lawful intercept/IOS at BlackHat DC, bypassing and recommendations

Valdis.Kletnieks at Valdis.Kletnieks at
Mon Feb 8 18:37:26 UTC 2010

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:04:22 PST, "andrew.wallace" said:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Gadi Evron <ge at> wrote:
> > "That peer-review is the basic purpose of my Blackhat talk and the
> > associated paper. I plan to review Cisco’s architecture for lawful intercept

> Gadi Evron has absolutely no connection to this research whatsoever. 

For the benefit of those who just fell out of a tree - anytime a conference
paper abstract says "review", it's pretty certain that the presentation won't
be cutting 0-day technical stuff, but a *review* of stuff that half of us
already know, for the benefit of getting the other half up to speed.

Also - note that the skillset needed to be a cutting-edge researcher is *very*
different from the one needed to actually present a good review talk and have
the information retained by the audience. (I've done overview presentations.
It's definitely not easy to make the points "You should be doing X, Y, and Z,
and here's why you should invest the time and effort to do so").

> He is famous in the security community for piggybacking off other peoples
> research.

You apparently fail to understand that making other people's research well
known in the community is an important role.  Would we be more secure, or
less secure, if somebody did the research, but then nobody told the owners
of all that Cisco gear about it? (Hint: "pwned router" is never a good
day for the network provider)

Or would we as a community be more safe, or less safe, if <trollbait> SANS
didn't do security traning courses </trollbait>?

> Andrew

> Security consultant

Is that what you're calling yourself these days?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list