Black Hat has removed renowned security researcher Vincenzo Iozzo from its website, pulling his name from the conference’s influential review board. The Japanese security conference Code Blue made the same change, as both events quietly scrubbed Iozzo’s listings amid renewed scrutiny tied to recently released government documents referencing Jeffrey Epstein’s network.
Conference Pages Drop Vincenzo Iozzo Amid Renewed Scrutiny
Iozzo, chief executive of identity-focused startup SlashID and a former senior director at CrowdStrike, had served on the Black Hat review board for years, according to his professional profiles. That body shapes the program by vetting and selecting talks, a role that can make or break which discoveries and vulnerabilities reach the community’s main stage. As of this week, his name no longer appears on the public rosters of either Black Hat or Code Blue. Representatives for the conferences did not respond to requests for comment.
DOJ Archive And An Unverified ‘Personal Hacker’ Claim
The U.S. Department of Justice recently published a large archive of case materials related to Epstein, which includes thousands of documents and email records. Iozzo’s name surfaces in more than 2,300 items in that trove, reflecting repeated communications but not, on their face, illegal conduct. Among the materials is a redacted FBI informant report alleging Epstein had a “personal hacker.” The report does not name that person, and the FBI has not validated the informant’s claims. Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera, reviewing contextual details in the memo, suggested the description pointed to Iozzo, but that remains an inference, not a confirmed identification.
Emails from the archive indicate Iozzo corresponded with Epstein’s circle over several years and sought meetings, including after prominent newspaper investigations reignited public attention on Epstein’s offenses. There is no evidence in the disclosed communications that Iozzo engaged in criminal activity, and law enforcement has not accused him of a crime in connection with those interactions.
Iozzo Denies Wrongdoing And Seeks Review
Through a spokesperson, Iozzo has said he met Epstein via trusted contacts during startup fundraising and failed to ask probing questions he now considers obvious. He characterized his interactions as limited to business discussions and market or technology topics, emphasized that no deals materialized, and stated he neither observed nor participated in illegal behavior. The spokesperson added that Iozzo would welcome an independent inquiry by Black Hat rather than a summary removal, asserting confidence he would be cleared.
Why The Removal Matters For Security Conferences
Review boards at premier security events wield outsized influence. They filter hundreds of submissions, elevate high-impact research, and signal credibility to enterprises, vendors, and governments that rely on conference stages to assess risk and investment priorities. Black Hat’s flagship event draws tens of thousands of practitioners and executives across its global editions each year, and the brand’s imprimatur helps set the industry’s agenda well beyond the Vegas keynote halls.
Against that backdrop, who sits on a review board is more than a biographical footnote; it is an endorsement that carries reputational weight for both speakers and sponsors. In recent years, major tech conferences have tightened codes of conduct, conflict-of-interest rules, and speaker vetting as the community grapples with governance questions that extend beyond technical merit. Quiet removals, while not uncommon, can trigger debate about process transparency and the balance between due diligence and due process.
What To Watch Next For Black Hat And Code Blue Decisions
Black Hat has not publicly explained the decision, nor has Code Blue commented on its own roster change. If conference organizers opt for an independent review, expect scrutiny to focus on whether any disclosed communications indicate misconduct relevant to program governance, conflicts, or code-of-conduct violations. Absent that, the current step appears to be a reputational risk decision rather than a legal conclusion.
The DOJ archive, the FBI’s redacted informant memo, and analyses by news organizations will continue to shape public perception, but none replace formal findings. For now, the immediate development is clear: a long-standing reviewer has been removed from two of cybersecurity’s most-watched conference websites, raising fresh questions about how the sector navigates ethics, accountability, and the consequences of past associations.
