Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security Businesses

Intelligence Start-Up Goes Behind Enemy Lines To Get Ahead of Hackers 54

anlashok writes: The Times profiles a company called ISight, which sells computer security intelligence gathered by professionals from the "dark web". From the article: "ISight's investors, who have put $60 million into the company so far, believe that its services fill a critical gap in the battle to get ahead of threats. Most security companies, like FireEye, Symantec, Palo Alto Networks and Intel's security unit, focus on blocking or detecting intrusions as they occur or responding to attacks after the fact. ISight goes straight to the enemy. Its analysts — many of them fluent in Russian, Mandarin, Portuguese or 21 other languages — infiltrate the underground, where they watch criminals putting their schemes together and selling their tools."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intelligence Start-Up Goes Behind Enemy Lines To Get Ahead of Hackers

Comments Filter:
  • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @06:41PM (#50522391) Journal
    I have always been uncomfortable with the potentially mutually beneficial nature of the roles of security provider and security breach specialist.
    • As I am from China, and have picked up quite a bit of Russian while I was in school at China, can I go rogue, join up with the hackers, create all kinds of cyber mayhems, and then turn around sell the information to those on the 'white side' of the line?

      The whole thing is mindbogglingly ridiculous!

      Are we going to encourage the hackers to create yet another stream of income by selling outdated info of the dark side?

  • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @06:57PM (#50522429)

    Is it black hat or white hat hacking?

    It's kind of hard to tell them apart with schemes like this. Oh yea, we will infiltrate the "bad guys" and get tipped off to their activities before anybody else knows, or we will invent some new attack vector, sell it to the bad guys and get loads of money from your because only we know enough to protect you from what the bad guys are doing.. You cannot know the difference....

    Problem with this is you will never know and you will be letting some outfit with admitted ties to some bad actors have access to your network security systems... What could possibly go wrong?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      So true.

      The nsa got extra funding to protect us from terrorists. What did they use it for? To spy on their spouses if they were cheating on them.

      I feel safer already.

    • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      well the thing is, they're selling "stuff" anyone could go find from the dark web, so there's that.

      oh the days of just having all that stuff on rootshell

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's green hat hacking. 60 million, lol. Way to set fire to a pile of cash.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Who's a good little mini NSA? You are! Yes, you are. I'm so proud of you!

    I wouldn't be so sarcastic and probably even be supportive of it if it weren't a recipe for abuse. A company or organisation would eventually abuse it and then claim it was legal and nothing wrong.

    Extra points if you can lie in front of congress.

  • by WSOGMM ( 1460481 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @07:52PM (#50522629)

    If your operations can be carried out in specific countries, you might be able to bypass some anti-hacking laws, or at least diminish some of the potential legal blame of 'going too far'. If you have to limit your offensive capabilities, there are probably ways of cataloging/surveying/classifying incoming attacks and thwarting them without doing anything illegal. The main factor in the success of this business relies on them providing monetarily valuable information to potential targets.

    That said, what they say they're doing is not illegal, and it is probably already practiced by most security companies. It's just a business pitch. From TFA, they spend their time

    monitoring underground chatter and markets, analyzing computer code meant to cause harm, watching the networks of potential attackers and poring over social media channels for signs of imminent attacks.

    • I find it morally wrong to know of crimes that are about to be and giving that information only to those people who have paid you money. They should be stopping the attacks for everyone by alerting the authorities. But then there's no profit in that.

      I wonder if there could be a case made against them for profiting because of an act of a crime. By not telling some of the potential victims they are conspiring with the hackers. I'm sure some lawyer would have a go with it.

      • > By not telling some of the potential victims they are conspiring with the hackers. I'm sure some lawyer would have a go with it.

        What, you expect me to call you, and every other person in the world, personally? Why don't YOU have a go at that. YOU go monitor the cracker forums and such, then call me when you see something interesting. For free. You'll start doing that tomorrow, right?

        No? Well those of us who spend our working hours on this stuff have to eat too. So yeah, if you want instant ana

  • The "hackers" will just their methods.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You accidentally the whole verb

  • Businesses that attempt to monetize threat modeling have been around for a long time without the same scrutiny a lot of you are giving this company. Is it immoral for a company that makes antivirus software to not give their software away for free rather than charging money? Do you think the moral thing to do would be to just go out of business instead of charging money? If you aren't currently an IT security expert working for a non profit or for free, I invite you to apply your train of thought to just as
  • Brian Krebs has been doing this for awhile now.
    http://krebsonsecurity.com/ [krebsonsecurity.com]

    Someone's just taking it to the next level - not a bad idea at all IMHO.

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...