Talk On Chinese Cyber Army Pulled From Black Hat 103
Trailrunner7 writes "A talk on China's state-sponsored offensive security efforts scheduled for the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas later this month has been pulled after concerns were raised by people within the Chinese and Taiwanese government about the talk's content. The presentation was to be delivered by Wayne Huang, CTO of Armorize, an application security company with R&D operations in Taiwan. The talk was billed as an in-depth, historical look at the offensive capabilities and operations of China's so-called cyber-army."
Re:Slashdot sensationalism (Score:5, Informative)
Worded quite differently, no? This published summary accuses the Chinese and Taiwanese government about it, while the other one just says they had concerns about their good relationships in the community.
FTA: Caleb Sima, Armorize's CTO and co-founder, said on his Twitter feed yesterday that the talk had been pulled.
"I had to pull our blackhat talk. Taiwanese gov is prohibiting it due to sensitive materials. Unreal."
Sensationalism? I think not (Score:5, Informative)
If the US doesn't start taking the PRC's cyber offensive capabilities seriously, the US is in for a whole world of hurt. Note how, in the article, the author mentions that Titan Rain and Aurora were not viewed as surprising in Asia, but rather more like, 'yeah, yeah, what else is new?' It is widely known in the security industry that China has been pursuing cyber offensive capabilities for quite some time. Why doesn't it get more discussion?
Re:they did WHAT? (Score:5, Informative)
???
BlackHat caved before and they'll likely cave again (for reference, see the Cisco incident 5 years ago), *but*, the issue in this case isn't BlackHat. It's the company that employs the speaker that's feeling the pressure. BlackHat can't make someone give a talk, and if the company or speaker decides to back out, that's their choice.
Re:Slashdot sensationalism (Score:0, Informative)
... and the rest of the world under Niggerbama with niggergasmic abandon said "Hey if a nigger doesn't care then maybe it's not so bad.", and that's why Niggerbama didn't close Nigmo bay...
Re:Sensationalism? I think not (Score:5, Informative)
Because publicly traded companies are reactionary.
Until Google stoop up and admitted to getting owned, businesses would say it was only worthwhile to defend against automated worms and viruses. That targeted attacks can get your company owned is not news to anyone in the security space, but justifying the monitoring and defensive measures to detect and respond to malicious attackers was tough without datapoints showing that attacks like that actually happen.
Unless you're Richard Bejtlich, who wrote the book on that. http://www.taosecurity.com/books.html [taosecurity.com]
Here's a great overview article by him on APT.
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/magazinePrintFriendly/0,296905,sid14_gci1516312,00.html [techtarget.com]
What about Defcon? (Score:5, Informative)
The same talk -- or at least a very similar one, by the same people -- is scheduled to be given at Defcon. Anyone know the status of that? I doubt Defcon is very susceptible to outside pressure, but since the speaker does business in Taiwan he may be reluctant to defy them.
Re:China’s Cyber Threat Growing (Score:4, Informative)
there are lots of legal challenges that are leaning towards that they won't be able to do so.
Those "legal challenges" appear to just melt away [wikimedia.org] when you waive a "National Security" [wikimedia.org] orders around.
Re:Slashdot sensationalism (Score:1, Informative)
Gitmo was a poor example. A better one would have been the "Collateral Murder" video posted on Wikileaks last spring, which the U.S. Government attempted to suppress. Now Julian Assange is very likely on the FBI's Most Wanted List, and is afraid for his own safety. And the safety of Bradley Manning is seriously in question.
Re:they did WHAT? (Score:1, Informative)
The interesting question will be whether or not the talk pops up at b-sides (created as a venue for giving presentations which are killed by the corporate types). They have a "lightning track" section that would be perfect for this type of situation. You show up and sign up for a time slot. Not published ahead of time. I think the presenter can even request that no recording / streaming happen during his talk to reduce legal issues later.
Politics. (Score:3, Informative)
The reasons why China wouldn't want this guy to speak are clear. It wouldn't be an issue for Taiwan except that current Taiwanese administration has been expanding ties with China at a fairly rapid pace. I'm sure they wanted to avoid ruffling feathers in China. We all know how ridiculous China is with any negative press, how they have to make a big show of dissatisfaction over every little thing. The Chinese leadership soils itself whenever some Taiwanese official travels to Japan or the States. So the Taiwanese, particularly those in the KMT party, are working pretty hard to keep China happy. There have been claims of censorship in Taiwan the Taiwanese media for this same reason.
There's some strong opposition in Taiwan to these expanding ties, but my impression is that people there aren't all that troubled by this. They're far more concerned in the almighty dollar than they are principles.
why is anyone surprised? (Score:2, Informative)
When you do a billing and explain exactly what sensitive information you are going to be talking about far in advance of the event. How is anyone surprised when the people to whom are actually sensitive to that information object. If your going to drop an informational bombshell it needs to be a surprise.
If your not dropping an informational bombshell then likely you are just trying to get attention and wasting everyones time.
Re:China’s Cyber Threat Growing (Score:3, Informative)
People have friends; countries, companies, and cats have interests.