[00:06.490 --> 00:15.070]  Good morning. Again, my name is Patty Walsh. I am a journalist and I have been going to
[00:15.070 --> 00:21.750]  DEF CON since DC10. And the topic for discussion this morning is hackers in the media,
[00:21.750 --> 00:33.330]  misconceptions and critical tools to combat them. Who am I? Am I a, your worst enemy, a
[00:33.330 --> 00:39.270]  demonic creature from the underworld, something as evil as a cross between Kim Jong-il
[00:39.270 --> 00:46.350]  and the Department of Homeland Security. It's quite frightening. The big, bad, atrocious media,
[00:46.350 --> 00:56.630]  or E, all of the above. Oh, yeah, okay. None of the above. I'm based in Vegas, born and raised
[00:56.630 --> 01:03.330]  here, and you can certainly choose E. However, there is a difference between the media and
[01:03.330 --> 01:08.250]  journalists, believe it or not, and we are going to examine this further. But kudos if you
[01:08.250 --> 01:17.530]  chose F. Background on the media. According to the dictionary.com site, which is so
[01:17.530 --> 01:23.970]  prestigious, media is a means of mass communication, such as newspapers, magazines, radio,
[01:23.970 --> 01:28.430]  internet or television, and or the group of journalists and others who constitute the
[01:28.430 --> 01:35.510]  communications industry and profession. Okay, who cares? What does that mean? So, in other
[01:35.510 --> 01:42.350]  words, we have a collection of all these different avenues of media, but really, what has it
[01:42.350 --> 01:56.700]  become? And to many, this is what it is, even those within the profession. And so, I would
[01:56.700 --> 02:02.900]  like to talk about background on the media, rights and privileges, theirs as well as yours.
[02:02.900 --> 02:12.280]  So, we're going to examine that with the role of media then versus now, kind of preview,
[02:12.280 --> 02:18.860]  update you on what's going on. Let's talk about some Supreme Court cases real quick,
[02:18.860 --> 02:28.040]  just to jot down. We got the New York Times versus Sullivan, which was 1964, and basically
[02:28.040 --> 02:36.340]  what that was is that the New York Times printed a one-page ad in their newspaper discussing
[02:36.340 --> 02:43.760]  how Dr. Martin Luther King was wrong for, or no, rather that he was right, I'm sorry,
[02:43.760 --> 02:52.980]  I'm nervous right now, that he was right for actually going through the civil rights
[02:52.980 --> 03:01.400]  and whatnot during that time. And so, they were against Alabama because of Alabama jailing
[03:01.400 --> 03:17.900]  him, and so they ran a one-page ad. And essentially what happened then was that Sullivan, who
[03:17.900 --> 03:21.540]  was one of the police guys down there, said, hey, wait a minute, how come you're running
[03:21.540 --> 03:29.180]  this one-page ad on us? How come you're talking about, how come you are siding with us and
[03:29.180 --> 03:37.880]  you are saying things to us which are libel? Libel, to brief you, is written defamation
[03:37.880 --> 03:50.050]  of character. Slander is oral defamation of character. What does that mean? In other words,
[03:50.050 --> 03:55.990]  if someone writes something about you and they misquote you, you could sue them for
[03:55.990 --> 04:08.090]  libel, but there are factors to that. Say, I want to know, say I interview you and we're
[04:08.090 --> 04:15.530]  talking about some networking issue and I misquote you to the point where it makes you
[04:15.530 --> 04:20.390]  look bad, where your name is on there, where people are going to read it, and where it's
[04:20.390 --> 04:31.110]  going to negatively affect you. What could happen is that that is something called malicious
[04:31.110 --> 04:47.170]  intent. Now, if I do that, I could be in a lot of trouble. You know what, guys? I'm going
[04:47.170 --> 04:52.650]  to stop here and you've heard about what's been going on with Cisco and everything, I'm
[04:52.650 --> 05:02.530]  sure, right? Vaguely? Okay. Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to talk about that
[05:02.530 --> 05:06.870]  because all this stuff can wait because I think that this is much more important. So
[05:06.870 --> 05:11.190]  I'm not going to waste my time with this. This is boring me, this is boring you, so
[05:11.930 --> 05:15.990]  let's get on that and then we'll have some candy and some water and then we'll pass out
[05:15.990 --> 05:22.910]  some of those books or whatever. Okay, let's talk about what happened to Black Cat. You
[05:22.910 --> 05:31.710]  guys want to be briefed on it, right? Okay, basically what occurred is that apparently,
[05:31.710 --> 05:35.930]  and I was not there, I was not in the room when it happened, just to let you know, so
[05:35.930 --> 05:43.610]  this is what I've heard and what I've discussed with several different sources. I guess there
[05:43.610 --> 05:49.270]  is this man named Michael Lynn. I'm sure you've heard about him. He is with the ISS
[05:49.810 --> 06:01.430]  and he was doing research for a group called Cisco. I'm sorry? Formally. Oh, see? There
[06:01.430 --> 06:05.930]  you go. You just caught me in the act. See, you've got to be careful with the media and
[06:05.930 --> 06:11.370]  you've got to clue them in because if you don't clue them in, then someone writes something
[06:11.370 --> 06:16.210]  about it. So you just caught me. Good for you. Always be on your toes. That was a test.
[06:19.350 --> 06:37.950]  Alright, so he was formally with Cisco and he was doing research. Actually, I was just
[06:37.950 --> 06:41.870]  briefed on this this morning, too, because I had to do a lot of work the last couple
[06:41.870 --> 06:57.480]  of nights. And I'm very intimidated of you guys. Yeah. Well, I'm a nerd, too, but not
[06:57.480 --> 07:08.700]  with computers. So, he was doing work on the routers, the reverse engineering, from
[07:08.700 --> 07:14.720]  what I hear. And from what I hear, he was doing work on what was sort of like a hardware
[07:14.720 --> 07:21.580]  box. And there were security flaws and exploits in there. And apparently, from what I heard,
[07:21.580 --> 07:32.120]  he was working with Cisco for six months on this particular patch that was vulnerable.
[07:32.440 --> 07:42.700]  From what I've read and from what my sources say is that there is like 80% of all the network
[07:42.700 --> 07:53.780]  traffic in the world goes through Cisco. And apparently, several different sources
[07:53.780 --> 08:10.840]  have said that three days before Black Hat, Lynn was going to discuss a serious exploit.
[08:39.190 --> 08:43.370]  What happened was that it was very sensitive information. And so, because it was sensitive
[08:43.370 --> 08:50.390]  information, Cisco wanted them to reprint the CD and they wanted to rip out certain
[08:50.390 --> 09:01.470]  pages within his speech. And so, that was a form of censorship. Apparently, Lynn said
[09:01.470 --> 09:34.350]  that he would comply originally and go along with this. But Cisco threatened legal action
[09:34.350 --> 09:41.310]  to stop the conference's organizers from allowing this researcher for a rival tech firm to discuss
[09:41.310 --> 09:50.190]  how he says hackers could seize control of Cisco's internet routers. Cisco instructed
[09:50.190 --> 09:56.410]  these workers to tear up 20 pages outlining the presentation from this conference that
[09:56.410 --> 10:04.550]  Lynn was going to speak at and ordered the 2,000 CDs containing the presentation to be
[10:04.550 --> 10:10.990]  destroyed. That's like 2,000 CDs. So, they wanted to change that and everything else.
[10:12.710 --> 10:20.570]  Lynn initially went ahead... he actually did go ahead with the presentation. He talked
[10:20.570 --> 11:56.940]  about flaws, exploits within Cisco. What that means... excuse me for a moment. Okay, I appreciate
[11:56.940 --> 12:01.800]  you guys staying with me. Obviously, I've just been briefed on all this this morning.
[12:01.900 --> 12:08.180]  There have been a lot of changes going on. I was prepared and I just found out about
[12:08.180 --> 12:15.740]  this Cisco thing. I do know what I'm talking about. I do know what I'm talking about, but
[12:15.740 --> 12:22.300]  not on this topic. So, I'm not going to pretend like I know what I'm talking about. So, what
[12:22.300 --> 12:27.620]  my dear sweetheart has suggested is that we just do Q&A, flat out. You ask me questions,
[12:27.620 --> 12:32.080]  I answer them, instead of me going through all this. And if you want to get up and leave,
[12:32.080 --> 12:37.960]  go for it, take some candy, do what you got to do, get some water, and we'll be fine.
[12:37.960 --> 12:46.740]  So, being in light of all these circumstances and because I just found out about all of
[12:46.740 --> 12:52.940]  this and I haven't done my research on this topic. Well, some of this I have, but about
[12:52.940 --> 12:56.900]  the Cisco thing, I haven't. And I'm not even going to, you know, front like I know what
[12:56.900 --> 13:02.620]  I'm doing. So, eat candy, do what you got to do, start asking me questions. I don't
[13:02.620 --> 13:05.320]  care. You can talk about whatever you want to talk about. If you have comments about
[13:05.320 --> 13:09.900]  the media, I will handle them and we will take it from there. I apologize if this seems
[13:09.900 --> 13:15.600]  unprofessional and whatnot. I certainly do. And if you're disgusted, have more candy.
[13:15.600 --> 13:39.400]  Okay? Alright. Yes? You know what, darling? Can I trouble you to come up to the mic so
[13:39.400 --> 13:42.540]  that way I can hear it and everyone else and then you can grab some candy, get some water,
[13:42.540 --> 13:45.920]  whatever. Okay? Thank you.
[13:48.580 --> 13:53.660]  So, did he release the flaws? And you as a person in the media, do you believe that he
[13:53.660 --> 13:58.160]  should release the flaws because if he knows about it, everybody else or the bad people
[13:58.160 --> 14:02.960]  would also know about it. And do you think if he did release the flaws and come out publicly
[14:02.960 --> 14:06.780]  and say this is out there, should he be prosecuted for doing so?
[14:07.180 --> 14:07.880]  Lynn?
[14:08.040 --> 14:08.840]  Yes?
[14:09.800 --> 14:18.900]  That's an excellent point and thank you for that. I cannot say whether or not I think
[14:18.900 --> 14:23.760]  he should be prosecuted because, again, I just found out about this, but I'll be honest
[14:23.760 --> 14:29.420]  with you. There are two sides, even three, four, five to every story. Now, him talking
[14:29.420 --> 14:35.000]  about this, just clearing it two hours, you know, just putting two hours before from what
[14:35.000 --> 14:41.340]  I heard and then talking about all these exploits where someone, people have told me that there
[14:41.340 --> 14:51.300]  was a patch already in place but that administrators weren't aware of this patch or if they were
[14:51.300 --> 14:56.040]  aware, they weren't told to start installing it, which is a problem. Now, what you bring
[14:56.040 --> 15:00.660]  up is a very valid point because that goes towards cyber terrorism. As we mentioned earlier,
[15:00.660 --> 15:06.820]  over 80% of the world's network trafficking and whatnot is from Cisco. And for someone
[15:06.820 --> 15:17.740]  to stand up here or, you know, at a Black Hat conference and discuss these exploits
[15:17.740 --> 15:26.880]  and discuss these terrible, like, gaping holes, that can swing both ways. It's kind
[15:26.880 --> 15:31.400]  of like a pendulum, okay? On the one side, one could see this guy and say, okay, Lynn
[15:31.400 --> 15:37.160]  is a martyr, he's a White Hat type of guy or whatever, you know, he's really doing his
[15:37.160 --> 15:43.000]  thing, but at the same time, we have to worry about cyber terrorism, right? Because even
[15:43.000 --> 15:50.840]  though he had been working on this patch for six months with Cisco, at the same time,
[15:50.840 --> 15:54.940]  him just discussing it flat out there and telling people and then making it a public
[15:54.940 --> 16:00.780]  forum, one could say that that even makes more people vulnerable. Okay, well now we
[16:00.780 --> 16:05.020]  know for a fact that there is this hole, that there is this problem, that there are these
[16:05.020 --> 16:09.760]  vulnerabilities, well, what are we going to do? Also, you've got to look at it from a
[16:09.760 --> 16:15.180]  legal perspective of breach of contract. I'm not aware of what contracts he signed,
[16:15.180 --> 16:22.200]  I'm not even going to pretend that I am, but from what I heard, he had agreed, either
[16:22.200 --> 16:30.760]  verbally or written, I'm not sure which one, that he would comply and not necessarily give
[16:30.760 --> 16:35.300]  this speech. Or if he were to give this speech, he wouldn't go into so much detail. And then
[16:35.300 --> 16:41.560]  what? Only moments, hours before he gives a speech, yes, he resigned, but that's also
[16:41.560 --> 16:49.380]  an issue of breach of contract. And Cisco is claiming that it was premature and that
[16:49.380 --> 16:54.560]  there were, you know, that this patch was undeveloped. So, you're looking at an issue
[16:54.560 --> 17:01.720]  with now, from what I hear, the FBI may be involved, may or may not be involved. This
[17:01.720 --> 17:07.040]  is also, like I said, I would argue that this is an issue of cyber-terrorism because
[17:07.040 --> 17:13.620]  of identity theft, what not, you never know what's going on. However, could he be prosecuted?
[17:13.620 --> 17:20.300]  That is quite possible. Because not only on a breach of contract issue, but also for
[17:20.300 --> 17:25.060]  exposing this, even though one could say that he is a martyr, and again, I'm not familiar
[17:25.060 --> 17:31.300]  with all the information, at the same time, it's a very sensitive issue. So it really
[17:31.300 --> 17:37.580]  depends on how you look at it. I think it's possible that they could. Does that answer
[17:37.580 --> 18:24.460]  your question? Okay, do you want me to elaborate on anything else? And you know what, you make
[18:24.560 --> 18:29.520]  a very valid point because you go to the issue of freedom of the press and what not, 14th
[18:29.520 --> 18:34.200]  Amendment, we can get into that all day, but no, you're absolutely right. What is the media's
[18:34.200 --> 18:39.640]  job in this kind of a situation? Now, I have read the front story on the Wall Street Journal
[18:40.280 --> 18:45.900]  and, you know, it seemed to be fair, but I don't know, but at the same time, you know,
[18:45.900 --> 18:51.960]  you have all this information coming out and yes, he did release this information, but
[18:51.960 --> 18:56.700]  it's critical information. You know, and people need to know about it. So what's the media's
[18:56.700 --> 19:00.580]  responsibility here? Is the media supposed to just sit on their hands and say, oh, well,
[19:00.580 --> 19:06.160]  okay, you have another hacker screwing around, whatever, or you have, you know, someone who
[19:06.160 --> 19:10.920]  is legitimately concerned for the national interest and the national security of this
[19:10.920 --> 19:15.800]  country, especially in this time, in this type of climate, you know, so what are we
[19:15.800 --> 19:21.400]  going to do about it? How far can the media go to get this information out? From what
[19:21.400 --> 19:28.980]  I read, I guess apparently there were 347 articles that just came out yesterday on this
[19:28.980 --> 19:35.740]  topic of Michael Lynn. And it goes to a stronger point. You know, what is the media's role
[19:35.740 --> 19:41.760]  in this? To give the facts, right? Well, what are the facts? You want to go deeper
[19:41.760 --> 19:45.840]  than that, don't you? You want to get to the core of the issue. Now, I could spout out
[19:45.980 --> 19:52.760]  a bunch of statistics to you, but what's the underlying issue at hand? The fact that
[19:53.480 --> 19:59.680]  we have someone that was willing to go up and talk about this despite the repercussions
[20:00.120 --> 20:06.120]  and, you know, here is the press's chance. AP Wire, a bunch of the wires picked it up
[20:06.120 --> 20:09.620]  and everything, here is their chance to report about this and say, you know what, here is
[20:09.720 --> 20:15.400]  a guy that stood his ground and talked about it and was not afraid to do it. Instead of
[20:15.400 --> 20:19.920]  just the usual, well, let me write about the hacker scene, let me write about how bad hackers
[20:19.920 --> 20:24.720]  are, how evil they are, let me write about how, you know, they take your credit cards
[20:24.720 --> 20:30.020]  and this and that and the other, that's not what it's about. And so hopefully the media
[20:30.020 --> 20:37.280]  will take this, what happened, this event, and they will report it accurately, which
[20:37.280 --> 20:41.880]  probably will never happen. But at the very least, you may get different perspectives
[20:41.880 --> 20:47.040]  on it, and that is the good thing. But you're right. Whether or not he does get prosecuted,
[20:47.040 --> 20:52.280]  which he could, is it a matter of legality or is it something deeper? And that is to
[20:52.280 --> 20:57.400]  be determined by the readers. But it is the media's responsibility to write about it
[20:57.400 --> 21:04.700]  and at least show the different side. Thank you, thank you dear. I'm sorry, sweetheart,
[21:04.700 --> 21:05.600]  what's your name?
[21:05.780 --> 21:11.700]  Yes, my name is Sasha, and my question is, you know, politicians and the public at large
[21:11.700 --> 21:19.700]  have a very negative view of hackers and the hacker community, and that, you know, resulting
[21:19.700 --> 21:25.840]  in laws such as USA Patriot, which, you know, sort of equates hacking with terrorism, cyberterrorism
[21:25.840 --> 21:31.640]  and whatnot. And I'm curious if you think that, you know, that negative opinion is the
[21:31.640 --> 21:36.960]  result more of the media and the desire for headlines and publicity, or is that more because
[21:36.960 --> 21:39.300]  of the hacker community itself? Thank you.
[21:39.300 --> 21:52.200]  Thank you. Excellent question. Here we go. The question is, does the media mold society
[21:52.200 --> 21:56.020]  or does it mirror it? And what does that mean to you guys? You're right, politicians are
[21:56.020 --> 21:59.220]  always spinning everything, media is always spinning everything, who pays whose bills,
[21:59.220 --> 22:07.500]  it's one big giant pain in the rear end, right? However, when the media reports on something,
[22:07.500 --> 22:12.700]  are they sensationalizing it because they want people to listen, or are they reporting
[22:12.700 --> 22:17.460]  it accurately? And most of the time they're sensationalizing it. Why? Is that the fault
[22:17.460 --> 22:25.820]  of the media, or is that the fault of the people? You would say both? Okay, let me ask
[22:25.820 --> 22:30.600]  you guys a question, this is probably the wrong type of audience to point this out,
[22:30.600 --> 22:36.140]  but would you be more interested in hearing about Paris Hilton and who she's marrying
[22:36.140 --> 22:42.480]  and what her dress is for today and how much she spent on this bag, or would you rather
[22:42.480 --> 22:48.340]  know about international issues, would you rather know about where your taxpayer dollars
[22:48.340 --> 22:53.920]  are going, or would you rather know about political implications? And that's where it
[22:53.920 --> 22:58.540]  comes to the forefront. Well, let me just say that you never hear in the media as far
[22:58.540 --> 23:05.100]  as all the good things that hackers are doing as far as raising security awareness, working
[23:05.100 --> 23:09.780]  with corporations, going into the middle of Africa and setting up wireless networks,
[23:09.780 --> 23:16.140]  going to South America, helping a human rights group, fighting dictators and what not, you
[23:16.140 --> 23:20.960]  never hear about that. Now you have the HOPE conference in New York, which happens once
[23:20.960 --> 23:25.800]  every two years I believe, but that is a big problem. And is that because the media can't
[23:25.800 --> 23:29.160]  sell the story if they write about the good things that the hackers are doing, or is that
[23:29.160 --> 23:36.060]  because hackers and other people aren't approaching them on it? So it swings both ways again,
[23:36.060 --> 23:43.000]  but you make a valid point. There's a lot of things going on with the Global South,
[23:43.000 --> 23:49.200]  third world countries, what not, and hackers have done an amazing job in China I believe,
[23:49.200 --> 23:54.620]  they have tried to help take down, annihilate firewalls that the Chinese government has
[23:54.620 --> 23:59.680]  put up to block certain information from coming back and forth, you know, they have
[23:59.680 --> 24:06.460]  done work in the Middle East, they have done work in Africa, and they really, and that
[24:06.460 --> 24:10.500]  goes back to the white hat, black hat thing that maybe you guys refer to, but I don't
[24:10.500 --> 24:17.200]  like, you know, it just depends upon what one's agenda is. And how are we going to educate
[24:17.200 --> 24:23.700]  the media and tell them, you know, hey, why are you trying to get a story just about our
[24:23.700 --> 24:27.740]  negative perspective and how we're these bad, dark creatures lurking in the shadows,
[24:27.740 --> 24:33.320]  you know, and we're exploiting everybody. That's mostly not the case. And what do you
[24:33.320 --> 24:37.960]  do then? It's all about, you know, how you approach them. But you've got to be careful
[24:37.960 --> 24:43.940]  because, like I said, they have their own agenda too. Do most of the population in the
[24:43.940 --> 24:48.080]  United States, are they more interested in hearing about the good things that hackers
[24:48.080 --> 24:55.480]  do? Or are they more interested in the bad things? Or what is good and bad? That really
[24:55.480 --> 25:02.380]  is. What sells? Public opinion polls, okay? How are they going to make their money? How
[25:02.380 --> 25:08.640]  are they going to continue to go for the economy and whatnot? You know, that is the main issue.
[25:08.640 --> 25:17.080]  And if there is, that's what disgusts me. That's why I'm a journalist, because I don't
[25:17.080 --> 25:24.520]  trust what I read. I don't trust what others report on. But, you know, it's not just the
[25:24.520 --> 25:29.640]  media's job to educate the masses. How are they going to do it? Somebody's got to help
[25:29.640 --> 25:33.160]  them. Somebody's got to sit there and say to them, hey, you know what? What the hell
[25:33.160 --> 25:38.900]  are you doing? This is messed up. This is what's going on. But then again, if that journalist
[25:38.900 --> 25:45.840]  is not willing to do the research and to talk to you about it, you probably want to stay
[25:45.840 --> 25:53.170]  away from them. So, that didn't answer your question, but yes?
[25:53.790 --> 25:58.330]  Well, a comment on what you previously said. I think one of the main problems we have is
[25:58.330 --> 26:01.750]  that for every one person we have that will step forward that has valid information, we
[26:01.750 --> 26:05.570]  have ten seen horrors that will step forward and say otherwise. There's just one little
[26:05.570 --> 26:09.210]  bit of a limelight that will get bad information out. There's just nothing but the purpose
[26:09.210 --> 26:15.370]  seen. My question is, you know, it seems like there's a really big double standard. Not
[26:15.370 --> 26:19.150]  only in the media, but the general consensus now of people that, you know, we can have
[26:19.150 --> 26:24.470]  freedom of information, you know, free speech, things like the Anarchist Cookbook. You know,
[26:24.470 --> 26:28.710]  these are things how to make explosives to hurt people in general, but yet if someone
[26:28.710 --> 26:32.530]  releases an exploit that does something just simply with software, we're viewed as complete
[26:32.530 --> 26:36.950]  criminals. It's still information, but we're being prosecuted for it, whereas you can go
[26:36.950 --> 26:40.650]  into some libraries and pick up an Anarchist Cookbook. And, you know, what's your view
[26:40.650 --> 26:42.510]  on that? Do you think it's going to go away anytime soon?
[26:42.510 --> 26:56.280]  Thank you. He brings up a good point, and that is the scene whores, and the newbies,
[26:56.280 --> 27:02.140]  and the script kiddies, and all that. Are they really the people in charge, or are they
[27:02.140 --> 27:17.020]  just basically coming in for the party? And I think that's what the problem is, because
[27:17.680 --> 27:25.340]  usually, I would assume, those that are so willing to talk to the media are not necessarily
[27:25.340 --> 27:32.720]  what they say they are. Maybe they just want the attention. And if they were really interested
[27:33.500 --> 27:39.300]  in talking about the important issues, why would they put their name on the front and
[27:39.300 --> 27:47.580]  everything like that? But he makes a very valid point, because you have this huge contradiction
[27:47.580 --> 27:59.100]  going on. And the question is, how are you going to deal with it? Well, number one, before
[27:59.100 --> 28:03.400]  you start spouting your mouth off and saying a bunch of things that you're going to regret,
[28:03.400 --> 28:10.920]  think before you talk, obviously. Number two, know your rights. Well, what are your rights?
[28:10.920 --> 28:18.860]  Do you have any at all? Anytime that someone from the media says to you, you know, well,
[28:18.860 --> 28:25.120]  can I interview you? Fine. If they take out a tape recorder, and they start interviewing
[28:25.120 --> 28:31.600]  you, and they haven't asked your permission first, beware of what you say. If you say
[28:31.600 --> 28:37.020]  something that is off the record, if you say something but you don't want them to know
[28:37.020 --> 28:44.080]  about it, say that it is off the record. Because otherwise, it may be printed. And for you
[28:44.080 --> 28:51.600]  to protect yourself, you've got to make sure you know what you're doing. Number three,
[28:54.260 --> 28:58.060]  try to do background on the person that wants to interview you. Why do they want to interview
[28:58.060 --> 29:02.460]  you? What's their agenda? What's your agenda? Try to find a way to negotiate it.
[29:08.340 --> 29:13.200]  Uh... yeah. Hi. Thank you.
[29:14.380 --> 29:21.400]  Are you aware of whether Lynn's presentation at Black Hat was scheduled well in advance,
[29:21.400 --> 29:30.570]  or whether this was brought last minute? Actually, thank you for that question. Um,
[29:30.570 --> 29:37.650]  I have heard both from various different sources on all different sides. No, I've heard that
[29:37.650 --> 29:44.650]  it was scheduled three weeks in advance for him to do the speech, and then moments in
[29:44.650 --> 29:49.730]  advance that he said, no, not going to do the speech. Is that what you're talking about?
[29:49.730 --> 29:58.970]  Well, what it would appear to me is that if he was working on a, if he was working
[29:58.970 --> 30:10.190]  on a evidently fairly comprehensive patch for this, and he had scheduled, but he had
[30:10.190 --> 30:19.030]  scheduled a talk on dropping a, that was basically for the sole purpose of dropping a bunch of
[30:19.030 --> 30:26.830]  exploits well in advance, it sort of to me signifies that he never really intended to
[30:26.830 --> 30:34.570]  implement the patch. Whereas on the other hand, if, if this was dropped absolute last
[30:34.570 --> 30:44.570]  minute, it would to me mean that he tried to, but for some reason couldn't or wasn't
[30:44.570 --> 30:51.370]  allowed to implement the patch and felt this was his own, that this was his only recourse.
[30:52.690 --> 31:00.550]  Okay. I would actually be, if you come up with any more, more concrete information on
[31:00.550 --> 31:08.310]  this, this would be a very valuable piece of information to me and I think to a lot
[31:08.310 --> 31:14.130]  of other people. Okay. And I thank you for that. To be honest with you, I don't know.
[31:14.950 --> 31:22.990]  People have told me that he knew about this in advance and people have told me that he
[31:22.990 --> 31:29.870]  changed his mind at the last moment. Unfortunately, Lynn is not here right now to talk about it,
[31:29.870 --> 31:39.450]  but you're right. And where does the media stand on this? Okay. Say they find out about it,
[31:39.450 --> 31:46.090]  when it was supposed to come out, and you're right, that is a very, that is very significant.
[31:47.150 --> 31:52.030]  Is it their job to report about it? Or would they get in trouble if they wrote about it?
[31:52.030 --> 31:56.430]  You know what I'm saying? Like, okay, say someone were to do some investigative work
[31:56.430 --> 32:01.270]  and find out, alright, did this cat know about what was going to be happening or did he change his mind
[32:01.270 --> 32:07.310]  at the last moment? Say someone found out about that. Now, if they were to run with that and say it,
[32:07.310 --> 32:12.090]  that's information, right? Okay. And people need to know about that because that is critical.
[32:12.090 --> 32:23.030]  But at the same time, if they're running, you know, if they say something and it puts Lynn in jeopardy,
[32:23.030 --> 32:31.730]  then you've got a problem. So, I mean, it's kind of like you're dancing around, if you will.
[32:31.810 --> 32:36.810]  You know, you can't really say, okay, well we found out about this so we're going to run the story on it
[32:38.090 --> 32:45.090]  because there may be consequences to that. So, yes.
[32:48.670 --> 33:00.330]  Well, in my mind, I think that for someone to run either way with this, you know, it would be of the utmost importance
[33:00.330 --> 33:09.430]  that they be able to back up whatever statement they made, have sources to back up whatever statement they made
[33:09.430 --> 33:21.230]  on the subject. Because, you know, especially at this stage, the last, at least from my mind, the last thing we need
[33:21.230 --> 33:31.430]  is unfounded speculation. But if somebody has sources that can back them up on this, then, you know,
[33:34.750 --> 33:37.010]  that's central to the whole thing.
[33:41.080 --> 33:49.480]  Because if the rumors keep going around and around and around and nobody knows what's going on, then that creates kind of like this upheaval
[33:49.830 --> 33:56.200]  and then it just gets nasty, is what you're saying. Yeah. Now, I don't know whether or not they know for sure or not.
[33:56.200 --> 34:04.980]  But, you know, yeah, they should come out and say it. But if that puts him in danger, then that's a different story.
[34:06.320 --> 34:09.040]  Thank you for that. Yes.
[34:10.040 --> 34:15.000]  How would you suggest combating the media's misconceptions once an article...
[34:27.700 --> 34:33.240]  terrorist training camps, when there's a terrorist training camp in our own backyard at Hope.
[34:33.560 --> 34:42.740]  Now, right after that article, about three to four months after their article, the author reprinted a response
[34:42.740 --> 34:49.120]  because thousands of people were emailing him just angry at what he printed.
[34:49.120 --> 34:54.740]  And that was a good example of the hacker community going back and saying,
[34:54.740 --> 34:59.560]  what you printed is wrong and you should correct this. And he actually corrected it.
[34:59.560 --> 35:10.420]  But then there's other things that are in most of the general public read while...
[35:30.990 --> 35:38.510]  Thank you. Yeah, if something is messed up when it's printed, you know, say something about it.
[35:38.510 --> 35:52.460]  But at the same time, is it worth it? Yeah, is it worth it? Well, there's only so much that you can do, right?
[35:54.000 --> 36:01.880]  But the fact that you even make an attempt to say, you know, like the example that you just gave...
[36:03.940 --> 36:11.840]  You know, it is... I would say it is worth it. Because if you feel that you gain nothing out of it, at least you made that attempt.
[36:11.840 --> 36:15.020]  At least you stood your ground and said, hey, you know what? You're wrong.
[36:15.240 --> 36:21.560]  Because if you don't make that attempt, then how is anyone else going to know?
[36:21.940 --> 36:27.860]  It's just going to be out there. It's going to be information that's false and floating around and nobody will know.
[36:27.860 --> 36:35.100]  So that's why you should take that stand. And if nothing happens, and if they print something that's false,
[36:35.720 --> 36:42.200]  and there's no admission of error run, that is a form of libel, which again is written defamation of character,
[36:42.200 --> 36:51.120]  which means that they could be sued. So, you're right. Yeah, you could stand your ground, you could write a letter to the editor,
[36:51.120 --> 37:20.550]  whatever, whatever, whatever. Thank you.
[37:20.550 --> 37:24.310]  If the whole community is at stake, that's something that you've got to clear up, yeah.
[37:24.310 --> 37:30.370]  And I mean, we always hear about individual cases, but what is the overall impact?
[37:30.370 --> 37:33.590]  And if that's bad on the community, then you've got to do something about that.
[37:33.590 --> 37:40.090]  And is it worth it? Is it worth it or not? I don't know. You know, that depends on your point of view.
[37:40.090 --> 37:42.290]  But I would say it's really worth it, yeah.
[37:42.290 --> 37:49.630]  Because if they're writing something that's false and it has an impact on the entire community,
[37:49.630 --> 37:52.330]  then something needs to be done. It's no longer an individual case.
[37:52.330 --> 37:54.530]  It's no longer someone going against the media and saying,
[37:54.530 --> 37:56.570]  OK, well, you know what, what you wrote about me is false.
[37:56.570 --> 38:04.490]  They are actually committing libel on a mass level. You know what I'm saying?
[38:04.490 --> 38:08.030]  What do you do with that? You get together with your friends and you clear it up.
[38:08.030 --> 38:10.610]  And if something happens, it happens. Excuse me.
[38:26.290 --> 38:27.630]  One more question.
[38:29.850 --> 38:36.370]  Hi. I think you're doing a really great thing actually being here, you know, actually trying to get the story,
[38:36.370 --> 38:39.870]  trying to get the truth, what's going on. My question is a very simple one.
[38:39.870 --> 38:44.270]  And I assume as a journalist you always want to get the truth in every story and you would report the truth.
[38:44.270 --> 38:50.290]  But my question is, am I correct in assuming that you would always want to report the truth if you can?
[38:50.730 --> 38:52.810]  Then the question is, what is the truth?
[38:53.190 --> 38:53.750]  OK, well...
[38:53.750 --> 38:59.650]  No, but you're right. No, we try to... some people do try to say, you know, what's going on, what they see,
[38:59.650 --> 39:04.110]  and everything like that, and go to different sources. You're right, because you should be objective.
[39:04.110 --> 39:07.990]  But there's no such thing as objectivity because everybody has their own bias.
[39:08.190 --> 39:15.250]  And if you were asked to keep a story quiet for public safety, you know, not create hysteria,
[39:15.250 --> 39:17.810]  would you keep that story under wraps or would you actually report the story
[39:17.810 --> 39:19.850]  because the people would want to know about it?
[39:19.850 --> 39:24.970]  Like, hypothetically, in the last week there's been a bus bombing in Vegas,
[39:24.970 --> 39:28.410]  would you report that story if local and state authorities told you not to?
[39:28.490 --> 39:30.330]  Or would you not report it?
[39:32.350 --> 39:35.970]  It's a tough decision, but I'm curious what you would do, as a member of the media.
[39:38.830 --> 39:40.210]  Thank you for that.
[39:43.610 --> 39:45.170]  I would report it.
[39:45.170 --> 39:51.830]  If it's something that the community needs to know about, and if that's a risk that I have to take, I would do it.
[39:51.970 --> 39:58.110]  Would I disclose my source if they said, I want to be anonymous? No.
[39:58.110 --> 40:03.310]  And that's the same thing you have going on with Karl Rove and the New York Times and everything.
[40:03.310 --> 40:07.530]  I would report it. Now, as a journalist, though, I have to go to an editor.
[40:07.970 --> 40:11.190]  And that's up to the editor. That's what a lot of people don't realize.
[40:11.190 --> 40:15.630]  Yeah, the media is bad, this, that, and the other, but we have people that we've got to answer to also.
[40:16.650 --> 40:19.990]  That doesn't answer your question, I'm sorry. Thank you.
[40:19.990 --> 40:24.130]  Thank you, I'm sorry about all this. And if you want candy, just take the whole bag out of there.
[40:35.500 --> 40:44.700]  Alright, so next we have a presentation on using bioinformatic methods for network and information analysis.
[40:44.700 --> 40:46.360]  Meet the Fed has been...