Thailand: Prachatai, UDD and the Google conspiracy
Sasiwimon Boonruang in the Bangkok Post a few weeks ago:
Based on in-depth correlation technical analysis of the UDD network, it was found that Norporchor IPTV transmissions have been made via different Prachathai domains registered with the GTLD (general top-level domain), including prachatai.com, prachatai.net, prachatai1.com, prachatai.org, prachatai board.com, prachathai webboard.com and sameskyboard.com.
Security experts analysed the correlation betweeb the web servers of the Prachathai domain and other domains and found four IP groups that have no association with each other. So they further explored the correlation between the DNS server and the mail relay server.
Based on the intelligent data gathering with correlation technical analysis at the DNS server, they found that the four IP groups comprised of one big group and two small groups.
At mail relay server level, they found the UDD technical team had applied Web 2.0 technology via Google applications, with only one big group and one small group, and they identified the webmaster of Prachatai and finally the correlation with the Norporchor network.
Prachatai‘s Chiranuch wrote a letter to the editor in response (it doesn’t appear to have been published, but it is available from here). Key excerpt:
If using any Google application, especially Gmail, identifies a correlation with the Norporchor network, I am confident that there are more than a million people correlated to the Norporchor network. If you or the anonymous security experts that you quote really want to substantiate the claim in your analysis, you have to prove that the origin of Norporchor IPTV is one of Prachatai servers. In other words, you must prove that one of Norporchor IPTV sources is owned by Prachatai.
In addition, the fact that two domain names are on the same IP address does not mean they are related. Those two domain names may share a single IP address in a shared web hosting service.
Please be informed that your article describes the results of a very weak analysis, but tries to make it look convincing by referring to “security experts”. It would be useful if you could disclose the names of these experts so that they can be held accountable for their “analysis”.
‘Your “experts” present non-facts and omit very well-known facts in their “analysis”. This is reporting of a very poor standard, it besmirches the name of Prachatai with no reason, and it appears to support the idea of censorship. We are surprised to see this in the Bangkok Post.’
BP: The only thing surprising is that Chiranuch is surprised. Surely, just because they both use Google applications this doesn’t mean anything (they are both in Thailand, another correlation!!!). Anyone see any follow-up by the Bangkok Post?
- Cyber-heist mastery: how North Korea stole over US$3 billion in cryptocurrency
- From 1% to 100%: Tallying the impact from Okta data breach
- VMware by Broadcom: layoffs and redundancy
- ChatGPT: A year of revolutionizing AI dynamics
- Barking up the wrong data tree: even pets aren’t safe from a data breach