SentinelOne makes YouTube delete Bsides vid 'cuz it didn't like the way bugs were reported If you were at BSides Manchester in England this week, you hopefully caught James Williams' presentation on the shortcomings of some commercial antivirus tools. If not, and you hoped to watch it on YouTube, you may be out of luck for a while. That's because one of the vendors mentioned – SentinelOne – is rather upset with the …
The entire AV "industry" is in the business of selling snake oil anyway. Properly designed, installed & maintained systems have no need of that kind of overhead.
Edit: Interesting. My daughter just pointed out that SentinelOne doesn't have an article in Wikipedia. She wonders if there was another take down order, and why and when ...
Deleted Aug 2 as 'promotional'. Nominated July 2, so not likely related to timing of ElReg article.
"Non notable and promotional. The various listings as "visionary" all derive from the same source:PR. The other references are just routine financing and similar., and do not satisfy WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 2 July 2018"
Actually, how lucky they are. There'd have to be a 'Controversies' section after all this, right? (And no, a controversy still doesn't make you notable enough for an article)
There are notional penalties, but can you name an occasion they've been applied? Signing the DMCA request under penalty of perjury when you knew (or should have known) it was fair use wasn't enough for penalty IIRC, and nor was signing the request that the computer spat out without even checking whether the supposed reason for takedown was actually there.
This post has been deleted by its author
I’ve tested a few next gen products, and the latest version def detected a morphed mimikatz loaded using reflection ie filelessly.
Looks like had a really old version of S1.
No product is 100% and defence in depth is needed, but S1 was the best we tested using version 2.5. He had 1.8.
And no I am not connected or work for S1 in any way shape or form.
Just my tuppence worth.
The courts have ruled that "to prevail a plaintiff would need to show bad faith by a rights holder.". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
"The Duhaime online law dictionary similarly defines bad faith broadly as "intent to deceive", and "a person who intentionally tries to deceive or mislead another in order to gain some advantage"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith#In_law
And there has been at least one $125k payout for abusing the DMCA to suppress the release of hacked emails.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold,_Inc.#Verdict
Also of note his his summary which is at 35m:25s in the video which runs contrary to the tone of the headline.
I may be naive in asking this because I don't create anything myself but if taking this video down was genuinely for bullshit reasons and the guy lost ad revenue due to it being unavailable can SentinelOne not be forced to pay for lost revenue? I don't want to give bad suggestions but (bad suggestion incoming) what if any takedown claims had to be backed up with a chunk of change for any potential earnings lost while the claim is investigated? The larger the organisation requesting it, the bigger the % of change put down.
I'm not blind to legitimate copyright claims and know the volume of them in any given day must be insanely high but the current method of yanking all content just because someone sends in a claim is open to so much abuse.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
