Category Archives: Security

Automatically update WordPress to the latest version

This post is a quick, temporary break from my usual privacy/civil rights posts, to a post of a slightly more technical nature.

WordPressAs WordPress is the most popular blogging platform on the internet, updates become crucial. However, the way WordPress runs at certain clients of mine means it’s not always just a question of clicking a button (or it happening automatically, as in recent versions of WordPress).

For security reasons, at certain websites in need of high security, but whose editors still want the ease of use of something familiar like WordPress, I like to keep WordPress off the publicly-accessible internet, and then have a static HTML copy of the website publicly accessible. This has advantages of security (the publicly-accessible web server only has to be able to serve static HTML and images), and also causes much less load on the server, allowing the server to respond to a much higher number of requests. This however, causes issues with the automatic update feature that’s built in to WordPress.

I recently wrote a script that can automatically update WordPress to the latest version available from the WordPress website, which is useful in cases where the automatic update feature in WordPress does not work, for instance when the admin interface is not routable on the public internet, such that it never gets notified if there’s a new version and can’t reach the public internet to fetch the updates.

In that case you’re forced to do the updates manually. The script I wrote was designed to help with that. I wrote it to expedite the task of updating WordPress, instead of having to manually remove certain directories and files, downloading the tarball from the official WordPress website, checking the SHA-1 checksum and then carefully copying the files/directories back over.


This is a quick demo of how it works:


The script is meant to be run whilst in the directory containing the WordPress files. Put the script somewhere in your PATH, go to the directory containing your WordPress files, then run it like so:


The script will automatically detect what version is the latest available (from the website), download that if necessary, or else use the copy of WordPress stored in the cache, and it will only update the website if the versions don’t match up.


The script will also automatically detect if it’s running in a git repository. If this is the case, it will use the git rm command to properly record the removal of directories, and then do a git add . at the end.

To save even more time, the script can also auto-commit and push the changes back to a git repository if necessary. For this, the variables GIT_AUTOCOMMIT and GIT_PUSH exist. The default value is true, meaning that the script will automatically make a commit with the message:

Updated WordPress to version <version>

and then push the changes to the git repository. Of course, provided that you’ve correctly configured git to do a simple git push.


It will cache the latest version of WordPress in a directory in your home directory, called $HOME/.update_wordpress_cache, where it will put the latest.tgz file from the WordPress website, the SHA-1 checksum, and also the actual files unpacked in a wordpress directory. This is to prevent the script from re-downloading the files when you have multiple sites you want to update.


The script is free software, MIT licensed, and the code is on GitHub.

RT Going Underground Interview About Regin

I recently did an interview with RT‘s Going Underground programme, presented by Afshin Rattansi. We talked about the recently-discovered highly sophisticated malware Regin, and whether GCHQ or some other nation state could be behind it. The entire episode can be watched here. For more background information about Regin, you can read my article about it.

With Politicians Like These, Who Needs Terrorists?

The text on the cover says: "Love is stronger than hate."

The text on the cover says: “Love is stronger than hate.”

Last week, on the 7th of January 2015, the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo‘s office in Paris was attacked by Islamic fundamentalists. Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical magazine featuring jokes, cartoons, reports etcetera. that is stridently anti-conformist in nature. They make fun of politics, Judaism, Christianity and Islam and all other institutions. Like all of us they have every right to freedom of expression. But alas, fundamentalists did not agree, and opted to violently attack their office in Paris with assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades, leaving 12 people killed and 11 wounded. This was a terrible attack, and my heart goes out to the families and their colleagues and friends who have lost their loved ones.

After the attack, there was (rightly so) worldwide condemnation and the sentence “Je suis Charlie,” French for “I am Charlie,” became the slogan of millions. What I am afraid of however, is not the terrorists who perpetrate these attacks. What frightens me more, is the almost automatic response by politicians who immediately see reasons to implement ever more oppressive legislation, building the surveillance state. After all, the goal of terrorism is to change society by violent means. If we allow them to, the terrorists have already won. Their objective is completed by our own fear.

Hypocrites At The March

When I was watching footage of the march in Paris for freedom of expression I saw that a lot of government leaders were present, most of whom severely obstructed freedom of expression and freedom of the press in their home countries. Now they were were at the march, claiming the moral high ground and claiming to be the guardians of press freedom.

Here’s an overview of some of the leaders present at the march and what they did in relation to restricting press freedom in their own countries, courtesy of Daniel Wickham, who made this list and published it on his Twitter feed:

Politicians like the ones mentioned above, but also the likes of May (UK Home Secretary), Opstelten (the Netherlands’ Justice Minister) and many others are jumping on the bandwagon again to implement new oppressive laws limiting freedom of expression and the civil and human rights of their peoples. With leaders like these, who needs terrorists? Our leaders will happily implement legislation that will severely curtail our freedoms and civil liberties instead of handling the aftermath of tragic events like these as grown-ups. It would be better if they viewed participating in the march as a starting point to start improving the situation in the areas of freedom of expression and freedom of the press at home.

The Political Consequences Of Terrorist Attacks

What frightens me is the fact that people like Andrew Parker, head of MI5, the kind of person who normally never makes headlines, is given all the space he needed to explain to us “why we need them,” to put it in the words of High Chancellor Adam Sutler, the dictator from the film “V for Vendetta,” which is set in a near-future British dystopia. UK Chancellor George Osborne immediately said in response to the piece by Andrew Parker that MI5 will get an extra £100 million in funding for combating Islamic fundamentalism. David Cameron has confirmed this.

Politicians are using the tragic events in Paris as a way to demand more surveillance powers for the intelligence community in a brazen attempt to curtail our civil liberties in a similar way to what happened after the 9/11 attacks.

All the familiar rhetoric is used again, how it’s a “terrible reminder of the intentions of those who wish us harm,” how the threat level in Britain worsened and Islamic extremist groups in Syria and Iraq are trying to attack the UK, how the intelligence community needs more money to gather intelligence on these people, how our travel movements must be severely restricted and logged, the need for increased security at border checks, a European PNR (Passenger Name Record) (which, incidentally would mean the end of Schengen, one of the core founding principles on which the EU was founded — freedom of movement). The list goes on and on.

A trend can be seen here. UK Home Secretary Theresa May wants to ban extremist speech, and ban people deemed extremist from publicly speaking at universities and other venues. The problem with that is that the definition of extremist is very vague, and certainly up for debate. Is vehemently disagreeing with the government’s current course in a non-violent way extremist? I fear that May thinks that would fit the definition. This would severely curtail freedom of speech both on the internet and in real life, since there are many people who disagree with government policies, and are able to put forward their arguments in a constructive manner.

Before we can even begin to implement laws like these we need to discuss what extremism means, what vague concepts like “national security” mean. There are no clear definitions for these terms at this point, while the legislation that is being put into place since 9/11 is using these vague notions intentionally, giving the security apparatus way too much leeway to abuse their powers as they see fit.

I read that Cameron wants to ban all encrypted communications, since these cannot be decrypted by the intelligence community. This would mean that banks, corporations and individuals would leave themselves vulnerable to all kinds of security vulnerabilities, including identity theft among others, vulnerabilities which cryptographic technologies are meant to solve.

Cryptography is the practice of techniques for secure communication in the presence of adversaries. Without cryptography, you couldn’t communicate securely with your bank, or with companies that handle your data. You also couldn’t communicate securely with various government agencies, or health care institutions, etcetera. All these institutions and corporations handle sensitive information about your life that you wouldn’t want unauthorised people to have access to.  This discussion about banning cryptography strongly reminds me of the Crypto Wars of the 1990s.

Making technologies like these illegal only serves to hurt the security of law-abiding citizens. Criminals, like the people who committed the attacks at Charlie Hebdo, wouldn’t be deterred by it. They are already breaking the law anyway, so why worry? But for people who want to comply with the law, this is a serious barrier, and restricting cryptography only hurts our societies’ security.

Norwegians’ Response to Breivik

Instead of panicking, which is what these politicians are doing right now, we should instead treat this situation with much more sanity. Look for instance to how the Norwegians have handled the massacre of 77 people in Oslo and on the Norwegian island of Utøya by Anders Behring Breivik on July 22nd, 2011.

Breivik attacked the Norwegian government district in Oslo, and then subsequently went to Utøya, where a large Labour Party gathering was taking place. He murdered 77 people in total.

The response by the Norwegians was however, very different from what you would expect had the attack taken place in the UK, the US or The Netherlands, for instance. In these countries, the reaction would be the way it is now, with the government ever limiting civil liberties in an effort to build the surveillance state, taking away our liberties in a fit of fear. The Norwegians however, urged that Norway continued its tradition of openness and tolerance. Memorial services were held, the victims were mourned, and live went on. Breivik got a fair trial and is now serving his time in prison. This is the way to deal with crises like this.

Is Mass Surveillance Effective?

The problem with more surveillance legislation is the fact that it isn’t even certain that it would work. The effectiveness of the current (already quite oppressive) surveillance legislation has never been put to the test. Never was a research published that definitively said that, yes, storing all our communications in dragnet surveillance has stopped this many terrorist attacks and is a valuable contribution to society.

In fact, even the White House has released a review of the National Security Agency’s spy programmes in December 2013, months after the first revelations by Edward Snowden, and this report offered 46 recommendations for reform. The conclusion of the report was predictable, namely that even though the surveillance programmes have gone too far, that they should stay in place. But this report has undermined the NSA’s claims that the collection of meta-data and mass surveillance on billions of people is a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

The report says on page 104, and I quote:

“Our review suggests that the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of Section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional Section 215 orders.”

And shortly after Edward Snowden’s revelations about the existence of some of these programmes were published, former director of the NSA Keith Alexander testified to the Senate in defence of his agency’s surveillance programmes. He claimed that dozens of terrorist attacks were stopped because of the mass surveillance, both at home and abroad. This claim was also made by President Obama, who said that it was “over 50.” Often, 54 is the exact number quoted. Alexander’s claim was challenged by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO), who said that they “had not seen any evidence showing that the NSA’s dragnet collection of Americans’ phone records has produced any valuable intelligence.” The claim that the warrant-less global dragnet surveillance has stopped anywhere near that number of terrorist attacks is questionable to say the least, and much more likely entirely false.

More oppressive dragnet surveillance measures aren’t helping with making the intelligence community any more efficient at their job. In fact, the more intelligence gets scooped up in these dragnet surveillance programmes, the less likely it becomes that a terror plot is discovered before it occurs, so that these may be stopped in time. More data needs to be analysed, and there’s only so much automatic algorithms can do when tasked with filtering out the non-important stuff. In the end, the intel needs to be assessed by analysts in order to determine their value and if necessary act upon it. There is also the problem with false positives, as people get automatically flagged because their behaviour fits certain patterns programmed into the filtering software. This may lead to all sorts of consequences for the people involved, despite the fact that they have broken no laws.

Politicians can be a far greater danger to society than a bunch of Islamic terrorists. Because unlike the terrorists, politicians have the power to enact and change legislation, both for better and for worse. When we are being governed by fear, the terrorists have already won.

The objective of terrorism is not the act itself. It is to try and change society by violent means. If we allow them to change it, by implementing ever more oppressive mass surveillance legislation (in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)), or legislation that restricts the principles of freedom of the press and freedom of speech, enshrined in Article 10 of the ECHR, freedom of assembly and association enshrined in Article 11, or of freedom of movement which is one of the basic tenets on which the European Union was founded, the terrorists have already won.

Let’s use our brains and think before we act.

Regin: The Trojan Horse From GCHQ

In 2010, Belgacom, the Belgian telecommunications company was hacked. This attack was discovered in September 2013, and has been going on for years. We know that this attack is the work of Western intelligence, more specifically, GCHQ, thanks to documents from Edward Snowden. This operation was called Operation Socialist. Now, however, we know a little bit more about how exactly this attack was done, and by what means. Internet connections from employees of Belgacom were sent to a fake LinkedIn page that was used to infect their computers with malware, called “implants” in GCHQ parlance. Now we know that Regin is the name given to the highly complex malware that seems to have been used during Operation Socialist.

Projekt 28Symantec recently reported on this malware (the full technical paper (PDF) can be found here), and it’s behaviour is highly complex. It is able to adapt to very specific missions and the authors have made tremendous effort to make it hard to detect. The malware is able to adapt and change, and since most of anti-virus detection relies on heuristics, or specific fingerprints of known malware, Regin was able to fool anti-virus software and stay undetected. However, Symantec put two and two together and has now revealed some of Regin’s inner workings.

fig3-countriesThe infections have ranged from telecoms and internet backbones (20% of infections), to hospitality (hotels, etc.), energy, the airlines, and research sectors but the vast majority of infections has been of private individuals or small businesses (48%). Also, the countries targeted are diverse, but the vast majority of attacks is directed against the Russian Federation (28%) and Saudi Arabia (24%).

The Regin malware works very much like a framework, which the attackers can use to inject various types of code, called “payloads” to do very specific things like capturing screen-shots, taking control of your mouse, stealing passwords, monitoring your network traffic and recovering files. Several Remote Access Trojans (also known as RATs) have been found, although even more complex payloads have also been found in the wild, like a Microsoft IIS web server traffic monitor (this makes it easy to spy on who visits a certain website etcetera). Another example of a highly complex payload that has been found is malware to sniff administration panels of mobile cellphone base station controllers.

How Regin Works

As mentioned above, Regin works as a modular framework, where the attackers can turn on/off certain elements and load specific code, called a “payload,” to create a Regin version that is specifically suited to a specific mission. Note that it is not certain whether all payloads have been discovered, and that there may be more than the ones specified in the report.

fig2-sectorsRegin does not appear to target any specific industrial sector, but infections have been found across the board, but mostly in telecom and private individuals and small businesses. Currently, it is not known what infection vectors can possibly be used to infect a specific target with the Regin malware, but one could for instance think of tricking the target into clicking on a certain link in an e-mail, visiting spoof websites, or maybe through a vulnerable application installed on the victim’s computer, which can be used to infect the target with Regin. In one instance, according to the Symantec report, a victim was infected through Yahoo! Instant Messenger. During Operation Socialist, GCHQ used a fake LinkedIn page to trick Belgacom engineers into installing the malware. So one can expect infection to take place along those lines, but other possibilities may of course exist.


The various stages of Regin.

Regin has six stages in its architecture, called Stage 0 to Stage 5 in the Symantec report. First, a dropper trojan horse will install the malware on the target’s computer (Stage 0), then it loads several drivers (Stage 1 and 2), loads compression, encryption, networking, and EVFS (encrypted file container) code (Stage 3), then it loads the encrypted file container and loads some additional kernel drivers, plus the payloads (Stage 4), and in the final stage (Stage 5) it loads the main payload and the necessary data files for it to operate.

The malware seems to be aimed primarily against computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, as all of the files discussed in the Symantec report are highly Windows-specific. But there may be payloads out there which target GNU/Linux or OS X computers. The full extent of the malware has not been fully revealed, and it will be interesting to find out more about the exact capabilities of this malware. The capabilities mentioned in the report are already vast and can be used to spy on people’s computers for extended periods of time, but I’m sure that there must be more payloads out there, I’m certain that we’ve only scratched the surface of what is possible.

Regin is a highly-complex threat to computers around the world, and seems to be specifically suited towards large-scale data collection and intelligence gathering campaigns. The development would have required significant investments of time, money and resources, and might very well have taken a few years. Some components of Regin were traced back all the way to 2003.

Western Intelligence Origins?

In recent years, various governments, like the Chinese government, and the Russian government, have been implicated in various hacking attempts and attacks on Western infrastructure. In the article linked here, the FBI accuses the Russians of hacking for the purpose of economic espionage. However, Western governments also engage in digital warfare and espionage, not just for national security purposes (which is a term that has never been defined legally), but they also engage in economic espionage. In the early 1990s, as part of the ECHELON programme, the NSA intercepted communications between Airbus and the Saudi Arabian national airline. They were negotiating contracts with the Saudis, and the NSA passed information on to Boeing which was able to deliver a more competitive proposal, and due to this development, Airbus lost the $6 billion dollar contract to Boeing. This has been confirmed in the European Parliament Report on ECHELON from 2001. Regin also very clearly demonstrates that Western intelligence agencies are deeply involved in digital espionage and digital warfare.

Due to the highly-complex nature of the malware, and the significant amount of effort and time required to develop, test and deploy the Regin malware, together with the highly-specific nature of the various payloads and the modularity of the system, it is highly likely that a state actor was behind the Regin malware. Also, significant effort went into making the system very stealthy and hard for anti-virus software to detect. It was carefully engineered to circumvent anti-virus software’s heuristic detection algorithms and furthermore, some effort was put into making the Regin malware difficult to fingerprint (due to its modular nature)

Furthermore, when looking at the recently discovered attacks, and more especially where the victims are geographically located, it seems that the vast majority of attacks were aimed against the Russian Federation, and Saudi Arabia.

According to The Intercept and Ronald Prins from Dutch security company Fox-IT, there is no doubt that GCHQ and NSA are behind the Regin malware. Der Spiegel revealed that NSA malware had infected the computer networks of the European Union. That might very well been the same malware.


symantic_virus_discovery.siA similar case of state-sponsored malware appeared in June 2010. In the case of Stuxnet, a disproportionate amount of Iranian industrial site were targeted. According to Symantec, which has published various reports on Stuxnet, Stuxnet was used in one instance to change the speed of about 1,000 gas-spinning centrifuges at the Iranian nuclear power plant at Natanz, thereby sabotaging the research done by Iranian scientists. This covert manipulation could have caused an explosion at this nuclear facility.

Given the fact that Israel and the United States are very much against Iran developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, thinking Iran is developing nuclear weapons instead of power plants, together with Stuxnet’s purpose to attack industrial sites, amongst those, nuclear sites in Iran, strongly indicates that the US and/or Israeli governments are behind the Stuxnet malware. Both of these countries have the capabilities to develop it, and in fact, they started to think about this project way back in 2005, when the earliest variants of Stuxnet were created.

Dangers of State-Sponsored Malware

The dangers of this state-sponsored malware is of course that should it be discovered, it may very well prompt the companies, individuals or states that the surveillance is targeted against to take countermeasures, leading to a digital arms race. This may subsequently lead to war, especially when a nation’s critical infrastructure is targeted.

The dangers of states creating malware like this and letting it out in the wild is that it compromises not only security, but also our very safety. Security gets compromised when bugs are left unsolved and back doors built in to let the spies in, and let malware do its work. This affects the safety of all of us. Government back doors and malware is not guaranteed to be used only by governments. Others can get a hold of the malware as well, and security vulnerabilities can be used by others than just spies. Think criminals who are after credit card details, or steal identities which are subsequently used for nefarious purposes.

Governments hacking other nations’ critical infrastructure would constitute an act of war I think. Nowadays every nation worth its salt has set up a digital warfare branch, where exploits are bought, malware developed and deployed. Once you start causing millions of Euros worth of damage to other nations’ infrastructure, you are on a slippery slope. Other countries may “hack back” and this will inevitably lead to a digital arms race, the damage of which does not only affect government computers and infrastructure, but also citizens’ computers and systems, corporations, and in some cases, even our lives. The US attack on Iran’s nuclear installations with the Stuxnet malware was incredibly dangerous and could have caused severe accidents to happen. Think of what would happen had a nuclear meltdown occurred. But nuclear installations are not the only ones, there’s other facilities as well which may come under attacks, hospitals for instance.

Using malware to attack and hack other countries’ infrastructure is incredibly dangerous and can only lead to more problems. Nothing has ever been solved by it. It will cause a shady exploits market to flourish which will mean that less and less critical exploits get fixed. Clearly, these are worth a lot of money, and many people that were previously pointing out vulnerabilities and supplying patches to software vendors are now selling these security vulnerabilities off on the black market.

Security vulnerabilities need to be addressed across the board, so that all of us can be safer, instead of the spooks using software bugs, vulnerabilities and back doors against us, and deliberately leaving open gaping holes for criminals to use as well.

The Age of the Gait-Recognising Cameras Is Here!


A few days ago I read an article (NRC, Dutch, published 11 September, interestingly) about how TNO (the Dutch Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, the largest research institute in the Netherlands) developed technology (PDF) for smart cameras for use at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. These cameras were installed at Schiphol airport by the Qubit Visual Intelligence, a company from The Hague. These cameras are designed to recognise certain “suspicious behaviour,” such as running, waving your arms, or sweating.

Curiously enough, these are all things that are commonly found at the stressful environment an international airport is to many people. People need to get at the gate on time, which may require running (especially if you arrived at Schiphol by train, which in the Netherlands is notoriously unreliable), they may be afraid of flying and trying to get their nerves under control, and airports are also places where friends and family meet again after long times abroad, which (if you want to hug each other) requires arm waving.

I suspect that a lot of false positives are going to occur with this technology due to this. It’s the wrong technology at the wrong place. I fully understand the need for airport security, and we all want a safe environment for both passengers and crew. Flights need to operate under safe conditions. What I don’t understand is the mentality that every single risk in life needs to be minimised away by government agencies and combated with technology. More technology does not equal safer airports.

Security Theatre

A lot of the measures taken at airports constitute security theatre. This means that the measures are mostly ineffective against real threats, and serve mostly for show. The problem with automatic profiling, which is what this programme tries to do as well, is that it doesn’t work. Security expert Bruce Schneier has also written extensively about this, and I encourage you to read his 2010 essay Profiling Makes Us Less Safe about the specific case of air travel security.

The first problem is that terrorists don’t fit a specific profile, these systems can be circumvented once people figure out how, and because of the over-reliance on technology instead of common sense this can actually cause more insecurity. In “Little Brother”, Cory Doctorow wrote about how Marcus Yallow put gravel in his shoes to fool the gait-recognising cameras at his high school so he and his friends could sneak out to play a game outside. Similar things will be done to try and fool these “smart” cameras, but the consequences can be much greater. We are actually more secure when we randomly select people instead of relying on a specific threat profile or behavioural profile to select who to screen and who gets through security without secondary screening. The whole point of random screening is that it’s random. Therefore, a potential terrorist cannot in advance know what the criteria are that will make the system pick him out. If a system does use specific criteria, and the security of the system depends on the criteria themselves being secret, that would mean that someone would just have to observe the system for long enough to find out what the criteria are.

Technology may fail, which is something people don’t always realise. Another TNO report entitled: “Afwijkend Gedrag” (PDF; Abnormal Behaviour) states under the (admittedly tiny) section that deals with privacy concerns that collecting data about abnormal behaviour of people is ethically just because the society as a whole can be made safer with this data and associated technology. It also states (and this is an argument I’ve read elsewhere as well), that “society has chosen that safety and security trumps privacy.”

Now, let’s say for the sake of the argument that this might be true in a general sense (although it can be debated whether this is always the case, personally I don’t think so, as sometimes the costs are just too high and we need to keep a free and democratic society after all). The problem here is that the way technology and security systems are implemented is usually not something we as a society get to first have a vote on before the (no doubt highly lucrative) contracts get signed. In this case, Qubit probably saw a way to make a quick buck by talking the Schiphol leadership and/or the government (as the Dutch state holds 69.77% of the Schiphol shares) into buying their technology. It’s not something the people had a conscious debate on, and then subsequently made a well-informed decision.

Major Privacy Issues

We have established that these systems are ineffective and can be circumvented (like any system can), and won’t improve overall security. But much more importantly, there are major privacy issues with this technology. What Schiphol (and Qubit) is doing here, is analysing and storing data on millions of passengers, the overwhelmingly vast majority of which is completely innocent. This is like shooting a mosquito with a bazooka.

What happens with this data? We don’t know, and we have to believe Qubit and Schiphol on their word that data about non-suspect members of the public gets deleted. However, in light of recent events where it seems convenient to collect and store as much data about people as possible, I highly doubt any deletions will actually happen.

And the sad thing is: in the Netherlands the Ministry of Security and Justice is now talking about implementing the above-mentioned behavioural analysis system at another (secret) location in the Netherlands. Are we all human guinea pigs ready to be tested and played around with?

What is (ab)normal?

There are also problems with the definitions. This is something I see again and again with privacy-infringing projects like this. What constitutes “abnormal behaviour”? Who gets to decide on that and who controls what is abnormal behaviour and what isn’t? Maybe, in the not-too-distant future, the meaning of the word “abnormal” begins to shift, and begins to mean “not like us,” for some definition of “us.” George Orwell mentioned this effect in his book Nineteen-eighty-four, where ubiquitous telescreens watch and analyse your every move and one can never be sure what are criminal thoughts and what aren’t.

In 2009, when the European research project INDECT got funded by the European Union, there were critical questions asked to the European Commission by the European Parliament. More precisely, this was asked:

Question from EP: How does the Commission define the term abnormal behaviour used in the programme?

Answer from EC: As to the precise questions, the Commission would like to clarify that the term behaviour or abnormal behaviour is not defined by the Commission. It is up to applying consortia to do so when submitting a proposal, where each of the different projects aims at improving the operational efficiency of law enforcement services, by providing novel technical assistance.

(Source: Europarl (Written questions by Alexander Alvaro (ALDE) to the Commission))

In other words: according to the European Commission it depends on the individual projects, which all happen to be vague about their exact definitions. And when you don’t pin down definitions like this (and anchor them in law so that powerful governments and corporations that oversee these systems can be held to account!), these can be changed over time when a new leadership comes to power, either within the corporation in control over the technology, or within government. This is a danger that is often overlooked. There is no guarantee that we will always live in a democratic and free society, and the best defence against abuse of power is to make sure that those in power have as little data about you as possible.

Keeping these definitions vague is a major tactic in scaring people into submission. This has the inherent danger of legislative feature creep. A measure that once was implemented for one specific purpose soon gets used for another if the opportunity presents itself. Once it is observed that people are getting arrested for seemingly innocent things, many people (sub)consciously adjust their own behaviour. It works similarly with free speech: once certain opinions and utterances are deemed against the law, and are acted upon by law enforcement, many people start thinking twice about what they say and write. They start to self-censor, and this erodes people’s freedom to the point where we slowly shift into a technocratic Orwellian nightmare. And when we wake up it will already be too late to turn the tide.

Country X: The Country That Shall Not Be Named

On Monday, 19 May 2014, Glenn Greenwald published his report entitled Data Pirates of the Caribbean: The NSA is recording every cell call in the Bahamas, in which he reported about the NSA SOMALGET program, which is part of the larger MYSTIC program. MYSTIC has been used to intercept the communications of several countries, namely the Bahamas, Mexico, Kenya, the Phillipines, and thanks to Wikileaks we now know that the final country, redacted in Glenn Greenwalds original report on these programs, was Afghanistan.

MYSTICSOMALGET can be used to take in the entire audio stream (not just metadata) of all the calls in an entire country, and store this information for (at least) 30 days. This is capability the NSA developed, and was published by The Washington Post in March this year.

Why the Censorship?

The question however, is why Glenn Greenwald chose to censor the name of Afghanistan out of his report. He claims it has been done to protect lives, but I honestly can’t for the life of me figure out why lives would be at risk when it is revealed to the Afghani’s that their country is one of the most heavily surveilled on the planet? This information is not exactly a secret. Why is this knowledge that’s OK for the Bahamians to possess, but not the Afghani’s? The US effectively colonized Afghanistan and it seems that everyone with at least half a brain can figure out that calling someone in Afghanistan might have a very high risk of being recorded and analysed by NSA. Now we know for certain that the probability of this happening is 1.

Whistleblowers risk their lives and livelihoods to bring to the public’s attention, information that they deem to be in the gravest public interest. Now, whistleblowers carefully consider which information to publish and/or hand out to journalists, and in the case of intelligence whistleblowers, they are clearly more expert than most journalists when it comes to security and sensing which information has to be kept from the public in the interest of safety of lives and which information can be published in the public interest. After all, they have been doing exactly that for most of their professional lives, in a security-related context.

Now, it seems that Greenwald acts as a sort of filter between the information Edward Snowden gave him for publication, and the actual information the public is getting. Greenwald is sitting on an absolute treasure-trove of information and is clearly cherry picking which information to publish and which information to withhold. By what criteria I wonder? Spreading out the publication of data however, is a good strategy, given that about a year has passed since the first disclosures, and it’s still very much in the media, which is clearly a very good thing. I don’t think that would have happened if all the information was dumped at once.

But on the other hand: Snowden has risked his life and left his comfortable life on Hawaii behind him to make this information public, a very brave thing to do, and certainly not a decision to take lightly, and has personally selected Greenwald to receive this information. And here is a journalist who is openly cherry-picking and censoring the information given to him, already preselected by Snowden, and thereby withholding potentially critical information from the public?

So I would hereby like to ask: By what criteria is Greenwald selecting information for publication? Why the need to interfere with the whistleblower’s judgement regarding the information, who is clearly more expert at assessing the security-related issues surrounding publication?

Annie Machon, whistleblower and former MI5, has also done an interview on RT about this Afghanistan-censoring business of Greenwald, whistleblowers deserve full coverage. Do watch. Whistleblowers risk their lives to keep the public informed of government and corporate wrongdoing. They need our support.

Update: Mensoh has also written a good article (titled: The Deception) about Greenwald’s actions, also in relation to SOMALGET and other releases. A highly recommended read.

Security Measures against Terrorism: Costs v. Benefits

Note: This article is also available in Portuguese, translated by Anders Bateva.

Plasterk in Tweede KamerA few days ago, the Dutch Home Office Minister Ronald Plasterk said in a debate in parliament that he’s apparently OK with the American intelligence community, the NSA among others, to spy on the Netherlands. His reasoning is flawed from the get-go, and went somewhat like this (paraphrased): “I don’t want to say that Dutch citizens may never be spied upon. Because that Dutch citizen can also be a stone-cold terrorist. And it’s good if that terrorist can be found.” Here’s the full quote (in Dutch):

“Ik wil dan ook wel oppassen om in het woordgebruik bijvoorbeeld te zeggen: ja maar, er mag nooit naar Nederlandse burgers worden gekeken. Want die Nederlandse burger kan natuurlijk een keiharde terrorist zijn, en dan zijn we toch blij dat die op een gegeven moment ergens op de rader verschijnt, en dat moet natuurlijk volgens de wetten gebeuren, maar dat die op de radar verschijnt, en dat er vervolgens actie kan worden ondernomen.”

Plasterk later denied saying that, but he did in fact say this during the debate. More evidence can be found here.

Is No Price Too High For Security?

Benjamin Franklin once said something like “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This quote has been used a lot, but it is applicable here. The question we need to answer is the following: When do security measures stop benefiting the greater good, and infringe on our privacy and liberty, which are values that used to define our very societies? When does the price we have to pay for that little extra security becomes too great? Combating terrorism certainly seems like a very noble goal, and while I do agree that there are some people out there who aim to change our societal structures through violent methods (although one has to note that one man’s terrorist is the other man’s freedom fighter; the definition of the term is a bit in the eye of the beholder), there does come a point where the price we have to pay for a little increase in security becomes too great, compared to the potential benefits.

Terrorism is Really Rare

Chances Terrorist Attack One thing we have to understand is that acts of terrorism on the scale of 9/11 or the London public transport bombings on 7/7, awful as they may be, are still very rare indeed. Extremely rare in fact. Even President Obama has said so, although he does have an interesting choice of words. The chance that you’re involved in a traffic accident tomorrow are several orders of magnitude greater than the chance that the next aircraft you are in will end up in a building instead of on the runway. This is also valid for other acts of terrorism, not just the ones involving aircraft. And even the TSA agrees now that terrorists are not plotting against aviation. So why do we still have to cope with all the draconian security measures then, if it’s clear that it didn’t help one bit? You see the same thing happening with CCTV cameras. Governments and corporations put these things up everywhere, but there isn’t the tiniest shred of evidence that these cameras actually help prevent crimes. But still the TSA and their European counterparts continue to tell people to leave their water bottles and baby food and butter knifes at the checkpoint. Bruce Schneier put a lot of thought into this problem, and he said that we currently try to protect against specific movie-like terrorist plots, instead of doing a thorough risk analysis and protect ourselves with more generic measures that may actually work against multiple types of plots. Terrorists bring down aircraft, so we increase security at airports; terrorists used box cutters, so we ban box cutters; someone brought a bomb on board hidden in his shoe, so we’re telling people to take their shoes off. These are all very specific actions taken against these types of movie-like plots. The security measures taken here are way too specific to work against anything other than the movie plot attack. As soon as terrorists modify their plan just one tiny bit, the entire strategy to combat them becomes ineffective. Humans are unfortunately excruciatingly bad at evaluating risks, and if you give them a very specific, movie-like terrorist plot, they will rate the risk from that much higher than it is in reality, because of the specificity of the plot. We humans have evolutionary been conditioned to consider specific threats a greater risk than a more general threat. On Wired, Schneier states:

If you’re a higher-order primate living in the jungle and you’re attacked by a lion, it makes sense that you develop a lifelong fear of lions, or at least fear lions more than another animal you haven’t personally been attacked by.

We are conditioned to think: it happened once, so it’s likely that it’ll happen again. And you see politicians using that knowledge to their advantage. It is insightful to consider that most measures we’ve currently taken against terrorism, would never even be considered had the events of 9/11 not happened.

Moving On..

With regard to the comments made by Mr. Plasterk: I think a lot of politicians still think that the United States is one of the ‘good guys’, when there’s more and more evidence coming out that politically speaking, it is not our ally, and certainly not our friend. They serve their own self-interests, just like any other nation on earth, and it’s important to never forget that. I even heard some politicians say that we should demand that Dutch citizens shall be treated the same as Americans under US law. It is laughable to think that the Americans across the pond will say: “Oh no! We angered the Dutch! Quickly change our laws to treat them the same as we treat Americans before they start re-colonizing New York!” At most, what these politicians will get is a nice letter from the US Embassy in which they solemnly promise that it will never happen again, meanwhile not changing their laws or practices in the US. And the NSA happily continues to trample upon their NATO allies’ rights. And our politicians are apparently very happy to accept that. We have to reconsider our position and alliances after the numerous disclosures of classified documents by whistle-blower Edward Snowden. For what good is a friend who spies on you behind your back? President Roussef of Brazil has taken decisive action by severing ties with the United States and even building new fibre optic cable connections that circumvent United States territory. Where is the outrage in Dutch society? Here, AMS-IX (the Amsterdam Internet Exchange, the second-largest Internet exchange in the world), sets up shop in the US, making it subject to the PATRIOT Act. Have these people been living under a rock these past months? Or are there other, commercial interests at play here? We need to start demanding answers while at the same time strengthening our own privacy protections. Privacy is a human right, nothing more, nothing less. We need to start using it, or risk losing it.

At the Crossroads: Surveillance State or Freedom?


When I went to OHM2013 last week, it was great to see such increased political activism from the hackers and geeks at the festival. I truly believe we are currently at a very important crossroads: either let governments the world over get away with crimes against the people’s interests, with programs like PRISM, ECHELON, TEMPORA and countless other authoritarian global surveillance schemes, or enter the path towards more freedom, transparency and accountability.

A good example of what not to do is Google Glass. A few weeks ago I came across the story of a hacker who modded Google Glass as to allow instant facial recognition and the covert recording of video.  Normally you need to tap your temple or use voice commands to start recording with Glass, all of which are pretty obvious gestures. But now people can record video and do automatic facial recognition covertly when they wear Glass. I even saw that there’s an app developed for Glass, called MedRef. MedRef also uses facial recognition technology. This basically allows medical professionals to view and update patient records using Glass. Of course having medical records available on Glass isn’t really in the interests of the patient either, as it’s a totally superfluous technology, and it’s unnecessary to store patient records on a device like that, over which you have no control. It’s Google who is calling the shots. Do we really want that?

Image above © ZABOU.

Image above © ZABOU.

As hackers, I think it’s important to remember the implications and possible privacy consequences of the things we are doing. By enabling the covert recording of video with Google Glass, and also adding on top of that, instant and automatic facial recognition, you are basically creating walking CCTV cameras. Also given the fact that these devices are controlled by Google, who knows where these video’s will end up. These devices are interesting from a technical and societal standpoint, sure, but after PRISM, we should be focusing on regaining what little we have left of our privacy and other human rights. As geeks and hackers we can no longer idly stand by and just be content hacking some technical thing that doesn’t have political implications.

I truly and with all my heart know that geeks and hackers are key to stopping the encroaching global surveillance state. It has been said that geeks shall inherit the earth. Not literally of course, but unlike any other population group out there, I think geeks have the skills and technical know-how to have a fighting chance against the NSA. We use strong encryption, we know what’s possible and what is not, and we can work one bit at a time at restoring humanity, freedom, transparency and accountability.

These values were won by our parents and grandparents after very hard bloody struggles for a reason. They very well saw what will happen with an out-of-control government. Why government of the people, for the people, and by the people, is a very good idea. The Germans have had plenty of hands-on experience with the consequences as well, first with the Nazis who took control and were responsible for murdering entire population groups, not only Jews but also people who didn’t think along similar lines: communists, activists, gay people, lesbians, transgenders, etc. Later the Germans got another taste of what can happen if you live in a surveillance state, with the Stasi in the former East-Germany, who encouraged people to spy on one another, exactly what the US government is currently also encouraging. Dangerous parallels there.

But you have to remember that the capabilities of the Stasi and Gestapo were only limited, and peanuts to what the NSA can do. Just to give a comparison: the Stasi at the height of its power, could only tap 40 telephone lines concurrently, so at any one time, there were at most 40 people under Stasi surveillance. Weird isn’t it? We all have this image in our minds that the prime example of a surveillance state would be East-Germany under the Stasi, while they could only spy on 40 people at a time. Of course, they had files on almost anybody, but they could only spy on this very limited number of people concurrently. Nowadays, the NSA gets to spy continuously on all the people in the world who are connected to the internet. Billions of people. Which begs the question: if we saw East-Germany as the prime example of the surveillance state, what do we make of the United States of America?

The Next Step?

I think the next step in defeating this technocratic nightmare of the surveillance state and regain our freedom is to educate others. Hold cryptoparties, explain the reasons and need and workings of encryption methods. Make sure that people leave with their laptops all configured to use strong encryption. If we can educate the general population one person at the time, using our technological skill and know-how, and explain why this is necessary, then eventually the NSA will have no-one to spy on, as almost all communication will flow across the internet in encrypted form. It’s sad that it is necessary, really, but I see no other option to stop intelligence agencies’ excess data-hunger. The NSA has a bad case of data addiction, and they urgently need rehab. They claim more data is necessary to catch terrorists, but let’s face it: we don’t find the needle in the haystack by making the haystack bigger.

Asymmetric Rendition: Why Robert Lady’s Plane Won’t be Grounded

CIA Seal on FloorRobert Seldon Lady, a convicted kidnapper who also happens to be a CIA spook, got on an airplane yesterday bound for the United States. He was convicted (along with 22 other CIA agents) of kidnapping in Italy in 2009, and was to receive a nine-year prison sentence for the kidnapping of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr aka Abu Omar, in what the Italians are calling the Imam Rapito (Kidnapped Imam) affair. Nasr was whisked away to Egypt, where he was submitted to torture.

Robert Lady, a genuine fugitive from the law, gets to board an airplane back to the United States after the US government put pressure on the Panamanian govenment, who arrested him 2 days ago. Italy filed a request for the extradition of Lady, but he is safely sipping his coffee in the US now I suspect.

I wondered whether Lady’s plane would be denied access to the airspace of Central American countries, but I am afraid I already know the answer. Unlike the democratically-elected President of Bolivia Evo Morales, whose airplane was grounded for 14 hours in Vienna when flying home from a summit in Moscow on the mere suspicion that Edward Snowden might be on board (due to pressure put on European countries by the United States), a convicted felon like Lady gets a free ride back to his homeland.

Richard_ODwyerThe problem with these extradition agreements is that they are always horribly lopsided in favour of the United States. The influence the Americans have on world politics is still enormous, and it isn’t for the better. They go about extraordinary rendering and torturing and murdering countless of hapless people, people who generally just go about their daily lives and attend wedding parties and whatnot.

So on the one hand, the United States is demanding that other countries extradite their citizens whenever the US requests it of them, like in the case of Richard O’Dwyer, who did nothing more harmful than building a website on which you could share links to video/audio content, but on the other hand, a convicted felon, responsible for the horrific, inhumane torture of Abu Omar gets to enjoy freedom from persecution in the US.

US intervention in South America and the War on Drugs

The United States still considers Latin America to be their backyard. The Latin American countries however, had to suffer many decades of US intervention, with one democratically elected leader being assassinated by the CIA after another, with one CIA-sponsored coup after another, the US has done little to secure peace in Latin America. And this isn’t just happening in Latin America, the US is doing this all over the world. They euphemistically call it “regime change.” And nowadays, with the War on Drugs in full swing, the US creates a market where South American drug cartels are more than happy to supply. After all, if there is a market somewhere, someone will step in and reap the financial benefits. This is a basic economic law.

Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of crime in these countries. The solution to this is obvious to anyone who has studied this problem in more detail: simply legalize drugs. By legalizing drugs, you can safeguard the quality of the merchandise so people using it won’t get life-threatening crap in their systems, and you immediately shut down the market for the cartels, who now have no way of competing, if the government or companies can legally supply people with guaranteed safe, relatively cheap drugs. This doesn’t only solve the crime problem we have with the cartels nowadays, but it also is of benefit to health care.

Where do we go onwards from here?

The thing is, the US government, by going through with all of their covert regime change projects, their murdering, torturing, droning, extraordinary rendering, etc, is actually damaging the credibility MQ1 Predator Droneof the United States. On the one hand we have Obama who just recently criticized the Russian President Putin on human rights, but look what we have here: Obama, a president who has the dubious distinction of being the only Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has countless of murders on his name. Every week he personally approves the so-called ‘kill list‘. Talking about out-of-control power structures! How can he sleep at night?

The only way forward is for governments to start respecting human and civil rights, and stick to that. We the people need the tools to keep government accountable, it’s the only way to stop history from repeating.

Ubiquitous Tracking by Big Mega Corporations and What We Can Do About It

Nowadays, if you surf the web like any normal person, chances are your movements on the internet will be tracked. There are a lot of companies tracking you and building detailed profiles about your behaviour on the internet. With all the news about the revelations of Edward Snowden about the mass surveillance going on by the NSA, GCHQ and other Three-letter agencies, you might almost forget that there is a whole world out there with various corporate entities who also build profiles about you, either with or without your knowledge and consent.

Why big corporations are tracking you and building profiles about you

Profiles about your Internet behaviour most often get built by simply surfing unprotected, with your browser executing any and all JavaScript that it comes across, which usually does some data collection about your browser and operating system, which then gets sent back to third-party advertising networks who make money building profiles about every user on the internet. Now, of course they claim this is done to better target ads, so you get ads aimed specifically at your current interests and your geographical location or linguistic background, for instance. You see, when you search for something on the internet, you are revealing something very private indeed: you are revealing what you think at that very moment. What things you are likely interested in.

Google Anatylics Dashboard, giving an impression of things it can track.

Google Anatylics Dashboard, giving an impression of things it can track.

This information is worth a lot of money to marketers, who are always on the lookout for ways to target and market their products to just the right audiences. Knowing exactly what people are up to and what their interests are is something marketing departments the world over crave. For if you know exactly what your audience’s interests are, you can tailor the marketing of your products to exactly fit their needs, leading to more sales. Selling access to this information is Google’s main profit model. The major problem with this data collection is that it is all happening without our knowledge or consent. There are only a few large companies in the world who hold a virtual monopoly on acquiring a lot of data about people via the internet. An example would be Facebook; a lot of sites on the internet (tens of millions) have a certain link with Facebook, via their share buttons. Because these buttons are so ubiquitous, found on almost every other site, this causes Facebook to know quite a bit about your surfing behaviour, even if you’re not a Facebook user. Your data still gets collected and stored in a shadow profile, where it is then of course susceptible to acquisition by government agents as well.Filter Bubble

Major problems with personalized results

As more and more people discover their content and news through personalized feeds like those found on Twitter and Facebook etcetera, the stuff that matters gets pushed off the feed. People who live in the filter bubble, a term coined by Eli Pariser, can easily miss vital information about certain major events. I’ll give an example. During the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, two people may be getting two completely different results on Google. One, who is more interested in holidays, according to the profile built up by Google, may be getting more links in the search engine results page (SERP) about holidays to Egypt, and miss news about the revolution completely, whereas someone who is more politically active, may only get links to news sites with articles about the revolution. This is already a major difference in the results you get. You may be under the impression that the results generated by Google are the same for everyone where, evidently, they are not. They are generated based on your personal interests, information you and/or your computer shared with Google. The question is: is it really always a good thing that we only get to see stuff we are interested in? And that some big mega-corporation like Google is deciding that for us? This way we may miss vital information, as the information that reaches us gets censored transparently, without our knowledge or consent. If we only get our news from personalized news feeds like those provided by Facebook, Google and Twitter, we may miss out on a lot of information. Therefore it is prudent to always use as many different sources of information as possible, so efforts to filter our results and trap us in the filter bubble have as little effect on us as possible.

Steps we can take to arm ourselves

There are various things we can do to arm ourselves against tracking by and building up of profiles. First step is using a common browser. This may sound strange, but let me explain. There’s this tool written by the Electronic Software Foundation called the Panopticlick. With this tool you can check all kinds of information about what kind of fingerprint your browser leaves behind, and with how many computers it shares that fingerprint. By having a very large pool of potential computers, all with the same browser fingerprint, we make it harder for companies to track our movements on the internet, as the pool of possible targets will be larger. Browser fingerprinting Cookie Monsterworks without cookies, so it’s a big threat to your online privacy. In terms of browsers, Firefox is a good one. Chrome not so much, as it’s sharing information about which sites you surf with Google. I also recommend Firefox not only because it’s open source, but also because of the vast repository of add-ons available for it. Make sure you disable the setting of third-party cookies. Secondly, it helps if we install browser add-ons like Ghostery, NoScript and AdBlock Plus. These add-ons will specifically disable any Javascript tracking going on, either by completely disabling JavaScript completely (in the case of NoScript), or by having a list of common advertising companies and other various trackers, which it specifically blocks (in the case of Ghostery). AdBlock Plus removes all ads from the websites you visit. They don’t even get loaded. JavaScript is a programming language, with which we can do a lot of cool stuff and make web pages seem more responsive, have our webapps feel more like desktop apps, etc. A lot of stuff is possible with JavaScript. This is in part because it most often gets executed on the client, not on the server. Every browser capable of running JavaScript basically has a virtual machine like Google’s V8, or something similar with which it can run JavaScript. The problem is that with JavaScript the script writer can also get a lot of information back from the browser, and all kinds of nifty hacks are possible if JavaScript is enabled. So disabling JavaScript wherever possible is a very safe thing to do. And with NoScript, you can still enable JavaScript on a per-domain basis as well, if you need it. This will already prevent a large part of the tracking stuff from ever loading on your computer. Other add-ons like RefControl (which will forge or block the HTTP_REFERER header from your browser) also work to enhance your privacy. By reading the HTTP_REFERER header, a site can normally see from what site you came from, and by blocking or forging this header, we don’t reveal any information about our surfing behaviour in this way. HTTPS Everywhere is a good addon to have as well, as it enforces HTTPS (secure, encrypted) communications on sites that support it. Some sites, like Facebook for instance, do support HTTPS communications, but redirect all their links to the insecure HTTP variant. By installing HTTPS Everywhere, which is written by the EFF, we force sites like these to use HTTPS all the time. To check with what sites your browser has shared information about you, you can install Collusion. With this add-on, you can open up a tab with information about which sites you have visited during your browsing session, and with which sites your browser has shared information. This is often substantially more than the sites you actually visit. Many sites for instance use advertising networks, which load their ads from another domain, and data about you gets sent to these networks to track and profile you. To see whether and to what extent this is happening to you, you can install Collusion. To get better protection against tracking, we can change our surfing behaviour by avoiding certain US companies like Google for instance. You can instead search the internet using Startpage. Startpage uses the Google engine, but strips all identifying information from the request before it sends it off to the Google servers, allowing you to search tracking-free. They also don’t store any logs whatsoever, and they use encryption by default.

Right, am I done yet?

The tips above are only good advice in general, and will protect against most profiling attempts by advertising and other profit-oriented companies which try and sell your profile to their clients, but won’t protect you against a determined, well-financed adversary like an intelligence agency. For this, you need to encrypt the hell out of your life, and use crypto like AES, etc. (VeraCrypt) and PGP (GnuPG) as much as possible. Why should we be making it easy for the spooks? In that case, you might also read up on VPNs, and check out the Tor network (but keep in mind that many exit nodes are run by intelligence agencies, so always use end-to-end encryption (e.g. HTTPS) when using Tor). In this case, also try to avoid using any service made available by any US company whatsoever. Think SAAS providers, cloud services, etc. Because of the Patriot Act, US government agencies (and of course, through them, other, foreign intelligence agencies which cooperate with the Americans) can easily request any and all information some company with US ties stores about you. So try to avoid that as much as possible in this case. This is the reason why I’ve moved my online persona to Switzerland, and also running my mail on a mail server that I control. Also think about the security of your devices, and only run free software, so there’s less chance of a back-door hidden in the software you use. But you can read up more on the measures you can take when you’re up against a more powerful adversary. But with the above tips, you’ll be well on your way to better securing your communications. Notice: The above article also got published on While I am very happy with the syndication, I don’t agree with everything published on