No one really knows what went on there, in Northern Syria, last week. Rumors say that Israel might have attacked Syria. But in a state where no one confirms, nor denies the existance of an International Incident, though Syria sends thick clues. But is there really a certain truth that could escape the internet? could it be that a barren and distant forum has four commentators sitting and explaining what they saw that night? (maybe something here)
The US Navy developed TOR since 1996. The system was meant to allow organisations with anonymous websurfing. No more statisticising the spy, but the spy can sit and read most of the information without fear that he is the one monitored. The system was perfected by the EFF and today any person can enjoy relatively anonymous browsing without fear. But anonymity on one hand, and privacy on the other.
Dan Egerstad, a security expert, installed and array of Tor servers with which he analysed email traffic from governmental organisations. He found out that email passwords of hundreds of organisations were exposed. Moreover, according to the published list of passwords, hundreds of organisations, including the same ones which aren’t major fans of anonymous browsing, operate TOR servers and order their international embassies to encrypt their communication with TOR.
A week ago, The Register reported that China hacked into the Pentagon’s computers. The standard espionage, which we know from James Bond pictures, where spies were polite and discrete, became over night to be the real espionage we know. The same espionage that each and every one of us could commit, would he dare to inspect the new systems. The same thing happened today when The Inquirer reported that potential spies intruded New Zealand’s Government’s computers.
(Image CC-BY-SA bluedharma)The ability of a state to keep its secrets is only as good as its ability to encrypt its data. In this case, every state would have to establish a governmental authority for data protection to understand how to protect information. Ironically, means that enable governments to track it citizens and retain data won’t benefit the state, but harm it as it may expose the state for more intrusions.
ynet reported today that the Technion, an Israeli University, requires all of its students to install a malware which scans your computer and finds out whether the user install one of four any virii software. At the same time, the Technion forces all its students to use Windows OS. In praxis, it causes a bigger security hole as hackers know both That all of the Technion’s IP Addresses use Windows and one of four anti virus programmes. Therefore, any security breach in both those systems will be channelled automatically for entry
Returning to Syria, we can now understand Syria’s intelligentical advantage. It blocked Syrian citizens from entering the net prima facia so now they have no possibility to report the incident, and no possibility that hackers – which can only reach Syria by foot as it is blocked from the net, could expose what happened there. Great success? it depends who you ask.
Tomorrow’s battlefield is the net. Classic Intelligence will slowly be replaced by instant messaging programmes, analysing satellite imagery containing footage of nuclear reactors or even reading blogs just to understand the public opinion.Suddenly, what the government wishes to bar so heavily would be its only mean to act in the free world.
Would it be a joint interest of all governments to avoid censoring the net to enable collection of intelligence or will it be a joint interest to censor the net to avoid collection of intelligence?