Anti-Virus Company Tramples Freedom of the Press? Rob Rosenberger of Vmyths.com discovered a flaw in a major Anti-Virus manufacturer's product, but after following up on the problem with the manufacturer, found himself face to face with three federal agents who requested that his column be pulled. Do corporations now wield so much power that instead of fixing problems with their product, they simply can use federal agencies to threaten under the guise of national security? Rosenberger appeared on the TV program "The Screensavers" on TechTv, and a brief statement was posted by Rosenberger on their website. Our Security Forum has an additional ongoing discussion. Rob Rosenberger has posted in the followups below.
|
 | |  Witch Hunt?
Is our government witch-hunt (carnivore) being deployed via anti-virus software? Or? | |
|  |  babachersleep apnea sucksPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-28
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: Witch Hunt? We know precisely zero facts in the matter.
Perhaps the article was about the particular AV software that the government happens to use in some key places? Perhaps they merely asked for the opportunity to plug the whole before the revelation was made?
That seems to me like a perfectly reasonable request.
But, we can't know for sure because no facts are revealed. | |
|
 tomspratDraw Me A "Cold One"Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL | Yeah, right... Sounds to me like some little "smart-ass" reporter found a bug in some software, then waved it in front of their face, asking "Any comments, before I tell the world how viruses can by-pass your safeguards and infect millions of machines?"
--
The glass is neither half-empty, nor is it half-full; it is merely twice the size required to contain the liquid elements therein. | |
| | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Yeah, right... The guy is no "smart-ass", he's a long time tech writer. Been around for decades.
From the Vmyths site:
quote:
Rob Rosenberger edits Vmyths.com as a full-time job and writes as a columnist. He is one of the "original" virus experts from the 1980s, and the first to focus on virus hysteria. Red Herring magazine describes him as "one of the most visible and cursed critics in computer security" today, and PC World magazine says he "is merciless with self-appointed virus experts and the credulous publications that quote them." Rosenberger was one of only a dozen industry experts invited to the White House's first-ever antivirus summit meeting.
--
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. | |
| | | | | Re: Yeah, right... OK, so he's a "long time" smart-ass reporter and tech writer. | |
|
 xdeadhead220, 221, Whatever It Takes.Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Comcast
| the writing on the wall this has been in the works for a long, long time. now they are finally getting around to trampling the rest of us as they see fit. i guess its really true that the 3 branches of govt are corporate, military and hollywood. god dman shame if ya ask me. | |
| | | |
| Anon | Let's get a few facts straight First, the "event" occurred over the period of 21-24 September. I published my "replacement column" on 14 October.
Second, I didn't discover a[nother] flaw in an AV vendor's product line. My "EIS project" (1997-1999) uncovered many flaws in AV products and, yes, I suffered a character assassination attempt because of it -- after I turned down a bribe, of course. See »sun.soci.niu.edu/~crypt/other/fakeware.htm for details. I've been working since 2000 on an experiment [purposely mis]named "House 2.0," see »www.wired.com/news/technology/0,···,00.html for more insight.
I merely uncovered something very embarrassing about an AV vendor. And I do mean "very." I contacted them by email to ask if they wanted to "clarify" anything. The vendor asked me for my phone number, which I readily gave. (See »www.politechbot.com/p-02681.html to learn where I was during this period.) We spoke for about an hour, and the vendor apologized [my word] because he considered it necessary to notify the feds for national security reasons. I personally reminded him at the end of the phone call to notify the feds if he considered it so utterly important. A representative from a very powerful agency left a message on voicemail, pleading with me to return the call. We failed to connect until well after the cops showed up. (Hint: I let the person stew for awhile. Not very professional on my part.)
I'm winding down from a very long day and watching VH1 at approx. 3am when a federal cop knocked on my door. I put on a pair of pants and invited him in. Two more stepped in from positions beyond the door, which surprised the hell out of me. I remember saying "I guess you kept these two hidden behind your good intentions, eh?" We waited for about an hour and talked jovially until a federal agent arrived. The agent seemed rather bored by my side of story, but we (ahem) discussed the merits of killing the upcoming column. I won't deny it -- I needlessly postured on the argument of using national security to cover up embarrassment.
The agent never demanded anything and never insinuated bad things might happen if I failed to comply. The agent acted far more professionally during the interview than I did. (That's the embarrassing thing on my part, the one where I claimed I couldn't mention it for national security reasons. Does anyone here NOT see the sarcasm in my using the claim of national security to hide my own embarrassment?)
Later I realize the AV vendor gave me an opportunity to squelch an unimportant story -- which itself is an important story. In chess terms, I'd sacrifice a pawn for a rook.
But I DON'T like the idea of someone using my patriotism as a pawn.
When I finally spoke to the government rep who deals with the AV vendor, I received another plea to squelch the column. I embraced the request, and I further agreed not to name the agency & vendor.
This of course leads one to ask "why give up the vendor's name?" The answer is simple: naming the agency would reveal the vendor's identity, and vice versa. They're almost joined at the hip these days, and I don't make this claim lightly. Read »vmyths.com/rant.cfm?id=416&page=4 to understand why the antivirus cartel qualifies as a [powerful] quasi-government agency.
...I wanted to go with a full-court press after publishing my "replacement column," but my cohort George Smith talked me out of it. He asked a simple question: "what's really new here?" AV firms have gone out of their way in the past to destroy what they can't control. They tried a new tactic this time. I have to believe they'll try something else in the future.
It took awhile to realize Smith is right. I've waited for over a decade to earn my true 15 nano-minutes of fame. This event isn't it, but it'll add some serious fuel when the real day comes. I can continue to wait.
The old saw says "what doesn't kill a critic makes him stronger." The vendor didn't know what they were doing, and they inoculated me instead of poisoning me. But hey, I'm pissed and I wrote a three-part series I didn't feel compelled to write before now. Check it out at »vmyths.com/rant.cfm?id=416&page=4 if interested.
One last thing: don't worry about the original column. It's nothing big and I sacrificed it without a seconthird thought. As embarrassing as it was, it never would have gone beyond the realm of Vmyths. The real story is the AV industry's role within the government. I'm glad I stumbled over that.
Rob | |
| |  Jamming777$Time Is Running OutPremium
join:2001-07-25
USA |  Re: Let's get a few facts straight
--
Jamming
EL/MS with 1294 down/324 up | |
| | | | Anon | Re: Let's get a few facts straight
If I'd raised First Amendment issues, then my original column would've come out in addition to the replacement column. But think of it this way: "be careful what you wish for..." They wanted the original column to go away, and I obliged them. God knows I tried to talk them out of it.
If you know your WWII history, you know the White House begged photographers not to depict Roosevelt in his wheelchair. The nation needed a "strong" president for national security reasons, they claimed -- and the media's help contributed to his unprecedented [some would say unwarranted] fourth election. Some people now make the same argument for the antivirus industry. We need our cyber-saviors to look strong in the face of adversity, even if unwarranted.
I hid the First Amendment up my sleeve when the vendor threatened to call the feds and I made my stand on national security.
(For those of you with military backgrounds, let me fill you in on a little secret. The U.S. National Command Authority blindly trusts a group of experts who never filled out a DD form 398-2. Some of these experts carry Russian or Chinese passports. They regularly deliver virus technology to an oppressive Chinese government. And they place the needs of their cartel above the needs of the U.S. National Command Authority. Our government blindly trusts them like an addict blindly trusts his pusher. I don't make these claims lightly.)
Going back to one interesting comment -- true: I haven't divulged everything. I keep some things in the dark for reasons beyond the scope of this incident. Wheelert knows enough about me to speculate...
Rob | |
| | | | Jamming777$Time Is Running OutPremium
join:2001-07-25
USA | Re: Let's get a few facts straight said by rsnbrgr:
If I'd raised First Amendment issues, then my original column would've come out in addition to the replacement column. But think of it this way: "be careful what you wish for..." They wanted the original column to go away, and I obliged them. God knows I tried to talk them out of it.
Sounds like you would be completely protected by the Whistleblower's Act, if they wanted to push things. This is not to say, that you should not want to act as a responsible member of the press, there are not very many of them these days, good to know there is at least one. If anything, this has given me a good chance to get to know who is reporting the news about an issue I see as important.
--
Jamming
EL/MS with 1294 down/324 up | |
| | | | | | Anon | Re: Let's get a few facts straight
Heck, I quit boinking Saddam's wives because I thought they might be spies. But then I apologized to them... (I hope I chose the right emoticon for that joke!) | |
|
| | | Rob, thanks for stopping by. Iowa, huh? Long way from O'Fallon.  | |
| |
| Glad you got my email Rob, maybe others also... to come and visit us.
TS with crypto and some other certificates are important to keep in "their" right place. Many of us carried that burden into civilian life. Now the country has to rethink that whole position as it applies to the civilian population. Mistakes will be made, but the general feeling is that too many mistakes have been made in the past to protect and secure the lifestyle and livelihood of our people.
You are a good Sport in all of this, anger, fear, frustration, when you are only out to seek the TRUTH.
May I suggest you also ask for your file and other type of documentation at the appropriate Government Offices.
The FOIA is still in place as of today, and it might be to your advantage to have any documents that are out there with your name on it.
Be Well
[text was edited by author 2001-11-08 08:19:21] | |
| | | Anon | Must not have been all that bad, or they wouldn't have knocked first. | |
| | | | | Re: Let's get a few facts straight Well I like the Truth also, so I have a few Iowa freepers (no plug) working on the 3AM visit. We either have cookies and milk or lots of tired people that night, it is all logged some place, nice thing about the government you can always find records, even if 6 minutes of the tape is erased, but then again, is it Really erased or just sitting there waiting for some one to find it??????? | |
|
| bah
join:2001-04-22
Brooklyn, NY | I would have took the bribe.  something LOL | |
| | | | I can't wait to find out the name of this company!! I'll make sure anybody I come in contact with NEVER buys their products. AND I DON'T HAVE A SHORT MEMORY!
P.S. I have also signed the SF 312 document. | |
|
| | He wasn't forced to do anything! I have to admit the details on this story are a bit confusing as the chain of articles covering it are some what confusing. However, from what I read he wasn't forced or ordered to censor or change ANYTHING. He was asked not run his original column and he was asked politely and only after an explanation was offered as to why he was being asked. Now whether or not one agrees with the reason he was asked is another story. The point here is nobody's rights were trampled or stepped on. Get over your paranoia. The sky isn't falling and the martians haven't landed in anybody's backyard. The guy actually admits to giving in to their request just for the reason that by doing so he would have an even better column to write. He even said "Yes, the US government really did ask me to censor a column I planned to publish." Note the word "ask".
It sounds to me that in the big picture he collaborated with the government just to get a better "story". | |
| | | A clarification I want to clarify something about my previous post. I read the earlier posts on this subject before deciding to make my contribution. When I read the earlier posts the rsnbrgr post had NOT been posted yet, so I did not see it. He was actually in the process of writing his response/post as I was writing mine. He posted his response a few minutes before I posted mine but I did not see his until AFTER I had posted mine. | |
| |  justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7 | Re: A clarification And after having seen it? ... you have a different view? | |
| | | | | Re: A clarification I can't believe anything he says about the incident; he could be under duress. | |
| | | |  ROCINANTEOriginal Member 007Premium
join:1999-06-29
Hartsdale, NY | Re: A clarification I agree. He is trying WAY too hard to NOT bad mouth the FEDS. The tone of his post reflects that.
--
CRUNCH THIS!
| |
|
| | | | I have the same view. He just substantiated what I said and added clarification to the situation. Had his post been up when I read the thread it wouldn't have been, in my opinion, either newsworthy or timely to make my comments and post. | |
| | | | | | Re: A clarification
Sorry, but that creeps me out... | |
| | | | | | Anon | Re: A clarification said by Clangeddin:
It is the fact that an AV company/corporation had the ability to make the feds do their bidding to "protect" the loophole in their software under the guise of "National Security" - and acted upon it.
Well, it COULD be that the 'loophole' or whatever was PUT there FOR the feds to use. Then, they'd be protecting their interest. Providing the government access to communications systems has been going on for decades. It seems unlikely that the feds would have gotten involved in such a manner if none of their interests were in jeopardy.
But, this is all complete speculation, since nothing was disclosed at all...
--
"Alas, now mourn. My ping, 'tis all tim'd out."
Any opinions/comments/statements are mine, and not my employers. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: A clarification Methinks you've said something important here, hsd_eng. | |
| | | | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: A clarification Makes you wonder if the MPAA and RIAA can get the Feds to do their bidding, as well.. AFter all, couldn't Hollywood and copyright (money) interests be considered as "vital to National Security" or at least to Economic security...
Anyone want to place bets?
Anyone? | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: A clarification Why bet on a sure thing? Ask Eric Corely...or Dmitry Sklyarov. | |
|
 OCNBLUEDazedPremium
join:2000-11-07
Dallas | Sad I am not sure how valid the "National Security Threat" is but I can see this being used by many AV companies now that the precedent has been established.
The way I look at it the software manufacturer, by the use of a telephone no less, managed to keep their stock at the current price, not have negative publicity running in newspapers or on television across the world (causing a decline in sales) or have a bug exploited costing their customers up to billions of dollars. It did not cost them any money, not even a quarter for the call.
I say well done to them. They again proved it is possible to get out of any situation as long as you are a quick thinker. If only Clinton could of said Monica was just hungry or Nixon could have said I thought I was taping over a Beatles tape.
I guess it is easier not taking responsibility for your companies actions. Your First Amendment Rights were trampled on. It amazes me how we redefine our Constitution to meet the needs of certain people/organizations. In my next life I want to be famous and wealthy so I can enjoy the benefits of not abiding by the laws set for the rest of us.
| |
| tomspratDraw Me A "Cold One"Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL | If I was wrong... ...about the true intent of Mr. Rosenberger, I apologize. However, I find it somewhat disturbing when someone makes a statement e.g. "I know something about someone, but can't reveal it". It is said that there are three sides to every disagreement, yours, theirs, and the truth. In this instance, we have heard only one side, and what was the purpose for its' disclosure? To inform everyone that a vendor has the "Feds" in their back pocket? If you make an accusation such as this, be prepared to back it up with fact. The opportunity was given to publish the facts, however, Mr. Rosenberger chose not to. This should have been a consideration when he first contemplated writing the original article.
If someone chooses to make an accusation, don't expect everyone to believe you, without hearing all of the facts. If it is a matter of national security, do what's right and say nothing at all. If it is not, do what a responsible reporter does; report the facts.
--
The glass is neither half-empty, nor is it half-full; it is merely twice the size required to contain the liquid elements therein. | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | A Vorlon once said... said by tomsprat:
It is said that there are three sides to every disagreement, yours, theirs, and the truth.
| |
|
Pupak
join:2001-01-24
Hyde Park, NY | Blah blah blah... Mr. Rosenberger,
I yawn at your vapor-story. If you don't have the balls to come forward with WHO and WHAT this thing is about, why bother saying anything at all? For all I know, you could have just made it all up just to promote your website. | |
|
| Fixated? Who, me?
[text was edited by author 2001-11-09 03:00:19] | |
|
| |
|
|
