How Secure Channels Attempted to Intimidate a Critic and Failed Spectacularly

Secure Channels is a startup cryptographic company that's off to a rough start — so much so that it's been reduced to using anonymous Twitter accounts to accuse a critic of criminal copyright infringement.

Crowing that its encryption technology was "unbreakable" and "unhackable," Secure Channels hit the security conference circuit, offering dazzling rewards — cold hard cash and a new BMW — to anyone who could decrypt a file encrypted by Secure Channels' products.  Brian Krebs, a journalist covering security issues,1 called Secure Channels to the carpet, calling Secure Channels' stunt a "cleverly unwinnable series of contests," as inability to break the result of a process does not mean that the process itself cannot be undermined.   Krebs questioned the company's honesty, noting that Secure Channels CEO Richard Blech had pleaded guilty to securities and wire fraud for his participation in a "massive Ponzi scheme."

After taking its beating, Secure Channels backtracked, using an outside public relations firm to issue a statement to Krebs promising to do better:

We realize that sometimes a technology innovator’s earliest critics can be their best sources of feedback. We hope to solicit constructive involvement from  the infosec community and some of its vast array of experts.”

This promise hasn't panned out.

Asher Langton is one of Secure Channels' critics.  In addition to his infosec expertise, Langton is a master at spotting and unraveling frauds, scams, and snake-oil peddlers.  He's highly worth a follow on Twitter.

There, Langton has criticized Secure Channels' lofty claims, its employees for reviewing their own product, the company's near-verbatim use of others' articles to promote itself2, and raised evidence suggesting that one of Secure Channels' products was simply a rebranded version of a product available elsewhere for free.  In addition to raising questions about Secure Channels' general credibility, Langton also pointed out a potential security flaw: hardcoded into one of Secure Channels' products was, apparently, the password to its own gmail account, which was used to send password reset codes to the user.  Thus, there was the potential that a reset code could be intercepted and the encryption wouldn't matter at all.

So how did Secure Channels respond to this criticism?  It welcomed his criticism, thanked him for helping to point out potential flaws, and described how it would address the issue, like a responsible and transparent security company would.

This week, two new Twitter users began machine-gun bursts of tweets directed at Langton's employer and, uh, Roseanne Barr for some reason.

These tweets claimed, among other things, that Langton had engaged in criminal copyright infringement, although it's unclear whether Langton's supposed guilt arose from tweeting screenshots or decompiling Secure Channels' source code.  In either case, the claims are patently frivolous: reverse engineering for personal use is certainly a fair use, and posting screenshots of snippets of code for criticism of a company that purports to invite criticism only reinforces a fair use analysis.  The suggestion otherwise is the result not of a reasoned interpretation of the subtleties of law, but of a layman's interpretation of what they hope the law to be, because it serves their barenuckled attempt to intimidate a critic.3

How do I know the interpretation is a layman's?  Well, in addition to being just plain wrong, the anonymous users' tweets included screenshots of Langton's tweets — including the poster's browser tabs:


Today, friends, we're learning how to take a screenshot and the basics of computer crime laws from PBS.

But a how-to-take-a-screenshot guide won't teach you common sense, like logging out of your original Twitter profile when taking a screenshot to preserve your anonymity.  Screenshots posted by both of the anonymous accounts feature the Twitter profile picture of Deidre "Dee" Murphy, the Director of Marketing for Secure Channels.  In other words, it's likely that the 'anonymous' accounts were operated by, or in conjunction with, one of Secure Channels' executives.4

So much for a commitment to listening to critics.

Update (9/4/15 12:15pm):  About an hour and a half after this post went live, SecureChannels CEO Richard Blech (or someone claiming to be him) sent a DMCA notice to Twitter for two of Langton's tweets, complaining that they consisted of "employee pics, company and personnel, posts copyright material, hacks products and posts copyright code from products, using trademarks, targeted harassment, slander to destroy commerce."  As for the description of the "original work," Blech blathered: "Cracked an app and placed code online, uses trademarked logos to attack company."

This is a censorious abuse of copyright law to suppress criticism.   It is, in essence, an attempt to use copyright law for everything except copyright.  That SecureChannels would use copyright law to shield criticism on the basis that its trademarks are being used and because of "slander" is, well, hysterical.  This is not a company interested in permitting people to criticize it.

Update (9/6/15, 9:30am):  Twitter, realizing the error of its ways, restored Langton's tweets without the need for a counter-DMCA notice, after Techdirt's Mike Masnick tweeted about it.

Secure Channels also appears to have now added an end user licensing agreement to OccuLock, the product at issue here.  I assume it contains (as many EULAs do) a prohibition on reverse engineering.  While this is fairly common (and reputable companies would not enforce such a provision against someone who reports a defect), this means that Secure Channels would have a colorable legal claim for breach of contract if the product is decompiled or reverse-engineered in the future.  If you want to explore their products for vulnerabilities, get permission.

Disclaimer: Ken White did not participate in the investigation or writing of this post.

  1. Krebs' dedication to his craft is impressive: he learned Russian so that he could track spam networks. I have difficulty tying my shoes correctly and I have to walk places.  
  2. Compare Secure Channels' "The Dichotomy of a Hacker" to Bill Kleyman's "How The Hacker Economy Impacts Your network & The Cloud."  After tweaking a few words, slapping its logo on every page, adding their own title, and mixing in some graphics and data from a Verizon report, Secure Channels' post notes, as an afterthought, that the "content and data" are "courtesy of" Kleyman and Verizon.  
  3. Indeed, whoever was behind these accounts went so far as to suggest that Langton's employer could be held liable for Langton's criticism of Secure Channels.  
  4. On Monday, I reached out to Secure Channels, and Ms. Murphy, seeking their comment on these Twitter users and inquiring whether the company or one of its employees was behind them.  I've received no response.  

Last 5 posts by Adam Steinbaugh


  1. Erik says

    Brian Krebs' blog is a pretty good one for a layperson (or even an expert) who is interested in information security. I got his book "Spam Nation" mainly because I liked his blog and wanted to support his work (the title sounds boring)… but I actually found it fascinating. He goes deep into the underground criminal world that underlies spam, underground pharmacies, etc., actually traveling to Eastern Europe to talk to some of the principles. The writing style and naturally colorful characters involved make it as fun to read as a spy novel. At least for me. Highly recommended.

  2. Jack B says

    Secure Channels CEO Richard Blech

    How you gonna trust someone whose last name is a Don Martin sound effect?

  3. That Anonymous Coward says

    Would you buy a security product from a company who needs an e-how article how to take a screenshot?

    People are throwing stupid amounts of money at magical solutions to be secure, because the media breathlessly reports on hacks & fear-mongering. Not all products are created equal, yet if you can cash in early you can just walk away with the cash before it all falls down around you. Creating your own things to hard, just 'remix' others work as your own & take stupid shortcuts.

    The truly sad part about this is corporations are pushing governments for stronger laws to punish those who might look behind the curtain and see the weird little old man is naked & just scamming everyone. It makes us less secure & safe when they try to criminalize people from validating the claims, and just adds a better weapon for scammers to use to keep the bubble from bursting.

  4. Laurence Socci says

    This entire Secure Channels saga is what John Lennon called "Instant Karma." I represented them as their government relations consultant beginning in March, 2015 until August, 2015 when I terminated them for breaching their contract with me by refusing to pay their August invoice.
    During the time I represented them, I helped them get a deal with the NIST and I introduced them to several high ranking Congressional staff and officials. They paid me my March invoice and my April invoice on time. Then they did not pay for May or June. Ms. Murphy made every excuse in the book why they could not (would not) pay. Because they were a startup and seemed honest, I let it slide. Richard Blech gave me a personal check for one invoice, that promptly bounced the minute I deposited it. By July 2015, (amazingly) they were all caught up with payments. Then they breached our contract again on August 1.
    When I learned Richard Blech is an ex-con who did time for fraud, I had to go back to all the Congressional staff that I introduced to Blech, and tell them the news about his past. I also told my contact at the NIST, who put the brakes on the NIST Secure Channels deal.
    Instant Karma's gonna get you!

  5. melK says

    > Would you buy a security product from a company who needs an e-how article how to take a screenshot?

    Consider the (likely) source: A Director of Marketing, vs an engineer, a graphic artist, or a social media intern.

    Saying "…from a company that…" is claiming the one person to be the company, which (probably) isn't true. Or saying that that person had access to all the resources of the company. Now… if you were going to make an anonymous slur upon your competitors, would YOU want to call Fred from IT, or Joe from Engineering, to tell you how to make your screenshot?

  6. Fasolt says

    On Monday, I reached out to Secure Channels, and Ms. Murphy, seeking their comment on these Twitter users and inquiring whether the company or one of its employees was behind them. I've received no response. ▲

    I don't think you'll have to worry about any replies from them cluttering up your inbox.

  7. John Smith says

    "Would you buy a security product from a company who needs an e-how article how to take a screenshot?"

    To add to the previous poster's comment- Would you buy a security product from a company whos marketing person makes anonymous accounts to slur people that criticize their company? That is so far over the line that the line is lost over the horizon.

  8. Jean-Pierre Saad says

    I try to follow new and leading edge site for different political views, legal matters and how people read, react, use and abuse the internet. I have followed this "saga" from the Krebs "investigative reporting", through the Twitter mud-slinging and then finally to this Adam Steinbaugh "masterpiece reportage".

    This article smacks of favoritism for a buddy and there is nothing newsworthy nor compelling that has informed the reader anything relevant about the law nor a valid method to "critique" a software application through Twitter.

    To @Adam Steinbaugh. You should be ashamed of yourself by posting this rant about nothing. Peer review of a software product does not occur over Twitter, it just doesn't and for you as a supposed "journalist" to oblige this activity discredits you completely. This Asher guy taunted the the encryption company relentlessly through Twitter and posted their IP that he decompiled and you defend this? This is a "critic" to you? There is a right way to do things if you really have good ethical intentions. Asher clearly has an axe to grind and didn't care whether or not the company fixes whatever security flaws there might have been in their application.

    You have discredited and devalued Popehat with this pointless, misaligned drivel. I hope the next thing you write is worth time to even glance at.

  9. John Smith says

    Also, the avatar for one of the fake twitter accounts is the first google image search result for "private investigator"! haha! And the other fake twitter account profile pic looks like a clipart of the same subject matter. Definitely not an account created for stalking, eh?

  10. says

    Your odd rant is made more odd by the fact you've never been here before, "Jean-Pierre."

    Door's to you right. Don't let it hit you in the ass.

  11. Adam Steinbaugh says

    @Jean-Pierre Saad:

    Companies don't get to choose their critic or his forum.

    Should attempts to silence a critic through frivolous legal claims go unchallenged? Or should that only be done through the Proper Channels?

    Also: if this is so unnewsworthy, why have you been — as you claim — following every step of it?

  12. That Anonymous Coward says

    You make one little offhand comment about an e-how article to mock the sock-puppeting happening and people lose their minds. Perhaps they should have called someone from IT to keep from making a complete CF of their attacks.

    So we're presumably up to at least 2 people from the company involved after the handy DMCA takedown that seemed to have little to do with copyright and more with trying to use the first thing at hand to censor criticism. They have managed to cement the idea that they have things to hide, and will spare no dirty trick to keep them hidden.

  13. Sami says

    @Laurence Socci: I love your little one-paragraph morality play on "Everything That's Wrong With American Government".

    "I used to work for them. I was their professional back-channel government corruption inducer. They gave me money to hook them up with minions to get them som sweet, sweet undeservedd contracts. But Laurence gots to get PAID, bitches, and when they didn't keep that sweet sweet cash flowing I had to spend thirty seconds doing what less illustrious career paths might have led me to consider due diligence, and DONE. And now, somehow, I will be smug about this."

  14. Harry Flashman says

    @Laurence Socci:

    Instead you're the guy who willingly worked for a former convict who ran a ponzi scheme and did time for wire fraud, like Secure Channels' CEO, Richard Blech.
    I assume you were like Captain Renault, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! "

  15. says

    @Sami, companies hire PR consultants all the time. And if you do consulting work for a company, it's reasonable to expect to get paid. I had a bad experience one time with a customer who turned out to be less than honest. Unfortunately, it happens.

    And @Laurence Socci, I wish I could afford to pay for some introductions to the right people to read my new book, "Bullseye Breach." And as long as I'm sneaking in a shameless plug, the book website is If a few of the right people in Congress would read it, maybe they'd come away a little more educated, and these data breaches and con jobs would not be so rampant.

    – Greg Scott

  16. Conrad says

    Bravo Laurence!

    I don't which is more stupid? You airing your dirty laundry


    That you didn't mind taking money from them despite the CEO's past. Oh and if you didn't know about the guy until AFTER you were taking their money for months, then you are a hypocrite and a pretty stupid lobbyist for not knowing who your clients are before you except money from them.

  17. Silli says

    Wow, look at that. The anonymous twitter accounts seem to have followed the story here. This is so entertaining. I bet they've found the HN thread too.

  18. says

    "You have discredited and devalued Popehat"

    You, ah, you haven't been around here much, have you?

    IAE, perhaps their employees should stop googling "How To Take A Screenshot" and start googling "Streisand Effect" (or "How To Apply For Unemployment")

  19. Sam Houston says

    So let me get this straight. Originally challenge everyone with an unwinnable contest saying it's unbreakable and come crack us. Then when someone calls them out on something i.e. not so unbreakable they try to censor them using frivioulous legal action.

    So… I'm thinking… what would have happened if someone did win their contest at that time? Would they have sued them?

  20. says

    In March someone left a comment on my blog:

    the twitter feed portion of website WAS always good for finding info and staying informed. Lately jammed full of crap twitter posts about zoo animals, movie names, and other useless garbage. Today it was ‘foodiebandnames’. Sabotage on someones part?? certainly damages the usefulness of the site when we don’t get germane info/topics and instead get these types immature twaddle.

    Any chance of fixing it?

    Now I know it was "Jean-Pierre Saad."

  21. Captain O says

    It's the new blog format, Ken. All civility is gone now that articles break mid-sentence on the front page.

  22. says

    There sure are some dumb people defending Scam Channels. Is anyone surprised that a company run by a felon who scammed people out of millions of dollars is now running a two-bit company? Most people are not. A felon never changes. And now, he has a couple of accomplices. Their names a Deirdre "Dee" Murphy, his lapdog. And Badar Qureshi, his techno-wiz who steals code because Blech is too dumb to do so. This fly by night company will be dead in 6 months.

  23. Laurence Socci says

    @ Harry Flashman — Your analogy is skewered. Most consultants go into relationships with clients with the assumption that the client is a good and honest organization. I had no reason to believe, initially, the Secure Channels was anything other than a good and honest company. The actions of Richard Blech and his employees proved that they were not, in fact, as I assumed them to be.

  24. Laurence Socci says

    @Conrad — You're right, I should have done a background check on the entire company. If I had known about Blech's past conviction for wire fraud, I would not have signed them. Fortunately, I can pass on the lessons I learned from dealing with them to other government relations firms so they won't work with Secure Channels and I can pass on the public information about Blech to policy makers throughout the federal government so Secure Channels won't get any opportunities with the federal government.

  25. Lewis James Cunningham says

    The comment section is far more interesting than the actual story. Ken White would have never written something like this. Hopefully the next post will be back to serious legal concerns.

    @Socci, You are the poster child how to not be a consultant. You are an example of what's wrong with the political process in this country. Instead of seeking to destroy your enemies, why don't you concentrate on correcting a corrupt system rather than being corrupt yourself. Look in the mirror and a simple Google search of your dirty little anti'Hillary Super Pac and you can see what you are about.

    What a cretin.

  26. Laurence Socci says

    @Lewis – I'm not seeking to "destroy my enemies." Secure Channels does not need my help to fail. It is doing a pretty good job of doing that itself. But congratulations! You know how to use Google. You must be very proud.

  27. Adam Steinbaugh says

    Mr. Cunningham:

    You appear to be new here. Welcome!

    I hope you stick around to continue discussing the Serious Legal Issues you crave.

    Hugs and kisses.

  28. Sad Panda says

    Alright kiddies, time for a lesson in dressing yourselves.

    Socks go on you *feet*, not your hands.

    Better give that one some time to sink in before moving on to the tough subjects, like how to not tie your own laces together and face-plant all over the internet.

  29. Peter says

    I, too, am a blogger (I've omitted my website here; it's not relevant to the point I wish to make) and am a bit disheartened by the negative comments regarding the quality of Adam's piece. Maintaining a blog is a difficult business with its ups and downs like everything else in life. I mean, sure, it is not the best piece that Adam has ever written. But it is certainly not as bad as some of the comments are making it out to be. In fact, it is not bad at all.

    It is well-written and does what it is clearly intended to do: namely (i) to report on a news-worthy story, (ii) to point out stupid inconsistencies in a professed position, and (iii) to show an attempted abuse of the law (a serious legal concern)—the "gotcha" elements in this piece are even amusing. Maybe Adam should have discussed the attempted abuse more, maybe he should have done something else different. I don't know. But Adam's piece is not bad, and it is not the first time that Popehat has published something which its readers have not liked (just think of the stupid criticisms of Clark a while back).

    Adam is—in my opinion—a good addition to Popehat. His past work and his engagement with the issues that he discusses shows this. And Ken is right to defend him. The readers who lament that Adam's piece is somehow a departure from the Popehat quality we have come to know and enjoy are mistaken. It is that plain, it is that simple.

  30. Deathpony says

    Well, apparently we get to add another to the list of topics that make for a fun comment section.

    Global warming
    Vox Day

    Secure Channels???

    I'd love to see what would happen if we got all of them in one. (that is not a dare…)

    Thanks for the post Adam, enjoying your work here as another voice amongst the diverse mix.

  31. NotSockPuppet says

    I'm a new poster here too. (Though I registered with a real email address …probably unlike all the Insecure channel sock puppets)
    Just to let you secure channels folks know that you've caused me to spurt my coffee over my keyboard as I laughed at your Streisand-effect ineptitude. You now owe me €60 in damages and consequential loss. Please note the extra postage costs that will be incurred in sending to Europe – because that's where your company's idiotic activities are now going viral.
    (In case you don't know how to google where Europe is: Just type "Google" into your browser search bar to get to the Google page where you can lurn yerself sum nollidge.)

  32. Czernobog says

    Great comment section today guys, but I want to see that kind of effort next Sunday as well. Go team.

  33. darius404 says

    Wow, I was half-expecting the attacks on Adam and his piece, but I admit that all these people attacking Lawrence Socci on something that is, at best, only indirectly related to the nature of his criticisms is more than a little odd. Discussions about how to morally petition the government, while an interesting topic in it's own right, really has no relevance to what Mr. Socci's comments tell us about Secure Channels' poor behavior and disreputable background. It comes across as attempted character assassination of someone with negative personal experience with Secure Channels in order to dismiss information that reveals Secure Channels' true character.

  34. Doctor X says

    I am just offended that one of the sockpuppets sullied the reputation of Brig. Sir Harry Paget Flashman VC KCB KCIE. . . .


  35. Albert ARIBAUD says

    If you want to explore their products for vulnerabilities, get permission.

    Or live in a country where such a provision would be contrary to the law and deemed void. :)

  36. TheHaywardFault says

    Just wanted to leave a note here that I read every Popehat article and that I am enjoying Mr. Steinbaugh's contributions just as much as Mr. White's, Mr. Clark's, and even that bizarre cow satire… thing. As part of the usually silent majority, I just wanted to make it known that y'all have lots of happy readers. I don't think you guys are the kind to get your mitres in a twist about a couple people bitching about the supposed quality (or lack therof) of a particular article/author/subject/profession/brand of barge poles, but it never hurts to pipe up positively.


  37. Old Joke McGee says

    I don't cotton to all these anti-Adam posts. You'll get my "RSS for everything but Clark" when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

  38. Matt says

    I have difficulty tying my shoes correctly and I have to walk places.

    Slip-on shoes, Adam. Keeps life simple, doesn't look as tacky as velcro ;)

  39. says

    A lock is only as strong as your ability to protect the key. That is assuming that you have a good lock, which takes a long time and a lot of work to demonstrate.

  40. says

    I think it's great that Popehat crosses over to subjects that aren't limited to the law. I first came here because of the "Anatomy of a Scam Investigation" series and stayed for the ponies, Streisand, Oatmeal, etc. Half the nonsense discussed here is a direct result of non-lawyers misunderstanding the law (or lawyers misunderstanding the law), and other law blogs aren't reaching the audience necessary to address that problem.

  41. Chaon Von Chaon de la Chaon says

    You'll get my "RSS for everything but Clark" when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

    If Clark's name appears three times in the comments, he will drop a heroic amount of Windowpane and start typing his next psychotomimetic missive.

  42. L says

    From their website:

    Deirdre Murphy is a seasoned professional with diverse strategic marketing, sales and social media expertise leading world class entertainment, technology and other innovative brands.

    This is not necessarily a person I would expect to know how to take a screen shot.

    It is, however, a person I would expect to look at the picture before she posted it, notice the open tabs and her avatar sitting there, go back, log off, close the tabs, take a second screen shot, and post that one instead of the first one. That is something I would expect from a seasoned professional with social media expertise (assuming I can't expect ethics).

  43. Fasolt says

    So they say this:

    Crowing that its encryption technology was "unbreakable" and "unhackable,"…

    Then they say this in the DMCA notice:

    As for the description of the "original work," Blech blathered: "Cracked an app and placed code online, uses trademarked logos to attack company."

    So, Blech admits the app can be cracked? It's a shame they defined the contest winner as decrypting a file encrypted by "their" app. If they had just left it at unhackable, they'd be handing Asher Langton a set of keys to a BMW along with 50 large in gas money.

  44. Fasolt says

    …uses trademarked logos to attack company.

    How exactly does that work? Do you print out the logos on heavy paper stock and beat the company with them?

  45. Phill Hallam-Baker says

    If people don't want to get their product ruthlessly examined and criticized then the IT security industry is not for them.

    I have worked for two Certification Authorities for a total of over 15 years. So I am used to getting criticism and attacks. And most of those attacks are unfair and misinformed. They assume that the protocols allow the CA to do things that the protocols are expressly designed to prevent them doing. But I have never challenged the right of people to make such attacks or tried to prevent them being published.

    Jean-Pierre Saad's comments are absolutely out of line. The fact that he works for a company that manages a hedge fund investing in this sector is arguably a disclosable interest. If KKR has an investment in secure channels then it would be a rather serious ethical breach on his part.

    The fact that the company is being run by a convicted criminal who very recently stole a vast amount of money in a major fraud is quite astonishing and something that simply cannot be overlooked.

    In our industry, caveat emptor is a core principle. It is not for the buyer or analyst to show that a product is insecure. The burden of proof lies on the vendor to show that a product is both secure and trustworthy. SecureChannels has very clearly failed at the first, but even if it had succeeded there is no way a company with a convicted fraudster at the helm can be considered trustworthy.

  46. Phill Hallam-Baker says

    Another point to ponder is the list of 'partners' on the SecureChannels site.

    Having worked with several of those companies and responded to RFPs for others, I am well aware of the requirements they have for recognizing a vendor as a reference account. I do not believe it is at all likely that SecureChannels would meet those requirements even if their CEO was not a convicted criminal.

  47. Grock says

    Interesting note on the 9/4 update, I tweeted a screenshot copy of Langton's tweets, same image etc. but my tweets were not pulled. Glad to see Twitter realized their mistake and fixed it.

    Langton would have been provided a copy of the DMCA by Twitter. It would be interesting to see a copy of that.

  48. fasolt says

    @Via Angus:

    I am not a cow. I am a bull.
    Why is it so hard for you manspawn to tell a truth?

    I suspect it's a dietary problem.

  49. Jean-Pierre Saad says

    @Phillip Hallam-Baker

    I fully respect your opinion and your credentials, however, I do believe that you are misinformed, which is the whole basis for my complaint about schlock reporting clocked in "investigative" journalism.

    I know about Secure Channels through a partner in Canada and they have been vetted fully, both as a company and the technology they offer. I agree that their marketing approach could be far better, but no one in enterprise system architecture cares about marketing. They care if the technology works for their needs and fully test it to make sure that it does before they would even consider it.

    The whole point here is, just because Langton says something does not mean it is so. I know enough about the company to know that Langton is way off base and that he never really investigated anything, just made assumptions and posted it as fact. He made a post that indicated that the company has all these products listed on their website, but only has the Android app on the Google store. They sell enterprise key management and a HSM appliance. How do you sell that on Google Play??? He loses his credibility there. Meanwhile the author of this story didn't bother to check those facts and just rubber stamped what Langton had to say.

    Regardless, if anything, this is a good lesson in the effects, good and bad from social networking.

  50. Asher Langton says

    Jean-Pierre Saad:

    All cards on the table: what is your financial stake in Secure Channels' success?

  51. NotSockPuppet says


    …but no one in enterprise system architecture cares about marketing."

    Well that's certainly true of Dee Murphy's clients. They evidently care little for social media expertise too!
    And it's doubly true for whichever organisation sent the sock puppeteer to do some …ahem… damage limitation.
    Anyway – full disclosure please, what's your interest in Secure Channels?

  52. barry says

    Let's hope that when President Trump tests the prototype of his amazing impenetrable wall, there won't be such restrictions on what kinds of ladders are allowed.

  53. Sad Panda says

    @Jean-Pierre Saad:

    I know about Secure Channels through a partner in Canada and they have been vetted fully, both as a company and the technology they offer.

    Why does this sound like the proverbial Canadian boyfriend?

  54. Dan Weber says

    That ripping off of copy is so familiar.

    Years and years ago, I was working at a company making computer security products, and another company from Texas came out with a product with a very similar name to ours, with marketing material that was essentially ours, and with the exact same typos as one of our engineers had left in the code. Fun times.

    Now it's time to see if any of the principals of that San Antonio company are involved here.

  55. Trent says

    Unless things have changed on Popehat that I'm not aware of I could type just about any name into that name box whether it's real or not. Those of you assuming that this Saad guy is someone named that in real life are foolish without further verifiable evidence. For all we know it's a Blech sock puppet or just your ordinary garden variety troll. Don't feed the trolls.

    Good post Adam. Always love stories about felon CEO's running new companies because they can never seem to get the felon out of the blood.

  56. Duh says

    Secure Channels has had a PR firm in place for some time now. Which goes to show you the "facts" reported here need quotes around them.

  57. Adam Steinbaugh says

    @Duh: Fair. I've updated the post to use the word "using" in lieu of "hiring" with respect to the PR firm.

  58. Laurence Socci says

    Based on the great PR Secure Channels has been getting lately, maybe their PR firm is just a bunch of interns from the local community college.

  59. I Was Anonymous says

    How you gonna trust someone whose last name is a Don Martin sound effect?

    @Jack B wins the internet for today.

  60. Mikee says

    @Laurence Socci

    I agree with 'I Was Anonymous'. You're just insulting college kids with that comparison. I suggest 'Prenda' as the replacement to make your analogy fit without insulting the innocent. ;)

  61. Mr. Grey says

    I just love that this group has already gotten "Streisand effect" and "Prenda" achievements in the comments section.

  62. Dragoness Eclectic says

    You have discredited and devalued Popehat with this pointless, misaligned drivel. I hope the next thing you write is worth time to even glance at.

    BWAHAHAHAHAH! Dude hasn't read a Clark rant yet, if he thinks Steinbaugh's writing is "pointless, misaligned drivel."

    … what is 'misaligned drivel', anyway? Drivel stored at odd byte addresses?

  63. Fasolt says

    @Jean-Pierre Saad:

    The whole point here is, just because Langton says something does not mean it is so.

    What a coincidence! I was just thinking the same thing about your comments.

  64. Paul. says

    I've gotten to where I simply don't trust commercial encryption products. If we can't look inside them, we can't be sure the NSA doesn't have a back door, let alone whether or not they're effective.