|The Shout | Jennifer Granick | ISS and Cisco v. Granick’s Gambling Plans|
by Rattle at 9:12 pm EDT, Aug 2, 2005
What follows is my take on “Ciscogate”, the uproar over researcher Michael Lynn’s presentation at this year’s Black Hat conference, in which he revealed that he was able to remotely execute code on Cisco routers. I have been representing Mike during this crisis, so I’m clearly partisan, and what I can say is limited by attorney-client responsibilities. But while many people are speculating about the facts, there hasn’t been much on the law, which turns out to be really interesting.
Jennifer Granick has posted the first installment of the story about her representing Mike. Its very rare you get to hear the take of a case like this directly from the lawyers involved, so this is a treat.
Earlier I suggested that everyone leave a comment on Jennifer's blog thanking her for representing Mike. I'd like to renew that suggestion. Thanks Jennifer!
After reading this, you might want to check out this collection of comments on Cryptome about the situation. It includes links to pictures of the presentation Mike actually gave, as opposed to the one that is floating around.
And seriously don't miss the truly excellent video floating around of the Cisco temp-workers slicing the materials out of the conference booklets. You can get it here or here.
|RE: The Shout | Jennifer Granick | ISS and Cisco v. Granick’s Gambling Plans|
by Shannon at 3:31 pm EDT, Aug 4, 2005
I'm still not clear on why Cisco is going after mike lynn rather than ISS. It seems like ISS almost used him as the goods to extort Cisco somehow. By giving the presentation, its seems like he broke whatever extortion agreement Cisco & ISS reached.
What mike lynn revealed, Cisco claims to have already previously revealed, but lied about how fucked they were. Mike lynn disagreed with this on stage and demonstrated his point. The information he learned by researching for ISS certainly belonged to ISS, but he didn't reveal his research... He used the research. If i research something for someone else, the info is theirs to publish... However, if I am somehow enlightened by this info that I have been doing something a dumb way for a very long time and use this information as a REASON to stop this behavior, i don't see how this breaks disclosure. If i tell the person next to me, look dummy, you're fucking yourself if you do it the way you have been... And prove this by fucking myself onstage so you can see what happens... I still would not have revealed anything new by illustrating exactly how "fucked" by "fucked" cisco meant. So long as I wasn't using this research to show people how to make dicks to fuck themselves or others with, I've disclosed nothing. So I don't see the case here.
There are redundant posts not displayed in this view from the following users: Dr. Nanochick, k, angus.