Namfrel Unhackable?

[artabon]

http://technology.inquirer.net/infotech/infotech/view_article.php?article_id=66888

Hehe. Looks like an open invitation for hackers to me. People really should not make this stuff public.

[gl3nnx]

Right, bka may magtrip sa kanila na mlupet na hackers hehe.

[joath]

To think NAMFREL boasting their capability to prevent hackers destroying there program. They are looking for outside desruption. Baka di nila alam na meron na palang tao sa loob, patay sila dun.

[KennethM]

I don't believe it, "Namfrel, never to be hacked?"

Oh c'mon, if you do know how things work, you can simply destroy / modify them... :D

[eligio]

actually meron naman talagang strong security and talagang hindi na hahack. nasa sys/net admin capabilty na yon kung pano setup ng security. Problema kung meron insider :D

[Gabo]

Hindi naman siguro unhackable pero it will take time talaga para pasukin yung internal network nila from the outside.

May sponsor pala sila para sa network security needs nila eh at anim pa yung firewalls. Ibig sabihin naka DMZ sila. Kung ganito yung setup, dapat coordinated yung attacks. DDoS at inside job pwede na. Siguro matagal-tagal pa bago makakuha ng maraming kakampi yung attackers. At kapag nangyari yun, malamang tapos na ang quick count.

Bakit di pa kasi tayo maka-electronic voting para bumoto na ako.

[artabon]

Wow - you sound like you know your stuff! Distributed denial of service attacks? Ayos ah.

Pero totoo un, with a setup like that you'd need a lot of coordination (or zombies) to bring it down. Even then DDoSes are pretty hard to pull through kasi lots of routers have DoS protection.

You could probably sniff your way around kasi sa mabilisang setup nyan malamang di nila na protektahan ung lahat ng ports na kailangan isara.

Kaso the main thing is why? Kung hindi nila inannounce na unhackable sila and kung ano setup nila, we wouldn't even think about means and methods of getting in. Best practice in keeping your network safe is keeping your means of keeping safe a secret.

[KennethM]

So, it means "hackable" pa din pero it would take time and effort before you could "hack" them... :D

[Gabo]

Nyahahaha! I do sound like one. Topic of interest ko yan dati at mahilig ako magbasa ng mga tungkol diyan. Hanggang sa pagbabasa lang naman. Never really got into the stuff. Bird's eye view kumbaga.

I guess they just termed it that way para bumenta yung balita. On Namfrel's side, they felt pretty confident because of the redundancy system in place along with their firewalls.

I never believed in security through obscurity. Ginagawa ko yan palagi sa bahay pero kahit taon man ang abutin, nakikita pa rin ng ate ko o ng kuya ko ang mga stuff ko. You know....stuff. Nyahahahaha! Anyhow, seriously siguro Namfrel's response was kinda human nature. They acted in defense kasi nahukay na ng reporter yung issue eh. Kung sasabihin nilang "no one is safe" or something like that baka mas marami pa yung mag-challenge.

[artabon]

Security in obscurity fails only if you have it as the only security measure. ;) If you kept your "stuff" in a safe and kept the location secret. Then they will have to pass 2 hurdles:

Finding the safe.
Knowing the combination if they do find it.Pero, you are correct in saying that it was an expected response for Namfrel. Now that you say that though, it was a damned if you do and damned if you don't type of thing.

Hehe.

[kuyajo]

Yes it is indeed an expected response. Good thing is there is not much benefit in proving those guys to be wrong. Just not worth it. Most security specialists i know in the US always says there is no such thing as unhackable. Even the most secure sites (yes even the banks and other financial sites ) are hackable. The difference is it will cost more in terms of time and money to do it. So the hackers always go to the ones that are not well protected. AS far as namfrel is concerned I would not brag too much about it , not good to try to dance with the devil. heh heh

[eligio]

sigurado mabayran din maski matindi security nila. hehehe

[bloodredxxx]

data redundancy isn't something you can ignore... at siguro naman may data integrity checks yung system nila just incase someone tampers with any data.

so mahirap nga.

[Gabo]

Yes, that's right, kuyajo. It will be an issue of convenience versus paranoia and the latter will often cost more, realizing the fact that the people are the weakest link in the security chain.

Saying there is no such thing as unhackable sounds cheesy to me if you say it on national TV/newspaper/website. But then again, as artabon mentioned, Namfrel was damned either way.

[joath]

No matter what NAMFREL say about their software being unhackable there's always people who would cash out big moola to alter some of the results.

It's politics ladies and gentlemen... kahit sabihin nila na malinis ngayon ang halalan wla pa rin good result sa gobyerno natin... :D

[Ronald Allan Marva]

Who cares if Namfel is unhackable nowadays? Their 'quick' count is in itself a misnomer.
The organization is starting to lose its credibility.

[KennethM]

Who cares if Namfel is unhackable nowadays? Their 'quick' count is in itself a misnomer.
The organization is starting to lose its credibility.
Hehehe... Every election time naman, kahit sino naman madalas nawawalan nang "crediblity". :p

[diegooos]

i think NAMFREL promoting there side