Schismogenesis in Bill Gated-funded sites (those machines run Windows with back doors):

NEED to clarify upfront I do not believe the 2020 election in the United States was “stolen” and I do not support Donald Trump. He disgusts me.

The United States is still “using fraudulent voting machines” with back doors, a friend has reminded me. But the media giants aren’t talking about and “associating opposition to fraudulent voting technologies/products with crazies. Other crazies will defend fraudulent voting technologies/products for no other reason than those two crazies are opposed to them…”

Techrights did at least 2 “statements” on this issue [1, 2] just to clarify voting machines are no good regardless of news sites’ rhetoric.

Quit using opaque electronic voting machines and then lessen the likilohood of armed fanatics storming government buildings in an act of overt insurrection.

recently wrote about security crises associated with Windows deployments. “On the topic of Windows,” a friend told me (citing this one article): “The writers there (and elsewhere) conflate spending with results. Security is part of the design and not an aftermarket add-on. The latter is a pointless and futile waste of time and money, but one which keeps Microsoft market share from bottoming out. [...] the Microsoft way of thinking permeates their design *and* implementation *and* especially their deployment.”

I still firmly believe that removing most Windows installations out there (ultimately all of them) would considerably improve computer security worldwide. Microsoft designs things not for security but the very opposite (remote access by the state). ?

Summary: One last note on the issue of Greater London Authority (London Municipality); even though forms exist to report security breaches or incidents of data breaches, Greater London Authority never seems to have bothered with this; the culmination of this in the media (a scandal which puts at risk victims of sex crimes) overlooks a history of repeat/recurring incidents

As far as I’m aware, this was never reported (to those impacted) except internally.

GLA staff (it wasn’t the first such issue, nor the last):

So what good are such forms?

Data breaches’ handling policies/stance of GLA were not followed when I was there. Here they are in their own words:

Meanwhile in the news:

Also this past weekend:

Summary: This past weekend Greater London Authority’s managers came under fire for mishandling of data (this went on for months!) and it wasn’t even the first time; usually they keep quiet about such things and hope nobody will notice while IT people — including Sirius ‘Open Source’ — are retroactively ‘fixing’ these issues

Video download link | md5sum 65e2f74fa8f4c609f78e27dd7bf22983
Greater London Authority (GLA) Breaches Not Surprising
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: The biggest clients of Sirius ‘Open Source’ included Greater London Authority, or GLA for short; GLA is making some shy and bashful faces right now, as there’s negative publicity after a damning incident

THE account sharing (mal)practices at GLA were noted here before. We often shared usernames and passwords (one colleague even sent passwords in plain text by GMail) and last year I cautioned GLA that LastPass had been breached and that Sirius kept GLA passwords in there. The vault was never safe and I protested against the use of LastPass repeatedly for several years (the liar would not listen). I habitually complained about bad security practices and only in 2022 or thereabouts we finally had individual UNIX accounts on the gateway machine rather than a shared account. Imagine the company bragging about ISO compliance while doing all that.

The video above focuses less on account sharing and instead talks about the site, including Drupal. In the distant past we already had severe permission issues (these were pointed out internally), but it remains rather baffling if not flabbergasting that names of sex crimes victims somehow ended on the public Web site. They should not be on any site at all. I explain the Microsoft-centric workflows and how they contribute to the risk. Poor security practices and a lack of proper protocols made the current blunder more or less inevitable. Cowboys shooting from the hip is no way to run a site of a city as important as London.

Especially not when you send passwords and private keys to dodgy third parties that suffer security breaches and lie about it

Summary: Sirius ‘Open Source’, emboldened by ISO ‘paperwork’ (certification), lost sight of what it truly takes to run a business securely, mistaking worthless gadgets for “advancement” while compelling staff to sign a new contract in a hurry (prior contract-signing scandals notwithstanding)

A part devoted purely to ISO was last week’s focus/work and this week we show some of the company’s awful practices when it comes to security. This is the most recent example. It’s from this past October and it’s likely what got me “flagged” for bollocking. In short, after the contract-signing scandals of 2019 I was apprehensive about signing another unknown contract and moreover consenting to a company-provided spying device (with camera and microphone) being inside my home. My wife was also hesitant; she expressed very strong opposition to this even before I did. “What next?” she said…

My E-mails about company “mobile phones” were discussed with a friend in IRC (personal channel), albeit only after careful redaction. Polite language was used. Facts were adhered to all along. At the bottom of this post the communications are reproduced in full, with clients’ names and colleagues’ names redacted.

This “mobile phones” strategy it is not about saving money; outsourcing never saves money, it adds a trap for short-term savings. The bills, in turn, gradually increase by a lot and services stop working or get shut down. They cannot even be debugged because they are proprietary (AWS and Google in mind).

As the communication below shows, first they sent some ‘enticing’ message and later they sent an “ASAP” for a contract to sign (for “smart” “phone”). It was likely some sort of waiver. The messages were sent less than 10 minutes apart, obviously coordinated for effect, and there was no room for debate. If the company wants to buy brand new phones while deprecating existing Cisco phones of all staff — and it won’t settle for low-cost phones while at the same time admitting to employees that the company is tight on budget — then what gives?

But there are deeper, more profound issues at stake here. To give some background, consider what the EFF published last month in relation to NLRB (unions):

How does this work? The NLRB protects the right of workers under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to organize and discuss joining unions with their coworkers without retaliation and the board’s General Counsel rightly suggests that surveillance of workers by their bosses can lead to unlawful retaliation, as well as a chilling effect on workplace speech protected by the NLRA.

“It concerns me that employers could use these technologies to interfere with the exercise of Section 7 rights … by significantly impairing or negating employees’ ability to engage in protected activity—and to keep that activity confidential from their employer,” General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in her letter. She added she will urge the board to act to “protect employees from intrusive or abusive electronic monitoring and automated management practices” that interfere with organizing rights.  The general counsel’s memo serves as a marker for future cases considered by the NLRB. Traditionally, the opinion of the NLRB’s general counsel has a significant effect on how the board rules on cases it considers. This means that, should workers wish to file a claim with the NLRB along these lines, the board would take this opinion into account.

While worker privacy has been considered within general consumer privacy bills, workplace privacy rights function differently than those in many other contexts. A worker often cannot walk away from a camera pointed at their workstation. And while a consumer may feel they aren’t really “consenting” to data collection when they use a product or service, they generally have the option to go to a competing product. Workers don’t; saying “no” could cost them their livelihood. Therefore workers are set up to potentially lose certain rights during the workday.   

At the end of the month the EFF revisited this issue:

Since then, EFF has joined with those in the labor community to learn more about surveillance in the workplace and on work devices, and the effect it has on employees. Particularly as regulators start to pay more attention, and legislators include workers’ privacy in general consumer privacy bills, it’s important to understand the ways that the workplace presents unique challenges in this arena.

Bossware has Real Effects on Workers

As white collar remote workers felt bossware breathing down their necks, there was more coverage than ever of how employers are monitoring the workforce, and the lasting effects it has on workers’ health, safety, livelihood, and collective bargaining rights. Even for remote staff, these stresses affected their mental health and family responsibilities. But it is workers across all fields that have increasingly felt the heat of surveillance, and some of the coverage was propelled by blue collar workers who fought back, from meatpacking facilities to service workers to delivery drivers who experienced increased surveillance as a form of retaliation for wage demands. Neither the ineffectiveness nor the impact on real people calmed employers’ desires for increasing means to monitor and control worker behavior, with some even floating a database on worker productivity. Courts and agencies in other countries, like the Netherlands, have been quicker to take on U.S. firms who they allege have violated the human rights of foreign remote workers with demands on their acquiescence to invasive monitoring.

One lingering concern was, those “phones” can be used for spying and we already know the company was spying on workers, as we’ve demonstrated for nearly 2 months already.

The manager did not bother explaining the decision or how it had been reached; he went completely silent. He was trying to force us to sign something in a rush. Yet again… like in 2019. He also sent us nothing and instead went on a fishing expedition in IRC logs (it seems like nobody gave him a heads-up, as we showed before), only to find nothing but gossip that mentions no names, not even “Sirius”. Such stalking by a “thug” isn’t acceptable and it’s easy to get the impression that it was an act of retaliation in a company where managers are immune or exempted from enforcement (like EPO management). A “phone” would likely become just a tool to “manage” people and there’s already years-old track record of bullying by management. A “phone” would be a blunt instrument of coercion by intimidation and humiliation. All the stalking further justifies workers being apprehensive about “mobile” phones at home. In retrospect, we made the right decision when we antagonised/rejected the proposal.

Here is the full correspondence:

Introduction of Company Mobile Phones for the Support Team

Dear All,

This is just to update you that as part of our on-going development and improvement, we will imminently be introducing company mobile telephones for Support Team staff.

Whilst we are also constantly seeking cost savings and efficiency improvements and consequently as you know are looking at significant structural changes in the organisation, we also have significant security obligations for our own compliance and business requirement obligations to our clients.

However, as well as helping with our security compliance we believe this will be a very positive improvement in the ease of use for support telephony. xxxxx will distribute full details and instructions shortly.

Thank you in advance for helping with the smooth introduction of these devices!

Kind regards,

xxxx

9 minutes later another colleague wrote:

Introduction of Company Mobile Phones for Support

Hello Support Team,

With more customers demanding tighter security, the upcoming ISO audit requirements being more strict this coming November, and a general need to ensure you have the right tools for the job, Sirius will now be issuing work mobile phones to Support staff.

This has been under consideration for several years pending the right combination of business, customer, and financial requirements being met for deployment. Whilst the company continues to need to make overall financial savings and to achieve better efficiency, a number of pressing factors have become primary drivers to make this change happen now. (For example, you will be aware of xxxx becoming an increasingly important client of late and the imminent expansion of the support contract with them is key.)

We expect this to be a very positive step for Support Staff and should make a number of key processes more straight forward whilst also enabling key business benefits and security improvements.

Key purposes/benefits of introducing support mobile phones:
1. To enable 2FA and secure authentication for both Sirius and customer environments
2. Separating work and personal devices as a benefit for both work (security) and life-balance (you can turn it off when not on shift)
3. A step towards replacing the legacy Cisco handsets
4. The devices will integrate with the native platform for Google Voice and be a backup/forwarding target for that
5. A backup data connection to work from in case of local internet outage

The company policy on mobile devices and security is currently being updated to reflect this new tool, but please pay particular attention to the following key notes:
* The devices will remain the property of the company
* The devices must be used solely for work purposes and only by yourself
* The devices will be controlled centrally by Sirius, usage will be visible to management
* The devices must not leave the UK without prior specific permission from management

You have already agreed to abide by the Sirius IT policy and all usage of the device should be in accordance with this.

Devices will be distributed shortly and will include a Mobile Device Guide to allow a quick set-up. Please read through the Mobile Device Guide asap once available (which will be assigned to you in xxxx) and then agree to the contents and terms, after which your device will be sent out.

Warm regards,

To the first message I responded: “If this is about facilitating MFA, please provide phones with batteries that can be detached/removed in order to ensure the risk introduced isn’t greater than the risk lowered.”

The response was:

Hi Roy,

What risk are you suggesting we address by opting for mobile phones with a removable battery?

These devices are almost extinct, with only a few options. They also tend to be lower spec’d and poorer performing as you can see here: https://www.androidauthority.com/best-android-phones-removable-battery-697520/

Further to our discussion this morning, I cannot see a reason for us to make this a priority at this point.

Regards,
xxxx

I responded to the longer message as follows:

> Hello Support Team,

Hi,

> With more customers demanding tighter security, the upcoming ISO audit
> requirements being more strict this coming November, and a general need
> to ensure you have the right tools for the job, Sirius will now be
> issuing work mobile phones to Support staff.
>
> This has been under consideration for several years pending the right
> combination of business, customer, and financial requirements being met
> for deployment. Whilst the company continues to need to make overall
> financial savings and to achieve better efficiency, a number of pressing
> factors have become primary drivers to make this change happen now. (For
> example, you will be aware of xxxx becoming an increasingly
> important client of late and the imminent expansion of the support
> contract with them is key.)

We still need a wiki page for them.

> We expect this to be a very positive step for Support Staff and should
> make a number of key processes more straight forward whilst also
> enabling key business benefits and security improvements.
>
> Key purposes/benefits of introducing support mobile phones:
> 1. To enable 2FA and secure authentication for both Sirius and customer
> environments

When I saw the previous message I responded with “If this is about
facilitating MFA, please provide phones with batteries that can be
detached/removed in order to ensure the risk introduced isn’t greater
than the risk lowered.”

It’s understandable that some of these schemes do not support a landline.

> 2. Separating work and personal devices as a benefit for both work
> (security) and life-balance (you can turn it off when not on shift)

Not applicable to me as I don’t use such a device.

> 3. A step towards replacing the legacy Cisco handsets

The Cisco handsets have worked well for almost a decade. They were
always more reliable than Google Voice.

> 4. The devices will integrate with the native platform for Google Voice
> and be a backup/forwarding target for that

We already have a dedicated computer for Google Voice. Plus, it has
several fallbacks in place.

> 5. A backup data connection to work from in case of local internet outage

I think we still have a USB dongle for this somewhere. A SIM card should
be enough to facilitate it. Our connection has generally been reliable
for years.

> The company policy on mobile devices and security is currently being
> updated to reflect this new tool, but please pay particular attention to
> the following key notes:
> * The devices will remain the property of the company
> * The devices must be used solely for work purposes and only by yourself
> * The devices will be controlled centrally by Sirius, usage will be
> visible to management

It seems like sole purpose of it will be 2FA. Any simple phone that can
do SMS can handle robust 2FA. Anything “apps” can introduce more risks.

> * The devices must not leave the UK without prior specific permission
> from management
>
> You have already agreed to abide by the Sirius IT policy and all usage
> of the device should be in accordance with this.
>
> Devices will be distributed shortly and will include a Mobile Device
> Guide to allow a quick set-up. Please read through the Mobile Device
> Guide asap once available (which will be assigned to you in xxxx)
> and then agree to the contents and terms, after which your device will
> be sent out.

If, as stated above, I “already agreed to abide by the Sirius IT policy
and all usage of the device should be in accordance with this,” then why
do I need to sign an additional document? Anyway, I think this needs to
be discussed with staff. I wasn’t told anything about this until today
and it seems like a lot of resources are spent on just an MFA appliance.

Regards.

I tried to speak to them over the telephone, knowing from experience that they would likely not bother replying.

First colleague: Managed to get to him over the phone to discuss the matter.

Second colleague: Tried to avoid talking to me about it over the phone, using obviously fake excuses.

But the point isn’t about a “phone” per se. As we’ll show over the next few days, the company was failing at the very basics and putting not only its own systems at risks but also clients’.

Summary: Before we proceed to showing how Sirius ‘Open Source’ blatantly ignored security and privacy we wish to show how ISO (see ISO wiki) basically ‘sold’ a certificate to Sirius — this is like a “diploma mill” but something that’s for businesses, not individuals

THIS is today’s second article on this topic. We’ve found some spare time for faster progression and in-depth coverage. As I noted yesterday, my wife had more direct and indirect experience (decades ago) with ISO being a bunch of meaningless hooey. So did I (having stumbled upon classical ‘box tickers’ or worse). Sirius is just another reminder of that. Hence this series and its relevance. It seems like a lot of people in technical fields separately and independently reached the conclusion that ISO is overhyped, overvalued, and mostly a waste of time and money (unless you have a ‘bullshit job’ to justify).

“This isn’t science. It’s like calling “economics” a science. It is not. It’s more like religion.”“My dad complained about the ISO in the 90s,” Ryan said in IRC an hour or so ago. “He constantly made fun of all of their “standards” for management of a company that didn’t mean anything but go on and on. It’s a sort of code so that managers sound smarter than they are. “We’re ISO-Whatever compliant with our handling of the TPS reports.” And the ISO standards can be wrong and never revised. Microsoft implemented the standard for MP3 and so did LAME, and then the result was they were both correct and Windows XP crashed. Part of the standard about what constituted the maximum size for a frame could be calculated one of two ways.Microsoft chose the more constrained way and it resulted in a buffer overflow with some files that crashed Windows Media Player. LAME had chosen the method that resulted in a slightly larger permissible frame size. The outcome was LAME had to be changed to use the Microsoft calculation to avoid crashing Windows, and that meant a reduction in audio quality under some circumstances, with padded bytes instead of data. Later, they changed to use the VBR bit allocator, even in a CBR file, and it mostly avoids the situation by its method of action. It can cleverly use the bit reservoir in ways that the former bit allocator that was only for CBR files couldn’t. Naturally, they never delete anything, so you can still demand the old model. It’s just an absolute nightmare of options switches. It’s the worst thing I’ve ever seen in a utility its size. ISO is kind of the stuff of Pointy Haired Bosses when it comes to Management Theory being standardized.”

Well, this whole “Management Theory” is what we’re dealing with here.

This isn’t science. It’s like calling “economics” a science. It is not. It’s more like religion.

Here’s what happened in Sirius (in mostly logical/chronological order):

Subject: ISO
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 15:47:43 +0100
From: xxxx
To: xxxx

Hey All,

As you know we are going through the ISO processes – I have been asked to gather some information from everyone at Sirius to create a list of all assets used by employees of Sirius whether it belong to the company or the employee so if I can have the item name and serial number that would be great. They have also asked which anti virus you all use.

Are you all able to send me the required information ASAP please?

Thanks,

xxxx

Yes, because a bunch of serial numbers would mean so much! Of people devices at home… for the most part.

“They would nag us to do the same ‘course’ every year, even though it is dumb and we ‘passed’ it already.”A month later came “You have been registered for a Training course – Information Security” (no, not really security but this hoax instead). We’ll deal with that another day…

They would nag us to do the same ‘course’ every year, even though it is dumb and we ‘passed’ it already. This is compliance???

??”This is something that will be done annually for our ISO process,” I was told, “so please complete this on your next shift.”

??Way to waste people’s time, doing and passing a total hoax over and over again (details on why it’s a hoax were covered here before).

??Notice the threats being sent to ALL staff:

Hi All,

As you will all be aware we have been implementing new policies and procedures in order to become ISO 9001 and ISO 27001 compliant. Part of this entailed changing our HR company to xxxx who use the online portal Atlas to provide an easier method to roll out training. I have checked and there is still a substantial amount that has still not been completed.

ALL training sent out by myself needs to be passed and completed by the _*25th November 2019*_. This is to ensure we meet our deadline for the final stage of ISO audits.

Failure to comply with this request may result in disciplinary action. For those of you that have completed the training, please ignore this message and thank you.

Kind Regards,

xxxx

“Failure to comply with this request may result in disciplinary action,” it says. They kept making veiled and explicit threats. Sometimes this culminated in actual bullying, false accusations, and blame-shifting witch-hunts.

Of course the portals failed to even work properly. For instance:

> ALL training sent out by myself needs to be passed and completed by the
> _*25th November 2019*_. This is to ensure we meet our deadline for the
> final stage of ISO audits.

I was able to open all the documents and read them. The animated things,
or training sessions, get stuck. I tried each one of them about 5 times
(>each<) and they get stuck somewhere along the way. I tried this on
multiple machines. Rianne told she too had some difficulties.

I will try again on my next shift, but these technical issues do merit a
mention. They also rely on plugins Adobe no longer supports, posing
security risk (an issue aside from the bugs).

Kind regards,

[Roy]

Her answer was: “Have you tried using a different web browser?”

Of course she wasn’t using GNU/Linux or anything “Open Source”. This does not constitute an actual solution.

In 2020 the following was sent:

——– Forwarded Message ——–
Subject: xxxx – Things to do
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 11:38:01 +0000
From: xxxx
To: xxxx
CC: xxxx

Hi All,

In October I issued Linux Training via xxxx. Can you all please ‘acknowledge’ this on your portal to show that you have opened and read it.

I also need you to ensure ALL training modules issued on xxxx i.e information security and documents issued i.e IMS Awareness presentation have been completed by the end of your next shift.

It is essential these tasks are carried out prior to our ISO Audit next week.

Kind Regards,

Well, those training modules and ISO guidelines weren’t even followed by Sirius. We gave examples of this before. In some cases, there were efforts to meet standards only after a certificate had been granted.

Sheesh. I’m not supposed to say this in public, am I?

What did those audits mean anyway? What did the above “ISO Audit” actually check? That the cookie drawer is properly locked when Office staff goes to retrieve some hot chocolate milk from the machine?

“In the next few parts we’ll show what Sirius did in practice, not in theory, and what it told staff, not ISO auditors.”Some other messages were banal. They indicated a certificate had been granted (in other words, Sirius basically bought one) after minimal so-called ‘audits’ and staff sending a bunch of numbers from the back of computers (as if that means anything at all).

ISO is a joke. When it comes to this administrivia, ISO created just another ‘cash cow’ for itself.

In the next few parts we’ll show what Sirius did in practice, not in theory, and what it told staff, not ISO auditors. It’s one heck of a clusterf**k with the company’s data scattered all over the place. That includes clients’ data, even private keys and passwords.