Home Tags Hashtags

Tag: hashtags

State investigator, Oregon DoJ attorney lash out in lawsuits A chap whose job was to investigate threats on social networks is suing the Oregon Department of Justice – for allegedly retaliating against him after his online sleuthing led him to the agency's own director of civil rights.…
It seems unlikely any directive has come down from the Trump administration.
A sizable and dormant Twitter botnet has been uncovered by two researchers from the University College London, who expressed concern about the possible risks should the botmaster decide to waken the accounts under his control. Research student Juan Echeverria Guzman and his supervisor and senior lecturer at the college Shi Zhou told Threatpost that the 350,000 bots in the Star Wars botnet could be used to spread spam or malicious links, and also, more in line with today’s social media climate, start phony trending topics, attempt to influence public opinion, or start campaigns that purport a false sense of agreement among Twitter users. Compounding the issue is a larger botnet of more than a half-million bots that the researchers have uncovered since their initial research.

That research, the two academics said, will be shared in a future paper.
In the meantime, the Star Wars botnet dataset is available for study; the researchers said the data is tens of times larger than any public collection on Twitter bots. The researchers also said they have not shared their data with Twitter yet because they are waiting for their current research to be approved in a scientific journal. “We would also like to give researchers a chance to get the dataset by themselves before they are gone, this is why we have not reported to Twitter directly, but we will as soon as the paper gets accepted,” Echeverria Guzman said. A request to Twitter for comment was not returned in time for publication. The researchers said the botnet was created in 2013 and has remained hidden since then with relatively little activity.

The mundane pace at which the bots tweeted seemed automated and intentional, the researchers said. Most of the content are benign quotes from Star Wars novels and do not include URLs, giving the tweets the appearance of real human language as a means of side-stepping bot detection services.

The user profiles behind the bots also used tactics that would not trigger alerts, such as having real profile pictures. “All the accounts were created in a short window of time, less than two months.

They all behave in exactly the same way, quoting Star Wars novels including the same hashtags (and adding random hashtags to the quote),” Echeverria Guzman said. “All of their tweets are marked as coming from ‘Windows Phone,’ which means that they are likely to be controlled by the API instead of the Twitter site.

For reference, that source accounts for less than 0.1% of tweets normally.” The clincher, however, connecting the hundreds of thousands of bots to the same network comes in the geographic distribution of the host accounts.

Tweets were tagged with geographic locations which, when mapped, fall within neat rectangles plotted over North America and Europe.

The tweets are distributed within the rectangles, even in uninhabited areas.

The researchers describe the plotting in the paper: “These rectangles have sharp corners and straight borders that are parallel to the latitude and longitude lines. We conjectured that the figure shows two overlapping distributions. One is the distribution of tweets by real users, which is coincident with population distribution.

The other is the distribution of tweets with faked locations by Twitter bots, where the fake locations are randomly chosen in the two rectangles – perhaps as an effort to pretend that the tweets are created in the two continents where Twitter is most popular.” Echeverria Guzman said the split between the two rectangles is exactly 50 percent and the tweets are uniform throughout the rectangle. “All of this is almost impossible to have originated from normal users,” he said. The researchers point out previous work demonstrating how Twitter bots have been able to abuse Twitter’s streaming API.

Bots, the researchers said in their paper, are programmed to time tweets so that they are included in the streaming API as much as 82 percent of the time versus the expected 1 percent. “If and when these bots are activated, they can do all of the threats as listed above—but on a large scale with a sudden effect,” Zhou said. “For example it is known that the Streaming API is susceptible to tampering by bots.

The size of the Star Wars botnet is clearly enough to contaminate the Twitter API and the Twitter environment itself, particularly if focused on a single topic. “In other words, it is scary to know there are bad guys and see the terrible things that they have been doing; yet it is much more scary to know there are a lot of bad guys around, but we have no idea what they are up to.” The researchers said they hope others download and analyze the available data.

They’ve also created a Twitter account, @thatisabot, and website, where bots can be reported.
Computer researchers uncover yuuuge dormant army Computer boffins Juan Echeverria and Shi Zhou at University College London have chanced across a dormant Twitter botnet made up of more than 350,000 accounts with a fondness for quoting Star Wars novels. Twitter bots have been accused of warping the tone of the 2016 election. They also can be used for entertainment, marketing, spamming, manipulating Twitter's trending topics list and public opinion, trolling, fake followers, malware distribution, and data set pollution, among other things. In a recently published research paper, the two computer scientists recount how a random sampling of 1 per cent of English-speaking Twitter accounts – about 6 million accounts – led to their discovery. Pursuing an unrelated inquiry, the researchers were examining the geographic distribution of 20 million tweets with location tags in the dataset of 843 million tweets from the account sample, and they noticed an unusual distribution pattern. Some accounts followed the expected distribution pattern, which coincides with population centers in America and Europe. But another set of accounts showed random distribution within those areas, often resulting in tweets from unlikely places such as seas, deserts, and the Arctic. Blue dots at edge of box over Europe, barely visible after image compression, show Star Wars bots When the researchers manually examined the text of these tweets, they found the majority of them consisted of random excerpts from Star Wars novels, and that many of them started or ended with an incomplete word or included a randomly placed hashtag. For example: Luke's answer was to put on an extra burst of speed. There were only ten meters #separating them now. If he could cover t "This quote was from the book Star Wars: Choices of One, where Luke Skywalker is an important character," the paper explains. "We have found quotations from at least 11 Star Wars novels." The manual examination of data associated with 4,942 accounts resulted in the identification of 3,244 bots with consistent characteristics: Tweets only random Star Wars quotes. Uses hashtags associated with follower acquisition or prepended to random words. Never retweets or mentions other Twitter users. Each bot has made only 11 or fewer tweets since its inception. Each bot has between 10 and 31 friends. The bots choose only "Twitter for Windows Phone" as their source application. The bots' user ID numbers fall into a narrow range between 1.5 × 10^9 and 1.6 × 10^9. Given that set of bots, the researchers created a machine learning classifier to hunt for other accounts with similar characteristics. The algorithm identified 356,957 Star Wars bots. The researchers say they were lucky to have spotted the bots, which appear to have been designed to thwart automated detection methods. They note that being human helped make the discovery possible. "The fact that the bots tagged their tweets with random locations in North America and Europe was a [deliberate] effort to make their tweets look more real," the paper explains. "But this camouflage trick backfired – the faked locations when plotted on a map seemed completely abnormal. It's important to note that this anomaly could only be noticed by a human looking at the map, whereas a computer algorithm would have a hard time to realize the anomaly." Curiously, the Star Wars bots have been silent since 2013. The researchers observe that pre-aged bots can be sold for more than newly created bots on the black market, presumably because bot detection methods consider older accounts more likely to be reputable. Twitter declined to comment on the findings, which may be because the company was unaware of them until now. "We have not reported the accounts directly to Twitter (yet)," said Echeverria in an email to The Register. "We are waiting for the paper to be approved by the scientific journal to which it was submitted. We would also like to give researchers a chance to get the dataset by themselves before they are gone, this is why we have not reported to Twitter directly, but we will as soon as the paper gets accepted." Inspired by their success identifying the Star Wars botnet, Echeverria, a research student, and his faculty advisor, senior lecturer Shi Zhou, claim to have identified an even larger botnet numbering half a million accounts. "The larger botnet is part of a subsequent research paper, which is also under review," Echeverria said. "As soon as it gets approved, I will be able to disclose more information about it." Echeverria added that there's now a Twitter account named "@thatisabot" to make it easier for people to report bots to researchers. "Think of it as @spam but for researchers instead of Twitter," he said. "Furthermore, we have a webpage, www.thatisabot.com, which will (soon) also allow people to report bots to researchers." "Commander, tear this ship apart until you've found those plans and bring me the Ambassador. I want her alive!" ® Sponsored: Want to know more about Privileged Access Management? Visit The Register's hub
Enlarge / President-Elect Donald Trump and his team met with high-profile Silicon Valley execs in New York City today. Pictured are Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Alphabet CEO Larry Page, and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg alongside Trump and Vice-President-Elect Mike Pence.Getty Images | Drew Angerer reader comments 65 Share this story President-elect Donald Trump held a much-publicized meeting with prominent Silicon Valley tech leaders today, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, Alphabet CEO Larry Page, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and others. Notably absent from that list is Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey or any other personnel from the social media company, despite the fact that Trump has used his Twitter account as one of his primary communication channels with the public throughout his campaign and in the weeks since the election. The explanation, according to a source speaking to Politico, may be vindictive—the source alleges that the Trump team didn't invite Twitter because the social networking service refused to implement a custom "#CrookedHillary" emoji created by the campaign.

Trump used this epithet to refer to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton throughout the campaign, an approach he also took with Republican primary challengers like Senators Ted Cruz ("Lyin' Ted") and Marco Rubio ("Little Marco"). Enlarge / The original "#CrookedHillary" emoji, according to Trump's digital advertising director. Gary Coby For its part, the Trump camp claims that Twitter was excluded from the meeting because of its size—the company's market cap is about $13.85 billion, and the smallest company represented was Tesla (market cap $31.92 billion). While the Unicode Consortium is primarily responsible for creating the emoji that most people use day-to-day, platforms like Twitter are free to create their own.

Twitter's specific custom emoji are called "hashflags," and they're used to automatically display custom emoji after specific hashtags on Twitter's site and in first-party apps. To date, the majority of these "hashflags" have been broadly apolitical and used mostly for brands (#FindingDory, #ShareACoke) or major events (#Wimbledon, #PopeInUS).

At their most political, they've been used to represent broad movements (#Pride2015, #LoveIsLove) or particular elections (#USElections2016), but they've never been used to refer to specific candidates.

Twitter has created many of these emoji of its own volition, though major companies have also paid to have them created for use in ad campaigns. A November 18 Medium post from the Trump campaign's digital advertising director Gary Coby at least confirms that conversations took place between Twitter and the Trump campaign about a #CrookedHillary emoji, among others.

Cole alleges that he had multiple conversations with Twitter's legal and sales teams, but that Dorsey himself was ultimately responsible for canceling the Trump team's proposed emoji deal. We've contacted Twitter for comment and will update if we receive a response.
Enlarge / Trump and Clinton, should we send them into space?Aurich / Getty reader comments 6 Share this story Campaign 2016 Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump on science, energy, and the climate Clinton blasts Russian cyber-attacks as bid to install Trump as a “puppet” If elected, Clinton would support an “Encryption Commission” to help feds Report: Tech investor Peter Thiel will donate $1.25M to Trump campaign Presidential candidates promise to change America’s roads, but how? View more storiesAt the upper edge of the atmosphere, where the sky kisses outer space, a few molecules of nitrogen and oxygen bounce around.
If we consider the presidential election as playing out at the surface of the Earth, amid a thick atmosphere of invective and accusation, it is not a stretch to say the relative importance of space policy lies somewhere near the edge of space, bouncing around inconsequentially, like these stray molecules. Even so, the next president of the United States will have the ability, if not the desire, to shape the future of America’s civil space programs—especially with major decision points on the horizon, including the privatization of spaceflight and the details of where humans should go beyond low-Earth orbit.

For this reason, we’re going to look at what changes a new president might make and what attitudes each candidate has had toward space. Among the first tasks of a new administration is to launch a transition team to review major federal programs. With a budget that comprises about 0.4 percent of all federal spending and a significant chunk of the country’s discretionary funds, NASA will face meaningful scrutiny.
Such transition teams will delve far beyond the rhetoric of hashtags, like #JourneyToMars, and get under the hood of the space agency’s programs and whether funding exists to carry them out. Mark Albrecht served as President George H.W.

Bush’s principal advisor on space, and he has been enmeshed in such policy discussions for the better part of three decades. He’s lived through several presidential transitions, and he can say exactly what will happen to NASA and its human spaceflight programs when either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump become the next president of the United States. “The first thing a new administration will do is an independent review of the status of programs, and what they find will surprise no one,” Albrecht said.
Inevitably, he said, an independent commission will discover an ever-growing bureaucracy and underfunded, over-ambitious programs. Whether the new president acts on these findings is another question entirely. The modern NASA Before digging into positions held by Clinton and Trump, let’s get some perspective on how NASA has changed since the days of Apollo.

During a US human spaceflight panel discussion titled “Lost in Space,” held at Rice University in October, Albrecht described how NASA has grown from a lean agency focused on beating the Soviets to the Moon into one that now serves many masters. “NASA takes on more and more activities, everything from more Earth science to exploration activities to high-speed computing,” Albrecht said. “I’m sure there’s stem cell research being done somewhere at some NASA center. Over time, those pieces begin to grow constituencies, and, like anything else, they get a little more money every year.

That cycle goes on and on.” How did our space policy get to where it is today? We look at the key players during the administration of President Barack Obama. NASA Obama chose four-time astronaut Charles Bolden as NASA's administrator.

Bolden has embraced the Journey to Mars but has not said how much it will cost or how NASA will pay for it. NASA NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, speaking to shuttle commander Chris Ferguson, sought to make sweeping changes to NASA in 2010 by turning over rocket building entirely to private companies and allowing the space agency to focus on innovating spaceflight technology.
She left NASA in 2013. NASA Florida Sen.

Bill Nelson wanted no part of Garver's changes. He spearheaded a "compromise" that allowed NASA to continue building large rockets.

The Senate wrote the specs for the Space Launch System, leading some to dub it the "Senate Launch System." NASA Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison was the co-leader of the compromise with Nelson.
She felt NASA would lose essential capabilities without an SLS-like program.
She also tried without success to keep the space shuttle flying beyond 2011. NASA Alabama Senator Richard Shelby has emerged as the chief supporter of the SLS rocket in the Senate.

The rocket is being designed and tested in his home state.

Each year since 2011, as a lead Senate appropriator, Shelby has added more money to NASA's budget for the rocket than NASA has said it needed. NASA Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski has worked to make sure that other areas of NASA's budget, including the costly and oft-delayed James Webb Space Telescope, have received ample funding. NASA Elon Musk, of SpaceX, has benefited from NASA contracts to develop commercial cargo and crew services. His company could almost certainly develop a lower-cost large rocket than the SLS, but the Senate wanted no part of that. NASA Mike Griffin, NASA's administrator under George W.

Bush, wanted to remain in that position for Obama.

But the president rejected Griffin's Constellation plan—and Griffin himself.
If a Republican wins the 2016 election, Griffin could return to NASA or elsewhere to shape policy. NASA John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has favored Earth science over human spaceflight. NASA Bill Gerstenmaier, who has overseen NASA's human spaceflight programs since 2005, has tried to make the best of the Orion capsule, the SLS rocket, President Obama's grand goal of Mars, and limited funding. NASA The bureaucracy has infected large projects like NASA’s Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft, Albrecht said. When these big projects start out, they have “optimistic” estimates for cost, schedule, and technical challenges.

Those estimates eventually catch up with the programs.

And while NASA’s top line budget might increase to account for these problems, much of those increases are consumed by new constituencies that have cropped up in recent decades. Accordingly, when the National Academies or an independent panel review these big exploration programs in 2017 or 2018, they will find them to be underfunded, behind schedule, and, given budget projections, a long way from delivering significant accomplishments. Yes, it's possible that the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft will fly together in late 2018, but these vehicles are unlikely to carry humans into space until 2023, and human landings on Mars remain more than two decades away. Will the new president care? Space hasn’t been a meaningful issue in the 2016 presidential election to date, and it’s unlikely to become one.

This is part of the problem with NASA overall—it simply has lost its relevance to the nation’s strategic interests.
In the 1960s, NASA served as a champion of US preeminence during the Cold War.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the space shuttle launched national security satellites. Now? The agency has a much reduced role. Certainly, NASA represents a potent projection of soft power, and it has utility in easing geopolitical tensions thanks to the healthy US-Russian partnership to sustain the International Space Station.

But when the president confronts the major issues of the day, such as border security, terrorism, the economy and more, NASA is not essential to resolving any of these. James Muncy, a Republican-leaning space policy expert based in Washington, DC, said NASA and civil space efforts won’t rank high enough to be addressed during the early days of either a Clinton or Trump presidency.

The agency will probably drift awhile, he said, along its present course. “Neither President Clinton nor President Trump is going to make any major changes in US civil space policy for the first couple years of their term,” Muncy bluntly declared. “So it would be nice if everyone just chilled out.

Congress can write another ‘don’t terminate any contracts’ provision into the omnibus if they want, but it’s a waste of words.

The next president may trim NASA’s budget, but they will not change direction because that would require thinking and caring about NASA. Hint: they don’t.” The wild card Probably the biggest change in the aerospace industry since President Obama took office in 2009 is the emergence of SpaceX, which has provided substantially lower-cost launch services to NASA, the private sector, and the US military. Now SpaceX, along with other companies such as Blue Origin, are continuing to develop new, larger rockets, which on paper promise to significantly undercut the price of NASA’s SLS rocket. During his remarks at Rice University, Albrecht addressed this issue as something a new administration and Congress will have to grapple with. “For a few years now, we’ve been watching the private sector leaping and bounding ahead,” Albrecht said.

This may cause a “confidence problem” for NASA; decision-makers may start to ask whether NASA should be building large launch systems when the private sector can do it at a lower cost.
Some may begin to wonder why NASA isn’t facilitating the private companies instead of trying to compete with them, he said. For now, NASA’s response to such questions has been that it has a special competence, along with its traditional aerospace contractors such as Boeing, to design and build large rockets.

Congress has bought into that.

This viewpoint will remain defensible for a few years more, but it may be a very different conversation in 2020, when not only is SLS flying, but both SpaceX and Blue Origin have heavy lift options at a fraction of the cost of the government rocket. So what could change? With all this said, we can glean some insights into how each of the presidential administrations might eventually change NASA.

The big questions with human spaceflight concern the fate of the large, costly SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, especially in light of the rise of commercial space, and how NASA should employ its big rockets to explore the solar system. In the case of SLS and Orion, Congress is explicit in its support of these large, multibillion dollar programs that provide a multitude of jobs across many states. Killing either of them outright would require a significant investment of political capital in convincing a skeptical Congress. (This might become marginally easier if Democrats take the Senate, as it would remove SLS champion and Alabama Senator Richard Shelby from his powerful subcommittee chairmanship, which has oversight of NASA’s budget). Were a president skeptical of these big vehicles, instead of making a full frontal attack, a potential policy may entail providing basic funding to keep SLS and Orion going while waiting to see if SpaceX, Blue Origin, or other private providers come through with much less costly private options by the end of the decade. The bigger question may well become how NASA will use the vehicles. President Obama set NASA on a course to have astronauts visit a near-Earth asteroid before sending humans to Mars in the 2030s. However, due to funding, the crewed asteroid mission has devolved into a robotic spacecraft that would return a small lump of rock to near the Moon. Neither Congress nor the scientific community have embraced this mission, and it will probably be modified or canceled.
Substantial questions also remain about the viability of NASA’s Journey to Mars absent a significant infusion of funding to the space agency’s exploration budget. Clinton presidency Hillary Clinton has spoken about the SLS rocket and NASA’s Journey to Mars just once on the campaign trail.
She did so during an August speech on her jobs and economic plans at the Futuramic company offices in Macomb County, near Detroit. Until the year 2000, Futuramic was exclusively an automotive supplier, largely to the Ford Motor Company.

After the great recession, Futuramic emerged with other business interests, including aerospace and some SLS contracts. Enlarge / On August 11, 2016, Hillary Clinton toured Futuramic Tool & Engineering in Warren, Michigan before giving a speech there on the economy.

Futuramic is a major Space Launch System contractor. Bill Pugliano/Getty Images Clinton highlighted this transformation as part of her speech. “We all face choices in life, don’t we?” she said. “And this company could have just said, ‘Hey, you know, our business is not going to be what it was, we’ve got to just fold up, let's just kind of quit.’ But that's not what happened here, and what happened here is what can happen across America. You are in now what is largely an aerospace company...
I got to see what’s happening here to help build the SLS rocket that is going to go from Macomb to Mars.” However, Clinton has made no formal expression of her space policy.

A Clinton presidency could be supportive, neutral, or even negative toward SLS and Orion. Her answers to questions posed by Space News in October were generic and included the standard line of nearly all presidential campaigns, that NASA would enjoy the full support of a Clinton Administration. The Clinton campaign has not expressed specific space policies yet because the central campaign probably has no formal space policy. Rather, it has a network of largely informal advisers.

Ars has learned that, through these advisers, a Clinton presidency would likely continue many of Obama’s space initiatives, including robust support for the commercial space industry and Earth science research. Unlike Obama, Clinton would probably emphasize using NASA to further international diplomacy.

Bill Clinton championed the International Space Station, after all. A Clinton transition team also would look very hard at the Journey to Mars and weigh its costs and likelihood of eventual success.

As Ars has previously reported, at least one of Clinton’s advisors on space policy believes that refocusing NASA toward the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars makes more sense.
Since Mars and the Moon are where many of NASA’s international partners, most notably the European Space Agency, want to go, such a change would fit within Clinton’s goal of leading an international exploration effort.
It would also be an easier sell to Congress than fighting SLS and Orion. Trump presidency Until recently, even less was known about a potential Trump presidency.

By various turns during the primary and presidential campaigns, Trump has said he’d rather focus on filling potholes on Earth than sending humans to Mars, he’s said NASA is great, and he’s said America has the space program worthy of a “third world nation”. Donald Trump has recently expressed support for SpaceX. Spencer Platt/Getty Images However, the October 19 publication of a an op-ed in Space News, authored by Bob Walker and Peter Navarro, senior policy advisers to the Republican nominee, provides insight into where Trump’s space policy might go.
It paints Trump as something of a champion for commercial spaceflight and private companies like SpaceX. “SpaceX stands out as a company committed to a Made in America policy,” Walker and Navarro write. The op-ed is, in fact, bullish on the private sector’s ability to build large launch vehicles. “It makes little sense for numerous launch vehicles to be developed at taxpayer cost, all with essentially the same technology and payload capacity,” the op-ed states. “Coordinated policy would end such duplication of effort and quickly determine where there are private sector solutions that do not necessarily require government investment.” The op-ed didn’t criticize SLS or Orion directly, but it did not mention the government vehicles, either. Moreover Walker, a former chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, authored an influential Wall Street Journal commentary three years ago that explicitly called for the privatization of the US launch industry. Nevertheless, while these may be the wishes of a pro-business presidential candidate, bucking the will of Congress is another thing entirely, especially as some of Trump’s most die-hard supporters come from Alabama. (Trump’s first Senate endorsement came from Jeff Sessions, who has steadfastly stuck by him).

Given Trump’s dismissal of climate change as a serious issue, he could probably find common cause with Congressional Republicans to cut NASA’s Earth science research budget, which provides data to better understand how the planet’s climate is warming.
To a smart attacker, Twitter and other social networks are veritable cornucopias of personal information being broadcast for the world to see.
Scammers are already employing them for so-called "open source information gathering," but the researchers at...
Live from Las Vegas: over 40 video interviews with Black Hat USA conference speakers and sponsors. Wednesday Aug. 3, Thursday Aug, 4, starting at 2 p.m.

ET. The Dark Reading News Desk will return to Black Hat USA next week to bring you an exclusive look inside the conference: over 40 live video interviews with conference speakers, sponsors and industry experts. Our broadcast will stream live, right here, from 2 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.

E.T.  (11 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. P.T.) Wednesday, Aug. 3 and from 2 p.m. -- 6:10 p.m.

ET (11 a.m. -- 3:10 p.m. PT Thursday, Aug. 4. Your hosts, once again are myself (Dark Reading senior editor Sara Peters) and UBM's VP of Event and Content Strategy Brian Gillooly. We'll be having some fun, and more importantly, talking to this superb line-up of guests (subject to change): Wednesday, August 3 Jeremiah Grossman, Chief of Security Strategy, SentinelOne Bob Adams, Cyber Security Strategist, Mimecast Travis LeBlanc, Chief, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission  Andrew Krug, Security Researcher Hugh Njemanze, CEO, Anomali Aditya Gupta, CEO and Founder, Attify Stuart McClure, President and CEO, Cylance George Karidis, President, Cloud Technology Services, CompuCom Shehzad Merchant, CTO, Gigamon Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties, and Riana Pfefferkorn, Cryptography Fellow, both from the Stanford Center for Internet & Society Jeff Schilling, CSO, Armor Israel Barak, Head of Incident Response, Cybereason Dr. Zinaida Benenson, Chair for IT Security Infrastructures, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg Joe Loveless, Director of Product Marketing, Neustar Peleus Uhley, Lead Security Strategist, Adobe Michelle Cobb, VP of Worldwide Marketing, Skybox Security Paul Vixie, CEO of Farsight Security, Inc. Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek, Security Researchers Leo Taddeo, CSO, Cryptzone Kenneth Geers, Professor, NATO Cyber Centre Hal Lonas, CTO, Webroot Jamesha Fisher, Security Operations Engineer, GitHub Stu Sjouwerman, CEO and Founder, KnowBe4 Inc. Thursday, August 4 Jeff Melrose, Senior Principal Tech Specialist, Yokogawa Nadav Avital, Application Security Research Team Leader and Itsik Mantin, Director of Security Research, Imperva Jake Kouns, CISO, Risk Based Security and Christine Gadsby Director of BlackBerry's Global Product Security Incident Response Team (SIRT) Eva Galperin, Global Policy Analyst, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Cooper Quintin, Staff Technologist, Electronic Frontier Foundation Barmak Meftah, President and CEO, AlienVault Tom Nipravsky, Security Researcher, Deep Instinct Jian Zhen, SVP of Product for Endgame Chris Wysopal, Co-founder and CTO, Veracode Joyce Brocaglia, CEO Alta Associates, Founder Executive Women's Forum Brian Vecci, Technical Evangelist, Varonis Dan Kaminsky, Chief Scientist, White Ops Carl Herberger, Radware Wade Williamson, Director of Threats and Mike Banic, Vectra Michael Sutton, CISO, Zscaler Lance James, Chief Scientist, Flashpoint Rick Holland, VP of Strategy, Digital Shadows Jelle Niemantsverdriet, Director Cyber Risk Services, Deloitte Nikhil Mittal, Security Researcher Marco Ortisi, Senior Penetration Tester, European Network for CyberSecurity Tune in Wednesday at 2 p.m.

E.T. and join the fun.
If you see anything you like, share it with the hashtags #DRNewsDesk and #BHUSA.  How could you not find something you like here? We'll have new vulnerabilities being announced, Jeremiah Grossman talking about cyber insurance, Adi Gupta talking IoT security, Jelle Niemantsverdriet talking about designing better security for end users, Andrew Krug talking about hardening AWS, Peleus Uhley talking about automation, Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek talking car hacking, and Jennifer Granick and Riana Pfefferkorn talking about handling technical assistance demands from law enforcement.  Plus, these are live, four- or five-hour shows. That's like two back-to-back SuperBowls without halftime breaks and the first one went into overtime.

That's like two back-to-back Major League Baseball games that went into 12, 13, 14 innings.
So even if you aren't interested in the infosec content, at least tune in on Thursday afternoon to see how well Brian and I are holding up. Maybe if you send us water, medicine, and Reeses Pieces around the time Dan Kaminsky is talking about how we could lose the Internet, we'll survive all the way through to Marco Ortisi's discussion of recovering a RSA private key from a TLS session with perfect-forward secrecy.

Either way, it should be good viewing!  Black Hat’s CISO Summit Aug 2 offers executive-level insights into technologies and issues security execs need to keep pace with the speed of business.

Click to register.
Sara Peters is Senior Editor at Dark Reading and formerly the editor-in-chief of Enterprise Efficiency. Prior that she was senior editor for the Computer Security Institute, writing and speaking about virtualization, identity management, cybersecurity law, and a myriad ...
View Full Bio More Insights