Five Technologies Iran Is Using To Censor the Net

alphadogg sends in a Network World piece on the unexpectedly effective technologies Iran is now employing to thwart their citizens' access to the Net. "While the government's initial efforts to censor the Internet were blunt and often ineffective, it has started employing more sophisticated tools to thwart dissidents' attempts to communicate with each other and the outside world. Iranian dissidents are not alone in their struggle, however, as several sympathetic hacker groups have been working to keep them online. One such group is NedaNet, whose mission is to 'help the Iranian people by setting up networks of proxy severs, anonymizers, and any other appropriate technologies that can enable them to communicate and organize.' NedaNet project coordinator Morgan Sennhauser, who has just written a paper detailing the Iranian government's latest efforts to thwart hackers (PDF), says that the government's actions have been surprisingly robust and have challenged hackers in ways that the Chinese government's efforts at censorship have not."

Comments

Re:Don't Worry Folks

[ServerIrv]

Agreed. I'm optimistic that there will be a day when there are no wars, but unfortunately I think that will be right after the meteor wipes us humans off the face of the earth.

So...

[TitusC3v5]

I'm waiting for the follow-up article, 'Five Technologies Iranian Citizens are Using to Bypass the Censors.'

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! Bored, and waiting for a phone call, so I figured, what else to do but reply to the comments on slashdot!

1) Right now we recommend Tor, we're testing out some other solutions that will be more easily integrated into how people are already using their computers. Dumb down the client requirements as much as possible. However, it's hard, since any solution is temporary- it's just a matter of how temporary. That said, we do have a few tools used for specific purposes inside Iran, however they're quite temporary, and saying what they are might reduce their halflife.
2) We don't have a valid certificate. I think... Thursday? is the day we're supposed to have that. Something like that. Generally working on improving the nedanet site, also. Though, right now our focus isn't on having our website be fancy and safe, since there's nothing there. We'd much rather work on making the things we do to help Iranians easy and safe.

--emsenn, project coordinator, NedaNet (http://emsenn.com)

technical assistance

[Red Flayer]

And who is providing the Iranian government with the technical know-how to implement these censoring measures?

Is it private consultants? Is it foreign governments?

Is there sufficient know-how within Iran's pro-government citizenship to effect the censorship?

I'm very curious who, if anyone, is helping Iran's government do this. Because I do control a decent amount of spending, and I'd like to know if there's anyone I do business with that I should think twice about renewing contracts with. I'd be disappointed, and more than a bit shocked, if any of my suppliers are helping Iran do this. But there is precedent. And my (and my employer's) dollars can speak a lot louder than this comment.

Re:technical assistance

[JoaoPinheiro]

I believe it was reported that Nokia and Siemens had sold/developed some of the filtering equipment being used by the Iranian government. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/nokia-siemens-boycott/

Re:technical assistance

[ducomputergeek]

And what if they're using *gasp* linux. A local coffee shop I frequent use many of the same techniques to try to stop people from downloading torrent files after getting a couple infringement notices. They do it via a Gentoo linux box and off the shelf FOSS tools. They don't do the DPI or SPI, but everything else, such as QoS, blocking ports, and IP blocks they do and it doesn't take a super consultant to set it up. I know the kid who set up this box. He's knows enough to do it, but isn't any type of super genius.

Can you get around the blocks here at the shop? Yes, but only if you know what you're doing. I can do it. I know a couple others who can as well, but 95% of the people sipping coffee around me don't have a clue. And it's enough to thwart the average attempt to use services like limewire and Bit Torrent.

Re:technical assistance

[Red Flayer]

FWIW... I'm taking Nokie/Siemens words with a grain of salt... they are not exactly a neutral party.

I don't know if they should be considered in any way culpable (lots of research to be done), but any link that contains the words "press release" needs to be vetted thoroughly by an independent party.

Re:technical assistance

[Red Flayer]

It's quite possible that they're using tools they are implementing without outside help. But given the scope of the project, and the increase in effectiveness, I'd expect that they've hired someone to help.

Re:technical assistance

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And who is providing the Iranian government with the technical know-how to implement these censoring measures? Is it private consultants? Is it foreign governments?

This is a good question. I've asked a few people and no one is fessing up to suppling Iran publicly. I've worked in that particular industry so I have some good contacts who should know. We know they use software from CA based Secure Computing, but the company denies having sold them a license so it seems they're just pirating the software. The Nokia Siemens partnership is selling them some gear but denies selling them monitoring software for anything other than cell phone networks.

Is there sufficient know-how within Iran's pro-government citizenship to effect the censorship?

There is a surprising amount of network traffic shaping and monitoring software related to the middle east. Half the startup companies in the business a few years ago had founders educated in Israel. It is possible, therefor that the locals do have such knowledge, but on the other hand the Israelis and Iranians don't really get along (understatement of the year nomination please).

And my (and my employer's) dollars can speak a lot louder than this comment.

I'm all in favor of accountability. I'd like to think the press would be competent enough to figure do some serious investigation of this and that the US government would make sure any companies involved were exposed as such to the public as well as subjected to punishments for doing business there (at least being unavailable for US contracts for a few years). I'm afraid I've become more of a cynic iver the last decade and I have little faith in either the press or the US government to push for the truth and hold people accountable. But seeing as most of the public has the attention span of a fruit fly and doesn't care enough to vote based upon such things anyway, I suppose we get what we deserve.

Re:technical assistance

[grcumb]

And the company themselves debunked this rumor. http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/Press/Press+releases/news-archive/Provision+of+Lawful+Intercept+capability+in+Iran.htm

That's a rebuttal, not a refutation.

Nokia-Siemens are basically stating (correctly) 'we didn't do anything there that we aren't required to do elsewhere.' That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the fundamental question: Is what they did in Iran (and do elsewhere) the Right Thing?

The whole question about how - and when, and who - to intercept in the context of the Internet is particularly troubling. Here's an excerpt from a longer piece I wrote about the situation:

Nokia-Siemens, defending its role in the creation of a centralised mobile telecommuncations network, stated recently that:

In most countries around the world, including all EU member states and the U.S., telecommunications networks are legally required to have the capability for Lawful Intercept and this is also the case in Iran. Lawful Intercept is specified in standards defined by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) and the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project).

Yes, decentralised communications come at a cost. They make surveillance efforts of all kinds more difficult. The two competing questions we need to ask ourselves are:

1. How far are we willing to compromise ourselves in the pursuit of state security?
2. How much are we willing to compromise state surveillance capability in order to protect our own freedom to communicate?

These are knotty issues with complex and often subtle ramifications on society. They demand a level of public engagement on the principle - and more importantly, the practice - of free speech that we havenâ(TM)t seen since the Red Scare of the 1950s.

Re:technical assistance

[peragrin]

And who supplies the FBI and NSA's intercept software and hardware for all their warrentless wiretaps?

the Iranian country is small for internet access, and they have carefully controlled it from the beginning. The trick here is the no one can actually say anything as the same hardware and software is even used for LEGAL wiretaps by just about everybody. What is needed is for someone to make a second Internet and trick the world into using it before governemetns realize they can't control it.

Re:technical assistance

[Runaway1956]

Accountability, the man says? Where is the media? Are they ALL in bed with the politicos?

The fact is, politicians have not only enabled monitoring and censorship, they have mandated it. There is no reason in the world to think that only "good guys" will have those weapons. Monitoring and censorship are a little like guns and knives - good guys might have them, bad guys WILL have them.

The accountability for repressive technology begins in the UK's ministries, and in the US' congress and senate, and we can keep right on accounting through the rest of Europe, Australia, Canada - - -

Odd - repressive technology is only bad when it's the OTHER guys doing the repressing.

Re:technical assistance

[Xest]

"I'm all in favor of accountability. I'd like to think the press would be competent enough to figure do some serious investigation of this and that the US government would make sure any companies involved were exposed as such to the public as well as subjected to punishments for doing business there (at least being unavailable for US contracts for a few years)"

The problem with this is that the US government doesn't do it fairly.

Look at the Senators who complained about Nokia/Siemens selling stuff to Iran under the guise that they care about how the technology maybe infringing people's freedoms there, yet fail to realise Cisco and many other US tech companies are selling exactly the same type of kit for exactly the same reasons to China.

All that will happen is the investigation will try to dent foreign companies whilst ignoring equally immoral sales and actions by US companies - look how they handled (or rather, didn't handle) Halliburton and it's abuses in Iraq, putting even US contractors lives in danger for no reason other than to get another invoice for the US tax payers to pay for example.

That's just the start of it though, because if the US does do it that way, which ultimately they will (they tried to be difficult about BAE, a major British arms manufacturer supposedly paying bribes to Saudi to get contracts, whilst again, ignoring the fact US companies do the exact same things), eventually other areas will respond - Europe will impose sanctions against US companies whilst favouring European companies like Nokia/Siemens for example and the whole thing will just turn into a protectionist farce.

That's not to say I disagree with your point, accountability would be great, but I don't see how it'd happen without being sidelined for alternative political purposes as it is already with the senators who complained about Nokia/Siemens. The problem is that the US has trade embargos on the likes of Iran, North Korea and Burma to make itself look like the great moral defender, and like it can complain when other nations sell to these, whilst simultaneously not having sanctions on equally cruel repressive regimes like China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and so on.

Accountability can only ever work if it's done in a fair manner, a good example of an international system that attempts to bring accountability is the ICC thanks to peple like Luis-Moreno Ocampo, but even they're faced with countries like China and nations like many of those in Africa pulling out excuses as to why they shouldn't support it, when the reality is merely alternate vested political interests.

No business

[zhilla2]

"China has several gigabytes per second of traffic to deal with and has a lot more international businesses," he says. "They can't be as heavy-handed with their filtration. The Iranians aren't as concerned about that⦠so they get to use all these fancy toys that, if the Chinese used them, could cripple their economy."

I myself ordered Chinese products from sites using SSL. I don't think even they would be crazy enough to turn down money - but it seems Iran's leaders are. Are they going North Korea style? At least Chinese have a positive side to their repressive government. They have the money, they'll transform that to power and influence. Iran's policy is VERY bad for business - who seem to really WANT their people to be poor and unemployed. Which also leads to emigration of smart, competent and anybody willing to work. So yes, killing protesters and having a idiotic clerical fascistic system will make Iran poor and irrelevant in time. Countries with saner systems will benefit from importing their disgruntled intellectual elite - because smart people might be more tolerant by average, but also have lower tolerance for being served hypocritical crap.

Re:No business

[aaandre]

Oppressive regimes see their own countries' intellectual elite as an enemy.

Re:No business

[Anonymous Coward]

So yes, killing protesters and having a idiotic clerical fascistic system will make Iran poor and irrelevant in time.

As someone who fled for exactly those reasons, I fully agree with whole of your comment, except that little bit about a clerical fascistic system.

The recent "election" (read coup) was the beginning of transformation of Iran from a theocratic oligarchy into a military dictatorship. Otensibly, Khamenei and a few select clerics hold some power, but in reality, revolutionary guards' commanders are ruling the country. The absence of the traditional flood of congratulations from religious centers of Qom to new "president", along with the direct and open complaints from high-ranking Ayatollahs is a sign that the religious body does not support this transformation. Some like Sanei and maybe Montazeri for good reasons, and the rest, most prominently Rafsanjani, only because they know their end has come.

In the upcoming months, expect the anti-Israel tone to calm down and negotiations will to be held with US on nuclear (and only nuclear, not human rights) issue. Support for Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. will continue as a guarantee for Iranian leaders just in case there's trouble. However, they will become less and less radical. All this in exchange for securing regime's future. In the end, if things go as they are now, the only losers will be the people of Iran and that is why people are protesting. Posting anonymously, for obvious reasons.

Re:No business

[jawahar]

Democratic regimes also see their own countries' intellectual elite as an enemy.

Censorship is absolute or doomed.

[jd]

If there exists any means of communication that is not blocked, that means can be subverted to support every form of communication. As a result, any partial technological block will inevitably be defeated.

The alternative to censorship is self-censorship - alter society such that it no longer wants to communicate in such-and-such a form, or to transmit such-and-such information. This has mixed results. Certainly, China and Iran haven't done well in convincing their citizens not to communicate with the outside world. On the other hand, the Pitcairn Islanders are not exactly broadcasting the facts behind the crimes of the power-brokers there.

I guess the difference is that all the Pitcairn Islanders are, to some extent, guilty of the crimes that only a handful were actually convicted for, and talking could lead to their conviction as well. On the other hand, dissidents in Iran and China don't see themselves as guilty of the crimes of their leadership and so have no need to protect themselves.

(One wonders how many other people have been silent of things they should have spoken up over, to avoid being convicted. It's a part of the censorship debate that IS important, as it is the only part that cannot be technologically circumvented. Well, not until mind-reading machines have been developed.)

In a way, I guess the Iranian censorship technology is a good thing, in that it seems to be pressing the technologists more, forcing them to come up with cleverer solutions. It's good for the mind and may, someday, lead to Iranian inventors and innovators gaining some clout in the world. Adverse conditions tend to produce some brilliant minds.

Re:Censorship is absolute or doomed.

[mindbrane]

>The alternative to censorship is self-censorship

The Iranian, Farsi speaking people have a complex and fascinating history. Farsi, like English, is an Indo-European language, and, the Persian Empire could be said to be the catalyst driving the birth of Europe. The Spartan and Athenian alliance bringing the victory of the Persian Wars was thought by the Greeks to be caused by the Gods as the Persians were seen as Asians and, it was thought, the Gods would never allow one people to rule both Europe and Asia. The matter grows complex as Alexander Hellenized the Persian world. Although in Persia lower caste people would abase themselves before someone seen to be a superior, but the Greeks only bowed to a God and thus the Persian custom was seen as Alexander elevating himself to the ranks of the Gods. But for my money the big fillip was introduced, perhaps by the Jews, when sin was passed from the King to the people. Some ancient civilizations were known to have beaten the statues of Gods when things went wrong and, further down the road, Kings and priests were punished when things went wrong as it was thought they were custodians and servants of the Gods and thus responsible if the Gods should be made angry. Some tyrant, somewhere, came up with the truly remarkable idea that if sin was ascribed to the people s/he ruled, then, if the Gods punished the people it was the peoples fault. This ascription of sin to the populous was one of the neatest tricks a ruling elite ever effected on an enslaved population. I think all western theocracies are supported by this central idea, that each person is born into sin and is a sinner and thus accountable for anything and everything that goes wrong.

We're creatures of context and our ideologies are drawn from and enforced by the symbols that surround us. From this it follow that freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy and personal growth. If Iran is to grow and the Iranian people free themselves, then they must always have available to them the symbols of freedom.

Just my loose change, btw "hello", a decade or so ago we exchanged what I enjoyed as some interesting posts here when I was new to Linux and /., but that was another incarnation.

Re:Censorship is absolute or doomed.

[aaandre]

Not if the government decrees and installs mandatory censorship backdoor software/hardware on every communication device sold. Passing laws for that to happen in the name of the children or the security or freedom is easier than we think. It will probably be called Free Speech Protection or something similar.

Then, even though communication around it will be theoretically possible, the threshold will be high enough from technical standpoint and if tampering with the device is punishable with harsh enough measures, then few enough people will make efforts to go around it, which is few enough from the governing entity's standpoint.

Possible future solutions are being beta tested in places like UAE, China, Korea, and now Iran.

And speaking of bright minds, history shows that oppressive governments never mind putting a bullet through one.

Can't open TFA

[sakdoctor]

Is slashdotting one of the technologies being used by the Iranian government?

Interesting Name

[Philip K Dickhead]

In the 90's, Iran's principal start-up ISP was called neda.net

I can see why the new effort is named after the late Ms. Soltani. Still a coincidence of note.

Iran's gateway out - due to embargo issues - used to be a pair of 9600 Bps USR HST modems, located in Austria. That changed around '95.

Mirror of pdf

[pirodude]

http://diode.mbrez.com/docs/SoIN.pdf

Re:USA

[AlexCorn]

I'm waiting.

Does it involve voting fraud?

[mi]

I can't be bothered with an on-line PDF-file — is voting fraud on the list? Because the Honduran fraudster got the backing of the current US Administration... Someone needs to tell the mullahs, that the easiest way to the heart of America's President may lie through something, that they already doing...

(Flamebait my muscular behind...)

One

[QuoteMstr]

Haystack (full disclosure: I wrote it.)

Re:One

[quinwound]

Haystack is NOT from NedaNet.
NedaNet does not endorse Haystack.

Re:Don't Worry Folks

[agw]

Yes, Iran has a long history of attacking other countries in wars of aggression so claiming peaceful use is a farce.
Nuclear technologiy is only safe with peaceful countries who have never lead any wars of aggression or used WMD, like say the U.S.A. and Germany.

Oh, wait...

Re:No, YOU wait.,

[Q-Hack!]

please, dont SHIT online without knowing enough about what you are going to shit about.

I think you missed the entire point of /.