Gilbert

btw, are you an dutch official by accident? Because they always refer to Transparancy in there first alinea.

Well not realy, Transparency is under dutch influence, the statutes are even signed in Nijmegen in the Netherlands. Further more, Transparency doesnt underbuilt there statistics. It is obvisious an politic institute that got not so much to do with reality. Compared with the Netherlands Romania are amateurs when it is about corruption. I can say that because i investigated an lot from that country. I am not specially talking about an secret service, but governmental networks in common. For sure corruption must use those networks to. There is always an 50% chance on an terrorist attack anywhere, but international terrorism is not so active as in the '70 and '80. But that is an other subject. What i mean is where must we keep the balance so it keeps safe.

I would like to know how you here think about this. As we all know securing servers and networks is not an easy job to do, personal i think it is impossible to close out all vulnerabilities with an open network as the internet, but ok, it is possible to make it as difficult as possible. But is it safe to secure governmental networks so no one can come in anymore? What i mean is this, in an country like the Netherlands the government is managing to keep the corruption and crimes they commit covert up and secret, it is not the kind of corruption we know here, but there it is about child rape, child murders, murders, tortures, fraud and molesting which are committed by law enforcement and the justice department. With intimidation's, bringing in discredit and destruction of people they manage to keep the corruption covert up. This even reaches till the EU counsel and the EU court of human rights. Sending emails to NGO organisations is often intercepted by the government. When you make networks real secure then such criminal governments became impossible to monitor, and the end is out of sight. You can say then that an safe network or server becomes unsafe for the population. On the other hand, an unsecured network is unsafe because the information that must be protected is open to air. How wishful is it then to secure governmental networks?

Absolutely true, i am an very big fan from encrypted hard-disks and usb sticks ect.. From encryption in general i am an fan. IF the NAVO and governments had used an encryption, then the whole red October attack wouldn't had worked. But the problem is that such organisations work with consumer applications, well then you ask for trouble.

This is all ready an big mistake, to cooperate with an foreign nation when it is about the security of your own country. For sure when it is from the US then you know you get f*cked.

@Nytro: And what is the solution to protect that? Because i thought that this website was about security and not about how to undermine the security protocol systems. But ok, when you set an bios password and remove the option to start from DVD drive, then you can't use this threat. Further is it not smart to keep the Grub menu, normally you remove that one as first after an success full installation. You can replace it simply by an lil programmed script to make an standard start up. The idea from linux is to start it once and let it run for effer..... so you can replace the Grub.

It makes spionage rely easy, you simply use the population from the home country as camera people to film all what happens in that country. I think we must answer the question first how we are going to protect our country and freedoms when any one can monitor everything what happens. To give our world in the hands of google is an bit irresponsible imho. Seen the fact that google glas works with Bleutooth, i think it is not very unhandy to develop an distortion transmitter to jam the signal. Such device can be used by individuals who don't like to be filmed at any fart they let fly, but also by public organisations. But then again the fight continuous between developers, one develop an device that is an threat and the other one must develop the protection against it.

The real problem is that anything that hangs on the internet cant be secured, even the best security takes 10 days till it is hacked. If you rely want to secure data, then the first question you must answer is "Is it rely an need to hang it on the internet. And if it is needed, what other options do you have then the internet." But the point is that we now believe in the holy ghost of the internet. And if somebody lets an fart, then we hang that to on the internet. Even we are daily confronted with the fact that nothing on the internet can be secured by the many blogs and news items about hacks, we keep going on with believing in the holy ghost. While the question is not anymore if there has been hacked, but the question is when we discover it. But lets be honest, did the world turn around before 1980? So what is wrong with the old system that was more solid and secure? It is not so fast or effective as the internet computers? If you do not count the time to repair the damage from hackers, and the damage on privacy from the people who where included in the data then i agree. Why do we keep hanging bank-systems, governmental systems and even military systems on an unsafe network? IMHO it is stupidity with the capital S.

Hi, do you life then in the illusion that there is something that hangs on the internet rely can be protected? For an long time the question is not IF it can be hacked, that is for sure. The question is now when we discover that it is hacked.