Assuming things are as they appear to be from the Samsung response (as, IMO, seems very likely), one of the things that strikes me here was that the "research" that a security "expert" conducted seems incredibly sloppy.
Did he actually look in the Windows/SL directory? Did he compare the contents to those that StarLogger actually installs (a trial version is available for download)? This seems like pretty basic stuff. Did he ask Microsoft what a Windows/SL directory might be?
This situation reminds me of the HBGary incident. This guy is actually paid to know what he's talking about, and he has no clue what he's talking about. And this isn't cake-making, it's security! Preposterous.
And the potential for damage to Samsung is significant. The story was front page of The Age's web site (major Melbourne publication). Even an updated headline akin to "Samsung denies shipping laptops with secret spyware" is potentially damaging.
The Age article does note:
"Network World said it contacted three public relations officers at Samsung for comment and gave them a week to send back their comments. 'No one from the company replied,' it said."
My guess is that Mr Hassan is an independent consultant, and NetSec Consulting is his contracting vehicle.
To be fair to him, Samsung did turn around and say, "Yeah we're keylogging, problem?" or words to that effect. If he's not a technical security consultant then that might be enough for him to go to the press (especially if he felt stiffed by Samsung).
Not all security roles are technical, not all consultants are either, it's entirely possible that he's a policy or risk kind of guy.
'To be fair to him, Samsung did turn around and say, "Yeah we're keylogging, problem?" or words to that effect.'
May I observe that the only reason we think that Samsung confirmed this is from the words of a source that is now appearing not to be trustworthy in the first place? If this "security consultant" couldn't verify the actual existence of a key logger in the first place, why do we trust him to accurately relay a conversation with support? I don't really accept it as fact that Samsung confirmed anything in particular at any point; the possibility that this guy heard what he wanted to hear is too significant to ignore.
The most straight forward way to find out what the Samsung created SL directory does is to ask Samsung. Which apparently he did.
I would suggest that wading through a corporate customer service call center's escalation process is reasonable evidence of due diligence. And I find it somewhat more likely that a call center employee affirmed the SL directory was for keylogging to clear the case than that Mr. Hassan fabricated a story about the call and Samsung's confirmation.
Hassan's allegation has all the marks of a mistake due to inexperience rather than fabrication because it is just too easy to disprove.
Not only that, but the guy continues to use the same install of windows after discovering the issue. He then has more issues with the laptop and returns it for ANOTHER Samsung.
First off, if I even remotely sense that there is malware on my machine it gets an immediate format. Second, why in Thor's name would you buy from Samsung again? I get the impression he's a guy with a little knowledge that thinks he has this whole computer thing figured out. If you are going to make these types of allegations and publish them, you have to approach it scientifically and verify your results.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I'm going to tend towards "guy becomes very unhappy with samsung for unknown reason, guy lies about keylogger".
Because I agree - if you were going to tend to make a big fuss about this (as I would) and I had determined it looked like Samsung installed the first one (as he claimed) in no way would I ever get samsung laptop #2. Not to mention, not even checking the contents of the directory before reporting it widely.
Pretty decent approach to tarnish their reputation too, if it happened that way. To get an estimate of reach, the HN story "Samsung installs keyloggers" currently has 477 votes - it seems quite unlikely the retraction will get that much exposure.
The security industry is full of quacks like this. In fact, I'd say the number of frauds and snake oil salesmen FAR outweigh the number of legitimate and intelligent security folks.
Someone working in Security firm (NetSec Consulting) should have idea of they are saying.