full-disclosure - Evidence of fake security research from SecurStar GmbH

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <D9165717-E913-42E3-944C-118F7DA976AF@infosecurity.ch>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 00:41:21 +0100
From: Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) <lists@...osecurity.ch>
To: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Evidence of fake security research from SecurStar
	GmbH

Ok, now we have the evidence: The research was a fake security  
research arranged for a marketing campaign.

They was able cheat most journalists, bloggers and security magazines.

I don't remember in all my life a so irresponsible and dirty marketing  
trick in the security world, abusing of hackers reputations.

Read below, they leaked the IP of the anonymous author of http://infosecurityguard.com 
  and it's confirmed that it come from SecurStar GmbH office:

Evidence that infosecurityguard.com/notrax is SecurStar GmbH – A fake  
independent research on voice crypto (by me)
Dishonest security: The SecurStart GmbH case (by me)
Debunking Infosecurityguard identity from Matteo Flora .

It's hilarious and unbelievable that a security company had done  
something like this.

Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)

On 30/gen/10, at 15:51, Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> i don't know how many of you have read about the analysis done on http://infosecurityguard.com 
>  .
>
> I have made a detailed analysis of their initiative and the result  
> is that:
>
> - it's most probably a camouflage marketing initiative and not a  
> independent security research
> - they consider a security context where local device has been  
> compromised (no software can be secured in that case)
> - they do not consider cryptographic security arguments
>
> Below my analysis on this (read it carefully):
>
> http://infosecurity.ch
>
> Maybe it's interesting, maybe not, but for sure some facts are very  
> relevant!
>
> Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/