STE WILLIAMS

Automation, Exercises Shorten Response Time To Advanced Attacks

When Fenwick West LLP upgraded its security with next-generation firewalls and advanced malware detection systems, the law firm had to deal with a stark increase in alerts of potentially serious incidents.

Each incident required the IT security staff to investigate, collecting relevant log files and checking the system of any user involved in the event. While detection remains a problem for most companies, responding to those alerts as quickly as possible became the main hurdle for the firm, says Kevin Moore, Fenwick West’s director of information technology.

To help prioritize incidents, Moore’s team sifts through the alerts using a system to automatically collect relevant data and even do forensic analysis on the affected systems. To close the loop, the automated process can create firewall rules to block communications from the infected system that might otherwise be exfiltrating data from the company.

“The big advantage is that I can create an automated workflow,” he says. “If I see a device internally potentially infected with an APT attack … I can automate the response and insert into my firewalls a block of any egress traffic to that IP. I no longer have to jump from my desk and run to the machine to address the issue.”

Many analyses of breach data have highlighted the costliness of the average company’s inability to detect compromises. The Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR), for example, found that companies require weeks and months to detect an intrusion, while the attackers have typically completed their goals inside the network within days. In its Global Security Report, Trustwave found that the average breach was not detected for 210 days.

Yet slow response times also lead to much higher costs and a greater loss of data. In the recent Ponemon Institute’s Cost of Cybercrime survey, detection accounted for the highest proportion of costs, 28 percent, but incident response activities — such as containment, recovery, incident management, and investigation — accounted, in aggregate, for the other 72 percent of breach costs. Automating much of that activity can significantly reduce costs, experts say.

[From fully undetectable malware to low-volume targeted trojans, digital threats frequently do not have a signature, but companies can still prepare. See 3 Steps To Secure Your Business In A Post-Signature World.]

One way to reduce the time between detecting an attack and a full response is to practice incident response using exercises, says James Stevenson, EMEA security director for security firm Blue Coat’s advanced threat protection group. The recent Waking Shark II exercise, for example, allowed the Bank of England to test the ability of financial institutions to coordinate a response. While the exercise had some major flaws, it served as a way for participating organizations to dust off their incident response plans, Stevenson says. Quickly responding to an incident, and doing so in an intelligent way, can potentially prevent attackers from achieving their goals, whether that is harm to the network or theft of data, he says.

“You really need to reduce the attacker’s free time in your network,” he says.

Companies should also develop incident-response expertise within their security teams or put an incident-response service on retainer, says Chris Pogue, director of digital forensics and incident response at Trustwave, a security services firm.

“It is not just about detecting incidents and seeing them — it is understanding their significance and taking an action. That is an entirely different skill set than detecting the threats,” he says.

Yet whatever the level of a business’ incident response team, quickly responding to security threats means automating the response, says Neil Stratz, vice president of sales and marketing at NetCitadel, which makes an application to automate the collection of incident data and analyze the data in context of the business’ network.

“If they are not taking actions in the first hour, then they are behind the attackers,” Stratz says. “Throwing bodies at this problem is not going to work. There is not enough senior security analysts out there to go through these steps.”

Other systems automate the collection of data for investigation. Once a malware attack is detected, for example, piecing together every action taken by the program to track down other infected systems can dramatically shorten response and cleanup time, says Blue Coat’s Stephenson.

“You often need to rewind the tape and see where that malware has gone,” he says.

Until security firms offer a service to push a button and fix any issue or head off any attack, security teams will always feel that they are behind the attackers, says Fenwick West’s Moore.

“I think the hackers are getting a lot more sophisticated; they have a lot more resources than we have resources to combat it,” he says. “It seems like we are in a big catch-up game.”

Yet, while attackers still seem to be ahead, automation is helping companies shrink their lead, he says.

Have a comment on this story? Please click “Add Your Comment” below. If you’d like to contact Dark Reading’s editors directly, send us a message.

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/advanced-threats/automation-exercises-shorten-response-ti/240164338

SSCC 125 – Happy hour, forward secrecy, $300 extortions and LG unrepentant [PODCAST]

Bitcoin online bank robbery – “because that’s where the money is”

If you’ve got your wallet handy, take out a banknote – pretty much any banknote will do, in any currency – and find the serial number.

You shouldn’t have much difficulty – most central banks consider the serial number important enough that they print it more than once, sometimes in different colours and orientations.

Now write the serial number down on a piece of paper.

Chances are, for most of you, that’ll be the first time you’ve ever done anything that actively involves a banknote serial number. (There was no point in asking you to write it down, other than to make that point.)

For some of you, perhaps, it may even be the first time you’ve noticed that each banknote is uniquely labelled .

But I bet you one thing: if real banknotes didn’t exist, and all you had was a list of serial numbers like the one you just copied down, you’d look after that list pretty carefully.

You certainly wouldn’t hand the list to a stranger on the street and say, “Be a good chap, won’t you, and keep this in your pocket until I see you next week,” any more than you’d hand him your wallet full of cash to store for you.

But Bitcoins – the unregulated digital currency that has been hugely in the news lately, both for its soaring street value and its usefulness in paying the CryptoLocker malware ransom – are, very loosely speaking, stored and traded like our imaginary list of banknote serial numbers.

There are no offical Bitcoin banknotes or coins; just strings of digital data that act as cryptographic serial numbers, denoting which Bitcoins (or fractional parts of Bitcoins) are yours.

So, if you’re into Bitcoins, you want to watch that digital Bitcoin wallet of yours pretty closely, especially given the steepling surge in the cryptocurrency’s value in the past month.

→ Even the crooks behind CryptoLocker, who seem to have found that $300 is the sort of price point at which victims will pay up, while, say, $2000 is too high, have been forced to drop the Bitcoin cost of their extortion. What cost BTC2 a month ago is “only” BTC 0.5 now.

Nevertheless, many Bitcoiners seem to be big on risk, entrusting their precious Bitcoin assets to a wide range of online wallet services, where they are firmly in the sights of cybercrooks.

Bad luck if it all goes wrong, of course, because you’re not likely to get your money back.

Without any financial operators’ rules or consumer protection laws to help you out, things don’t end like they usually do with disputed credit card transactions. (In those, the bank takes the disputed amount back from the merchant and gives it to you. The merchant wears the loss.)

Sadly, a number of boutique Bitcoin merchants and wallet services have been cleaned out by hackers in the past month, including:

Each of these companies had been operating officially for only a few months, yet already had entrusted to them millions of dollars that are now in the hands of cybercrooks.

Just over a year ago, we wrote about the regrettable story of a youngster named Roman Shtylman, whose security lapse during a server upgrade led to unecrypted backups being stolen, costing his sideline Bitcoin business some $250,000 overnight.

That was back when Bitcoins were worth just over $10 each, compared to nearly $800 today.

So, you can see why hackers are more than merely interested in online Bitcoin repositories – and why you need more than just a hunch about a repository’s trustworthiness before you hand over your Bitcoin data.

Remember, you don’t have to keep your Bitcoins online with someone else: you can store your Bitcoins yourself, encrypted and offline.

In fact, you can do that with any and all of your digital possesions.

There was life before cloud storage, and there will be life after it!

Bitcoin banknote image from bitcointalk.org.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/VUK1V_-KGe0/

WikiLeaks’s Julian Assange unlikely to face charges

Julian AssangeThe US is unlikely to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, government lawyers say, given that they’d then have to turn around and prosecute newspapers and journalists.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that a formal decision hasn’t yet been made.

But former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller told the newspaper that Assange, like journalists and news outlets, merely published the leaks, as opposed to being the leaker himself, which puts him on the same legal standing as the New York Times, for example:

The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists. And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.

In fact, officials call it a “New York Times problem.”

If they go after Assange – now living under political asylum in a room in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London – they’d then have to go after journalists, the New York Times, and other publications, including The Post and The Guardian, all of which have published classified material such as the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) and other countries’ secret surveillance operations.

In spite of the lack of grounds on which to file charges against Assange and all the publications that have published classified material, there’s no clear indication that an announcement will be made if the grand jury investigation into Assange is formally closed.

Assange’s legal team has a problem with that.

Barry J. Pollack, an attorney for Assange, told The Post that inquiries into the status of the investigation have not been fruitful:

We have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell us what the status of the investigation was with respect to Mr. Assange. … They have declined to do so. They have not informed us in any way that they are closing the investigation or have made a decision not to bring charges against Mr. Assange. While we would certainly welcome that development, it should not have taken the Department of Justice several years to come to the conclusion that it should not be investigating journalists for publishing truthful information.

As for those who themselves leaked classified documents, Bradley Manning – he who fed documents to Assange – was sentenced to 35 years of prison in August. He’s already served three of those years.

Likewise, the US’s hunt for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who’s obtained temporary asylum in Russia, is still on.

US Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told The Post earlier in November that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is still trying to get Snowden back into the country to stand trial.

However, much like the Manning-Assange legal logic, Holder said that the DOJ doesn’t plan to prosecute former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, who is one of the journalists to whom Snowden fed documents.

Greenwald, a US citizen, has said that he fears prosecution if he returns to the US from his current home in Brazil.

Holder has said that neither Greenwald nor Assange will likely be prosecuted, but there’s an “unless” involved.

If investigators found that Assange, or Greenwald, are implicated in criminal activity other than publishing top-secret military and diplomatic documents, the gloves will come off.

Here’s what Holder told The Post:

Unless information that has not come to my attention is presented to me, what I have indicated in my testimony before Congress is that any journalist who’s engaged in true journalistic activities is not going to be prosecuted by this Justice Department.

That previously undisclosed information could include, for example, any evidence that might show that Assange hacked into a US government computer, a former law enforcement official told The Post.

And it’s the uncertainty of that “unless” that’s keeping Greenwald, for one, away.

As Greenwald told TruthDig, he doesn’t necessarily trust the US, given its track record regarding press freedom:

That this question is even on people’s minds is a rather grim reflection of the Obama administration’s record on press freedoms. … It is a positive step that the Attorney General expressly recognizes that journalism is not and should not be a crime in the United States, but given this administration’s poor record on press freedoms, I’ll consult with my counsel on whether one can or should rely on such caveat-riddled oral assertions about the government’s intentions.

What do you think? Do you trust the US to leave Assange and journalists alone, or do you share Greenwald’s suspicions, based on its track record?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/6oG2XB-bl00/

Only 24% of Europeans use different passwords for different websites

Europe. Image courtesy of Shutterstock.Around 50% of European internet users are concerned about the dangers of cybercrime and online identity theft; just under half feel well informed about the risks they take online; and up to 46% have taken steps to improve their online security, although for the most part that goes no further than installing anti-malware software.

But 18% have not made any changes in their behaviour in response to security concerns, and 48% have not changed any of their online passwords in the last 12 months.

This is according to a large-scale survey carried out by the European Commission’s Eurobarometer programme, questioning over 27,000 people across the European Union on their internet use, security attitudes and experiences.

The detailed report includes a wealth of stats taken from questioning people across the EU.

It starts with a general look at internet usage patterns, finding that over 70% of Europeans are online, with 54% accessing the web at least once a day. Of those, 70% say they are at least reasonably confident about their ability to shop and bank online, but only around 50% actually use these services.

So, it’s clear that a fair number of people who feel able to bank and shop online are not doing so.

Safety concerns and responses

The reason for this gap is likely to be at least in part a lack of trust in the safety of the internet. More than a third of web users questioned were worried about their personal data being abused when shopping or banking online, and a similar number were concerned about the security of online payment systems.

Both figures were slightly down on 2012 numbers though, showing at least a slight increase in general confidence.

In response to security concerns, 46% have installed anti-virus software, 40% are cautious about opening mails from strangers, and around one in three web users try to avoid giving out personal information or visiting unknown and untrusted websites. Just over a quarter only use their own hardware to go online, and just under that figure (24%) use different passwords for different sites.

It’s worth noting that these figures do not necessarily show the full number of people who take these safety precautions, due to the wording of the question.

It asks only if people have changed their behaviour due to security concerns, so it’s quite possible that some may have anti-virus installed for other reasons, for example if it came pre-installed on their PC, or may avoid giving out personal information simply because they are shy.

48% of web users said they had not changed any of their online passwords in the last year. Of those who had made changes, the highest figure was for webmail (31%) with social networks just behind on 26%. Online banking passwords were less likely to be changed, with only 20% changing in the last 12 months, and shopping site passwords were rarely changed, at only 12%.

This seems like the wrong way around, with online banking and shopping passwords most likely to give cybercrooks direct access to the cash they are after, so perhaps there is yet more need for education here.

Cybercrime attitudes and experiences

On average, 44% of those surveyed said they felt at least fairly well informed about the risks of cybercrime, an improvement over last year but still fairly disappointing. As in most categories, figures were higher in Northern Europe and amongst the young and well-educated.

Contrasting with responses to a previous question, 87% of web users avoid disclosing personal info online, while 76% think that their risk of becoming a victim of cybercrime has gone up in the past year – and the survey was carried out in May and June, before the latest waves of data leaks and password catastrophes.

In terms of actual experiences, nearly a third of web users said they had spotted a scam or phish on email or over the phone, with 7% saying it was a regular occurrence. 12% claimed to have had their email or social media accounts hacked, with the same number believing cyberattacks have prevented them from accessing online services (although it’s not made clear how they would know this was the case).

10% said they had experienced online fraud, 7% credit card or banking fraud and 6% identity theft. However, more (52% of internet users) were concerned about the risk of identity theft than worried about banking or card fraud (49%).

Slightly lower numbers were worried about account hacking, scams, dodgy purchases or stumbling across child porn, all between 42% and 45%.

In all areas, in the event of an online concern (including outages thought to be due to cyberattacks), the police were the most popular port of call.

Lessons to be learned

So, it seems like there’s something of a delicate balance between ensuring people are well educated about the risks of using the web, and scaring them off.

Many people seem to be put off using online services by the potential dangers, but few are taking all the necessary steps to carry out their online business in safety – indeed few are even doing the basics.

We clearly have a long way to go in educating people that the web can be used reasonably safely, if only they take the time to understand where the risks lie and how best to mitigate them.

I guess we’ll just have to carry on trying to spread that message, and see how we’ve done when the next study comes out.


Image of europe courtesy of Shutterstock.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/IDaamNHkYXM/

GCHQ was called in to crack password in Watkins child abuse case

Email delivery: 4 steps to get more email to the inbox

It was operatives at British intelligence agency GCHQ who cracked the password on the laptop of “determined paedophile” Ian Watkins, a court heard on Tuesday.

The evidence heard in court related to child abuse images held in cloud storage, whose password the GCHQ unit had to “crack” to gain access to them.


Ian Watkins, 36, from Pontypridd in Wales, pleaded guilty to 13 sexual offences, including two of attempting to rape a baby, at a hearing at Cardiff Crown Court. He denied a charge of rape.

He also pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault against children, seven involving possessing images of child abuse and one of possessing an extreme pornographic image involving a sex act on an animal.

Two women accused of facilitating the offences by Watkins, the former lead singer of alternative rock band Lostprophets, also made last-minute guilty pleas at the same hearing, after a jury had already been sworn in for a planned trial. Their pleas mean that a trial will not take place.

“You have been saved from having to watch extremely graphic and distressing material,” the BBC reported Mr Justice Royce as telling the court.

The women cannot be named for legal reasons. The first woman, whom the court called “Woman A”, admitted the attempted rape of a baby and two charges of sexual assault as well as taking and distributing an indecent photograph of a child. She denied a charge of rape.

The second, “Woman B”, pleaded guilty to conspiring to rape a child, three sexual assault charges and four charges of taking, possessing or distributing indecent images.

He will be sentenced on 18 December.

The attempted rapes, which took place in a hotel room in London’s Shepherds Bush in April 2012, were captured on video and uploaded to a cloud storage facility. Government security service GCHQ cracked the password to allow access to Watkins’ files, according to court reports (Wales Online and The Guardian).

The National Technical Assistance Centre of ‪GCHQ‬ provides assistance to police in such cases, the privacy advocacy and government surveillance monitoring Spy Blog notes.

In a statement by South Wales Police, Detective Chief Inspector Peter Doyle, senior investigating officer, said two young children had already been removed from abuse as part of the ongoing investigation. He said investigators would continue to seek out other potential victims. The UK’s specialist child protection police unit (CEOP), interpol and the US Department of Homeland Security have all contributed to the investigation, he added.

The investigation has been extremely complex and challenging with key information and evidence being identified from witnesses worldwide.

A significant amount of electronic data has been retrieved from computers and web based storage which has provided crucial evidence to support the case.

South Wales Police has worked in partnership with Interpol, other police forces, the National Crime Agency’s CEOP, local authorities in England and Wales, the Department of Homeland Security in the USA and the NSPCC.

Today’s outcome does not mark the end of our investigations and we will work tirelessly to identify any other victims or witnesses and seek the justice they deserve.

GCHQ’s role in the investigation goes is not specifically noted in the police statement, although investigators from the agency, who were tasked with gaining access to Watkins’ laptop, discovered that Watkins had “If***kids” set as his password.

GCHQ’s assistance to the Child Exploitation Online Protection Centre (CEOP) more generally was discussed by Sir Iain Lobban, director of the UK’s eavesdropping nerve centre, during a high-profile public hearing before Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee earlier this month.

During the hearing, Lobban acknowledged a previously unreported working relationship with CEOP and overseas partners in child abuse cases, as attested by an extract from the transcript. In the PDF, he explains that GCHQ’s signals intelligence work extends beyond counter-terrorism.

It is not simply about terrorism; it is also about serious crime. I could mention some of the work we do with the Child Exploitation Online Protection Agency; in terms of working with them to uncover the identities and track down some of those who are involved in online sexual exploitation of children within the UK, including from overseas. There is a recent case where we managed to do that, where we used our intelligence capabilities to identify those and with the help of the foreign partner then to bring them to justice and two people are now in jail.

Google and Microsoft recently bowed to political pressure in the UK by agreeing to tweak their search engines to make it harder for perverts to find child abuse images online.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron told a recent meeting of ISPs at Downing Street that GCHQ would be brought in to fight child abuse images on the so-called “dark net”. The prime minister also used the meeting as an opportunity talk up the “techniques, ability and brilliance of the people involved in the intelligence community, in GCHQ and the NSA in America”.

The revelations about the spook agencies’ work against crime – especially GCHQ’s role in helping children under threat – comes at a time when the respective agencies sorely need a bit of good PR in the wake of disclosures about mass surveillance, fibre optic cable-tapping and weakened internet encryption supplied by ongoing leaks from the NSA’s Edward Snowden. ®

Disaster recovery protection level self-assessment

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/27/gchq_role_watkins_child_abuse_case/

NexQloud Debuts Human ID Engine To Redefine DDoS Mitigation

CAMPBELL, Calif., Nov. 26, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — NexQloud is the world’s leading DDoS mitigation and uptime management platform. Developed with user experience in mind, NexQloud is capable of proactively resolving even the most complicated DDoS attacks with minimal user interaction.

NexQloud solves the DDoS problem inversely with the industry’s first Human Identification Engine, which addresses critical flaws in traditional mitigation systems and offers complete protection against Volumetric and Application Layer DDoS attacks. Using a combination of Anti-bot Defense, Smart AI, and Web API Protection, NexQloud sets a new precedent for DDoS Mitigation. In addition, NexQloud enhances uptime management through advanced website optimization and greater network transparency for real time and post event analysis.

Anti-bot Defense

Protocol ID, Browser ID and Challenge ID allow NexQloud to distinguish humans from bots through their respective defense methods of analyzing and tracing HTTP protocols, checking browser behavior patterns and challenging suspicious traffic requests.

Smart AI

Smart AI and its dynamic state monitor allows NexQloud to mitigate DDoS attacks with pinpoint accuracy. Smart AI also minimizes false positives in NAT networks and static policy based traffic.

Web API Protection

NexQloud’s virtual API throttling system boosts server performance and assures more available bandwidth. Geo IP control automatically denies malicious requests from suspicious regions.

Website Optimization

NexQloud’s search engine client ID system permits good crawlers to pass through and decreases response times, leading to improved SEO rankings.

Advanced Mitigation Analysis

Designed to be extremely user friendly, NexQloud’s suite of Threat Analytics tools are simple to use and understand. NexQloud’s dashboard displays past attack analytics, real time traffic and event analyses.

NexQloud will be available to the general public in 2014. Limited candidates will be accepted into NexQloud’s Prerelease Program and enjoy NexQloud’s comprehensive protection and uptime management completely free of charge for the duration of the program. Sign up now and be amongst the first to experience the future of uptime management!

URL: http://www.NexQloud.com

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/management/nexqloud-debuts-human-id-engine-to-redef/240164336

CryptoLocker & DNS Poisoning — PandaLabs Q3 Report

Bracknell, Nov 27, 2013.

PandaLabs, Panda Security’s anti-malware laboratory, has just published the results of its Quarterly Report for Q3 2013, drawn up by PandaLabs, the company’s anti-malware laboratory. One of the main conclusions that can be drawn from this global study is that malware creation has hit a new record high, with nearly 10 million new strains identified so far this year. In fact, the number of new malware samples in circulation in just the first nine months of 2013 has already met the 2012 figure for the entire year. Trojans remained the most pervasive threat, accounting for most new threats and infections worldwide.

One of the most notable –and notorious– threats over the past months was CryptoLocker, a new ransomware sample that hijacks users’ documents and demands a ransom for them

There was also a significant increase in the number of attacks that exploit DNS cache poisoning techniques. Several large websites hosted in Malaysia fell victim to this type of attack, including the local websites of companies such as Google, Microsoft or Kaspersky.

Android continued to be the top target among all mobile platforms, despite some high-profile attacks on iOS, Apple’s operating system.

Cyber-War: NSA remains in the eye of the storm

As far as cyber-espionage is concerned, the United States took the spotlight off China after new revelations emerged about the clandestine PRISM program operated by the NSA (National Security Agency) to obtain user data from major U.S. companies such as Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.

“Everything seems to indicate that there will be more revelations about other NSA surveillance programs to indiscriminately spy on users, companies and governments around the world”, said Luis Corrons, technical director of PandaLabs.

Q3 2013 malware statistics

Trojans once again topped the rankings, accounting for 76.85 percent of all new threats identified by PandaLabs, followed by worms (at a distant 13.12 percent), viruses (9.23 percent) and adware/spyware (0.57 percent).

Additionally, Trojans continued to be the weapon of choice for malware writers to infect users’ systems. 78% of all computer infections registered in the third quarter of 2013 were caused by Trojans, followed by viruses (6.63 percent), adware/spyware (6.05 percent) and worms (5.67percent).

Geographic distribution of malware infections

Latin America remained the most-affected area by malware. In any event, the ‘Top 10’ list of most infected countries includes nations from all over the world, with China at the top with nearly 60% of all computers riddled with malware, followed by Turkey (46.58 percent) and Peru (42.55 percent).

At the other end of the chart, Europe continues to have the lowest infection rates. The least infected countries were Netherlands (19.19 percent), United Kingdom (20.35 percent) and Germany (20.60 percent). The only non-European country in the Top Ten was Australia, in ninth place with 26.67 percent.

The quarterly report is available on our press site http://press.pandasecurity.com/press-room/reports/.

About PandaLabs

Since 1990, PandaLabs, Panda Security’s malware research laboratory, has been working to detect and classify malware in order to protect consumers and companies against new Internet threats. To do so, PandaLabs uses Collective Intelligence, a cloud-based proprietary system that leverages the knowledge gathered from Panda’s user community to automatically detect, analyze and classify the more than 73,000 new malware strains that appear every day. This automated malware classification is complemented through the work of an international team with researchers specialized each in a specific type of malware (viruses, worms, Trojans, spyware and other attacks) to provide global coverage. Get more information about PandaLabs and subscribe to its blog news feed at http://www.pandalabs.com. Follow Panda on Twitter at http://twitter.com/PandaComunica and Facebook at http://www.facebook/PandaSecurity.

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerability/cryptolocker-dns-poisoning-pandalabs/240164337

SSCC 125

WikiLeaks’s Julian Assange unlikely to face charges

Julian AssangeThe US is unlikely to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, government lawyers say, given that they’d then have to turn around and prosecute newspapers and journalists.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that a formal decision hasn’t yet been made.

But former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller told the newspaper that Assange, like journalists and news outlets, merely published the leaks, as opposed to being the leaker himself, which puts him on the same legal standing as the New York Times, for example:

The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists. And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.

In fact, officials call it a “New York Times problem.”

If they go after Assange – now living under political asylum in a room in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London – they’d then have to go after journalists, the New York Times, and other publications, including The Post and The Guardian, all of which have published classified material such as the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) and other countries’ secret surveillance operations.

In spite of the lack of grounds on which to file charges against Assange and all the publications that have published classified material, there’s no clear indication that an announcement will be made if the grand jury investigation into Assange is formally closed.

Assange’s legal team has a problem with that.

Barry J. Pollack, an attorney for Assange, told The Post that inquiries into the status of the investigation have not been fruitful:

We have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell us what the status of the investigation was with respect to Mr. Assange. … They have declined to do so. They have not informed us in any way that they are closing the investigation or have made a decision not to bring charges against Mr. Assange. While we would certainly welcome that development, it should not have taken the Department of Justice several years to come to the conclusion that it should not be investigating journalists for publishing truthful information.

As for those who themselves leaked classified documents, Bradley Manning – he who fed documents to Assange – was sentenced to 35 years of prison in August. He’s already served three of those years.

Likewise, the US’s hunt for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who’s obtained temporary asylum in Russia, is still on.

US Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told The Post earlier in November that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is still trying to get Snowden back into the country to stand trial.

However, much like the Manning-Assange legal logic, Holder said that the DOJ doesn’t plan to prosecute former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, who is one of the journalists to whom Snowden fed documents.

Greenwald, a US citizen, has said that he fears prosecution if he returns to the US from his current home in Brazil.

Holder has said that neither Greenwald nor Assange will likely be prosecuted, but there’s an “unless” involved.

If investigators found that Assange, or Greenwald, are implicated in criminal activity other than publishing top-secret military and diplomatic documents, the gloves will come off.

Here’s what Holder told The Post:

Unless information that has not come to my attention is presented to me, what I have indicated in my testimony before Congress is that any journalist who’s engaged in true journalistic activities is not going to be prosecuted by this Justice Department.

That previously undisclosed information could include, for example, any evidence that might show that Assange hacked into a US government computer, a former law enforcement official told The Post.

And it’s the uncertainty of that “unless” that’s keeping Greenwald, for one, away.

As Greenwald told TruthDig, he doesn’t necessarily trust the US, given its track record regarding press freedom:

That this question is even on people’s minds is a rather grim reflection of the Obama administration’s record on press freedoms. … It is a positive step that the Attorney General expressly recognizes that journalism is not and should not be a crime in the United States, but given this administration’s poor record on press freedoms, I’ll consult with my counsel on whether one can or should rely on such caveat-riddled oral assertions about the government’s intentions.

What do you think? Do you trust the US to leave Assange and journalists alone, or do you share Greenwald’s suspicions, based on its track record?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/eqyei-R85CA/