Former Uber Security Chief Charged with Concealing Hack
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Edit: Yes. https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/1296522269313785862?s=...
Edit2: full indictment https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/press-release/file/1306781...
Here's his "why I am joining Cloudflare " post: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-im-joining-cloudflare/
He was also a member of Obama's "Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity" : https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/0...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudbleed#Cloudflare
Tavis Ormandy said:
I had a call with cloudflare, and explained that I was baffled why they were not sharing their notification with me.
They gave several excuses that didn't make sense, then asked to speak to me on the phone to explain.
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=11...
Cloudflare did finally send me a draft. It contains an excellent postmortem, but severely downplays the risk to customers.
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=11...
Maybe that was before this guy's tenure, not sure. The point is that most companies do this, and users and customers should push back on it.
That predates him joining Cloudflare, as far as I can tell.
As much as cloudflare downplayed the vulnerability, it's nothing in comparison to how much researchers overplayed it.
If people really gave a shit about the impact on the poor affected innocents, the best thing to do was to fix it silently and wait 30 days for internet caches to clear before disclosing. Also raise an immediate deletion request to google on the 100 or so affected pages it stored in cache, that's ridiculously little compared to the alleged impact.
Records further indicate Uber’s management team, with the sole exception of Uber’s C.E.O. at the time, had no contemporaneous knowledge of the details of the data breach and had no role in the decision to treat the breach under the Bug Bounty program.
Does this suggest that Travis might be guilty as well?There’s more to this story that is being told to the public.
So, no, this is just run of the mill executive cover-up. The only reason there is a federal charge here is because he lied to the FTC to make it happen.
I still think it should be on the shareholders to hire brutally honest employees and CXX's or face the consequences of fines from employees concealing successful hacks. Don't put stress of having to manage expectations of greedy shareholders that don't want to hear about hacks and having the threat of some prosecutor somewhere drawing their own grey blurry line in the sand and saying you crossed it. That stress should 100% be on the shareholders - they will have to make sure to hire the right people and make the right culture that won't conceal hacks for internal, political purposes and external PR purposes.
If we're going to keep ignoring corporate law and go after employees for their own mistakes, we're never going to fix our objectively awful collective security culture in our tech companies where we work and we're never going to hold greedy shareholders for the shit they could have prevented by fixing their employees' security culture.
In 2014 Uber was hacked and the FTC opened an investigation In 2016 Uber was hacked again but Sullivan supposedly didn't disclose this to the FTC
* Why would he be compelled to disclose information to the FTC about an incident unrelated to the one being investigated?
* The charge of "Misprision of felony" is new to me: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4
Since when does anyone have an obligation to report felonies to law enforcement? If I overhear some kids planning to burglarize a house, I have a legal obligation to report that? Isn't freedom of speech involved here?
No, because you did not become aware of the commission of a felony. If you overheard those same kids discussing a murder they had committed, yes, you are legally liable if you sit on that.
Isn’t this common knowledge?
I shared a general legal principle. If you become aware of the commission of a felony and leave a significant amount of evidence showing that you intended to conceal it, it’s absolutely open and shut, and you will be treated as an accomplice. All Americans have a duty, whether they like it or not, to disclose commission of a crime for investigation. Failure to do so can lead to liability down one of several paths. This is one of them.
Freedom of speech is completely irrelevant.
There’s a famous YouTube video of a law professor encouraging people to never talk to the police.
Civics classes regularly tell students they have an absolute right to stay silent.
The idea that US citizens have an obligation to report crimes is not obvious, and sounds like “compelled speech.“
If this is true, I find it shocking. I thought I had an almost infinite right to keep my mouth shut, and the exceptions involved a judge telling me “you must answer the question” - or at least signing a warrant.
It’s not archaic - US federal prosecutors still use it. But they insist that the accused actively participated in covering up the crime. Or, at least, had a special obligation to report.
So this isn’t obvious or well known, and probably is a good candidate for reform.
You’re missing an element of the crime. Here are the elements according to the Ninth Circuit, which is the jurisdiction in which Sullivan is being charged.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 4, “the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: ‘(1) that the principal . . . committed and completed the felony alleged; (2) that the defendant had full knowledge of that fact; (3) that he failed to notify the authorities; and (4) that he took affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principal.”
So merely failing to report a felony, even one you directly witnessed, does not give rise to a criminal act under the law. Otherwise every witness to a a crime could be considered a criminal if they didn’t report it. You have to engage in some act of concealment as well.
Regarding the misprision of felony, the statute says "actual commission of a felony", so kids planning to burglarize a house does not count, but if you know that they have committed a felony (kids breaking&entering into a house is not necessarily a felony), then this statute would apply.
If someone is attacked and they accept money not to press charges, isn’t that concealing a crime to authorities?
Covering up a rape, however, would be one of the elements of misprision of a felony, although this would be on a state by state basis since rape and other sexual and violent crimes are typically violations of state and not federal law.
edit: found one:
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/20/904113981/former-uber-executi...
So, COO kept in the dark. Is "Need-to-Know basis only" standard corporate cover-up practice?