On 19 Jan 2014, at 9:59 , coderman <[email protected]> wrote: > > 0. not trying to be a dick, but a dismissive chick label in this > situation intentional. employing attractive women (or men?) to HUMINT > targets may be par for the social engineering conference course, > but subterfuge based in sexual wiles == cheap shots and disrespect. > > oh how hard i had to work to stifle a chuckle when $fed_chick > explained she was "in desktop security but moving into laptops..." > > see also: "beware strangers with candy”
Actually, for the feds that isn’t an entirely dumb idea, if their honey traps can’t manage to pretend to be delegates. Being so obviously fake, there’s a good chance that less paranoid delegates might assume she’s just trying to steal hardware from people who aren’t likely to want to report the circumstances (or trying her luck for a soon-to-be rich start-up king), and feel confident enough in their precautions to take that risk for a quick lay. (Of course, as demonstrated by numerous hacks at Blackhats many people aren’t paranoid enough even when they should be alerted to the heightened risk.)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
