Essentailly, I've never heard of Mr. Vranesevich before, and with only this essay to go on, I'd guess that he is either very insecure, a liar, or both. His essay is a sophomoric flame, nothing more. I can only be insinuated 'stupid' a certain number of times before I start questioning someone's ability to participate in lively, intellectual discussion.
-Omar
Did somebody really post photos and details of his underage sister in order to get her harrassed? Because if somebody did that to my daughter, I wouldn't sue, I'd kill. And I'd dynamite the building that housed the server. I think John showed restraint in only threatening to sue.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I find it interesting that out of the original questions, only really one (question #12) of them wasn't negative or antagonistic in nature or tone. And these were the BEST that surfaced. I'm surprised that there weren't more questions that were at framed in a less negative manner.
Of course, I'm also surprised that John chose to not answer some questions that were directly posed.
I'm saddened, however, that John chose to answer questions that were not asked. The questions that were sent were pre-selected to eliminate the REALLY stupid ones. (Although the Anti-Anti-Anti question wouldn't have been on my list, I trust that the moderators had a good reason for putting it in). The fact that John chose to answer 'Does it bother you that everyone hates you' thing is PR work on his part, and has no place in a moderated Q&A like this.
Unfortunately, I don't think John has done his image any good by answering a direct (if somewhat negative) set of questions in an indirect and incomplete manner.
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
Yet again, you,
1. Fail to address any of the allegations against your conduct with a factual, or even coherent, argument.
2. Fail to show any remorse for the hypocritical life you lead and the people you have fscked over.
3. Skirt around the real issues like you're a Presidential candidate.
JP, I suggest you run for office. Lying and deception are your best skills, and it's a shame to let them go to waste on people who don't buy your bullshit.
If you need to point-and-click to administer a machine,
John... this is a technical community. We're generally not given to being childish. While it is true that many of the posts on slashdot were of that nature, the 15 or so we forwarded to you were not. We gave you the chance to clear up a rather dark and ominous cloud surrounding your reputation, and rather than taking advantage of that, you spit venom into the very people you claim to report on. In my book, you're selling snake oil. The only reason you're getting any attention at all is because the press likes to sensationalize. In short, you're a spoiled media brat. But it's not you I'm upset at - it's a system that ignores the fact that you are a completely untrustworthy source, and that the community you report on almost unanimiously hates you. I will have no pity on you when the day comes that you're busted down and exposed as the immature individual you are. Slashdot readers - don't bother with this person. It's proven, and I recall he's admitted, that he's not concerned about the truth. Take him for a wild ride. Let him sensationalize, make propaganda, and be an ass. Either ignore him, or have fun with him - but don't take him seriously!
--
To hell with all these tech people...- -----------------
Let's interview Mahir! Begin posting questions in this thread!
----------------------------------------
I don't know John V. like you cyber-geeks do, so just looking at this from a new-to-linux, newbie point of view, I really see John's side of events. Sure he sounds like a politician, but get real. The questions posed were the *best* of the bunch? No wonder he chose not to answer them, but instead give answers in a general sort of way.
I honestly go to know more about attrition.org and antionline by reading his comments than in several months of reading websites (particularly slashdot).
Why the animosity ppl? Most of the original posts did seem like they were written by crackers, and 13 year old ones at that.
Stuart
So you learned more about attrition and packetstorm by listening to a vitriol spewing enemy of those 2 sites than by going to the sites yourself? What did you learn? That JP hates both of those sites? Everyone knows that. There was only ONE silly question sent in. MY question was perfectly legitimate. I wanted to know what led him to catagorize attrition.org as a destructive website. He refused to answer any of the questions and instead gave those of us who had reserved judgement hoping he would say something sensible a reason to ignore him as a troll.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I thought his response was pretty decent. And as for the people who said he dodged questions: He didn't. They were mostly the same thing. "Why did you shut down Packetstorm" and "Why are you a jerk".
If what JP says is true (about Packetstorm and Attrition) then I say he did get a bad wrap, and a lot of what he says makes sense. No one has a right to provoke harassement of someone's little sister - it's just wrong. The guy probably deserved to lose his site.
I'm not saying the JP is a completely misunderstood guy, but I think, given the questions that were asked, he responded well. After all, I think it's clear that no matter what he replied with, you guys were going to try to tear him a new one anyway.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Listening to JP, all the /.ers who hate him and Ken Williams/Attrition/et al reminds me of the the kids I used to work with at a children's mental health center up here in Canada - lots of fighting but niether side is "right".
Its ironic that one of the things the internet has in abundance is information but one of the things it lacks are facts.
I don't know much about JP, atrition.org or Ken Williams. I am familiar with the some of the issues but I don't know the facts. Did JP hire people to hack sites so he could scoop the news? Maybe. Did Ken Williams post a picture of his 17 year old sister on his site, thus causing script kiddie idiots to harass her? Maybe. Is attrition.org using satire or personal atttacks? Maybe. I don't know.
I haven't seen a verifiable copy of any e-mails, police reports, alleged innapropriate web pages, confessions by those hired by JP (after they have been arrested, or if they use their real names so they can be checked out). I have only read one sides's propoganda or the other and frankly I don't believe anybody. Both sides appear to be lying to make themselves look good - nothing but mud-slinging, half-truth ad-homenem attacks from a couple of immature twits. What a waste of my time and energy.
Rob, Hemos, how about a follow up to this with actually documents and verifyable evidence on both sides so we can draw our own conclusions? Maybe get a neutral third party to investigate (don't ask me who though). Otherwise there is nothing here but a couple of kids yelling at each other in the school year and crying to their friends for help.
BTW, If either of my sisters had been treated like that, I wouldn't have fired off an e-mail to Harvard...I'd have driven to the maintainer's house and opened up a can of ass-wuppin'...But I digress (feel free to interpret this anyway you like it...suffice it to say somebody would have gone to jail). I guess that's what having the web and the impersonal internet does...it let's you say stuff online that you would never have the balls to say if the person was standing in front of you.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
from an earlier post...
He can only benefit from being labeled, "the most hated figure in the hacker community."
Why be nice when saying "Yea I'm an a$$hole and fsck you!" will make you more money. I wish we had followed my original suggestion, and just ignored him. Which is what I'll do with this thread now that I haven't.
+&x
In the case this is referring to my post, I'll copy what I posted elsewhere:
/sent/, and was surprised when it showed up. Apparently /somebody/ wanted to send it...and now I'm the one with egg on my face because of the many stupid/funny/satirical questions this one was chosen. Oh well...I guess I should've checked the little "Don't give +1 bonus" box...I almost returned and reposted "Moderate this down" because I knew it was stupid...
Yes it was submitted, and YES it was a STUPID question. It was meant to be. It was moderated funny. I had no idea it would actually be
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Well, I've seen many people say that I can't take criticism. Believe me, if that were true, I surely never would have opened myself up to a SlashDot inquisition.
You didn't. As far as I can tell, the most insightful questions posed were ignored. And the fact that you wrote up this dissertation defending yourself clearly shows you CAN'T take criticism.
I knew before I even agreed to the interview, that things would be ugly. Needless to say, I was right on the money. However, I will say this. I was very disappointed in the downright lack of maturity that many of the posts showed.
If you knew "things would be ugly", why were you disappointed in the posts? You obviously knew they were coming, so clearly you expected them. (Oh, please use a colon or a comma occasionally, will you?)
I like to believe that most people who frequent this type of forum are of an intellectual nature.
They are. Take a look at some RELEVANT discussions.
I found it very disheartening to hear nearly every rumor ever voiced about myself or my company being regurgitated as if they were all fact. An educated bunch of people should understand that not everything that they hear is true at all, and that almost nothing that they hear is totally accurate.
Not one single post that I read (Blieve me, I read most of them) said that it was factual. As a matter of fact, much of the posts actually gave you an opportunity to dismiss these "facts" as untrue, AND to explain your position. But you didn't do that, did you?
But, some of that could be my fault. Many posts pointed out the fact that I have never "given explanations of" or provided "blow-by-blow responses" to any of the things that have been written about me. This is true. If I spent my life defending myself from every individual who had a nasty thing to say about me, my life would end up pretty meaningless in the end.
This doesn't lend much to your credibility. What you're saying is that both the petty shit, and the REAL allegations are both meaningless, and you shouldn't have to prove or disprove them at all?
But, never the less, I saw this SlashDot invitation as the perfect opportunity to talk about some of those very issues.
But you DIDN'T, Did you?
It's not that I feel that people who posted negative comments will read what I have to say, and then decide that they were totally wrong about me. Those who despise me for whatever reason will continue to do so no matter what I ever say or do. Even SlashDot faced the wrath of dozens of people who are "no longer going to visit this site" for one reason or another after reading the interview bio on Monday.
See, it's not that people despise you "whatever [you] say or do", they hate you BECAUSE of everything you say and do. None of the other people interviewed on Slashdot have had this problem. I wonder why.
So much for loyalty in this day and age I suppose.
Loyalty? What about all of the people you stabbed in the back to get a story? Loyalty is earned, and yet, you're shocked to find out nobody is loyal to you? Pffft.
Then, he continued by stating that the list of questions forwarded by roblimo were "stupid." I disagree. Many of them posed interesting subjects that many more would have liked an answer to. This opened up the perfect opportunity to clear up any (IF any) misconceptions about you, your website, and your position on those particular topics.
But you didn't do that.....DID you?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
These "Why did you..." questions are of the same breed. "Here are some of the bad things said about you, now address them and make them go away." If JP *had* acted in a defensible way, he should have offered a good defense. Indeed, if he had acted in a genuinely valiant manner, he could have come off looking great from those questions. But by side-stepping them, he just looks like a wannabe.
Doctors amputate Turkish earthquake survivor's arm [This story contains video]
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Now, before Monday, I largely had no idea about who JP was. I'd never heard of Anti-Online, had been to attrition.org a handful of times, and also never heard of PacketStorm. Reading his responses reminds me of a joke a comedian made about "The Incredible Hulk" tv show, where he talks about how David Banner gets into a fight in every town he goes to. He said,"If that were me, by like the thrid episode, I'd be thinking,'Maybe it isn't everbody else.'"
Basically, knowing nothing about JP, Ken Williams, or Brian Martin, or anyone else really involved in this, with the furvor that he attacks Ken and Brian, it seems to me pretty clear who the potential jerk is here. That's not to say he's technically right or wrong in some cases. But he's sure not going about this in the nicest of ways.
[I put a bit of thought into this, so I've crossposted my comment from Forbes.]
Like many professionals reading this (I think I can safely speak for many at this level), I'm disappointed both by JP's behavior and methods of operation, and by the community response. While it's pretty clear that JP is far less experienced and far more vindictive than he represents, you have to give the guy some credit for standing up to a wall of immature criticism. For example, the lack of intelligent questions in yesterday's Slashdot interview was very disappointing; I'd have liked to see something along the lines of "What do you see as the next few steps in the evolution of remote NT cracking" or "What would you recommend as a baseline security configuration for deployment of a small XYZ-based ecommerce site?"
Of course, I'm the only one to blame for not posting these questions. Why did I not post them? Because previous experience tells me that the responses would be ill-researched and of little use. JP does not have anything new or interesting to offer in this arena. Perhaps that's a little hypocritical of me -- criticising the community for lack of reasonable questions when I failed to contribute. But then again, it's clear that the feeling was common. What a waste of community brain-cycles.
For the sake of argument, how can JP become a respected individual in the security arena? It's clear he's got a talent -- just not in the mechanics of system or network security. He's an excellent consciousness-raiser, even if his methods need some cleanup. (The comparison to Howard Stern was excellent.) Perhaps he would be a good addition to a security consultancy that has a lot of introverted systems gurus with good leadership and financial backing, but needs someone with basic knowledge and a talent for verbal evangelism. With the proper organizational guidance and support from a technical research team that actually knows its stuff, he could actually do some good in this world. As it stands, however, he's overextended the boundaries of his knowledge and talent, and brings the whole security community down by inciting the online and legal equivalent of schoolyard fistfights.
I think not...(*poof*)
I guess this self moderation stuff has it's good and bad points ... this is obvious by the score of 3 this post received which is simply a tirade of violent tendencies and over zealous aggression.
Having a minimum threshold of 3 doesn't seem to cut it anymore.
Did anyone honestly expect JP to be a "stand up guy" about this whole thing?
/. allowed him to use this site as more bait for his own financial gain.
He's proven time and time again what his motives are and what drives his actions, he even spells them out in his narrative above and people simply follow his carrot right into the trap.
I'm surprised to see that
Robin,
/. interview "Roblimo"?
Maybe next interview, you can send the reasons that the question was moderated up for.
Question #1 (Interesting) blah blah blah
Question #2 (Insightful) blah blah blah
Questoin #3 (Funny) Why doesn't
Just as an example.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Angst has always been really cheap online, dude. That truism goes way, way back. So get all husky and hostile and talk about spitting in someone's face. Because we know it's all ASCII.
Most of you guys get all your excercize pushing the mouse back and forth on your desk.
Speak for yourself mouse jockey. An equal amount of us are involved in martial arts, weight lifting, rugby, soccer, and a myriad of other physical activities. If you wish to disparage someone on the basis of their leisure activities at least do so in a manner which specificly addresses your target and not the broader audience of the debate.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
He comes right out and says that he INTENTIONALLY pisses off AS MANY people as he can.
/. community than to issue a diatribe like this? Refusing to give clear, concise answers to questions, indeed outright ignoring the issues that were posed, is one of the best ways to piss off a group of intellectuals.
What better way to piss off the
So, if we bicker and bitch about this guy, all we do is fuel his fire, which is what he wants.
Put satirical humor about him up, we only give him free publicity.
Hell, saying anything about him at all gives him "airtime" - even if it's just telling people to ignore him.
So basically this guy has created a situation where no matter what we do, he wins
Ignore him completely, just let all of this nonsense die, and it'll be the best we can do to stop this kind of moronic behavior.
I will say immediately, I only know about Mr. Vranesevich what I have read in this thread. And I don't take it all for gold. However, I am appaled by some posts, which seem to support gratuitous hatred, call the guy names and show a high level of guillability. The kind of guillability you would expect at a lynch.
/. question he was supposed to answer.
To prove this point, I would like to point out to an effect of distortion of the sentences. Even though V. states "However, what Ken did far surpassed simple satire. By posting a
photo of my younger sister (who was a minor at the time), along with her full name and address, he successfully
started a mass campaign of harassment against her and my family." so he talks about a photo (therefore ONE), many posters who were negative to V. said "the pictures of his sister" which misleads the reader to think of some kind of porno pictures. Humiliating.
Also, the questions that I read in the interview, would have certainly hurt me. I'm not saying that all were unanswerable (some of them were), but I can imagine that the guy felt hated. I don't know how I would have reacted in his place, but am actually surprised by the decorum and behaviour he managed toshow. It was certainly above the average
I could see, in some posts here, a good example of the herd mentality. I have studied a bit about it (it was called "Psychology of the group") and I am reminded how individuals that are otherwise anonymous cowards, became very vocal and "brave" in their acts. The acts I am talking about are the insults hurled at a person that they dont't know, they don't know what is the truth (because none of us still knows the exact facts), they only know that here is a guy whom everybody seems to hate, so let's cal him names, let's call his sister names.
Conclusion? No conclusion, but it seems to me that anyone could be Mr. Vranesevic.
Sigged!
This coming interview has been puffed all week by SlashDot--the promos hinting broadly that a real fight was brewing. There was a certain prize-fight atmosphere about the promos, and about RobLimo's introduction. In the one corner we have a tag team of really rude dudes trash-talking and waving; in the center of the ring we have Rob and RobLimo taunting the crowd to even-more-frenzied fits of outrage, and in the other corner, swaggering through the crowd, comes the Evil Villain, dressed in a black mask and cape, to do battle with the Rude D00dz.
It seems to me that, cast in the role of the Villain of this little drama, JP had the grace to enjoy the part.
He was calm, he was reasonably dispassionate, he was irenic, and he basically whupped the Rude D00dz. He thanked the promoters for inviting him, and he proceeded to out-rude the Rude D00dz by essentially blowing them off. He then proceeds to employ a brilliant bit of pro wrestling showmanship--he takes on the crowd. He insults them by calling them stupid, he taunts them by daring them to hack his site, he flaunts his Bad Boy bona fides by repeatedly emphasizing his FBI connections, and he flirts with them by suggesting that attempting to hack his site only makes him more successful. About the only thing he didn't do was sell "I Hate JP" t-shirts. Epic stuff.
The really good villains in pro wrestling know how to play the game. They know--and the promoters know--that the crowd doesn't pay to see the good guys. The crowd pays to see the bad guys. And Rob went and found a terrific bad guy for this week's Friday Night Fights. JP gets more notoriety (which only enhances his reputation with his clientele), JP gets tons of new attacks on his servers (which he sells to his clientele), and RobM gets hundreds of thousands of banner ad impressions. Each of 'em makes out like a bandit.
And the Rude D00dz? They're left standing there, in the corner, wondering what happened to them. Maybe JP will have some sympathy, and send each of 'em a t-shirt.
Fellas--ya got played.
so he's rude and hostile, and he avoided some serious questions, but why every /.er just ignores the valid part of his reply? -- i mean the part about PacketStorm and Attritton. Could somebody verify what he said is true or not?
What he said concerning packetstorm and attrition conflicts with EVERY version of EVERY account by EVERYONE else. Synthesis has the most accurate account that I've found, it leaves out most of the more extreme stuff from both sides. But it's definately not favorable to JP. There are links from it all through the thread here.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
He got his site shut-down by harassing a 17 year old girl, which shortly after being shutdown, Ken sold for a reported $125,000 to Kroll.
$125,000 sounds pretty steep for one 17 year-old girl. Who is this Kroll, anyways? Some kind of interstellar slave-trader?
--
perl -e '$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00";
s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72,
$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00"; s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72, (74..76),(78..80),(82..85))[hex $1]/eg;
One thing I've noticed in the last two years as I do more and more "big corporate" type contracts, is that businesses are run on greed, on ego, on capitalistic hedonistic obsessions for money, and that there's no one to take care of except yourself. Not even "the bottom line", just yourself.
At least this guy is HONEST about it!! He's 21 (younger than I am) and he already knows that in order to survive in the bulls**t world of capitalism, all you have to do is scratch peoples back, and watch your own. I didn't know that so well at his age.
He answers the questions defensively, but the questions are reminiscent of a high-school shouting match. What do you expect?
And he's right... it's not a public company. It's NOT anyones business!!
If he in fact *does* spread bs on his own (I honestly don't know, I think the whole things too petty to bother following in detail), then that's his perogative. If he can make it work FOR him, and not let it *get* to him, GOOD! He's doing something clever for his own needs, which brings us back to the first comment I made on "what business runs on".
I suspect he'll end up as CEO of something big in 20 years.
The way I learned routers and switches was not so much by all the Cisco courses, but more by working in huge telco's labs, huge financial conglomerates network-war-rooms, and by *immersing* myself in it. This guy's doing the same thing... he's saying "Hit me, hard." and studying every move you make (or so he says). Clever boy.
I may not like the bs that he is or isn't spreading, but quite frankly, I admire his candor, and his determination, not to mention his blunt honesty about his feelings on whole thing. Are any of *us* that honest about what we think and feel in life? We should be.
As for his sister... If it were me, someone would be castrated by very large, angry, rabid dogs, and then left to bleed in the middle of a public square with a big sign explaining what he did to deserve it.
mindslip
Question#2: /jp directory.
Many of us in the hacker community (not cracker)
used the Packet Storm security site for
information and research. You had it shut down for some alleged things in the
Sounds like they're saying the rumor is factual to me. I read most of the posts as well, and I have to agree with him that most of the slashdotters have already judged him guilty (now, whether they did so with cause or not is a different story - but the general consensus is that every allegation against him is true.)
You seem to be mistaken in the definition of Fact. A Fact is simply a statement which can be Proven or Disproven, it is not necessarily true or accurate. Only proveable. Saying that JP had packetstorm shut down is a FACT in that one can prove whether or not his action led to the removal of packetstorm.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Frankly, I know Ken Williams, and he's a pretty down-to-earth guy. I don't think he'd put up a set of pages like that unless someone really pissed him off. And with the Harvard site: don't you think he could have simply removed the offending material instead of the entire major security site? That was badly handled at the least, and something definitely smelt fishy about it. (as evinced by the groundswell of community support for good ol' Tattooman)
Who cares if this guy's sister is a minor? She wasn't naked, right? I've got pictures of me from elementary school. They aren't illegal.
Oh, and the "I'm just some guy running for office" story doesn't really hold up well with the "I'm just some guy who got raided by the FBI" angle. Even if all Slashdot readers *were* immature, they wouldn't be stupid enough to believe this drivel, as opposed to the man who posted it. (Either he's a moron for listening to himself, he's lying, or both)
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
There were only two things in this response that I found plausibly factual or interesting. The first and obvious one is that the FBI will not discuss ongoing investigations. Particularly not with the party under investigation. Big deal.
The second is JV's apparent motivation for generating loathing and hatred among Net dwellers (not just crackers as he believes). His goal is to invite attacks on his (and perhaps other) systems in an effort to profile the crackers. This is likely particularly targeted at those who are just starting out and may make errors in covering their tracks. With this information, he no doubt believes that he will be able to track down the perpetrators of future malicious attacks on other systems. Thus he can market himself as a "security expert with the worlds largest database of cracker profiles".
However, if JV's computer security skills are anything like his rhetorical skills, the widespread criticism of his supposed expertise in the field may be justified. Perhaps it is a product of his youth or a sign of inexperience with mass communication, but he has resorted to a number of tactics used commonly by those who don't have a legitimate arguement to present. Here is a brief catalogue of his rhetorical misadventures (I'm certain you can find more):
Ad Hominem attack:
Can't dispute the facts? Attack your opponent
JV Example: Slashdot posts were "immature" and "stupid". Therefore, despite his expectation of a tough crowd, he will answer none directly.
Better yet, question the common sense of the reader...a lot.
Plausible Deniability:
Never admit fault. Deny, deny, deny no matter how thin your alibi.
JV Example:
"I didn't shut down PacketStorm, and neither did Harvard"
Regarding lawsuits: "I never did any such thing"
Diversionary Blame:
Can't defend your behavior? Point the finger at someone else's behavior.
JV Example: Ken Williams is responsible for that site being shut down.
Brian Martin was raided by the FBI
"Brian Martin's motives are geared towards protecting his hown ass..."
Self Victimiztion
Garner sympathy for your cause. Exagerate if necessary.
JV Example: He endured a "mass campaign of harassment" against his family.
It is left as an exercise for the reader to find more tactics and examples.
For comparison with someone who has more than two neurons to rub together, check out Bruce Schneier's interview.
Now, he may have been lying - that's always a possibility, but if he wasn't then I would tend to side with him in this case -- the questions were immature and the response to his response has been equally so.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
What a loser. He says that Packetstorm shut themselves down, which is clearly ludicrous. It's usally the kind of statement associated with blaming the victim; "Hey, she practically raped herself in that dress!": "They commited suicide by clinging to their counter-revolutionary beliefs." This kind of dishonest speech drives me nuts.
Hey, pop quiz! This rhetorical tactic is used by:
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
He had the opportunity to dispel each question/accusation but instead chose to send in a FORM LETTER. After the introduction this letter could have be sent to anyone, its called spin.
He wasn't hired to answer anyone's questions, he wasn't paid by Slashdot or it's readers, and frankly I wasn't impressed by the questions either
Its called an agreement, not all things are done for money, you might find that surprising. If slashdot DID pay him to answer this would be more of a farce than it already is.
Frankly, if I ever got a questionnaire like that, I'd probably feel disapointed by the quality and matuity of the questions, too.
If you are as notorious as JP is, then you'd probably expect non-softball questions. Or you could just send out a 'I'm a good guy' form letter.
Sensitive? No one asked him any specific questions on what clients have what servers running what. Most questions were of a non client-"specialist" nature.
Tell JP I said, 'hi!'
Come on. Everybody knows that it's fun to slag a pariah like JP.
But seriously...don't worry about it too much. He really isn't any better than just your typical punk ass barely-out-of-his-teens fool who happened to be at the right place at the right time.
You could look at it as a case of a large number of people going on a witchhunt for an innocent person ala McCarthy, or you could look at it as what it probably more likely is, which is openly rebelling and letting a total asshole know what you think of him.
JP Is the "National Enquirer" of computer security. Think about it.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Dunno about its origin, but a BLT is a Bacon-Lettuce-Tomato sandwich over here (UK).
From the sound of it, LBT is probably lower on calories.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
What the Internet needs is Fair Witnesses, a la Robert Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land'.
There is no solution to problems like those highlighted on this thread unless a single person looks at all the issues dispassionately and is then questioned about the facts.
Questioning the actual parties concerned is pointless: you always get 50% bullshit, but you never know from which of the two sides it's coming.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra