Keith Alexander: I'm Worth $1 Million Per Month Because I'm Patenting A Way To Stop Hackers (Which I Didn't Tell The NSA)
from the say-what-now? dept
The Keith Alexander story just keeps getting more and more bizarre. Almost immediately after retiring from the top position at the NSA, where he oversaw the total failure of the NSA's supposed "100% auditing" system, allowing Ed Snowden (and who knows how many others) to escape with all sorts of documents, Alexander announced that he had set up a cybersecurity firm -- with the ridiculously Hollywood-ish name of IronNet Cybersecurity. A month ago, it was revealed that he's going around asking banks to pay him $1 million per month for his "expertise." That caused a few to wonder if he's selling classified info, because really, what else could he offer?Alexander has a new answer: Patents! Yes, Keith Alexander is claiming that he has an amazing new anti-hacker technique that is brilliant and wonderful and deserving of at least nine patents. According to Shane Harris over at Foreign Policy:
Alexander said he'll file at least nine patents, and possibly more, for a system to detect so-called advanced persistent threats, or hackers who clandestinely burrow into a computer network in order to steal secrets or damage the network itself. It was those kinds of hackers who Alexander, when he was running the NSA, said were responsible for "the greatest transfer of wealth in American history" because they were routinely stealing trade secrets and competitive information from U.S. companies and giving it to their competitors, often in China.Of course, this leads to all sorts of questions. If Alexander had such a brilliant, patentable solution for stopping hackers, why didn't he, you know, use it while he was at the NSA. His response? He and an unnamed "partner" just came up with it in the last couple months after leaving office:
Asked why he didn't share this new approach with the federal government when he was in charge of protecting its most important computer systems, Alexander said the key insight about using behavior models came from one of his business partners, whom he also declined to name, and that it takes an approach that the government hadn't considered. It's these methods that Alexander said he will seek to patent.The report also notes that Alexander is a named inventor on seven patent applications filed while he was at the NSA (the US government keeps those), but that these new ones are totally separate.
Now, it is entirely possible that Alexander and his partner magically came up with some new way to deal with cybersecurity -- though I'm skeptical. Cybersecurity work involves an awful lot of trial and error in the real world, and Alexander is insisting already that his "fundamentally new approach" will "jump" ahead of existing technology. That's a bold claim for someone who hasn't ever actually done work in the commercial field. One thing that we've pointed out for years, is that people who have no experience in actually building a technology business almost always overvalue the idea, and undervalue the execution. It certainly looks like Alexander is doing exactly that. He thinks that based on the idea alone -- which is totally unproven -- he's worth $1 million per month. He claims three companies have already paid up, though he doesn't say who (or how much they're really paying). It seems likely that any actual payments are more because of Alexander's connections, rather than his brilliant "idea."
Harris spoke to another expert who notes that the approach Alexander is talking about (behavioral modeling) is one that's been talked about and tried for years without success. In other words, it's a perfect example of where ideas sound good, but execution matters. And yet, Alexander insists that his ideas alone -- which haven't been proven yet (and on which he hasn't even filed these supposed patents) -- are so amazing that they will change the nature of cybersecurity?
When Harris asks for more detail about the solution, Alexander wouldn't tell him any more "given the sensitive nature of the work." Except, of course, if he's filing patents on it, the details are supposed to be revealed the public in fairly short order (18 months at most). And, really, if the solution is so great, they should be getting it out there and testing it. Security by obscurity is not the best proving ground. Actually having your solution tested is.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: behavior modeling, cybersecurity, hackers, keith alexander, nsa, patents, surveillance
Companies: ironnet cybersecurity
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Easy to beat
I've got a one-step method to completely block hackers from important systems:Step one: Don't connect important and/or vital systems to the internet.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sure, I believe it.
Act now and I'll throw the Golden Gate Bridge in for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure, I believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy to beat
Step one: Don't connect important and/or vital systems to the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy to beat
You should patent that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easy to beat
What we used to call common sense is uncommon these days as our population's average intelligence goes swirly-ala-idiocracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to beat
Maybe one for not running unverified code on a production system?
That said, what makes some information important or vital is its ability to be communicated to the appropriate people. If not the internet, then it'll be by some other communications medium that is just as subject to advanced persistent threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to beat
1) a private network.
2) Ring back over POTS.
3) Remote site connects to a control room over the Internet after a port knock or similar.
Option three is to be avoided for actual control operations, but can be useful for status reporting, including triggering a status report.
The main point being the system should connect to a known control room before accepting any sort of command.
Often a remote sight only needs reporting to a control room, and any problem fixing outside the capabilities of its control system probably needs men on site.
The main system with need for remote control of systems, the railways, electricity distribution, gas and oil pipelines have an existing right of way for access to their kit, and so could, and should have installed the necessary network connections. Companies have have engaged in a false economy if they decided to save costs by using the Internet. An alternative would have been a private wire off of the phone companies, or ring back for occasional low bandwidth connections. A remote site should always have a land-line telephone for safety of of personnel when they have to visit the site, if this is not possible a fixed link radio.
A remote site should never, under any circumstances, accept any form of incoming connection. If needed it should have several alternative control room that it tries to connect to. Any engineer that needs to connect to it from outside a control room can do so via the control room system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy to beat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy to beat
yeah... wont work. NSA got a fix for that aka Quantum.Google it or
http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-quantum-program-leaked-edward-snowden-reveals-how-us-government-spies-off line-computers-1541438
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy to beat
1) The target computer has to have wireless capabilities
2) There has to be some sort of code running on the computer that knows to listen through your wireless device in order to accept fresh commands.
Neither of my two computers have wireless capabilities. They are connected by ethernet cable to my modem. If I yank out that cable, they're completely off the grid. There is no device in them to listen to wireless traffic (I'd know best, since I've built one from scratch and heavily modified the other).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy to beat
Patent number: xxx,xxx,xx4
Independent Claim 1)
Obtain radiation sensing equipment that can detect radiation in the 380nm to 750nm (400THz to 789THz) range, hereafter to be referred to as the MIOS (Mark I Ocular Sensor) (related patent xxx,xxx,xx1).
Independent Claim 2)
Obtain the Intergrated Ephemeral Externally Encumbered (IEEE) database that classifies all Critical Access By eLEctricity (CABLE) devices (related patent xxx,xxx,xx2).
Dependent Claim 1)
Use the MIOS to catalog all attached CABLEs to the Classified Obscure Material Plus Unnecessary Terrestrial Extraneous Resources (COMPUTER) device.
Dependent Claim 2)
In conjunction with the MIOS and IEEE database, classify the CABLEs as to their purpose.
Dependent Claim 3)
Using the classifications from Dependent Claim 2, identify all CABLE devices that are electrically connected to a Switching With Incoherent Technology Can't Hypothesize (SWITCH) device.
Dependent Claim 4)
Use the Hard Analytical No-nonsense Dextrous (HAND) device (related patent xxx,xxx,xx3) to remove the CABLEs' ability to relay electricity between the COMPUTER and the SWITCH identified in Dependent Claim 3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy to beat
Maybe if you turn it off and put it in your basement unpowered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality
Same old crap he has been peddling for years.
All talk and bluster, No substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skeptical
Me too. Over the years, I've frequently heard people (inevitably new to the field) proclaim revolutionary discoveries in computer security and crypto. Every single time, their ideas were new only to them and had, in fact, been investigated and developed or discarded by others -- often decades (sometimes dozens of decades) earlier. All of the real advances I've seen have come from years of hard work, and usually from mathematicians.
That's not to say he hasn't found something revolutionary, but the odds of it are really very small.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Skeptical
Also not new. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 6x6?!
He needs at least a 6.1/6.1 cell.
Gotta add an extra .1 for his ego after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 6x6?!
The known multiverse would die a heat death before we could build a cell large enough to encompass this corporeal entity's ego.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering the love he gets from that community it doesn't seem that unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, there's a reason he has experience with APTs -- that's exactly the method intelligence agencies use to do their dirty work; Stuxnet being a prime example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've got a patented solution to stop hackers!
Oh, wait. That only works after the fact. Nevermind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And here's Keith proving my point. He wants to be paid a million a month, for a total of 18 million dollars for a product he promises to patent in 18 months.
I don't think customers would be getting much value for their money. Can you imagine if Nvidia sold a graphics card with the promise of patented technology a year and a half from now? Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior art! CSI did it first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've got to be kidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've got to be kidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You've got to be kidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You've got to be kidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can we tell who hires him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: can we tell who hires him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News flash
*Yawn*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let Me Guess His Proposal
One million dollars per month for protection...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BS
He's probably just used to being able to BS his way through everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another con man running a con game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Skeptical
Probably one-way hashing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function
The output is typically a constant size regardless of the input, thus nearly infinite "compression". Though just deleting the file is even more effective and just as useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why did he wait?
You do realize that while in the employ of the US government any and all patents that one files while so employed belong to the government, and all profits therein?
Ignore what he said. That's the real reason why he waited until after he retired.
But that's not to say he's got anything really patentable..just that he wanted to make money.
One way or the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's $1m a month now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stating the Obvious
Keith Alexander is a patriot because he has come up with revolutionary techniques that could virtually end the threat of cyber-terrorism in the USA, and he's happy to share them -- with anyone that pays him enough money.
(Please suspend disbelief re the idea that KA's ideas have any merit.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOP TEN List...
10: automatic power-down of computer when it detects any internet packets.
9. to be announced (put yours here)
8. tba
7. tba
6. tba
5. tba
4. tba
3. tba
2. tba
1. tba
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOP TEN List...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents my ass. He did not even have a Plan B for Snowden type cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where it came from...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pants on fire...
Translation:
He's lying again. That part is a certainty, as its just about the only thing he learned during his time with the NSA - how to lie with a straight face about almost everything to almost anyone. That, and of course, how to steal information from the world.
The planned patents on behavior modelling is simply the "look over there" trick he's using to cover up his selling of NSA insider secrets to the highest bidders.
Since the companies he's gonna sell to will not want anyone to know they've purchased government secrets to help them protect their information from spies and bad guys, they're willing to claim that they are merely using Alexander's patented behavior modelling software. It will part of the deal after all.
So yeah, he's just another crook, selling what he's stolen to other crooks... business as usual.
But the most important part of his statement is this:
"It was those kinds of hackers who Alexander, when he was running the NSA, said were responsible for "the greatest transfer of wealth in American history" because they were routinely stealing trade secrets and competitive information from U.S. companies and giving it to their competitors, often in China."
This is a statement designed to lay the groundwork for a cover up of something that has yet to be disclosed - a huge multifaceted theft and resale of a various trade secrets by members of the NSA that will soon become world news and which will of course be blamed on these unknown mysterious (: and probably Chinese :) "super-hackers".
Like I've said from the outset, the NSA has been using its vast pseudo-legal spying apparatus to steal foreign and domestic trade secrets and to blackmail their enemies and competitors and to ruin the lives of Americans and others who they think might interfere with, or prevent their continued top secret, government approved and protected crime wave.
This massive theft - ""the greatest transfer of wealth in American history" - will obviously become breaking news very soon, and Alexander wants the public to already know in advance that it was the Chinese that done the deed.
Now that's a slick bit of sleight of hand, and probably why the NSA is letting him sell trade secrets - in return for the pre-education of the US Public - about a crime that was pulled by the NSA, but will be blamed on the Chinese by the Truth Free Press and The Most Transparent Administration In American History, once the news actually breaks.
What a total dick head!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What patents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably just a new Trolling Tactic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What bank would really pay the guy millions of dollars just because he says he can keep hackers from banks? I'm sure new ways are found every day for hackers? How could he really prevent them? He can't think ahead and no computer has the ability to truly think like a human brain does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just my opinion, and you don't have to agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]