Yeah. It's a pretty good tale. Anymore it seems real life is eclipsing everything our fiction writers can come up with.

It's fun to slag the security experts, and they really do deserve it when something like this happens. The social engineering thing especially feels like an extra risk taken just to rub their nose in it, which does add a bit of sting. But at this point, I have to feel pretty bad for Hoglund. He's pretty well known ... and not just for his fabulous head shot. In the past he has done a lot of good work with Windows rootkits and such (although these days I'd pretty much say he is to hacking as Dr. Phil is to psychology). At first glance, it doesn't appear he has much to do with HGB Federal although I'm not entirely clear on the relationship between the companies. Both he and Leavy seemed taken aback by some of the stuff going on - Leavy even went so far as telling the Anon IRC chat room they were pretty pissed at Barr. And that was before this whole "cyber-attacks for hire" thing came to light.

I didn't highlight it, but Barr was kind of emotionally involved in the "research" by the end. He was more or less riding the same high a hacker gets from cracking a system and had made it pretty personal. Apparently, several of his colleagues were questioning his motivations and methods. An anon source is quoted in that Crowdleaks article saying:

“It would be nice to get it out there that Ted Vera was sending out emails of skepticism towards Aaron’s actions, and that other members of the company were beginning to doubt Aaron’s findings as well. He planned to meet with the FBI tomorrow morning to negotiate prices for the document that we’ve now made public, he wanted to further his own career by trying to jump on the attention Anonymous has been getting recently. Well, he got what he wanted in the end..."

So, I don't exactly know who was advocating what within the company from the reporting (and I *really* don't feel like looking at 50,000 emails! Hell, I can't even get my own &@#%! spam processed.). Certainly seems Barr had a vision. I suppose if that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on where you sit - Google got a lot of grief for identifying activists to China.

That said, I did look at Barr's "research" regarding Anon and it's really not very credible. If the plan floated to BoA is any indicator, I'm on the exact same page with you and Marcy - somebody is getting seriously ripped off. I sure hope most of their proposals provide the client more value than that turd. It is consistently looking as if the weight of real talent does not currently reside with the institutional players.

The more I think about it - that makes Barr's flawed research that much more dangerous. It's not a joke. People are going on watch lists and people not in America are getting flat-out snatched off the streets. Those lists have the ability to impact lives very negatively - it's modern era McCarthyism. If the FBI turns to this guy as "expert"without the capacity to identify bullshit, isn't this essentially just a high-tech version of those warlords in Afghanistan selling us randoms snatched off the street as "insurgents"? (you know, the ones still stuck at Gitmo).

Thanks. Yeah, compromising the system of the investigators is pretty much a classic response. Certainly has the familiar feel of that old pwning Stoll tradition. Although, some of the specific actions these guys took after the system compromise seem to ratchet it up a notch (or two).

I guess the investigative side can be viewed as "same as it ever was" too. The act of trying to connect the dots doesn't bug me. Someone is going to do it, so I don't see how to criticize one professional over another. But man, it can't be emphasized enough how shitty this methodology was. And it also can't be overemphasized that what these guys are marketing has redefined "White Hat" to include disruptive cyber-attacks ... so long as the entity who wants to carry out such attacks has some sort of institutional standing (money/power etc.).

I read Underground a few weeks ago when Donal (I think) linked it. Man those poor Aussies had it rough. Comparatively, stateside had an embarrassment of riches (and comparatively, D.C. was richer than most places in the US). The book didn't portray the US scene nearly as well as it did the Australian one (it's still an excellent snapshot though).

It would be funny ... were it not for that "free money from the Federal Reserve" bit.

Our tax dollars - hard at work.

At least that makes more sense then Greenwald. But yeah. Pretty creepy.

Whole thing kind of messes up long-held perceptions. The companies involved clearly know it too. They are scrambling with their statements, but the curtain has really been pulled back. I don't see how they're going to squeeze the paste back into that tube. The question now is how deep the rot really goes.

It is making me seriously rethink how I feel about the teams who refuse to share exploit data.

That's merely what a clever reference to the old soviet agency would *want* you to think ;-).

Didja see Palantir and Berico are totally trying to hang this all on HBGary? Both cut ties today. Palantir even apologized to Greenwald - disavowing anything to do with it ... even pledged their love for "progressive" causes. Unexplained why it was *their* logo at the top of the power-point slide. (power point: another victim ... when will the carnage end?).

As usual, Marcy is on-point over at Empty Wheel. I'd add that Palantir's proposed role was internal security controls and data auditing. HBGary was infoops. Berico would quite likely be the ones acting as offensive exploit team. Hear them tell, everyone is nothing more than a simple data analyst nowadays. They sure were singing a different tune in the emails.

Make physical backups ... how do we KNOW you are American unless they check?