Garda Ombudsman "under high-tech surveillance"

raymon · 12-02-2014 09:40PM

An O2 Boost box allows a UK mobile signal over wifi.

You would just need a proxy server or vpn to hide your location.

All for 150 quid.

http://www.coolsmartphone.com/2012/01/07/o2-boostbox-review-setup/

This story is becoming more and more bogus.

Godge · 12-02-2014 09:43PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I....may have been excessively swayed by the attractive notion of such a report.

On the other hand, though, there was a recent Snowden revelation about the bugging of the 2009 Climate Summit in Copenhagen by the NSA, where the Danes had produced a 'fall-back' document which they would use if the US were bolshy, and which basically gave in to all the US demands.

Physical security around the document was extremely tight - it was only ever distributed in paper form, and copies were recovered before people left meetings. Unfortunately, the NSA had long since copied the original digital version, and the US just stonewalled everybody and waited for it to be put on the table.

So I'm a bit dubious about claims that about documents that only exist in paper form.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, but think of the illogicality in this case.

UK security company conducts investigation of GSOC and finds possibility that it has been compromised. Therefore, does it (1) keep an electronic copy for itself and bring paper documents to the GSOC or (2) send an electronic copy to GSOC.

If (2), either they weren't (a) worried about the security issues or (b) incompetent.

If (a) then what are we all getting excited about.
If (b) how can we be confident of everything they say.

so the likelihood is that if this is anyway a credible situation, it must be (1).

If (1) then either (a) a paper copy was leaked from the GSOC or (b) an electronic copy was leaked by the security company.

If (a) then the problem is internal as was hinted this afternoon or
(b) the UK security company are incompetent (same as (b) above)

So we are left with three possibilities if the events are all connected

(1) All a hill of beans (except for the leak of the secret GSOC document)
(2) The UK company was incompetent
(3) The document was leaked by an internal person in GSOC.

Of course, the events may not be connected.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 09:44PM

raymon wrote: »

An O2 Boost box allows a UK mobile signal over wifi.

You would just need a proxy server or vpn to hide your location.

All for 150 quid.

http://www.coolsmartphone.com/2012/01/07/o2-boostbox-review-setup/

This story is becoming more and more bogus.

That explanation is nowhere near sexy enough!

Scofflaw · 12-02-2014 09:47PM

raymon wrote: »

An O2 Boost box allows a UK mobile signal over wifi.

You would just need a proxy server or vpn to hide your location.

All for 150 quid.

http://www.coolsmartphone.com/2012/01/07/o2-boostbox-review-setup/

This story is becoming more and more bogus.

That's not what was found, though. What was found has been described as an IMSI-catcher, which is a fake mobile tower that can be used to capture traffic from a mobile phone. They don't have many (or indeed any) non-surveillance uses.

An IMSI-catcher will indeed capture your mobile's attention without you being aware of it, by virtue of being the strongest signal around, which your mobile is automatically set to seek. The flag that shows the network you're attaching to can be suppressed - yes, on your phone, without your say-so.

The claim that GSOC had "nothing to worry about" is not going to work. They did have something to worry about, but apparently not enough to show they were definitely compromised, according to their recent public statements.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 09:50PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's not what was found, though. What was found has been described as an IMSI-catcher, which is a fake base station that can be used to capture traffic from a mobile phone. They don't have many (or indeed any) non-surveillance uses.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Described as that by GSOC or by the Sunday Times?

Sierra Oscar · 12-02-2014 09:50PM

Phoebas wrote: »

That explanation is nowhere near sexy enough!

What was detected had the ability to intercept data, it was not just some sort of signal booster.

We only have to wait until Sunday anyway for the full report.

raymon · 12-02-2014 09:50PM

Phoebas wrote: »

That explanation is nowhere near sexy enough!

Yes . More than likely some geezer trying to not incur roaming.

This explanation doesn't sell newspapers though., or get some dodgy politician on the news demonstrating their fake outrage.

raymon · 12-02-2014 09:52PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

What was detected had the ability to intercept data, it was not just some sort of signal booster.

Who said that? Are you guessing and supposing? Or making it up?

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 09:54PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

What was detected had the ability to intercept data, it was not just some sort of signal booster.

I missed most of the committee hearings today.
Who confirmed the nature of the device? The Sunday Times or GSOC?

Scofflaw · 12-02-2014 09:55PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I guess if it was a 'fake' cell they wouldn't send the welcome text.

But you'd have to wonder why someone targeting GSOC would use a fake UK network and not a fake Irish one since, as GSOC says, that it was no threat because none of their staff had UK registered phones.

I wonder are there any telecom software companies in the vicinity that might have been using some test kit?

Again, the statement that they weren't threatened because they didn't have UK mobile phones is actually what doesn't stack up on the face of it. UK mobile phones in Ireland use the Irish network. Irish mobile phones in the UK use the UK network.

Come on, people, you know this - I'm sure you've all taken your mobile phones abroad. How did you think they were getting reception? Somehow connecting back all the way to Ireland and real Irish mobile masts?

On top of that, you know that Simon O'Brien commutes from the UK, right?

I'm afraid I'm pretty sure this "no UK phones" statement is pure smoke and mirrors, like the original denials of the NSA/PRISM revelations. Even if you allow the idea that an Irish phone isn't going to talk to a UK mobile mast (really, your phone stops working outside Ireland, yes?), the very existence of one of these devices is prima facie evidence someone is trying to bug you.

amused,
Scofflaw

Sierra Oscar · 12-02-2014 09:55PM

raymon wrote: »

Who said that? Are you guessing and supposing? Or making it up?

I am basing it on what has been said by those that have read the report that was written following the security sweeping of the building. You seem to be basing your views on nothing at all considering you are throwing out "possible explanations" that do not explain the three 'anomalies' detected.

Phoebas wrote: »

I missed most of the committee hearings today.
Who confirmed the nature of the device? The Sunday Times or GSOC?

GSOC were basing their opinions of what the 'anomalies' were on the security report that was written for them by Verrimus after the building was swept. They pointed out that this report, which was marked as 'Secret', is now in the possession of a journalist and is likely to emerge into the public domain.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 09:59PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's all GSM. Come on, people, you know this - I'm sure you've all taken your mobile phones abroad. How did you think they were getting reception? Somehow connecting back all the way to Ireland and real Irish mobile masts?

Well exactly.
When I'm abroad I most definitely don't (can't, but you get the picture) connect to the Irish network.
So why would they fake a UK network? Who in their right mind would connect to what looked like a UK network in the middle of Dublin city!

Godge · 12-02-2014 10:00PM

Of course, if it was a fake O2 UK cell/whatever, it could well be Murdoch equipment no longer useful in the UK because of the scrutiny on tapping and is therefore useful in Ireland for sister papers.

Nah, not possible, Murdoch papers are above that sort of thing and operate within the law at all times, why would I think otherwise.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 10:01PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I am basing it on what has been said by those that have read the report that was written following the security sweeping of the building. You seem to be basing your views on nothing at all considering you are throwing out "possible explanations" that do not explain the three 'anomalies' detected.

GSOC were basing their opinions of what the 'anomalies' were based on the security report that was written for them by Verrimus after the building was swept. They pointed out that this report, which was marked as 'Secret', is now in the possession of a journalist and is likely to emerge into the public domain.

Can you pit a name to that? Are you relying on the ST story?

Sierra Oscar · 12-02-2014 10:03PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Can you pit a name to that?

No, of course not.

No one can even admit having seen the report until it is brought into the public domain, which I imagine it will be. It has been seemingly leaked from GSOC at the end of the day!

Scofflaw · 12-02-2014 10:06PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Well exactly.
When I'm abroad I most definitely don't (can't, but you get the picture) connect to the Irish network.
So why would they fake a UK network? Who in their right mind would connect to what looked like a UK network in the middle of Dublin city!

Your phone does it for you. And if you suppress the bit that sends the 'welcome message' and the network icon, which you can do from the equipment itself without any permission from your phone, then all you've got is a mobile connection (nice strong one, too) which isn't displaying any identity. It doesn't matter what supposed network the fake is configured to be, because your phone only cares about how strong the connection is, and they can suppress the bit that tells you what network it is.

But we all obsessively look at what mobile network we're currently connected to at all times, right? And only allow our phone to use networks we trust, yes? You all know how to tell it which of the possible networks in an area to use, mm? We totally wouldn't let our phone use a network with no on-screen logo, eh?

The other one also has bells on. No logo, though.

still amused,
Scofflaw

Sierra Oscar · 12-02-2014 10:12PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your phone does it for you. And if you suppress the bit that sends the 'welcome message' and the network icon, which you can do from the equipment itself without any permission from your phone, then all you've got is a mobile connection (nice strong one, too) which isn't displaying any identity. It doesn't matter what supposed network the fake is configured to be, because your phone only cares about how strong the connection is, and they can suppress the bit that tells you what network it is

One thing that all of the commentary seems to agree on is that it was a "small" cell and the likes that was created.

Just wondering though, exactly how small would the cell have been? If someone was actually trying to use a IMSI-catcher against the GSOC building how close would they have to be? I guess the smaller the area then the less likely it is that there is an innocent explanation due to someone using a similar device for other reasons elsewhere. It is one thing I have not really heard explained though.

Frank Lee Midere · 12-02-2014 10:19PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's not what was found, though. What was found has been described as an IMSI-catcher, which is a fake mobile tower that can be used to capture traffic from a mobile phone. They don't have many (or indeed any) non-surveillance uses.

An IMSI-catcher will indeed capture your mobile's attention without you being aware of it, by virtue of being the strongest signal around, which your mobile is automatically set to seek. The flag that shows the network you're attaching to can be suppressed - yes, on your phone, without your say-so.

The claim that GSOC had "nothing to worry about" is not going to work. They did have something to worry about, but apparently not enough to show they were definitely compromised, according to their recent public statements.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's not true. Your phone seeks your home network. It's why my phone says O2.ie not Vodafone.ie despite the Vodafone signal being stronger where I am ( as I can see from the other phone in this house).

If phones picked the strongest networks we would see the carrier name change all day , unless you are roaming it won't.

As for the media device connecting to the external wifi, it's 99.999% that's an internal breach - that is weak internal security.

Phoebas · 12-02-2014 10:21PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your phone does it for you. And if you suppress the bit that sends the 'welcome message' and the network icon, which you can do from the equipment itself without any permission from your phone, then all you've got is a mobile connection (nice strong one, too) which isn't displaying any identity. It doesn't matter what supposed network the fake is configured to be, because your phone only cares about how strong the connection is, and they can suppress the bit that tells you what network it is.

But we all obsessively look at what mobile network we're currently connected to at all times, right? And only allow our phone to use networks we trust, yes? You all know how to tell it which of the possible networks in an area to use, mm? We totally wouldn't let our phone use a network with no on-screen logo, eh?

The other one also has bells on. No logo, though.

still amused,
Scofflaw

Well that's an interesting take on it, but its at odds with the Minister's explanation in the Dail yesterday.

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.

The only way I can reconcile what you're saying and what Shatter is saying is that the 3g network was there to target the personal phones of GSOC personnel as opposed to the company phones, but that would be taking spin to 'government level' spinning.

Frank Lee Midere · 12-02-2014 10:28PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, the statement that they weren't threatened because they didn't have UK mobile phones is actually what doesn't stack up on the face of it. UK mobile phones in Ireland use the Irish network. Irish mobile phones in the UK use the UK network.

Come on, people, you know this - I'm sure you've all taken your mobile phones abroad. How did you think they were getting reception? Somehow connecting back all the way to Ireland and real Irish mobile masts?

On top of that, you know that Simon O'Brien commutes from the UK, right?

I'm afraid I'm pretty sure this "no UK phones" statement is pure smoke and mirrors, like the original denials of the NSA/PRISM revelations. Even if you allow the idea that an Irish phone isn't going to talk to a UK mobile mast (really, your phone stops working outside Ireland, yes?), the very existence of one of these devices is prima facie evidence someone is trying to bug you.

amused,
Scofflaw

Wrong again. An 02.ie phone won't connect to any other network unless it thinks it is roaming. It won't think it is roaming unless it can't find its own towers, and it doesn't care about the strength. It is emphatically not the strength of the signal that matters (except in the case of no signal). Home network always wins.

A fake O2.ie tower might make sense, that doesn't.

EDIT:

But if Sean O'Brien had a uk registered phone then my suspicions would be raised. Do we know?

Sierra Oscar · 12-02-2014 10:37PM

It was reported earlier in the week that the IMSI-catcher was likely only seeking to intercept data from one specifically targeted phone, and a reference was made to the fact that one of the commissioners spent his career in Britain.

I don't know what evidence that report was based on though, I am guessing it is referenced to in the security report when Verrimus tried to find a possible explanation for this 'anomaly'.

Frank Lee Midere · 12-02-2014 10:39PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It was reported earlier in the week that the IMSI-catcher was likely only seeking to intercept data from one specifically targeted phone, and a reference was made to the fact that one of the commissioners spent his career in Britain.

I don't know what evidence that report was based on though, I am guessing it is referenced to in the security report when Verrimus tried to find a possible explanation for this 'anomaly'.

That actually might make sense. The Irish phones were safe though.

My name is URL · 12-02-2014 10:42PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Wrong again. An 02.ie phone won't connect to any other network unless it thinks it is roaming. It won't think it is roaming unless it can't find its own towers, and it doesn't care about the strength. It is emphatically not the strength of the signal that matters (except in the case of no signal). Home network always wins.

That's not true. There was a case in London last year where an IMSI catcher was used on the premises of the Ecuadorian embassy. GCHQ had not reconfigured the 'mast' between uses, and visitors to the embassy received 'welcome' messages from a Ugandan network operator.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/30/5256636/nsa-tailored-access-jacob-appelbaum-speech-30c3

Happyman42 · 12-02-2014 10:43PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Wrong again. An 02.ie phone won't connect to any other network unless it thinks it is roaming. It won't think it is roaming unless it can't find its own towers, and it doesn't care about the strength. It is emphatically not the strength of the signal that matters (except in the case of no signal). Home network always wins.

A fake O2.ie tower might make sense, that doesn't.

EDIT:

But if Sean O'Brien had a uk registered phone then my suspicions would be raised. Do we know?

Think there was a snippet on the News where he said he had a UK reg phone.

Going Forward · 12-02-2014 11:13PM

Verrimus seems to be a very small outfit.

edanto · 12-02-2014 11:18PM

Simon O'Brien confirmed at the committee today that he did not have a UK registered phone.

raymon · 12-02-2014 11:24PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It was reported earlier in the week that the IMSI-catcher was likely only seeking to intercept data from one specifically targeted phone, and a reference was made to the fact that one of the commissioners spent his career in Britain.

I don't know what evidence that report was based on though, I am guessing it is referenced to in the security report when Verrimus tried to find a possible explanation for this 'anomaly'.

Who reported it? Did anyone report it?

Scofflaw · 12-02-2014 11:28PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Think there was a snippet on the News where he said he had a UK reg phone.

He's quite likely to, I think, given he was, afaik, until recently, commuting to the UK weekly.

My Name is URL wrote:

That's not true. There was a case in London last year where an IMSI catcher was used on the premises of the Ecuadorian embassy. GCHQ had not reconfigured the 'mast' between uses, and visitors to the embassy received 'welcome' messages from a Ugandan network operator.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/30/5...um-speech-30c3

Actually, your phone connects using the strongest signal in your operator's frequency band, and Frank is correct that your phone will prefer your operator's network over any others. But O2 Ireland and O2 UK use the same frequency band, as far as I know, so a mast, or IMSI-Catcher, configured for O2 UK should be the same from your phone's point of view as an O2 Ireland one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sierra Oscar · 12-02-2014 11:34PM

Is anyone listening to the Late Debate on RTÉ Radio One at the moment?

Mooney is on discussing this now. Very interesting, he has just asked the question as to whether Minister Shatter signed a warrant for investigation of the GSOC. He says that he cannot get an answer to that, and all references in the Dáil so far have been to illegal surveillance.

edanto · 13-02-2014 12:05AM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

he has just asked the question as to whether Minister Shatter signed a warrant for investigation of the GSOC.

Ah now, I can't imagine that would be happening - that would be GUBU territory.

Garda Ombudsman "under high-tech surveillance"

Comments