The Attack of Philker Hackers

Hacking is old news. So old, that it is believed that hacking has been around pretty much since the development of the first electronic computers(1). Anyone with security vulnerabilities can be a target. No one is safe. Not even government websites. Last year isolated attacks were experienced in different government agencies particularly: Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD); TESDA; GSIS; National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC); and Philippine Information Agency (PIA) .

And you think they have learned their lesson? Well, not really.

Just recently, the latest Government web sites to join the ranks are:

• Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) on May 31

• Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI) on June 13

• Bureau of Customs (BOC) on June 15

• Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on June 16

• Office of the Vice President (OVP) on June 20

• Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on June 23

What is alarming about the recent attacks is that there is one group who call themselves Philker Hackers, responsible for the attacks on the PNRI, FDA and OVP websites.

Photo Credit: http://www.techalang.com/

Philker Hackers, who are "proudly Filipino" claim that they are "white hats":

“WE ARE NOT TRYING TO DAMAGE YOU. WE ONLY WANT TO HELP PROTECT OUR COUNTRY’S CYBERSPACE BY DOING WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO GET EVERYONE’S ATTENTION. MAY THIS DEFACE SERVE AS A REMINDER THAT YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR INTRUDERS. NO MATTER HOW INTELLIGENT AND COMPETENT YOUR COMPUTER PERSONNEL ARE, THERE WILL BE UNETHICAL HACKERS THAT ARE CONSTANTLY WORKING ON BREAKING IN YOUR SECURITY, WHETHER IT’S YOUR MONEY OR INFORMATION THEY ARE AFTER; IN THIS CASE, YOU ARE FORTUNATE THAT IT WAS US WHO HAS SUCCESSFULLY BROKEN IN. YOU ALSO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT BOTH THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS ARE AT RISK HERE, THIEVES AND TERRORIST ARE ALL LURKING ONLINE POSSESSING THE SKILLS TO TAKE DOWN MULTIPLE NETWORKS AND ASSUME ACCESSIBILITY OVER ACCOUNTS, WATCHING OUT FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE TARGETS; TRUST US, WE’RE CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH, THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS. THEY DERIVE THEIR ENERGY FROM GREED. WE DERIVE OURS FROM OUR THIRST TO KEEP OUR COUNTRY’S CYBERSPACE SAFE. EXPECT MORE FROM US. WE ARE PHILKER.”

Philker Hackers allege that they are merely "protecting our country's cyberspace" yet under the Computer Misuse Act of 1990 in the United Kingdom, "unauthorized access even to expose vulnerabilities for the benefit of many is not legal." As Struan Robertson puts it, "There’s no defense in our hacking laws that your behavior is for the greater good. Even if it’s what you believe." (2)

Unfortunately, the current state of Philippine legislation does not offer the same protection.

Although hacking is nothing but universal occurrence nowadays, the recent events only demonstrates the quality of internet security we have in this country. It only shows how weak the Government's defenses are in terms of protecting themselves from online threats. The hacking incidents call not only for a major upgrade in the government measures regarding online data security but also a reflection on the country's current internet or cyber policies and ethics.

Entry #1

----------

Sources:

(1) Timeline: A 40-year history of hacking 

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-11-19/tech/hack.history.idg_1_phone-phreaks-chaos-computer-club-emmanuel-goldstein?_s=PM:TECH

(2) License to hack? - Ethical hacking

http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/4611/license-to-hack-ethical-hacking/

(3) Photo Credit:  http://www.techalang.com/

(4) On the various articles related to the different attacks:

(a) http://www.gmanews.tv

(b) http://www.abs-cbnnews.com

(c) http://www.techie.com.ph

(d) http://newsinfo.inquirer.net

(e) http://www.techalang.com/

Social Media - A National Tool for Naming and Shaming

A retired archbishop goes on national television to insinuate that there are highly placed villains in government who are dabbling in the underground gambling world that the present administration has pledged to eradicate. A senate hearing is called almost immediately.

The spokesperson of the judiciary issues a media statement to the effect that it has no money and that the courts won’t survive if the budget isn’t increased post-haste. He threatens that if congress fails to remedy the deficiency, judges would go on mass leave. The media loves the story and has a field day. Hours later, the president sets a meeting with the chief justice.

---

With these events in mind, I’d like to point out an obvious perplexity in national affairs: a communication gap exists between supposedly coordinate branches of government; between the civilian and relevant government agencies. And this abyss, this void of miscommunication, is filled by an unlikely hero, villain and observer: media. Pleas are brought to this ‘unbiased’ Fourth Estate, rather than the pertinent government agency involved, due to two contiguous theories: one, media is much more effective in shaming the agency into action; two, government enforcement is usually unavailing when the camera isn’t aimed at the would-be enforcers. Considering therefore that (a) attention on the individual or (b) national shame is required to enforce government action (perhaps as a cultural byproduct of our post-Iberian heritage), I propose that a national shaming mechanism be employed to spur government proactivity in order to supplement, and even validate, the actions of traditional media.

The “name and shame” strategy, utilized by the Human Rights Watch (but yet to be effectively used by the UN’s Human Rights Council), is presently international law’s solution to the enforcement of human rights norms. Coincidentally, this is the exact same strategy employed by Mon Tulfo’s radio show where complaints against local government officials and policemen are aired live, addressed, and resolved on a daily basis. Now that social media is becoming the norm in Philippine society, perhaps this, too, can be employed as a medium to “name and shame” public institutions and officials on a national scale. Truly, if a government requires national shame and attention in order for it to function properly, perhaps this need should be addressed by our own efforts through the veritable medium of social media. This push to “name and shame” would not simply be a matter of voluntary contributions on the part of individuals but rather a collective drive, enforced as a matter of sound national policy, spearheaded by NGOs in conjunction with social media outfits. I’m pretty sure that Facebook, YouTube and Twitter would enjoy the corresponding title of being ‘progenitors of third-world change.’ Think of the Pepsi Refresh Project, turned-upside-down, adapted by Filipinos for a truly Filipino cause. Perhaps, taken in this light, social media, in its proposed task of “naming and shaming” government ineptitude, might do some much-needed social good.

---

Please see all entries by the same author in this blog:

• #01, Telconopoly, June 16
• #02, Government 2.0, June 23
• #03, In Defense of Twitter, June 30
• #04, Google, Apple and Nokia, July 7
• #05, YouTube and Government, July 14
• #06, The Problem of ICT Quality Control, July 21
• #07, The Mac or the PC?, July 28
• #08, Kindle: Victor of the Ebook Wars, Aug. 2
• #09, Of Team Coco, Wowowee and Contracts, Aug. 12
• #10, Resuscitating Law Journals, Aug.14
• #11, Moot, Zuckerberg, et. al. v. The World, Aug. 19
• #12, Ground Zero of the Tech World, Sept. 1
• #13, Evolution, Sept. 9
• #14, Snapshots of Software as Intellectual Property, Sept. 13
• #15, The Smartphone OS Slugfest, Sept. 17
• #16, Social Media - A National Tool for Naming and Shaming, Sept. 21

Alien Nation

The matter of Internet governance evokes a myriad of issues that span policy, the law, business and socio-economic concerns affecting not only individuals but state or non-state actors whose actions inevitably affect activity and regulation of the Internet.

Internet governance is as much a question of social, political and economic realities for state or non-state actors whose activities affect or is affected by matters relating to the internet.

Take for instance the reality that developing or less developed countries are not as active in shaping policy or in raising concerns as developed countries are. It all pretty much boils down to, as usual, economics. They who have more resources at their disposal have the bigger say and therefore wield more power.

Indeed, despite the caveat that some things should be left as it is, the efforts of the United Nations and other international bodies seeking to firm up internet governance reflect good intentions. However, the direction of such efforts need to be equally geared for the benefit of other nations as well as those of developed ones. Otherwise, it will lead to oppression and will only subvert its objectives.