Latest news with #ChrisKrebs
CTV News
13 hours ago
- General
- CTV News
Former Homeland Security official fights back against Trump's ‘unprecedented' investigation order
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the rain after arriving on Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Friday, May 30, 2025. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) WASHINGTON — A former Homeland Security official during U.S. President Donald Trump's first administration who authored an anonymous op-ed sharply critical of the president is calling on independent government watchdogs to investigate after Trump ordered the department to look into his government service. Miles Taylor, once chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, warned in an interview with The Associated Press of the far-reaching implications of Trump's April 9 memorandum, 'Addressing Risks Associated with an Egregious Leaker and Disseminator of Falsehoods,' when it comes to suppressing criticism of the president. That memo accused Taylor of concocting stories to sell his book and directed the secretary of Homeland Security and other government agencies to look into Taylor and strip him of any security clearances. Taylor sent a letter via email to inspectors general at the departments of Justice and Homeland Security on Tuesday. Coming on the same April day that Trump also ordered an investigation into Chris Krebs, a former top cybersecurity official, the dual memoranda illustrated how Trump has sought to use the powers of the presidency against his adversaries. Speaking to the AP, Taylor said the order targeting him sets a 'scary precedent' and that's why he decided to call on the inspectors general to investigate. 'I didn't commit any crime, and that's what's extraordinary about this. I can't think of any case where someone knows they're being investigated but has absolutely no idea what crime they allegedly committed. And it's because I didn't,' Taylor said. He called it a 'really, really, really scary precedent to have set is that the president of the United States can now sign an order investigating any private citizen he wants, any critic, any foe, anyone.' Trump has targeted adversaries since he took office Since taking office again in January, Trump has stripped security clearances from a number of his opponents. But Trump's order for an investigation into Taylor, as well as Krebs, marked an escalation of his campaign of retribution in his second term. Trump fired Krebs, who directed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in November 2020 after Krebs disputed the Republican president's unsubstantiated claims of voting fraud and vouched for the integrity of the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Taylor left the first Trump administration in 2019. In the anonymous New York Times op-ed published in 2018, he described himself as part of a secret 'resistance' to counter Trump's 'misguided impulses.' The op-ed's publication touched off a leak investigation in Trump's first White House. Taylor later published a book by the same name as the op-ed and then another book under his own name called 'Blowback,' which warned about Trump's return to office. After signing the memorandum April 9, Trump said Taylor was likely 'guilty of treason.' The letter by Taylor's lawyer to the inspectors general calls Trump's actions 'unprecedented in American history.' 'The Memorandum does not identify any specific wrongdoing. Rather, it flagrantly targets Mr. Taylor for one reason alone: He dared to speak out to criticize the President,' the letter reads. Taylor's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said the request to the inspectors general was an attempt to 'get the administration to do the right thing.' Lowell said that depending on the outcome of their complaint, they'll explore other options including a possible lawsuit. Lowell, a veteran Washington lawyer, announced earlier this year that he was opening his own legal practice and would represent targets of Trump's retribution. Violation of First Amendment rights alleged In the letter, Lowell calls on the inspectors general to do their jobs of 'addressing and preventing abuses of power.' The letter says Trump's April 9 memo appears to violate Taylor's First Amendment rights by going after Taylor for his criticism of the president, calling it a 'textbook definition of political retribution and vindictive prosecution.' And, according to the letter, Trump's memo also appears to violate Taylor's Fifth Amendment due process rights. The letter highlights Taylor's 'honorable and exemplary' work service including receiving the Distinguished Service Medal upon leaving the department, and it details the toll that the April 9 memorandum has taken on Taylor's personal life. His family has been threatened and harassed, and former colleagues lost their government jobs because of their connection with him, according to the letter. Taylor told the AP that since the order, there's been an 'implosion in our lives.' He said he started a fund to pay for legal fees, has had to step away from work and his wife has gone back to work to help pay the family's bills. Their home's location was published on the internet in a doxxing. Taylor said that by filing these complaints with the inspectors general, he's anticipating that the pressure on him and his family will increase. He said they spent the last few weeks debating what to do after the April 9 memorandum and decided to fight back. 'The alternative is staying silent, cowering and capitulating and sending the message that, yes, there's no consequences for this president and this administration in abusing their powers in ways that my legal team believes and a lot of legal scholars tell me is unconstitutional and illegal,' Taylor said. Rebecca Santana, The Associated Press
Axios
5 days ago
- Business
- Axios
SentinelOne says services restored after hours-long outage
SentinelOne says its services have been restored following an hours-long outage today that took down its commercial customer consoles — the interface security teams use to monitor and manage protections across their networks. Why it matters: Without console access, teams were effectively flying blind — unable to view threat telemetry, assess incidents in progress, or take manual response actions. Yes, but: While security teams didn't have visibility, the products continued working in the background to block malicious activity. Security teams just couldn't see what was being blocked or flagged during the outage. The intrigue: One of SentinelOne's biggest competitors — CrowdStrike — suffered a major global outage last summer that knocked about 8.5 million Windows devices offline. SentinelOne has not yet disclosed the root cause of Thursday's outage, but said its early internal data suggests it was not caused by a malicious cyberattack. "We apologize for the inconvenience," the company wrote in a blog post Thursday during the outages. Driving the news: The outage came just one day after SentinelOne lowered its 2026 earnings forecast and missed expectations for quarterly annual recurring revenue in its latest earnings report. The company has also been in the spotlight in Washington this year after President Trump signed a memo calling for an investigation into former CISA Director Chris Krebs, who at the time was a top executive at SentinelOne. The big picture: SentinelOne is a publicly traded cybersecurity company that uses artificial intelligence to detect, prevent and respond to malicious activity across a company's devices, like a laptop or server.
Axios
02-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
Cybersecurity's uneasy marriage with Washington gets tested by Trump
If the cybersecurity sector and government officials learned anything this week in San Francisco, it's that they're stuck with one another. But their uneasy marriage isn't guaranteed to stay intact. Why it matters: Tensions are high amid federal workforce layoffs, high-profile firings, contract cuts and rising partisan tensions. Many executives saw their meetings with government officials and political nominees at the RSA Conference this week — the cybersecurity industry's big annual gathering — as a test of whether their public-private partnerships will survive the new administration. The big picture: These partnerships were always a tough but essential balancing act. Companies have long feared retribution if they disclose security failures that let hackers in. They've also questioned the asymmetry of the relationship — sharing threat intelligence with the government and getting little in return. Yet each side sees different parts of the threat landscape: Companies face nation-state actors while helping customers, and governments exchange high-value intelligence with global partners. State of play: Under former President Biden, these partnerships were the strongest they've ever been — but still built on shaky ground. Recent cuts to federal contracts and advisory councils — plus the Justice Department's pending investigation into former CISA director Chris Krebs — have eroded trust. "We've had very minimal collaboration, as much as we would like [to], with public sector," said Proofpoint CEO Sumit Dhawan during a panel Tuesday. "The partnership has been when something has [already] happened." Between the lines: The Trump administration's decision to attend RSAC signals they intend to maintain those partnerships, Brandon Wales, a former CISA official, told Axios. "We need to continue to mature what that relationship looks like," Wales added. "It shouldn't be static, because our adversaries are continuing to get better." Reality check: All the "easy" cyber policy issues are done, an industry source told Axios. What's left are the hard ones — like mandating secure-by-design rules for federal contractors and defining roles among overlapping cyber offices. What they're saying: Cybersecurity companies "know what they are doing when they see a new pattern develop … or something specifically designed to infiltrate our nation's security," Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said during a keynote talk at RSAC on Tuesday. "They have to feel like they have the ability to communicate that with us," she added. Zoom in: Some cybersecurity executives are optimistic the administration will still strengthen ties with industry. Kevin Mandia, co-founder of Ballistic Ventures and founder of Mandiant, told Axios he's hopeful the administration will pursue new levers that can deter nation-state hackers. "There's tremendous opportunities, and there always have been, to make it so that you don't get sucker-punched in cyberspace," he said. Yes, but: Cyber leaders are also going public with their concerns about CISA cuts and the Krebs investigation. Krebs, in his first public appearance since President Trump's order, said the public should be "absolutely outraged" by the cuts. Jen Easterly, his successor, said on a panel that "perhaps the new leadership in the Department [of Homeland Security] … has not had the opportunity to dig deep into the CISA statute." She added that Noem would likely find everything she wants CISA to do is "already being done." More than 40 cybersecurity professionals signed an open letter this week condemning Krebs' "political persecution." What to watch: Trump hates the term "private-public partnership," the industry source said — so even if the ties remain, the label may not.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Chris Krebs Resigns from SentinelOne (NYSE:S) Following Executive Order by Donald Trump
The recent resignation of Chris Krebs from SentinelOne, following an executive order from former President Trump, has put a spotlight on the influence of political actions in the corporate realm. This development may have contributed to SentinelOne's share price declining by 9% last week. Meanwhile, markets also experienced turmoil, influenced by trade concerns and tech sector pressures, with the broader market declining by 3%. The intersecting effects of internal and external pressures at SentinelOne highlight the complexity of evaluating shareholder returns amid a challenging market environment. We've identified 2 warning signs for SentinelOne that you should be aware of. Find companies with promising cash flow potential yet trading below their fair value. The resignation of Chris Krebs from SentinelOne amid political actions has created a ripple effect beyond the immediate share price drop of 9% last week. Over the past year, SentinelOne's total shareholders' return has been a 17.11% decline, reflecting broader challenges in the market. When compared to the US Software industry, which saw a mild decline of 0.5% over the last year, SentinelOne's underperformance suggests deeper internal and external pressures. This news could impact revenue and earnings forecasts, particularly as the company adjusts to changes in its leadership and potentially re-evaluates its ongoing strategies. While SentinelOne is focused on AI-native cybersecurity innovations and partnerships with Lenovo and MSSPs to bolster revenue growth, the recent developments might necessitate a recalibration of expectations. Analysts have a consensus price target of US$24.65, which is approximately 34% higher than the current share price of US$16.28, highlighting a significant divergence between market sentiment and analyst expectations. Insights from our recent valuation report point to the potential undervaluation of SentinelOne shares in the market. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Companies discussed in this article include NYSE:S. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@
Forbes
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Deafening Silence From The Cybersecurity Industry
Chris Krebs, former CISA Director, became a symbol of truth in cybersecurity after affirming the ... More integrity of the 2020 election—and paying the price for it. In the world of cybersecurity, where truth is paramount and trust is everything, silence can be louder than an alarm. When President Trump issed an Executive Order targeting Chris Krebs—a respected cybersecurity leader and the first director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency—the cybersecurity industry should have responded with a unified voice of outrage and support. But instead, it largely whispered… or worse, said nothing at all. This moment is not just about Krebs. It's a constitutional stress test. A moral gut check. And the cybersecurity industry is failing it. Chris Krebs isn't a political agitator. His role and actions in 2020 were not partisan. He was Trump's own appointee to lead CISA, the agency charged with protecting the nation's critical infrastructure, including elections. In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, Krebs and his team worked tirelessly with state and local election officials to safeguard systems against foreign interference and domestic cyber threats. When the votes were counted and no credible evidence of widespread fraud emerged—despite a tidal wave of disinformation—CISA issued a joint statement declaring the 2020 election 'the most secure in American history.' Over 60 lawsuits attempting to challenge the results were dismissed across the country—primarily due to a complete lack of evidence to support the claims. Many of those decisions came from Republican-appointed judges. The facts were clear. But truth has become a political liability. For doing his job—and doing it well—Krebs was fired via tweet. And now, years later, he has been further targeted by an Executive Order that effectively seeks to blacklist him, his employer, and his professional associates. The message is unmistakable: disloyalty to the narrative will be punished. The Executive Order targeting Chris Krebs is not just a political stunt—it raises serious constitutional red flags. At its core, it punishes a private citizen for protected speech, which violates the First Amendment. Krebs was fired from his role at CISA for publicly affirming that the 2020 election was secure—an assessment backed by dozens of court rulings and independent audits. Now, years later, he's the subject of an order that calls for a federal investigation and labels him a 'bad-faith actor' for doing his job. According to Petra Molnar, a professor and author of The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, 'targeting former officials perceived to be in opposition to the current administration is not constitutional.' She adds that the Executive Order 'undermines the crucial separation of powers between the President's Executive Office, the Legislative Branch, and the Justice Department.' This is more than overreach—it's retaliatory use of executive authority without legal basis. And while politically motivated targeting isn't new, Molnar notes that what's unprecedented is 'the escalation of retribution campaigns against individuals perceived to be against the goals of the Trump Administration.' The Constitution explicitly forbids Congress from issuing bills of attainder—laws that single out individuals for punishment without trial. While that restriction technically applies to the Legislative branch, the spirit of it clearly applies here. A president cannot simply declare someone an enemy of the state for contradicting a political narrative. That's not national security—it's authoritarianism, dressed up in executive language. You'd think an industry built around defending truth, integrity, and the sanctity of systems would rally around one of its own. There are admittedly a few brave voices—like Katie Moussouris of Luta Security, cybersecurity journalist Brian Krebs (no relation to Chris Krebs), and a smattering of others. Richard Stiennon, chief research analyst with IT-Harvest and author of Security Yearbook 2025, shared a video of Trump signing the Executive Order on LinkedIn with the statement, 'This abhorrent president lashing out at those that served the country is sickening.' In general, however, the cybersecurity industry has largely stayed quiet. In fact, many sources I reached out to refused to comment on the record for this story. No public statements from RSAC conference organizers. No press releases from leading vendors. No formal pushback from industry alliances. It's not just disappointing—it's damning. This is not how you defend your values. Many organizations seem to believe they can sidestep this conflict by remaining neutral. But neutrality in the face of injustice is a choice—it's a choice to appease. And appeasement doesn't work. Just ask Neville Chamberlain. We've seen this play out in other sectors. Columbia University has faced intense scrutiny and backlash not for what it said, but for what it failed to say—and the compromises it made to stay in the good graces of political power. Paul Weiss, once a symbol of legal prestige, has come under fire for pulling away from defending academic clients under political pressure. Contrast that with Harvard University, which has rejected demands from the Trump administration and publicly defended democratic norms. Or Perkins Coie, the law firm that continues to represent election officials and fight disinformation, even under threat. Where are the Harvard Universities and Perkins Coie law firms of the cybersecurity world? The Krebs case is a crucible. It reveals who is willing to stand for principle—and who is hoping the storm passes them by. But that's not how this works. You don't avoid authoritarianism by looking the other way. You feed it. You enable it. We all know Niemöller's haunting poem: 'First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist...' It has become the go-to cautionary tale for the dangers of silence in the face of rising authoritarianism. And yet, here we are—living it in real time—and most of the cybersecurity industry is failing the test. They came for Krebs. And most watched. Quietly. Uncomfortably. Passively. Everyone—or at least almost everyone over the age of 40—has probably wondered how Germany allowed Hitler to rise to power. We have gone through the thought exercise at some point of considering what we would have done if we lived in Germany during Hitler's rise. People don't ponder that question and think, 'I would have remained silent.' They ponder that question and imagine themselves as a noble hero—standing up for liberty and freedom. And yet, here we are. Freedom isn't free and actions have consequences. Will there be repercussions for organizations that defy Trump's whims? Maybe. Current events suggest the odds are good. But, millions of Americans have given their lives to support and defend the Constitution and stand up for democracy and freedom. The least cybersecurity vendors, law firms, universities, and other targeted organizations can do is risk sacrificing government contracts and revenue to stand up for their principles and the rule of law. If a former CISA director, a nationally respected cybersecurity expert, can be targeted for doing his job and speaking the truth, what makes you think you'll be safe when your turn comes? This is not about left or right. It's not about politics. It's about whether we allow power to dictate truth, or whether we stand up to defend it—even when it's hard. Especially when it's hard. The cybersecurity industry has always portrayed itself as the vanguard—defenders of infrastructure, truth, and resilience. But right now, it's at risk of becoming just another silent institution, hoping the monster it won't name doesn't notice it. That's not defense. That's surrender. To every cybersecurity leader, CISO, vendor, and industry body: this is your moment. Not just to protect one man's reputation, but to show what kind of industry we want to be. Because if we can't defend the truth—if we won't even defend one of our own when truth itself is under attack—then what exactly are we protecting? Silence isn't safe. Silence is surrender.
