31C3 Title, no sound

Alright, welcome! So, welcome again
from me. It's great to be here!

So many people, even to this late hour.
I've been told, this is the prime time.

That is awesome, at 11 p.m. I'm David,
I'm a Computer Scientist from Bonn.

And we just can start with the things
that happened so far at the congress.

If you happened to be here at the congress

or watched sessions on stream - 
welcome again

to the colleagues on the internet - then 
there will be always devices that one

does not like so much to use.
[Laughter]

Who participated in the sessions of Tobias
Engel and Karsten Nohl, does indeed use

his mobile phone less confident.
And who was with starbug afterwards, will

not like to use iris scanners or finger 
print scanners anymore and may use gloves

more frequently now.
So here a little disclaimer:

If someone has an intimate relation to
his photocopier

and tends to keep it like that, should
refrain from participating this session.

We will do three things during this session.
First of all we will

get to know one of most prevalent and
dangerous bugs of the last years.

Secondly, we will comprehend the bug. 
That is in a manner

nerds and muggels will understand. 
And last but not least, for the activists

among us - may be some present here - 
we will deduct some rules

that may apply to a single person that will 
handle a powerful opponent,

just like a global player. 
But in your case

it can be something completely different.
That's why I will describe precisely

how this dispute evolved over time and

what kind of mistakes I made.
The talk's kind of structured

like a novel. First, there's a prologue, 
for the conspiracy theorists

among you. The year is 2008.

In summer 2008 the US were
having the primaries for presidential
election.

Barack Obama was in the running against
Hillary Clinton. In the US, like here,

there's lots of intrigue in politics.
So there were a few anonymous emails,

that should benefit Mrs. Clinton. Those
mails claimed, among other things,

that Obama had been born in Kenia als a
Kenian citizen. That would make him fomally

unfit to be president. To become president
of the US, you have to be

'natural born citizen' of the US. What
exactly a 'natural born citizen' is

the Americans themselves even don't
really fully know. But there's a whole

Wiki article about the controversy,
where you can read all about it.

Two things generally acknowleged:
First, one's to be American.

Second, one's to also be that at time of
birth. So when I come to the US,

newly naturalized, that doesn't work.
That Obama's second name

is Hussein was somewhat
suboptimal too in that context.

(laughs).
Obama obviously had an interest in

ending that 'argument' as quickly as
possible. So he made his birth certificate

publicly available. I say 'short birth
certificate' because,

when he was born, a short and a long one
were made. The short one ist shown here on

the left, you see it behind me. And I
in front of me.

But good conspiracy theorists aren't
distracted by facts.

(laughter and applause)

Immediatly, there are accusations
the birth certificate's faked.

Supposedly, there was a stamp missing, and
... and ... and. Whatever you can

come up with. You all can come up with it.

On the right, you see a few car stickers
by Obama's enemies.

The lowermost explicitly calls for the
birth certificate. The theory that Obama

shouldn't be allowed to be president,
is rather wide-spread in the US.

Obama won the primaries, and the following
election, but the dispute

simmered on. There was a whole scene of
birthers

that wanted to prove Obama's actually not
American.

After the whole thing hadn't calmed down
fo two and a half years - Obama already 
being

president for some time - in 2011 he had 
all of it. He published the scan of

the long version of the birth certificate,
on the right in the picture. You can
already see

there's much more information in it, and
you could think: They'll leave him alone
now.

But far from it.
Shortly after the release
there were accusations

the birth certificate was 
a clumly forgery.
Let's take a closer look.

The left picture is a strong enhancemt
of the red box in the right picture.

The numbers six and four are visible. 
These numbers have sharp,
pixel-perfect edges.

Yes, it's even visible on the projector.
And the numers are uniformly colored.

On their right side the number one
is blurred and colored unevenly.

The one is as you would expect a scan
in reality. Why is there such

a difference between two numbers in 
one and the same row of numbers?

A few more examples. 
Again one can see numbers 
with sharp edges

or these ticking boxes in contrast to
normal, slightly blurred numbers

and boxes. I drew some red boxes
the ticking boxes

and the 'and'. 
There one can see a kind of shift.
And it does really look

as though somebody drew this using Paint.
Meaning the ancient one, 
I am sure you remeber

from your childhood. MS Paint on
Windows 3.11. 
I used to sit at my father's workplace

at work and stole his working hours.
Or this one,

particulary beautiful. 
This section of the frame 
is from the stamp at the bottom.

There's a typo, in the stamp. Yeah sure,
makes sense. We have heard that one before,

typo in the stamp. I mean of course one 
would think it's a fraud

the way it looks. And at the same time
think that the intern

at the White House is too stupid
to use Photoshop.

Laughter

Concerning PR this was a massive failure of course.
According to a Gallup poll

in 2011, 
5% of Americans believed, Obama was

definitely not born in the US. And a 
further 8% thought, that he 
was 'probably not'

born in the US. Well that didn't work out.
The White House had to

back up pretty badly. To this day they get
requests because of this. This was the prologue.

We will now move on to the main trial
and jump in time to 2013.

On the 24th of June 2013 
a company, I was friends with, called me

The had two big Xerocs Workcentres.
Xerocs Workcentres are

those giant buisness copiers, that stand 
everywhere nowadays. They are connected via WIFI,

can scan, print, copy, mail and 
cost as much as a small car.

These printers aren't the ones your 
grandma uses, but have

a few hundred users per device,
maybe more. In this picture

you can see a construction plan. 
The black areas aren't original, I just

cencored those afterwards,
since I would not have been allowed

to use it. I marked three spots 
in yellow on the plans.

These spots are standardized blocks
containing the squarefootage

of the room. These spots will become more
important soon. The company

told me: "Hey David, 
when we scan a construction plan

the numbers change. 
Could you take a look at it?"

Laughter

On the left side, that's me.
Laughter

Applause

At this point I have to add, that the relationship
with them is really good. I worked my way

through my computer sience degree.
Of course my parents also

contributed, I won't deny that. But I
did IT-Service for the company and

they were really nice all the time 
and of course I thought they were screwing with me.

For sure. Copier changes numbers?? 
Of course, makes sense. We've heard that before.

They said: "Yes, come over 
and take a look at it.

We need the device,
it has to work."

So I drove over there and took a look.
Still being a bit

on the watch for the joke. 
They have a Xerox Workcentre 7535.

Here are the three marked spots 
in the original, before scanning.

I am not sure how good you can read it,
so I will read it out loud.

On the top it says 14.13 sqm (square meter)
in the middle it's 21.11 sqm,

and at the bottom 17.42 sqm. 
So I put the plans in the Workcentre

and scanned it. And here are the 
same spots after the scan.

Laughter and Applause

Interesting. Suddenly all rooms 
are 14.13 sqm big.

I thought this can't be right. 
Completely impossible. This isn't happening.

I was still thinking they are 
screwing with me. (laughs)

While scanning the - to clear
that out from the beginning, since I

got that question a dozen times 
in the internet- While scanning the text 
detection

was turned of. The number substitution 
takes place in the raw pixel data.

The company also had a second 
Workcentre, the 7556.

Thats bigger and faster.
Aside from these two kinds of Workcentres,

that I mention here in the beginning,
there are a lot more. It is

a gigantic family of devices.
In contrast to the smaller device

which spat out the same numbers every time,...
(laughs)

the larger one gave out different
ones every time. (Laughter)

It is bigger and has more CPU power.

(Laughter)

Look at those rows and how 
the values change. At "Stelle 2",

that is the middle row, 
first and last it's 14.13 sqm.

And in the middle 21.11, once.
That would have been the correct value btw.

There is a chance to get it right.
(Laughter)

In the other rows it looks similar.

In case one of you needs one of 
those NSA random generators....

(laughs)

Applause

Keep in mind, that actually this 
is no...

I am laughing as well, but it is no
laughing matter.

Note that the numbers are set 
into the layout perfectly. The error

was only noticed, because an
obviously bigger room had

a smaller square footage than 
a smaller one next to it.

There's a broom cupboard with
100 sqm and next to it a ball room

with 4 sqm. 
(Laughter)

It hardly gets any meaner.
The layout looks perfect.

I do realise that the writing is 
really small. Don't you

thinks this is some mean corner case
and I was working on

for three month, just to finally
stick it up to Xerox.

We will look at other examples.
This is the original case

in which the bug was originally noticed,
and I didn't want to keep it from you.

Here's the next one.
This is an expense register.

(Laughter)

Two sixes became eights.

It's funny, I released the picture
it on my website,

and I said: " Here a six became an eight."

Then I get an e-mail:
"No, on the top there's another."

(loud laughing and applause)

Again perfectly set.
Why was it noticed this time?

Because the numbers are supposed to
be sorted by size.

What I want to say is

it is impossible to notice. If I give
you some columns of numbers

that don't make any noticable sense.
Then you could obviously

not see, that there's wrong numbers.
It's always around there being

semantic criteria, to make it
noticable. To make it

obviously implausible. Otherwise
you have no chance to notice.

Slowly I became a little worried.

The neck length increases. To not let
this be some random events, I started

working to reproduce the error on 
purpose. IT guy style

invested a night and generated 
number columns in different

sizes and fonts. I scanned those and 
experimented for

a few hours. And, indeed, 
the error accurs again.

These are my random numbers.
We will be able to work with those

some more.
The eights marked in yellow

should be sixes and do not 
belong there. Let's stay ourselfes shortly.

I promised you in the introduction, that 
I would

lay out the entire interaction with Xerox, 
that would follow, over time

and tell you, how I felt at the corresponding
times and emphasize the things

that according to my experience are 
extremely important

when confronting a giant opponent.
And I will keep that promise.

I will tell you why at all times. 
But now I will

say one thing up front. This thing
I will discuss in different ways 
through the entire presentation.

What never helps in my point of view
is unfriendly twittering and hating.

(self-concious applause)

It's really nice that you are applauding,
I wasn't sure that would happen.

(laughter)

I have nothing against twitter as such.
Nothing at all.

But if you want to achieve something,
you make yourself vulnerable

with such behaviour. And above 
all you won't be taken seriously.

You can always be accused of
not wanting a proper discussion.

That won't fit in 140 letters,
no matter what any of you say.

(applause)

Secondly you can always be accused
of seeking attention

for yourself. Because almost 
everything is public on twitter.

At the most twitter is useful for 
establishing first contact, when you

ask for an e-mail adress or a phone number.
If I don't recommend twitter,

what do I recommend? 
Much more serious and straight foreward

is erverything, that is not public.
That way one shows willingness to work

rationaly and not urge to scream around.
That's mail or phone calls.

So we called the Xerox support.
Several times ...

Often ... We phoned uo all the levels
up to the top level

in Dublin - nobody knew 
anything.

We also sought personal contact.
Staff from the local Xerox retailer

came over. That's not Xerox themselves,
but a retail and support company.

Thay were shocked - of course, right?
And then they tried to reproduce it

themselves.
Zack! They reproduced it...

(laughter and applause)

That was .. we are laughing now.
They were standing there

heads hanging low. You are standing 
there selling these things

and suddenly you question your existence.

That's not cool at all. At Xerox
- not the support company,

but the entire, big Xerox, 140.000
employees,

there was surprise, but no efforts
were made

to help us or the retail company.
Meaning they were cautious of the problem.

(laughs)
(laughter)

So there were no signs at all 
of greater interest

and no advice, as for solving 
the problem. Then one guy came

from Xerox Central, who updated the 
software, we had an acient one

installed. He installed the new software,
problem was still there.

I thought: "Great, now we know
the problem existed in the fimware

three years ago until today." Hmmm.

When for more than a week nothing 
happened on Xerox's side

that promised hope, I thought:
"Now you have been accommodating enough!"

So I wrote a blog article in German and English

about what I just told you about.
In this article I offered

test documents to download. The readers can
print, scan and check whether

they are affected or not. With that 
the spread of the story started.

I have to add, my blog is not really huge
, really not. It has around

500-1000 readers per day. That's 
not a huge amount, but also not nothing

and the most readers are computer 
scientists of some form, I know that from the e-mails

I get. On the bottom of my slides from now
on you can see a line.

This line will continuously move 
further to the right. Thats a

plot of the klicks. It's not meant 
to show off with clicks, but

in context it's great to see, at what
time one gets attention in what way

and also to see how fast it fades.
We will show that immediately.

This small bump - yes, it's visible. 
The line

moved to the right and there's a 
peak of 3000 hits/hour.

Those numbers are from Google Analytics,
I have been told, one has

to multiply them by two, but for order of
magnitude it's enough.

On the 2nd and 3rd of August the story
hit on several tech-blogs.

At this point I declare the long-known
fefe as tech-blog.

(laughter)

I know, I know, there's the first protest.
But I will agree on the fact,

that fefe is read by a lot of IT-poeple.
Alright, I am

not hearing any more protest. The peak
you see here is because of blog.fefe.de .

The message spreads, and I get 
more and more mails from readers

that are affected. The most concerning is
that I get e-mails with confirmations

for a lot of Xerox-Workcentres
that I don't even know.

(laughter)

I told you before these things are 
one giant family of products. Very slowly

I realise, that this could turn into
something bigger eventually.

Lesson learned: It was good to 
release the test-documents online

with the article. Would the users not 
have been able to check for themselves

using the test-documents, the story would 
never have had an impact like it would soon have.

On the 4th of August the story arrived in 
tech-portals around the world.

In the slide is Hacker News by 
Y-Combinator, that's one of the biggest

of this kind, you probably know it.
From now on I get hundreds of technically

versed e-mails a day. I say "technically versed",
because there were also others

that were less technical.
Over the entire time I

spend days to channel and sort
the news

I get. This enabled me to 
continue the reporting

in a professionaly and to get to the
roots of the bug with professional help.

The whole thing becomes an avalanche
and I am not allowed to sleep any more.

Cause the US press is on the phone constantly.
You must not think that US- journalists

ever realise, that there's a thing
called time zones ....

(laughter and applause)

Here's another anecdote. One would
think the US media journalists are

competitors. Meaning if one had a special 
information he would not pass

it on to the others, right? As soon as the 
colleague from ABC had my phone number

ALL of them had it. I tell you, it's 
incredible! (laughs)

Lesson learned: Write these things in
multiple languages! Important are English

for the international space. Also the language 
of the home market of the company,

you are confronting. In my case thats the 
USA, so English, again

two birds with one stone.
By the way: in the US Xerox is so strong

that "to copy" is called "to xerox" there.
They really say that

in everyday conversation. The same way
we say: "Hand me a Tempo! (cotton tissue)",

just to give you an impression of how much
repute the company and the brand

has there. And when in the world 
of technology something like this goes around

what's next? Mass media
(some laughing)

And there you get the whole package.
We'll just click through here to

illustrate it. This list is in no way
complete, there were thousands of

articles suddenly, all over the world.
And if I show an article, then

- just as a disclaimer - it doesn't make
a statement about the date of publishing

statement about the date of publishing,
I just make it in a way that's good for the show

(some laughter)

Browsing, here is Heise, of course
that joys me as a computer scientist,

they covered the whole story in five
articles or so.

ZDF Hyperland, yes? I'm demonstrating
the german press a bit here.

The german press was very
reserved. The most articles

were in fact from abroad. 
Therefore the comment

about the "home market". But here
a small anecdote about the german press.

A journalist told me that he wanted to
bring the story to the "Tagesschau".

They told him "Yeah, hmm, it's alright.
But for this we want it to happen

during real copying, and not just
during scanning!"

(laughter and applause)

If anyone from the "Tagesschau" is 
watching, this applause is for you!

(laughter)

So I think: You geniuses!
Pro Tip: If you print a scan,

then you have a copy!
(laughter)

With the difference, that such a 
saved scan can cause

harm even years later.
But please! So I thought,

no "Tagesschau" story, it's going
around the world already anyways,

not my problem if they are the only
ones not covering it.

Lesson learned: Stay professional and
sovereign. Don't just bloat things

out of thirst for attention.
Every one of you can probably name

some affaire, that went 
rather well

for whoever made it public,
and then in the

decisive moment he tasted
blood and made something up.

That's bad of course. Oh well.
The Economists, that's really

vintage, I liked this title:
"Lies, damned lies and scans"

That comes from Tom Sawyer:
"Lies, damned lies and statistics"

Now PR wise, we're at a point
where it's expensive.

The Economists has influence.
ABC News - even more expensive.

There are the colleagues with
their phones.

BBC, CNBC.
Suddenly, it was everywhere.

My powerpoint is lagging, here
it is again. Business Week,

that is a popular economy 
magazine. I'll recall here,

until now, no reaction from Xerox.
Yes, three days in business,

worldwide. No reaction! And when you
take that long, the tone gets

really rough. I quote: "On the scale
of things, that are too terrible

to imagine, document altering
scanners are somewhere

up there with meat 
eating bacteria."

(laughter)

They are actually writing this in the
Business Week! (laughs)

So I was called my a friend of 
mine, listen you have to

read this. Great! Imagine,
there's Peter Coy, he's editor there,

that we will see again a few more 
times over the course of this talk.

So, my blog article is now at
about 100.000 visitors per day.

And still, no feedback from 
Xerox. In the meantime

I was able to explain, with the help 
of many reader-mails,

what's happening at all.
And that's what I am telling you now,

so we make a small excourse
about image compression.

Here we have a test image,
that I made. It's a

sundew, with a fly on it, that's
a plant. The fly as well as the

text belong to this test image.
For us to have a nice variety of pictures.

Data transfer costs time, money
and storage. Image consist,

compared to text, of a great amount
of data. And to send and save pictures

completely uncompressed would
be really expensive.

And images are sent everywhere, yes?
The use is there for every one

of us. I tell you, it goes to the highest
possible scenarios.

Just recently there was a giant
coverage, and even an

investigation by the government,
just because a former member of

the parliament transferred pictures.
(laughter)

(laughs)
So now, this member of the parliament

can't wait for his pictures forever, 
so we have to compress the image data.

(laughs again)

Listen here!
(laughs stupidly)

(applause)

Now we have two parts of my test
image. One image part

and one text part. And I enhanced
it so much you can see individual

pixels. This is so we can see what 
go wrong with different compression

methods. There is lossless 
compression. Here the

image data stays as is, it is
just somehow stored more

efficient. Or we accept losses,
so, changes in the image data,

to "squish" the data and make it
even smaller.

Here are the popular
GIF-images.

Can I have a small hand sign, who
thinks that GIF has lossy compression?

Wow, that's a lot! Almost everyone.

GIF is a lossless compression
method.

The downside is, it only supports
256 colours.

The here shown lower quality stems not 
from the image being saved

as a GIF, but from the colour
reduction.

To be able to see it better, I 
reduced the colour amount to 16.

Here you see it nicely, uiuiui. So.

The finished image is saved pixel
for pixel, and then LZW compressed.

LZW is an old compression algorithm,
similar to ZIP.

GIF is very suited for graphics with few
colours. And because pixels are still

saved completely one by one,
sharp edges are well

represented. You can see, the 
text looks pretty good. It's less good

in photographs, as you can see. Most
widespread are JPEG images. And JPEG

is lossy. The original image doesn't get
saved pixel for pixel anymore,

but instead gets split into 8x8
pixel blocks. And every block then

gets approximated with cosinus-waves.
How exactly this works mathematically,

we can spare ourselves from here.
But it is good to know, that this

kind of compression, it's good for
pictures, but bad for sharp edges,

as you can see in the letters, yes,
you can see artifacts, you can see

some stains around it. But usually
this would be full of artifacts,

the image. I can hold up
my notebook or so.

Long story short. Depending on the
type of image, certain compression

methods are good, and
others aren't.

That's why there is the JBig2-fomat.
This is one of the special words, that I

wrote down in three variants for the
translators.

Here you can dissect one image in
multiple sub images. The red

circled here as an example. These are
sub images. These sub images we call

"patches", english for "Flicken".
As we see, there are parts of the image,

that don't belong to any patch.
That's pretty cool, because

the data for these won't 
need to be saved at all.

You just say, background white. The joke
here is, these seperate patches, you can

compress these with multiple
compression methods.

The text patches, for example with GIF, 
I'll show it just very roughly here.

You probably can't use GIF in JBig2.
But the principle stays.

And the photo patch for example with JPEG.
Every patch its suited compression method.

That's a real advancement. I probably
won't have to explain anyone here,

that with this you will know, which patch
contains what, get a good

quality, and probably a
smaller file size. So,

if you dissect the image into patches
anyway, you might as well use a

completely new high tech compression
method. You can dissect the original image

much finer, and have every individual
letter as its own patch.

That's a lot of patches.
A whole lot of patches.

And you can do this with text
pages and books. And its used,

I didn't just make that up now.

So next we see, which patches 
are similar to each other.

This step is called "pattern matching".
I have marked four patches with arrows

here. These patches are very similar.
No wonder, you will say.

All of them are small "e"s. They are
only different by a few pixels.

Through this pattern matching, you get 
a group of similar symbols.

For this group, you only really save one
of those symbols, and that is

used over and over in the
compressed image.

Instead of his brothers. From these four
marked "e"s, only one would be

really saved, and then replaced all
the other ones. This way you can really

save a lot of data, with minimal
quality loss.

Here is the final product. Looks still
good, doesn't it? No artifacts

visible. Takes a lot less data than
without pattern matching.

Did you see that? The pattern matching
thinks the I is similar to the small L,

so you can replace that with it.
This happens, when pattern matching

works inaccurate. 
Did you see this too?

These are incredibly dangerous
mistakes.

Usual compression errors are not
so bad. Then one letter is

unreadable. You see it, and you know that
something went wrong, "scan again please".

But here you have actual wrong data, that
looks flawless. And they get layoutet in

perfectly because of the similarities.
You have to actually read this, to

notice the mistake. And even then,
you can only see the mistake,

when the document becomes obviously
implausible, like in the blueprint.

I don't know about you guys. But I don't
read through all of my scans,

that I take, just to see if it has
any mistakes.

But my friends, a politician that would
have to gloss over this,

he would say: "Scan a medicine 
dosing with a Xerox-device

in a retirement home, and there is
a high chance that in no time

you'll relieve the pension funds."
(laughter)

(applause)

Now it is clear, that this also related to
security. Until now, you could have

asked, why does David hold a speech about
copying machines on the congress?

But this is actually about a severe
failure of a company,

that is a serious security issue.
Is anyone here from Berlin?

Maybe a hand sign?

What did the blueprints for the
airport get scanned with?

(laughter and applause)

But you know what? Airports,
medicine, rockets, airplanes...

As big as this is, that's all trivial.
It gets interesting at the question,

where those scans got used in court
as evidence, that

can be reexamined now.
Or the other way around,

if one of you sues me with a 
Xerox-scan, from now on I'll just

tell you: "Ah, you know what,
it's faulty!" (laughs)

Now you can look for the
original first, to prove me

otherwise. I can't prove anymore,
that that part of the scan also

comes from the part of the paper
that you expect it to be from.

The legal value is zero! There's hundreds
of thousands of industrial copiers

worldwide. Those are business devices, 
every machine has many users, even more

documents that were made by it, that were
distributed whereever. And so you can

have an idea, a large company called
me, their letter processing works so,

that incoming leters just get scanned
immideately by machines,

and from there on they only exist
electronically. Have fun, if

those contain errors. So, we come
back to the implications later again.

But for now, back to the story. It's the
5th of August. We are three days after

the first impact, and on the third day god
created, finally yes, a life sign

by Xerox. Now, they are
watching after all man! (laughs)

(applause)

Thank you (laughs)

The PR of Xerox Germany calls me.
The talk is very unproductive.

They can't do anything without the 
americans. At first,

they though it was a joke. I say,
it's not. And then

we said, we will stay in contact.
(laughs)

(laughter and applause)

And so, the day after, 6th of August,
for the first time it really had a punch.

In the morning, I get a screenshot
by a reader, from

one of the details from the admin panel
of his Xerox-copiers. There they talk

about letter replacement. Aha! For the
record, now. We can all learn this

here: There are three PDF
compression levels.

These are called "Normal", "Higher",
and "High". Very marketing appropriate.

So, "Normal" is the mode, that compresses
the most. The reader says:

on "Normal", the error occurs, in the
higher levels it doesn't.

My tests seem to comfirm this. I say it
extra vague here, more on it later.

(pauses to drink)

I promised you to show you the 
moods over this situation,

in case something like it ever happens
to you. And really: In the first moment

my heart dropped into my gut.
I was scared shitless, to be the idiot

that didn't read the manual, yes?
(laughter)

Because there is still no
official Xerox-statement, and I got

a tip from the press, that Xerox says
exactly this in their statement.

Lesson Learned: What's the difference
between inside and outside view?

Exactly this. No? Surely you think:
"Hello? Why is David so agigated,

it's clear that this type of document
error should

never have happened, not even 
unknowingly." But from the inside...

It looks different. Despite being scared,
it's important: Stay calm, act rational.

Because of anxious moments like this,
it's important that previously you

never screech and de-escalate.
Never rabble beforehand.

If you were always sovereign,
you can appear confident,

and in doubt, calmy and publically ask:
"Well, boys? Why did the

support not tell me this
two weeks ago, eh?"

Lesson Learned: Appear professional
from the start, never hate. I'll repeat

that again. So, now,
defense to the front. I presented

the screenshot as a possible workaround
and advised: Turn compression

on "Higher". Additionally I wrote,
that I was wondering a bit,

why the support couldn't say this
to me over the course of a whole week.

I also criticized, that the setting is 
called "Normal". (laughs)

And the possible consequences
I showed to you, of course those stay,

because on the scan you can't 
see, that it might

contain errors. The goal was, to give the
thing a spin, before Xerox fights back.

It follows a telephone conference with
Rick Dastin. (murmur)

I see, he is known in the audience,
the vice president worldwide of Xerox.

And Franics Tse, one of their
chief engineers, that

was handling the image compression.
Guys, the boss does support himself!

(laughter and applause)

Rick Dastin was in fact the first person
that work at Xerox,

that I got officially told by, that
the letter replacement was

in fact already known by Xerox. So,
if you'd like to know, what the

support can't tell you after a week, then
you say: "I want to

talk to Rick Dastin!"
(laughter)

And here, it was revealed that
the theory, that the pattern matching

was at fault, was true. Dastin also
confirmed, that the pattern matching

is only used in "Normal" mode.
So after a bit of discussion, it was

also clear, that the support fucked up,
and the name

"Normal" might be badly chosen. I then
suggested "Experimental".

(laughter and applause)

Maybe here: I'm really in a good mood,
and this is a lot of fun,

and we are all laughing, but in 
that moment I was

just more nervous. Not that you
think it would be different for you.

There I'll be completely honest. And then
comes a clear "RTFM" from Xerox.

First: "Normal" mode, David,
is not even a factory setting!

Dear customers, you're all stupid.
Who would set it to such thing!

Second: That letters can get swapped,
that is explained in the manual,

on two seperate occasions.
Dear customers: double stupid!

For the factory setting: Of course
that's only a half truth. For the

customer, factory setting is, what the 
device gets delivered with. Xerox doesn't

supply to big customers. Those sales
go over third parties.

If you order a Xerox-copier, you do it
over another company,

that isn't Xerox, and they will advise
you and there you can configure

whatever before they ship it. And for the
manual: The notice is in some manuals

indeed. But then I looked closer: On page
107 and 328 in the text, yes?

Now we are all old enough to know, how
many people will read a 300 page

manual, before handling a printer.
(laughter)

I also thought, that copiers generally
shouldn't be designed in a way, so

those errors can occur at all.
That can't be, no one expects that.

(applause)

The answer was: "Yes, it can be!"
(laughter)

"The market wants it this way,
errors would just..."

(laughter)

That was indeed a statement, that
was said exactly like this. I quote here,

but of course that only related to small 
file sizes. And errors

would also be very rare. But I would be
right, you can't prove, that a

document is free of errors. So, all in all
the talk had a nice

atmosphere. They really didn't try to
squash me legally or so.

They listened very nicely, the talk was
super long too, 45 minutes

or so. And then I let myself get
caught by them, like an amateur.

You have to consider, I had never done
anything on a scale like this.

And with a company like Xerox, they have
professionals. I was already wondering,

why we were talking so peacefully for such
a long time. Dastin is the vice

president of a worldwid operating
company after all. And he probably

has other stuff to do. And now it turns
out, during the phone talk,

Xerox published a statement.
Not bad at all. During that time

I couldn't react after all. And it
had the beautiful title "Always listening

to our customers"... right at the moment!
(laughs)

And they write in their statement, for
error free files, please

use a compression setting of
at least "Higher", and the error

would be written about in the manual.
RTFM. Lesson learned: Have someone

watch the side of the enemy.
So I wrote my own article,

about the contents of the phone call,
the one that

I just told you about. Well, and then
I also wrote,

that I don't think they're off
the hook yet. And now?

This could've been over here.
When a single blogger goes up

against a giant company, it
usually ends one of three ways, when

the company shoots back: Either the
blogger gives in after,

or the public sides with the company,
or the public

loses interest, when the company
shot back.

Every one of you can now think of three
stories, where it was like this.

But none of this happened. You see
the giant increase at the bottom. The

story was on the cover of Slashdot.
And the press, luckily,

also had their attention on me.
Here for example, Heise writes, that I

offered the workaround even before Xerox.
(laughs)

(laughter and applause)

I'll exceed my time limit a bit.

Or also, bone dry, "Spiegel". They wrote:
"So so, Xerox knew about the problem

for years?" (laughs dumbly)
That's really... If you sit in

PR of a company, and this
happens to you, I guarantee

you don't need to take vacation
for the rest of the year.

But it gets real funny, when the story
arrives at internet humour.

I won't withhold this from you. I don't 
know who of you has lived in

the US before. In german, we have the
vulgar saying: "Now the shit is

steaming". And the americans say
"Shit hits the fan".

The day after this story is on the
front page of Reddit. The circled

comments brings the most eloquent
version of "Shit hits the fan", that I

have ever seen.
(laughter)

Yes, but what he says, is true. I already
said it earlier.

When a company is depending on document
digitalization, and you think about it,

who isn't these days, then we have a
problem. They can shut down the

company, if they are unlucky. For
example, I was called by the management

of a state archive. They created their 
archive with Xerox devices, and what did

they do then? They thew away the
originals. Ye?

(spiteful laughter)

Now they stand there, with an empty gaze
in front of their scanner fleet, and then

they can check all their documents for
plausability. But even otherwise the

internet humour is amazing.
(laughter)

(applause)

Even the involved provide
the humour themselves.

If you, as the Xerox vice president, 
get the same interviews all day,

maybe mistakes happen.
This one's pretty good. You

don't need to read, I'll read it out real
quick. Of all things, in front of BBC

Dastin tried to explain. He
said: "You know, all this is

half so bad, this "Normal" 
compression mode, it can

produce errors, but almost no one
uses that, only the military or some

oil drilling platform."
(laughter and applause)

Yeah, what could go wrong?
(laughs childlike)

So, now we have...
(laughter)

(laughs)
Now we all noticed,

that errors on oil drilling platforms in
the USA were a bit neglected

lately. Now we all laughed. And I did
say - I want to keep my

word - laughing is ok, but
malice is inappropriate,

even malice is hating. And, try to imagine
you in Dastin's shoes. If you were

interviewed about the same thing for 14
hours, you'd make a mistake too.

And of course, that mistake will be talked
about. Dastin said to me afterwards,

they misquoted him, and I don't have
any reason not to believe him.

Just to protect him a bit here:
He probably didn't have

a good day.
So, let's continue.

This tech-portal is glad that
catpics don't seem to

be affected.
(laughter)

Notice the way it's written, as if they
make sure, yes, as if they don't

know really, maybe catpics are
affected after all.

(murmur)
And here's a new press statement

by Xerox. The public pressure was so
big, that Xerox said:

"Ah well, you know what, maybe we
should rather do a patch

where we remove pattern matching".
Legally recognizing the mistake however,

they never did. Even until now.
Since it was in the manual.

That's how it is by the way. If it's in
the manual, it's ok. For

microwave, it's written, you
can't dry your cat in this.

Here is another newspaper article.
And when you waited so long,

even a patch won't save you from
mockery. Now the newspapers start

including misprints
in titles on purpose.

(laughter)

Let's go back to Xerox's statement,
because they write

a clear, important declaration. You will 
not see letter replacement,

if you set your compression to at least
"Higher", at minimum 200 dpi.

Xerox published documents, in which it
is clearly stated, that pattern matching

is only used in "Normal" compression mode,
and not in the two higher ones.

But now here this whole time I've been 
thinking, I'm sure I also

saw it in the higher modes.
Different readers

told me as well. But I just can't
reproduce it on my two local

devices. But one thing
is for sure:

If letters get replaced in higher modes as
well, then absolutely everyone

would be affected. And Xerox would have
miscommunicated. Then we would

have a much bigger problem worldwide.
So I don't just publish my worry as

a rumour. Decency also dictates
that. So, but now one of my

friends in a company in Bonn, my 
former living place, looked at

his Xerox Workcentre 7545. I'll look up
the numbers later! (laughs dumbly)

And because it was my former place
of residence, we went there and

took my test numbers, and scanned 
them in the mode "Higher",

that's the factory setting, and we even
chose 300 dpi as a resolution,

for text, you'll agree with me, 
that's quite generous.

Zack - The yellow numbers are wrong.
(laughter)

That's not all by the way. I just marked
a few here that I saw.

I won't go through 500.000 numbers
and mark all wrong ones.

But you see, how common the errors are.
I repeat:

In compression mode "Higher" with 300 dpi.
Now we take the blue rectangle and

enhance it. Here are groups of numbers 
marked in red - oh, you only see it

in light pink now, but you see it - 
that are identical to the pixel.

Such thing is very unlikely. If you
scan the same number multiple times,

it will almost always look slightly
diferent. So, pixel identical numbers

in a high quantity means, that numbers 
get reused, that's

a clear sign of pattern matching.
So different from Xerox's statement,

we also have pattern matching that's
used here. One reader once even told

me of an interactive visualization,
that makes same numbers visible.

Yes, let's see if it...
- Yes! - there it is.

And now I can hover over it here with
my mouse pointer, and

we'll make everything red, where
a number was reused.

I won't make it too long, I'm already
a bit in overtime.

It's because you always applaud so nicely.
Which I enjoy. (laughs)

(applause)

But here you can see, how many numbers
can really be wrong.

From here on it's clear: Hundreds of
thousands of devices, on factory

settings are affected, and the fun is
really over. With this you can really

hit a company hard. And I didn't 
want to publish this without

searching a talk first. And I 
wanted to make sure, that I

didn't make a mistake. 
I didn't want to be able to be

sued for millions in stock price here.
So I recorded the whole process

of the wrong number generation on video,
and put it on youtube as an

unlisted video. I sent the link to 
Francis Tse, one of the chief

engineers that I mentioned earlier.
And of course they were

thunderstruck. From here on the thing
is really all encompassing. Francis

confirmed over phone, that I did all
right indeed. And Xerox was cooperative,

but they also wanted me to wait until
they reproduced the error.

But I also remembered, that during our
last telephone call,

I felt a bit fucked with. So I 
said, my people,

it won't be like last time now.
"I have the blog article done,

and the video is already uploaded."
(laughter)

(laughs)
And when you...

(applause)

"Don't take offense, but I request to be
included from now on,

because I also treat you fair."
So we agreed on the thing,

and now you see what it brings to
not hate in advance. If

you shat on them beforehand on Twitter,
it's clear they say "Come, screw you!"

After that, there was about six hours 
back and forth calls. We had

calls over and over. They tried to 
reproduce the error with my help.

For me it was evening, I spent the 
night on the phone in the office

and didn' eat anything but the cookies
that layed around. At some point Francis

calls again, and says completely
dumbfounded "Yep, we reproduced it."

Errors on factory settings, then
there was silence on both sides.

We were just all shocked. 
And you know what was found parallel?

The Code for the compression scan is
eight years old. That's how long the bug

was out in the wild.
Eight years.

Yes, they were a bit dumbfounded. 
And I said: "Here's

my blog article, please read it and
confirm, what legal safety

I have for publishing
this."

(laughter and applause)
(gasps of laughter)

No, so...
this error is extremely dangerous.

I didn't want to wait any longer. Here's
the article, and that's what

they did. And I was allowed to publish
the article before them, even. That's

pretty unique. And you will agree 
with me, don't hate: If that's what

you reach with this, then that's
good. A conversation between adults.

Lesson learned: Negotiate in the 
right moment. This is the next

Xerox press statement. I'll
increase my speed a bit.

Xerox, of course, commented right after
this as well.

They retract their earlier
communication, thank me, and

say, that now first of all they'll see,
how big the thing really is.

And from there on they were always nice
in the statements, and

overall the climate was very constructive.
This is the next Slashdot article.

It's getting surreal, 
just look at the titles!

After the back and forth, it doesn't
matter for be with Slashdot

what Xerox says, but what they
confirm to me. (laughter)

And here again is our snappy
Peter Coy from Business Week.

But now... One more, I do
have on more.

I mean, a compression mode!
(laughter)

Doesn't really matter now. But on
August 11th the proof for the

error also occuring on "Highest" 
mode succeeds.

Even a quality conscious user in the
last eight years, that wanted to

produce beauttiful PDFs, couldn't
avoid it. And to be honest,

after my informations the error 
doesn't occurr on TIFFs.

I don't want to make it look worse than it
is. No one takes TIFFs, of course,

they're gigantic. On August 12th Xerox
admits publically, that it's a matter of

an eight year old system error.
And announces the patch again.

But of course they are deep in the
whole thing, legally. And when it's

midday in the USA, it's night time here.
And so in the middle of the night, when

visitors of this speech are usually awake,
Dastin and Tse called me on

my phone, and wanted to tell me first,
which I have to say, I found incredibly

nice of them, that they found the bug,
and they'll roll out new

software. And there you can see
that the relation really

got better. This is the patch download
page by Xerox. Here you can see

how many devices are affected.
Note the "X"e, that's whole

device families!
(laughter)

So, the press is reporting again.
The computer magazine CT writes

an article, and calls the whole thing
"Scannergate". And here is

one last kick from our
beloved Peter Coy.

He sounds so sarcastic, but
unfortunately he's completely right.

Eight years of production of scanned,
archived documents could contain

these errors, and cause harm until
forever. Hundreds of thousands

of deviced and companies worldwide. We
live in a society, where now,

as we are speaking, the transition
from a world of paper into a mix of

paper and digital is happening.
And the translator

between the two worlds, that's
deviced by Xerox workcentres.

It'll be with us for a long time.
Now the most important thing:

I already said, that Xerox has a 
decentralized supply over third parties.

Personally, I have no reason to believe
that the patch reached

a lot of devices. So: Spread the word!
At the end of this talk there will be URLs,

where you can get more info 
and see more. It's almost

the end... Besides all the "Lessons
learned", there's one "Lesson" that I

haven't mentioned yet.
I always got disbelieving looks,

that I didn't take any money for the
thing. One manager even said,

I'm "pretty dumb". About that, two things.
First, it's generally hard to make money

with something like this. Even if you want
With no proof you won't be taken serious.

And with the proof, you'll mostly just 
find the bugfix directly, and then

you won't get any money either.

And second: Companies don't know
friends. If I had taken money,

it would've somehow been made public
and could've been used against me.

And it would've brought be in a
position hard to negotiate.

But I wanted this error to be fixed.
And last but not least,

the community helped me, and
they didn't get money either.

I'd do it like this
again, but...

(cheering)

...at the end of the day, everyone has
to decide that for themselves. If you

would do it differently, then that's ok.
I just want to say in advance,

you bring yourself in a weaker
negotiation position. That's all

the "Lessons learned" again. I won't
reiterate them again now.

They're here so you can download the
presentation, and still have them.

And now we close the circle to the
start, and with that we are done.

At the start, there's the prologue with
Obama's birth certificate. Here it is,

the "long form birth certificate". Shortly
after the Xerox-saga, journalists from

the "Reality Check" USA wrote me, if
the Xerox bug could've been

the reason for the "forgery".
And they did a whole lot of

detective work. For example, the Obamas
published their tax documents, shortly

before the birth certificate. It was scanned
by a Xerox Workcentre 7655.

Tja, and further technical 
attributes spoke for

a Xerox scanner. And the "Reality 
Check" guys asked me, if

I could ask Xerox about it, since
I had such good contacts. And Xerox...

(laughter)
And Xerox asked for understanding,

that they really didn't want to 
deal with this now... (laughs)

...and I left it alone. And now I'll
prepare for my

congress speech, for this talk today,
yeah, I look in the PDFs again,

and there's the exact copied, yeah
the exact letters in there, that were

a sign by Xerox for pattern matching
back then. And I look on the internet

pages, and there it also says something
about letter doubling. Here's two exact

same boxes. Notice the indents on it.
Now, make your own image here

But I think it could be, that
this conspiracy

is hereby over and done. And with this,
it only remains for me to say thanks, for

spending a whole hour with me!

(applause)

If everyone keeps clapping, it'll
take even longer!

So... (laughs)

Up there you'll find another link for
the Xerox saga. Pass it on!

And down here a link to my page.
There I'll publish

the presentation online. Maybe tomorrow.
I won't go into the WIFI here! (laughs)

(laughter)

And take care of evil copiers!

Herald: Okay, thanks first of all,
for this amazing talk!

I think it was very interesting
for everyone.

Everyone on the way out, please
hurry and close the doors after.

And be quiet.

For the questions, I'd like to start
with the ones from the internet.

From our Signal Angel.

Signal Angel: Thanks!
And a great applause from the internet,

you couldn't hear it now. But there
was a lot of positive feedback.

And also the plea to publish the 
presentation, especially

the symbol images were well 
recived.

Daniel: It will happen, on my page, latest
tomorrow. Definitely.

Signal Angel: Very good, thanks. Two
questions from me.

The first question is, does Xerox have
a technical difference between

Scanning, Printing and Copying?
Or is it always the same thing?

Daniel: So, scanning, there paper comes
in and for printing it comes out, ne?

(laughter)

No, so, for printing, you just 
recieve the printing data.

I don't know about anything being
compressed afterwards again.

Scanning - here there are different modes.
The PDF modes, there are three, that

I mentioned earlier. And copying - In my
view it's not like this, that it always

happens during printing, because there you
don't compress. You see how I mean it, yes?

I'm sure I would have recieved some 
reports if it was like that.

And that's why I don't think the process of
copying itself is affected. But

that wouldn't be so bad anyways, because
there are no documents that get archieved here.

Signal Angel: Okay, and the second question:
Are there any definitive

harms that happened because of this bug?

Did you ever recieve and feedback
regarding this?

Daniel: I have feedback, the ones that
I named earlier.

And of course a few more. I'm of course
not going to say any names.

But... So, I can only say this much:

You have to imagine yourself in the place
of the company that's affected here.

Your files might be good for the trash.

Will you make this public?
No, you will request compensation

from Xerox in silence, and not write
any of this on your

website, because then it will fall back to you,
that our data

is faulty. No one will ask you, if that
was a Xerox copier now.

So I don't expect there to be a grand
reveal now, if it can be

avoided. If some random bridge on
a highway collapses now

that would of course be a different
matter.

Signal Angel: Okay, thanks again!
Daniel: Gern!

Herald: Good, then I'd suggest we continue
at microphone 2,

at the first person.

Question: Just a short question. This is
probably a technique that gets used

by many. Did you ever try this
with devices

from other companies?

Daniel: I had a great quantity of reports
from other companies. But if you

take on a thing of this scale, you'll
become a victim of spin doctoring.

And all of it turned out to be false,
Here, again:

Stay sovereign, don't just pump out
rumours. Here none of it was true,

and in concrete cases it wasn't the 
compression method itself,

but the fact that there was indeed
another bug.

Herald: Good, then 3 please!

Question: Hello? Thanks for the talk,
it was pretty cool.

I just wonder about the thing, the bug
being there somehow for eight years.

Did you look on search engines, did
others... I mean, I can't

imagine that for eight years no one
saw it, because

as you say, on a blueprint, 
there you can see pretty quickly, so...

or maybe other people messaged you,
because they had seen it before,

or maybe they said, hey I noticed this
before, Xerox said,

yes, higher compression, then they were
lucky and it worked.

Daniel: So, it was, first of all hard to
discover. Second of all,

it was known for the mode "Normal".
It was on purpose, they even knew about it

And that's why it was hard to recognize the
real bug, because Xerox...

The support that knew - mine didn't know - 
always blamed it on the

"Normal" setting. And then it's plausible,
then I tell you:

"Yes, you used the "Normal" setting, 
take another one, then

the error will occur less,
you'll probably be lucky there"

So I think, that indeed, that the
bug was discovered for the first time...

Question: So, no one contacted you, with
"Hey, I've seen this before" or so?

Daniel: No, no one. In the whole
storm, no.

Herald: Okay, next up again from
the 2 please.

Question: Moin, thanks for the presentation
from me as well. Was very cool.

Daniel: Sure.

Question: Short question, you said,
you didn't do it for money...

Daniel: Correct.

Question: ...and somehow... I find it
very noble, very cool. But

did they ever offer you something
from their side?

Daniel: No, they didn't.
No one there...

Question: Not even a job or anything?

Daniel: Well, there I can in fact hold 
Xerox a bit. They didn't offer

me anything. I couldn't have accepted
it anyways

by that logic. That's why it was totally 
fine. In that long night, where we

had the phone call, they were ready
to have me fly in. But

I honestly don't know anything about
copiers either. Not my main job.

I can show them the bug, but
I can't repair it. So...

Question: Ok, but if they would have
flown you in, why not

work with them together and try
to solve the thing?

Daniel: Jo, I could've done that. But
I couldn't have contributed anything.

Because, they have to find the bug in
their code themselves. It was clear that

something happened. I can't help with
that. I'd just sit around.

So I also said it just like that.

Question: That makes sense.

Daniel: Yes, and flying 2x intercontinential
for that... I don't know.

Question: Yes, but if they paid I would've
done it.

Daniel: I admit, I also overthought it
again. But I had

also stuff to do job wise, and
it wouldn't have worked out.

Herald: Good, next up 3 again.

Question: Well, I have a copier at home,
and I have a very

intimate relationship with it.
Are there any reports, that

some tried it with their home copiers,

and then went "Oh Sh...?"

Daniel: I don't know of any reports like 
that. It only affected the things that

I just showed. Workcentre, ColourCube.
All big things.

basically.
Question: Okay.

Daniel: This JBig2 in Hardware, 
that's also

I think very expensive to 
implement.

Question: Okay, thanks!
Daniel: Jo!

Herald: And 3 again please!

Question: Maybe a cool crows research
task

Is maybe to look through
those manuals,

to collect. Who had access, which
year does it show

up in the documentation at all, is it
really

that old, so eight years, or maybe 
only four years?

They only noticed four years ago, and 
thought, hm, it's cheaper, we print

new handbooks, and leave the software
as it is. Because it's more expensive,

to roll out new firmware.

Daniel: There's a theory, that here a bug
was declared a feature.

I can confirm that. But I don't have
proof for it. I want to say that very

clearly. But seriously, who would
design a scanner,

that swaps around numbers? Only if it
was just for the military (laugsh)

Herald: Okay, I think one last question.
Then 2 again.

Question: Not really a question, but more
of a suggestion for the presentation,

in case you present it again.
It's really great.

You have this scale, with accesses to
your website at the bottom.

I wondered, during the talk, if maybe
you could also do that

with the stock price of Xerox?
(Daniel laughs)

Daniel: It wasn't that bad. I mean,
that PR section of them

handled it pretty well despite the
world wide attention they had.

I mean, that's really an error, where you
could think, this is

a danger for the whole company. It's their
bread and butter business.

But it didn't turn out that way. We will
see, I could've put

such a live stock price curve in the
presentation. I don't know,

what's happening on the internet right
now. But good suggestion, thanks!

Herald: Okay, we also have questions from
the internet.

Therefore I'd also like to...

Signal Angel: I just have one more
question from the internet. Are

there are statistics or numbers, 
about how high

the likeliness of such an error is?

Daniel: Well, you saw the page I told 
you about. That was the case

with font size 7 or 8. I don't know
anymore, where I got it really

niceöy reproduced. But when...

Signal Angel: But... Numbers, thatr's not a normal page
now is it?

Daniel: It was all numbers, but
of course it's also possible with

similar letters. But it can happen too.
I don't have any statistics.

For the numbers the 6 and 8 are
affected the most. But real

error percentages, I don't have.
But you can see, what's possible.

So I have... I didn't try for
hours on end, until I found the

page with many yellow points. I
scanned ONE page, and then it

was like that. Yeah? So it's not like
you have to look for it forever.

Question: Yes, thanks!

Herald: Alright, I think we are done
then.

Then please another big applause
for the lecturer!

(applause)

Daniel: Thanks!

(longer applause)

31C3 Credits with no audio

Subtitles created on amara.org in the
year 2017 - 2022 by multiple collaborators