Talk:Michael Lynn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Michael Lynn, has edited Wikipedia as
Abaddon314159 (talk ยท contribs)

Contents

[edit] Comments by subject

So I'd like to point out that at no point was I ever planning to give the VOIP talk, that presentation was up there because I had to promise the Black Hat organizers that I wouldnt give the original talk, I carried a router on stage because I never had any intention of giving any talk other than the router one. Also with regards to when I quit, I quit about an hour before my presentation, I was not fired, although I was told that if i had given it without quitting I would have been fired. I hope that clears things up a bit. --Michael Lynn 02:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I've made some changes that bring the article more into line with it. Were you told by ISS that you would be fired before or after you quit? --Bungopolis 04:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I was told before I quit that I would be fired if I didn't play ball on this issue (meaning I had to not give the talk) --Michael Lynn 06:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My middle name is not Taylor, its Thomas, can someone who isn't me fix that... --Michael Lynn 11:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libel

I realize that this was most likely not intentional, but the change that is implying that i disclosed vulnerability details is a seriously wrong one, and one that I'd conider to be liabless you have to consider that if that were true I'd be out of a job. The legal implications would have been huge for me, not to mention ethical. Its not a POV issue, either I did, or I didn't release details, and all my conference materials are available online, and there is no discussion of the vuln within them. Also no-one reproduced my work, thats how you know I didn't give out vulnerability details, this should be changed now unless you can source where I disclosed vuln details publicly... --Michael Lynn 03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the edit that claimed I had disclosed vulnerability details in my presentation, I consider this to be libel. I normally wouldn't edit my own article but this is a serious claim, and comes at the one time of year that I get more media attention than any others (thus increasing the likelyhood that the libel would due actual damage). The crux of the matter is this, if I had released vulnerability details I would have been subject to much more serious legal action. It might have opened me up to criminal charges, and the ethical implications would have been huge for me. In the security industry to release vulnerabilty details, at all, for something this serious before the vendor can deal with it in full would be massively unethical. You can say that its not sourced, but given the implications that were made (quite unintentionally I have no doubt) I think that should be what is sourced. However if you really need a source, you can find my conference material online, in it you can find no details of any packet formats, and protocols, and indications of which service or component might be effected, I mention nothing about a vulnerability aside from that it exists. Furthermore I even have a slide stating that I will not under any circumstances be giving out vuln details during my talk. I would love to link to the slides, but its a part of my court order that I'm not allowed to posses my conference materials, and I'm also barred from posting links to them online, but it shouldnt be too hard to find. Again I'm sorry that I edited my own article, but under the circumstances I feel it was the better thing than to leave it until tomorrow when people see the complaint (keep in mind that Black Hat is going on right now, and that always brings more attention to me during that time). If you have any questions concerns or complaints about how or why i did this, feel free to post them here or on my user talk page, but I'd caution you not to add this assertion again. BTW, again, i do understand that the editor most likely did not understand the implications of his edit, and thus im not mad at anyone, but it is my reputation at stake and I take it seriously --Michael Lynn 04:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to examine this closely, but I have no problem with you removing libelous (mis)information, from your own bio or from anyone else's.Proabivouac 05:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That fine. Personally, I don't see a problem with you editing information on your own page. I'm familiar with the slides and I thought(but I am probably mistaken) that you did discuss *some* of your techniques and thats what I was alluding to. In any event I'll leave that alone for now and if I make further changes they'll be more specific and sourced. Dman727

[edit] Sources

Are there any mainstream news sources for this bio? Blogs aren't generally considered reliable sources.Proabivouac 09:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

if you do some searching there is an Associated press Bio, but its short, you can take my word for it if you want, I'm not sure anything in there that isn't from a news article from a reliable source is overly flattering, but its not like there is a published biography of my or anything... --Michael Lynn 09:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to the AP story? As it is, only the BBC piece leaps out at me, but even here its unsigned/unattributed - who knows where its from? I suppose Wired is vaguely notable. Would you agree with me that uncited or very poorly-cited material should be removed?Proabivouac 13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the worst time of year to be searching for my name on the net, Black Hat (the conference where the incident that made me notable internationally) is going on, so a search on a site like good news is going to mention me in at least half the articles about that conference (because they seem to have nothing better to talk about i guess)...with regards to removing weakly sourced material I'm not going to stop you from removing anything, but I would question the reasoning behind it...Keep in mind that you're reading a posting from a primary source (me) right now, I can see the arguement for removing something that is in dispute at all, even something that is unsourced that may apear to be unsourced flattery, but as far as basic biographical information I'm not sure the article would be made better by removing basic information that is not in dispute and that is certified to be correct by the subject of the article...--Michael Lynn 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, If the question of my notworthyness is in question google my name, I've been written about by the new york times, the washington post, the wallstreet journal, you name it, and I continue to any time they talk about a variety of security issues. here are some links (the older the articles get the harder it is to find good links for them, but they're all in print still if nothing else)...

recent articles (last few days, so you know it wasn't just a small flash in the pan)

also, im a co-author of this book, you can find a bio in there if you really need

some of the dead links can be found on such sites as Bruce Schneier's blog (where he clearly links to the AP)Michael Lynn 03:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thank you.Proabivouac 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Michael Lynn

Purged references to this man. Please disregard my invitation in the page history to "bring him back when you find a reference": it's the wrong guy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Caught one other in the lead. MSJapan (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)