Govt orders blocking of IIPM-related URLs


IIPM_4C--621x414

Internet service providers asked to block access to more than 70 URLs that appear to contain material critical of IIPM

In an unprecedented bid to block material critical of controversial business school Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), the Indian government has ordered Internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent access to more than 70 URLs following a court order.

The directive was issued on the basis of an order from a court in Gwalior, said Gulshan Rai, director general of CERT-In (Computer Emergency Response Team-India). The order signed by Subodh Saxena of the department of telecommunications (DoT) was issued on Thursday and was reported earlier on Friday by the Medianama website.
Interestingly, the URLs listed include a University Grants Commission (UGC) notification that IIPM is not a university and “does not have the right of conferring or granting degrees as specified by UGC.”
The move comes amid criticism of the government for recent steps that have been regarded as attempts to curb freedom of speech.
DoT couldn’t be immediately reached for comment. UGC and IIPM representatives also couldn’t be immediately reached for comment.
IIPM has been the subject of several critical articles in various publications, including Outlook, Careers 360 and Caravan. A controversy had blown up in 2005 over attempts to gag a blogger critical of IIPM. That site too is among those ordered to be blocked.
Other URLs include stories on sites of publications such as The Indian Express, The Economic Times and blog posts on The Wall Street Journal site among others.
IIPM used to be a significant advertiser in large mainstream newspapers such as The Times of India and Hindustan Times until recently.

#China is still hacking the Wall Street Journal, claims Rupert #Murdoch


Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul whose newspaper empire includes the Wall Street Journal, posted on Twitter earlier today that his newspaper was still suffering at the hands of hackers.

Murdoch has waded into the developing news story about the high profile hacks, which were revealed to the world by the New York Times when it admitted that its servers had been infiltrated by hackers for four months, stealing employee passwords.

Murdoch’s seven word tweet claims that the hacks against his own companies are still going on.

1

In a column published on Sunday, entitled “Barbarians at the Digital Gate”, the Wall Street Journal shared some details of the attack against its systems, and didn’t beat around the bush regarding what it felt about the hackers:

"Specifically, the email accounts of under two dozen Journal editors, reporters and editorial writers have been hacked for months and maybe longer by the Chinese government. The hackers entered our systems and sought to monitor our China coverage. We identified the hacking last year and have taken steps to prevent it. The attack parallels similar Chinese infiltration of the New York Times, which believes the cyber-espionage originated with a Chinese military unit, as well as a hacking attempt last year against Bloomberg News."

"Whatever else the Chinese thought they were doing by hacking us, they didn't stop the publication of a single article. Now they have only magnified their embarrassment, as their intrusion was eventually bound to be detected and publicized. Perhaps they will now try to deny us travel visas, harass our journalists or otherwise interfere with our business in China."

"Meantime, we read that the FBI is investigating China's media hacking and treating it as a national security issue. It's also a plain-old crime, undertaken by a government that fancies itself the world's next superpower but acts like a giant thievery corporation."

Hard hitting stuff, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Quite what Chinese hackers might have done to upset Rupert Murdoch over the weekend isn’t made clear, and – frustratingly – he doesn’t share any details as to how the Wall Street Journal has positively identified that the hackers are Chinese.

I think it’s very hard for anyone to prove that China was behind these hacks (although lets not be naïve, they probably were).

China has, of course, denied involvement. That’s easy for them to do, as the origin of a particular hack is very difficult to prove. Hackers can bounce their attacks from computer to computer, leapfrogging around the world, hiding their origin.

Even if an attack is tracked back to a Chinese computer – who is to say that it’s not been hijacked by a hacker in, say, El Salvador?

internet

These are important considerations to take into account before pointing the finger of blame at particular countries for a hacking attack.

The complexities of attribution don’t make for easy media headlines, but are important for the general public to understand – especially when some countries appear to be gearing up for pre-emptive internet attacks against perceived aggressors.

#Twitter hack: How to find out if you’re affected & What to do?


Around 250,000 people have had their passwords reset after ‘sophisticated’ hackers broke into Twitter’s database and may have stolen emails and encrypted passwords. Here’s a guide on what you need to know

A Twitter page

A Twitter page: the hackers will have wanted access to accounts so they could watch and control them. Photograph: Mario Anzuoni/Reuters

Q: how can I find out if I have been affected?
Go to a web browser, go to twitter.com, log out (if you’re logged in) and try to log in with your usual password. If you can’t log in – it will say there’s a problem with your username or password – then you’ve been affected.

(Deletion because Paul Lomax points out that web access will have been revoked if you were affected. See below.)

Q: I can’t check that just now. Am I likely to have been affected?

Only if you joined Twitter roughly in the first half of 2007. At that time it had a few million users. People (including myself) who joined in May 2007 have been affected. If you can’t remember when you joined Twitter, you can find out your “Twitter birthday” for yourself or any other user (it’s not private data).

Most people joined well after mid-2007, so on that basis you’re unlikely to have been affected.

Q: I can’t see an email from Twitter, and I can still post from Tweetdeck and other third-party clients – I haven’t tried the website. This means I’m OK, doesn’t it?

Not necessarily. The email from Twitter may have been filtered into your spam folder (users of Google’s Gmail should specifically look in their Spam folder; a search in the Gmail function won’t look at spam messages – and Twitter’s reset message to a Gmail account I use was filtered as spam.

The reason why third-party clients will still let you tweet is that Twitter doesn’t let them use your password. Instead, it uses “tokens” which are issued to the third-party programs, and authorise them to send tweets to Twitter’s database for redistribution to followers. The tokens weren’t revoked as part of the password reset; doing that would have meant that you’d have had to re-authorise all your apps, and for some apps Twitter has only made a limited number of tokens available. So that would have hurt both users and app developers.

Q: What did the hackers get?
Twitter says “our investigation has thus far indicated that the attackers may have had access to “limited user information – usernames, email addresses, session tokens and encrypted/salted versions of passwords.” Session IDs are used for web visits, rather than third-party applications.

Update: Twitter has asked us to point out the emphasis on the point that hackers “may” have had that access: “it’s not 100% certain that they did. We reset passwords as a precautionary measure,” a spokesperson told the Guardian.

Q: What has Twitter done about it?
It has revoked the session tokens – so web-based services for those accounts (such as the Twitter.com website – see Paul Lomax comment) won’t work – and reset the passwords, so even if the hackers can crack the encryption, the passwords won’t work.

Q: Why did they go after the early adopters of Twitter?

Probably they didn’t, directly. Chris Applegate speculates that the method by which the hack was done gave the attackers access to its database, and forced it to list the user details – but they were by default provided in ascending order – that is, from user No.1 upwards. That means that Twitter’s founders such as Biz Stone, Jack Dorsey and Evan Williams have almost certainly been affected.

Q: What were they after?

What most hackers are after – access to accounts. There’s no indication yet of what group or individual might have been behind it, but getting secret access to accounts is always useful to hackers: it lets them watch people, or masquerade as others and send poisoned links via direct message to get control of more accounts.

Plus, some people use the same password for their Twitter account as their email account, and other accounts (a very bad move) which could mean, if the hackers are able to crack the encryption around the passwords, that they would be able to get access to huge numbers of email accounts, which would mean escalating problems for those people.

Always, always, use different passwords for important accounts; and don’t chain together your email accounts (so that a password reset in one is sent to another more vulnerable one).

Twitter’s advice on passwords: “Make sure you use a strong password – at least 10 (but more is better) characters and a mixture of upper- and lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols – that you are not using for any other accounts or sites. Using the same password for multiple online accounts significantly increases your odds of being compromised. If you are not using good password hygiene, take a moment now to change your Twitter passwords.”

Q: How was it done?
Twitter isn’t saying; its blogpost about the attack says only that it saw “unusual access”. That means that the hackers were probing its database via the Twitter access method, and found a way to crack its usual safeguards.

It may be connected to the outage that Twitter suffered on Thursday, though the company hasn’t said.

Twitter is saying that “This attack was not the work of amateurs, and we do not believe it was an isolated incident. The attackers were extremely sophisticated, and we believe other companies and organizations have also been recently similarly attacked.”

That implies that this could be part of a pattern in which a number of media organisations – including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and – according to some reports – the Washington Post have been attacked by Chinese hackers. With people such as the Dalai Lama on Twitter, it’s possible that this was an attempt to find out what important messages were being passed between such members.

India’s Shame: World Reacts to FB Post Arrest


The arrest of 21 year old Shaheen Dhada for posting anti-Bal Thackeray comments has not only outraged Indians. The story has been picked up and reported across international media as well. Though they may not be aware of the complexities of Indian politics, the fact that young girls were arrested for an FB post has got them questioning the dwindling tolerance for the freedom of speech in India.

India's Shame: World Reacts to FB Post Arrest

The Wall Street Journal warns ,’You better think twice before ‘Liking’ your friends’ comments on Facebook.  It may land you in jail.’ The article quotes Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society saying “Bal Thackeray had violated the same provisions in his lifetime,” with reference to Mr. Thackeray’s inflammatory speeches against the South Indians and Muslims.

The BBC put a question mark on India’s commitment to freedom of speech by citing recent examples of the arrest of a cartoonist like Ravi Srinivasan, a 46-year-old businessman in the southern Indian city of Pondicherry, who was arrested for a tweet criticising Karti Chidambaram, son of Indian Finance Minister P Chidambaram.

UK’s Daily Mail, says ‘So much for freedom of speech’ and questions the IT act which led to the arrest.

In a New York Times article, Pranesh Prakash questioned the arbitrariness in the application of the law saying ‘There were thousands of people on Facebook, Twitter and in person who were saying the exact same kinds of things that this girl is alleged to have said’. The article also stated that Shiv Sena has a history of banning books, movies and other popular culture that are critical of the political party.

Mashable noted that several dissenters had taken to Twitter to speak out about the arrest including Milind Deora, the government minister of state, communications and information technology, who showed support for Dhadha and Renu with this tweet:

It also asked ‘Do you think Facebook is a good place to voice political opinions?’

The Christian Science Monitor calls the incident ‘the latest in a string of crackdowns on Internet speech in the world’s largest democracy’. It says, ‘The other cases have included arrest of a resident of Chandigarh who complained on the Facebook page of Chandigarh police that they were not doing enough to find her stolen car; a cartoonist who posted work online protesting corruption scandals by the central government; and a professor in Kolkata who merely forwarded an email with a cartoon that was critical of West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.’ The article also mentions Shaheen Dhada’s uncle, Dr. Abdullah Ghaffar Dhada stating that he had incurred losses of two million Rupees due to the ransacking of his clinic by angry Shiv Sainiks.

U.S. Carriers Unhappy With American Aid to Air India


Calling Air India “one of the most poorly-run airlines in the world”, American carriers have opposed the US Exim Bank‘s $3.4 billion support to it to buy Boeing 787 Dreamliners.

The Air Transport Association (ATA), a trade group representing America’s biggest carriers, has shot off a letter to US Export-Import Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg opposing the decision, saying Air India’s financial ill-health should disqualify it from getting American help.

he US Exim Bank had last month decided to give loan guarantees of $1.3 billion to support Air India’s fleet acquisition from Boeing and another $2.1 billion preliminary commitment to support future deliveries of the US aerospace company’s planes to the Indian national carrier.

A decision to this effect was taken early October by the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the US.

In its response, Exim Bank‘s general counsel said the bank stood by its decisions and processes, though it would investigate some of ATA’s assertions about its procedures, a report in the Wall Street Journal said.

“Air India’s borrowing is backed by a sovereign guarantee of the Indian government and its business plan has been vetted by Exim Bank staff,” the report quoted a US government official as saying.

The official said support to foreign buyers of Boeing planes was important since if the US plane maker could not sell airplanes to foreign buyers like Air India, its chief rival Europe’s Airbus probably would.

Air India has pending orders for 27 Boeing Dreamliners, the deliveries of which are expected to begin by the end of this year. These are part of the 68-aircraft order placed by the national carrier with the US plane manufacturer.

The Exim Bank support will enable Air India raise finances for acquiring the latest technology aircraft at competitive interest rates compared to commercial financing.

ATA opposed Exim Bank’s backing for Boeing sales, partly because US airlines are not eligible to receive it as domestic purchases are not considered exports, the report said.

It quoted ATA’s counsel Michael Kellogg as saying that the organisation was unhappy with the US government subsidies to foreign buyers of Boeing jetliners since “the bank’s support for foreign airlines injures US carriers.”

Kellog said Air India is “generally considered one of the shakiest, riskiest and most poorly-run airlines in the world.”

The letter, which focussed on Air India, asked Exim Bank to slash subsidies to all overseas buyers of Boeing jets.

The letter, quoted by the WSJ, states that Air India’s “long-running financial losses and widely reported management problems should disqualify it for US support.”

ATA also criticised Exim Bank for not being sufficiently open about its decision making.