6 ms·

It's not just the NSO group. Hacking Team is not exactly shy about the services they offer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Team https://en.wikipedia.org

It's not just the NSO group. Hacking Team is not exactly shy about the services they offer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Team FinFisher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinFisher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinFisher MiniPanzer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniPanzer_and_MegaPanzer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniPanzer_and_MegaPanzer

wahern 8y ago
Yeah, there's a cottage industry of security firms who sell exploits to the U.S. government directly or indirectly through big defense contractors. Many, and I personally have assumed _most_ (but without checking), are American firms. And, frankly, the Israeli industry has much to gain by advertising their prowess in order to bolster their IT security bone fides internationally. American firms are probably more discrete, so tabulating widely published exploits by country of origin wouldn't be a great metric to determine which country is doing the most work crafting exploits.
- avip 8y ago
  >the Israeli industry has much to gain by advertising their prowess in order to bolster their IT security bone fides internationally Absolutely. The Israeli Cybersecurity brand is built partially on such (sometimes unsubstantial) PR. The bubble is doing well though! almost 500 startups, > 1Billion$ VC funding in 2018 alone. Devs are happy.
  - golergka 8y ago
    Curious as to why you think it's a bubble. Israeli startups have had many successful exits in recent years, although mostly acquisitions, and not many big flops.
    - avip 8y ago
      It's just my unsubstantial opinion. Too many players raising too much money in a consolidated market. Bar some notable exceptions (NSO), this herd of misguided lemmings has one way out - acquisition by Checkpoint/Imperva/SalesForce. But maybe I'm wrong and we'll see 100 Mobileyes in the coming decade.
      - golergka 8y ago
        Oh, in case you meant infosec in particular, you might be right, I don't really know much about this industry.
        avip 8y ago
        Yes the numbers given above are just for the cyber sector.
      - toomanyrichies 8y ago
        At the risk of being pedantic- did you by chance mean "unsubstantiated"? :-) unsubstantiated (adj)- not supported or proven by evidence. unsubstantial (adj)- lacking material substance
        avip 8y ago
        Thanks. Your correction is welcome and not pedantic at all (it's rather substantial). More so as I've repeated this mistake twice.
        toomanyrichies 8y ago
        > it's rather substantial I see what you did there.
bjourne 8y ago
Wow! I had no idea there was a whole industry selling spyware to dictatorships. Surveillance equipment, yes, but not actual hacking tools. Really sickening. Must be why governments in Europe are so afraid of Huawei building 5G networks - they will only run Chinese spyware.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  It wouldn't even matter if Huawei doesn’t and has never used their position in infrastructure to conduct spying or surveillance. The very fact that they’re entirely reliant on the Chinese government makes them (and any of their employees on an individual level) vulnerable to Chinese policy needs, now or in the future.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  It's not that much different from mercenary outfits like The Company Formerly Known As Blackwater. They offer services to all sorts of unsavory regimes. Hackers for hire are just another iteration on the idea.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    No, it is very much dissimilar. Security personnel who work for Blackwater make a conscious decision to do so and are flown overseas to physically enact Blackwater's business decisions. Many (maybe most?) of the people who sell vulnerabilities and (to a lesser extent) exploitation tools to spyware firms are selling through brokers, and aren't directly connected to the ultimate end purpose of their work. You can say that people who sell vulnerabilities to unaffiliated-seeming, neutral-seeming, innocuous-seeming brokers ought to know better where their work is going to end up, and I suppose that's true, but it's still not the same dynamic as exists with Blackwater.
    - icelancer 8y ago
      Normally I agree with you on almost everything in this realm, since, well, it's your field of expertise. But XE/Blackwater/whatever has plenty of support staff enabling operators overseas. Just because you don't carry an M4 while you cash your check from the organization doesn't mean you aren't helping them in their missions. If you sell vulns and tools to spyware firms, you know exactly who the most likely high bidders are. It ain't the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
jmkni 8y ago
IIRC FinFisher was founded by the same guy who created Backtrack (now Kali Linux)?

wahern 8y ago

Yeah, there's a cottage industry of security firms who sell exploits to the U.S. government directly or indirectly through big defense contractors. Many, and I personally have assumed _most_ (but without checking), are American firms. And, frankly, the Israeli industry has much to gain by advertising their prowess in order to bolster their IT security bone fides internationally. American firms are probably more discrete, so tabulating widely published exploits by country of origin wouldn't be a great metric to determine which country is doing the most work crafting exploits.

avip 8y ago
>the Israeli industry has much to gain by advertising their prowess in order to bolster their IT security bone fides internationally Absolutely. The Israeli Cybersecurity brand is built partially on such (sometimes unsubstantial) PR. The bubble is doing well though! almost 500 startups, > 1Billion$ VC funding in 2018 alone. Devs are happy.
- golergka 8y ago
  Curious as to why you think it's a bubble. Israeli startups have had many successful exits in recent years, although mostly acquisitions, and not many big flops.
  - avip 8y ago
    It's just my unsubstantial opinion. Too many players raising too much money in a consolidated market. Bar some notable exceptions (NSO), this herd of misguided lemmings has one way out - acquisition by Checkpoint/Imperva/SalesForce. But maybe I'm wrong and we'll see 100 Mobileyes in the coming decade.
    - golergka 8y ago
      Oh, in case you meant infosec in particular, you might be right, I don't really know much about this industry.
      - avip 8y ago
        Yes the numbers given above are just for the cyber sector.
    - toomanyrichies 8y ago
      At the risk of being pedantic- did you by chance mean "unsubstantiated"? :-) unsubstantiated (adj)- not supported or proven by evidence. unsubstantial (adj)- lacking material substance
      - avip 8y ago
        Thanks. Your correction is welcome and not pedantic at all (it's rather substantial). More so as I've repeated this mistake twice.
        toomanyrichies 8y ago
        > it's rather substantial I see what you did there.

bjourne 8y ago

Wow! I had no idea there was a whole industry selling spyware to dictatorships. Surveillance equipment, yes, but not actual hacking tools. Really sickening. Must be why governments in Europe are so afraid of Huawei building 5G networks - they will only run Chinese spyware.

jplayer01 8y ago
It wouldn't even matter if Huawei doesn’t and has never used their position in infrastructure to conduct spying or surveillance. The very fact that they’re entirely reliant on the Chinese government makes them (and any of their employees on an individual level) vulnerable to Chinese policy needs, now or in the future.
roywiggins 8y ago
It's not that much different from mercenary outfits like The Company Formerly Known As Blackwater. They offer services to all sorts of unsavory regimes. Hackers for hire are just another iteration on the idea.
- tptacek 8y ago
  No, it is very much dissimilar. Security personnel who work for Blackwater make a conscious decision to do so and are flown overseas to physically enact Blackwater's business decisions. Many (maybe most?) of the people who sell vulnerabilities and (to a lesser extent) exploitation tools to spyware firms are selling through brokers, and aren't directly connected to the ultimate end purpose of their work. You can say that people who sell vulnerabilities to unaffiliated-seeming, neutral-seeming, innocuous-seeming brokers ought to know better where their work is going to end up, and I suppose that's true, but it's still not the same dynamic as exists with Blackwater.
  - icelancer 8y ago
    Normally I agree with you on almost everything in this realm, since, well, it's your field of expertise. But XE/Blackwater/whatever has plenty of support staff enabling operators overseas. Just because you don't carry an M4 while you cash your check from the organization doesn't mean you aren't helping them in their missions. If you sell vulns and tools to spyware firms, you know exactly who the most likely high bidders are. It ain't the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

jmkni 8y ago

IIRC FinFisher was founded by the same guy who created Backtrack (now Kali Linux)?