Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

knird evol · 11-02-2014 11:46PM

I watch a lot of american tv and the key in these situations is to ask who has the means, opportunity and motive to make up this pile of horsesh1t.

maringo · 11-02-2014 11:48PM

Red Pepper wrote: »

I wonder what spooked the Ombudsman to initiate a security check from a firm outside Ireland. That's the key here. My hunch is that senior members of the Gardaí knew too much about confidential investigations.

The following piece from the Examiner is worth a read.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/analysis-time-for-real-action-on-garda-corruption-230855.html

brooke 2 · 11-02-2014 11:48PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I agree. It looks more and more like GSOC had a routine sweep carried out. That raised a number of issues; they investigated and the investigation was inconclusive; they concluded that there was no need to escalate and put the thing to bed.

A storm in a teacup.

John Mooney has insisted that it was not a routine sweep.

Phoebas · 11-02-2014 11:53PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

John Mooney has insisted that it was not a routine sweep.

Really? Here's what the Minister said GSOC told him:

Alan Shatter wrote:

I am informed that there was no specific concern which caused GSOC to
organise the security sweep

And the commissioner:

Kieran Fitzgerald wrote:

He said GSOC had undertaken a number of serious investigations in 2012 and was in a state of heightened awareness about security.

dxhound2005 · 12-02-2014 12:04AM

maringo wrote: »

The following piece from the Examiner is worth a read.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/analysis-time-for-real-action-on-garda-corruption-230855.html

The one common thread between the major cases highlighted there, those leading to the Morris Tribunal and the Kieran Boylan affair is the journalist John Mooney. Mooney gave evidence to the Tribunal and was one of those parties to whom expenses were paid. In the Sunday Times he has been running stories for years about Boylan

Now Mooney turns up again with this latest story. He must have some very good contacts.

EireGun · 12-02-2014 12:04AM

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't doubt that something was going on, but you must admit that its starting to look more like the common kind of attacks that organisations are subjected to every day of the week than the 'government level' attack that some people were convinced of just yesterday.

Not at all, note Alan Shatter's comments

The third issue related to the security firm reporting the detection of an unexpected UK 3G network in the area in the locality of the GSOC offices which suggested that UK phones registered to that network making calls would be vulnerable to interception.

A fake 3G cell phone network is not indicative of "the common kind of attacks that organisations are subjected to every day of the week" as you say, instead it would suggest "government level technology" which in fairness to John Mooney/Sunday Times he has repeated. As an example, when MI5 and GCHQ were listening in on the Ecuadorian embassy in London (where Julian Assange was/is hiding), they set-up a fake 3G network (called "cell-tower spoofing") to glean data and listen in on all of the mobile phones used in that area. They made the mistake of routing the 3G network through Uganda, and such it was discovered. That kind of equipment costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

dxhound2005 · 12-02-2014 12:10AM

Bit of overkill there since nobody in the GSOC has a UK registered phone.

The third issue related to the detection of an unexpected UK 3G network near the GSOC offices.

“I am advised that neither the Chairman nor any other member of GSOC or its employees use UK-registered mobile phones, so that the presence of any such device in the locality would not seem to have posed a threat to the integrity of GSOC’s communications systems,” he said.

This just lends more weight to my theory that they were "spooked" into doing the security scan and one of the misleading bits of information they were fed is that someone in GSOC was on a UK network.

EireGun · 12-02-2014 12:18AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Bit of overkill there since nobody in the GSOC has a UK registered phone.

The third issue related to the detection of an unexpected UK 3G network near the GSOC offices.

“I am advised that neither the Chairman nor any other member of GSOC or its employees use UK-registered mobile phones, so that the presence of any such device in the locality would not seem to have posed a threat to the integrity of GSOC’s communications systems,” he said.

This just lends more weight to my theory that they were "spooked" into doing the security scan and one of the misleading bits of information they were fed is that someone in GSOC was on a UK network.

Whether or not anybody had a phone from a UK network provider *could* be totally irrelevant, as cell phones connect to their nearest GSM tower, whether in Ireland or in Iceland. The fact that a 3G network was established in the vicinity of Abbey St. and was routed to the UK should be thoroughly investigated. If it's TRUE, it would be quite a serious level of equipment we are talking about here. Could be set up on a rooftop or in a van, and probably cost €500K or so. State level equipment used by military, police and intelligence services.

Alan Shatter doesn't have a very good grasp on technology, because his statement doesn't make much sense on this issue.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 12:20AM

EireGun wrote: »

Not at all, note Alan Shatter's comments

A fake 3G cell phone network is not indicative of "the common kind of attacks that organisations are subjected to every day of the week" as you say, instead it would suggest "government level technology" which in fairness to John Mooney/Sunday Times he has repeated. As an example, when MI5 and GCHQ were listening in on the Ecuadorian embassy in London (where Julian Assange was/is hiding), they set-up a fake 3G network (called "cell-tower spoofing") to glean data and listen in on all of the mobile phones used in that area. They made the mistake of routing the 3G network through Uganda, and such it was discovered. That kind of equipment costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Let's not just take a snippet of Shatter's comment on that aspect. Here it is in full:

“The third issue related to the security firm reporting the detection of an unexpected UK 3G network in the area in the locality of the GSOC offices which suggested that UK phones registered to that network making calls would be vulnerable to interception. Importantly, I am advised that neither the Chairman nor any other member of GSOC or its employees use UK-registered mobile phones, so that the presence of any such device in the locality would not seem to have posed a threat to the integrity of GSOC’s communications systems. There appears to be no evidence that what was detected had any direct relevance to GSOC

So whatever it was it was of no threat to GSOC, so you've have to wonder why someone would deploy technology worth hundreds of thousands that was impotent.
Maybe there is another explanation.

Arthur Beesley · 12-02-2014 12:20AM

What does locality mean? 1 mile? 5 miles? 5 meters?

Did they identify the source of the network?

Did they attempt to determine whether it was legitimate e.g. test equipment used by a local company?

Arthur Beesley · 12-02-2014 12:23AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Let's not just take a snippet of Shatter's comment on that aspect. Here it is in full:

So whatever it was it was of no threat to GSOC, so you've have to wonder why someone would deploy technology worth hundreds of thousands that was impotent.
Maybe there is another explanation.

It is a city centre location, for all we know it could have been a test system used by a mobile phone company or a developer of mobile phone system software or similar.

There is nothing to say it was in any way targeted at GSOC.

EireGun · 12-02-2014 12:24AM

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

What does locality mean? 1 mile? 5 miles? 5 meters?

Did they identify the source of the network?

Did they attempt to determine whether it was legitimate e.g. test equipment used by a local company?

The limit (as in how far away you can be) for this type of tech. is about 8 miles I think, but that would be using very expensive equipment.
Normally it would be located within about a 1km.

Here's one the NSA uses for short-range targets (costs $40k) http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/Mobilfunk/S3224_CANDYGRAM.jpg

tomwaterford · 12-02-2014 12:25AM

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

So who leaked the story? And what was the aim if leaking the story?

Phoebas wrote: »

That article doesn't say he had sight of the report.

Spoofer :mad:

did you listen to the podcasts....it was on radio in shop the other day....this is no mickey mouse equipment...if what is alleged is true -the attempts to play this down is unreal

as for gaurds calling for gsoc to resign...they are attempting in interfere with an independent office...

im surprised it took this long to come out....easy answer is release report

tomwaterford · 12-02-2014 12:27AM

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

It is a city centre location, for all we know it could have been a test system used by a mobile phone company or a developer of mobile phone system software or similar.

There is nothing to say it was in any way targeted at GSOC.

this should be easily available information...if its the case

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 12:28AM

EireGun wrote: »

The limit (as in how far away you can be) for this type of tech. is about 8 miles I think, but that would be using very expensive equipment.
Normally it would be located within about a 1km.

Its hardly a smoking gun - some equipment that might have been pretty much anywhere in the city.

EireGun · 12-02-2014 12:33AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Its hardly a smoking gun - some equipment that might have been pretty much anywhere in the city.

True, but I'd bet next years wages that *if* this was carried out (which even Mr. Shatter referred to), then it's range would not be beyond a mile.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 12:33AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

did you listen to the podcasts....it was on radio in shop the other day....this is no mickey mouse equipment...if what is alleged is true -the attempts to play this down is unreal

Do the podcasts have Mooney explicitly saying that he had sight of the security report?

Because if he is saying that he did and is basing his story on actual sight of the report then that would be a game changer.
But I haven't seen or heard anywhere him saying that he saw the report.

Arthur Beesley · 12-02-2014 12:35AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

this should be easily available information...if its the case

And what efforts were made to trace and identify this false network? Presumably this info was also easily available.

Was it located? Is it definitively proven to have been fake? Who says so?

How long was it online? When did it go offline?

dxhound2005 · 12-02-2014 12:36AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

did you listen to the podcasts....it was on radio in shop the other day....this is no mickey mouse equipment...if what is alleged is true -the attempts to play this down is unreal

as for gaurds calling for gsoc to resign...they are attempting in interfere with an independent office...

im surprised it took this long to come out....easy answer is release report

What did you expect the Garda reps to say when they were handed an own goal by the GSOC statement. We think the GSOC are a great bunch of lads? They kicked the ball into the net and if they hadn't, their membership would soon let them know. But that's only a side show.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 12:37AM

EireGun wrote: »

True, but I'd bet next years wages that *if* this was carried out (which even Mr. Shatter referred to), then it's range would not be beyond a mile.

Even a mile around Abbey Street is a big swathe of the city centre. I'd really be needing a lot more to be associating this to an attack on GSOC.

Arthur Beesley · 12-02-2014 12:39AM

Do the gardai have this equipment?

Or are they alleged to have hired it?

Or outsourced the setting up and running of it?

Or is this some rogue Garda or a bunch if them that have 40k and the expertise to set it up?

Does any government body have it?

Not adding up by a long shot.

EireGun · 12-02-2014 12:40AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Even a mile around Abbey Street is a big swathe of the city centre. I'd really be needing a lot more to be associating this to an attack on GSOC.

The fact it was coordinated, occurred at the exact same time when their wifi security was compromised, and that their conference phone was being interfered with. I don't believe in coincidences.

dxhound2005 · 12-02-2014 12:42AM

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Do the gardai have this equipment?

Or are they alleged to have hired it?

Or outsourced the setting up and running of it?

Or is this some rogue Garda or a bunch if them that have 40k and the expertise to set it up?

Does any government body have it?

Not adding up by a long shot.

Who are you expecting to answer all that?

Arthur Beesley · 12-02-2014 12:42AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Even a mile around Abbey Street is a big swathe of the city centre. I'd really be needing a lot more to be associating this to an attack on GSOC.

Exactly. For all we know the Central Bank was the target, or a business in the IFSC. Assuming there even was a 'target'.

EireGun · 12-02-2014 12:43AM

Do the gardai have this equipment?

Yes, the Garda Crime & Security Branch (CSB) and Special Detective Unit (SDU).

Or are they alleged to have hired it?

I don't believe that's been claimed.

Or outsourced the setting up and running of it?

Vaguely possible, but you'd have to go to Israel or the US to get a company to do this for you, breaking the law in any EU country. Heavily regulated market.

Or is this some rogue Garda or a bunch if them that have 40k and the expertise to set it up?

Remotely possible.

Does any government body have it?

The Irish Defence Forces G2 are the only other unit with that level of equipment and expertise.

dxhound2005 · 12-02-2014 12:44AM

EireGun wrote: »

The fact it was coordinated, occurred at the exact same time when their wifi security was compromised, and that their conference phone was being interfered with. I don't believe in coincidences.

How was their wifi security compromised? By compromised do you mean that information was gathered by some unauthorised party?

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 12:45AM

EireGun wrote: »

The fact it was coordinated, occurred at the exact same time when their wifi security was compromised, and that their conference phone was being interfered with. I don't believe in coincidences.

That's not a fact at all!
How can you say it was coordinated when it could have been anywhere in the city centre and GSOC say it wasn't a threat to them in any case?

EireGun · 12-02-2014 12:47AM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

How was their wifi security compromised? By compromised do you mean that information was gathered by some unauthorised party?

Their wifi security was undoubtedly comprised, however the minister claims they didn't use the wifi that was hacked (it was in a conference room), because no one knew the password (typical civil service wastage). Who knows whether or not the wifi was ever actually used by those in the GSOC office. I expect to learn more tomorrow at the Oireachtas hearing and more published this weekend in the Sunday Times.

Arthur Beesley · 12-02-2014 12:48AM

EireGun wrote: »

The fact it was coordinated, occurred at the exact same time when their wifi security was compromised, and that their conference phone was being interfered with. I don't believe in coincidences.

How long was the network up and running before it was 'detected'? 'Exact same time' is disingenuous if it was online for 3 months before hand.

How long was the wifi compromised for before being discovered?

In reality a series of potentially long running events overlapped. They did not 'happen' at exactly the sane time.

EireGun · 12-02-2014 12:49AM

Phoebas wrote: »

That's not a fact at all!
How can you say it was coordinated when it could have been anywhere in the city centre and GSOC say it wasn't a threat to them in any case?

Their wifi security being breached and phone line being monitored is a fact, and could only have targeted the GSOC, as that occurred in their building. I agree with you that the GSM cell tower doesn't scream GSOC, but what else of vital infrastructure is within 1km of the GSOC offices?

Garda Ombudsman offices bugged

Comments