Syria's Cyber Operations

[Image from unknown archive] [Image from unknown archive]

Syria's Cyber Operations

By : Amjad Baiazy

The Internet is the first medium in history that supports groups and conversations at the same time. While the telephone gave us a one-to-one platform and televisions, magazines, radios, and books gave us the one-to-many platform, the Internet gave us the many-to-many platform. As a tool of communication and sharing, the Internet has proven to be an extraordinarily powerful force that is very difficult to control.

Increasingly, nation-states and corporations have tried to rein it in, to harness its potential within security and legal frameworks that exist outside the Net. But this has proven unattainable even for the most powerful organizations on the planet, precisely because the Internet is more than just a technology: it is a culture.

The Internet is characterized by two key features. One is the ability to communicate freely, and the second is to link up with the rest of the world. As recently as 1996, the first reliable worldwide survey of Internet-use counted about sixteen million users. Today, there are over five hundred million. Now in terms of the total population of the planet, we still have less than seven percent of the world connected to the Internet. Even though Internet use is growing fast, two-thirds of the planet will still be outside cyberspace by the end of this decade. That said, the speed of diffusion has been extraordinary. The Internet can combine every single medium once transformed into digital form. The Internet, therefore, is the single most important medium that can have the biggest impact on global society once a bigger percentage of the world population has access to it.

People used social media extensively during the 2011 Arab uprisings, yet it was not a one-way advantage. Activists succeeded in fostering a global culture of online activism and made the world realize the power of the Internet. Bloggers and activists have become national heroes. They have been the main engine for organizing protests, lobbying on behalf of prisoners, and reporting news to the outside world in countries where journalists are banned. The revolts have relied on two main weapons: the relentless determination of protesters and social media outlets. If we examine trends in social media, we can see that Syria has had an unprecedented share since March 2011.

The Syrian state has had a virtual monopoly over the media since the Baathist military coup of 1963. But satellite television stations and the emergence of Al-Jazeera and successive pan-Arab news channels broke the regime’s monopoly. The Internet has also emerged as an unchallenged source of news. The uprising in Syria has been progressing hand-in-hand with social media. The Syrian regime has also used the Internet, coupled with live bullets on the streets, to crack down on activists. Syrians used several  tools to access social media sites such as Facebook and Youtube, which were blocked inside the country. These tools, however, prevented the tracking down of activists, so the regime eventually responded by unblocking both sites Facebook and Youtube. Soon after doing so, official state agencies  started launching Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attacks by forging a fake Facebook page to steal activists’ passwords. The security forces have also used torture against captured opponents to obtain the passwords to their Facebook and email accounts. The Assad regime thus supported a network of hackers to establish the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), which has been launching attacks against Syrian opponents and other targets, including the Al-Jazeera TV website, among others.

A new global race has emerged to obtain electronic surveillance arms. Annual revenues spent on electronic arms in 2011 were between three billion and five billion dollars, and they are rising drastically. The Syrian government built a surveillance system last year to monitor e-mails and Internet use. The surveillance equipment for this system was made by Hewlett Packard Co. and NetApp Inc., both US-based companies. The equipment, worth more than 7.2 million dollars, was sold to Syria through an Italy-based company called Area SpA. Germany’s Utimaco Safeware AG (USA) and Paris-based Qosmos SA also supplied technology for the project. European Union sanctions against Syria did not bar such sales until they adopted further legislation in December 2011 banning export of surveillance technology to Assad’s regime. Furthermore, Iran helped the Syrian regime by training state-employed technicians on cyber surveillance. The system includes probes in the traffic of mobile phone companies and Internet service providers (ISPs), capturing both domestic and international traffic. It also allows agents to archive communications for future searches or mapping of peoples’ contacts.

Each major security branch in Syria operates a 24/7 information room where young information technology (IT) students serve. These students either volunteer to become security officers, or are allocated there to complete an eighteen-month obligatory army service. As the state security apparatus jails new opponents, confiscates their computers, and tortures them to give up information from their online accounts, the IT students’ task is to scan these accounts and recover deleted information from confiscated personal computers. The scan processes are usually random and lengthy. Many IT students take a few weeks to read the details of one email account, yet students who serve in IT rooms have disparate levels of experience.

The Syrian security communications branch, codenamed “Branch 225,” is the central decision maker in relation to communications security in Syria. Branch 225 not only has direct contact with mobile phone operating companies, ISPs, and other communications companies, but also with electricity and water companies. Branch 225 is also linked to the Telecommunications Establishment (STE), which is the main communications company in Syria and controls all ISPs and landlines in the country. STE has a Central Operations Room in the Muhajireen neighborhood of Damascus directly linked to Branch 225. Since the Syrian revolt started, Branch 225 blacked out areas that government forces invaded to cover up the operations against civilians and to cut off any contact with the outside world. This branch controls the air-conditioned room at a telecom exchange building in Muhajireen, where the Area SpA surveillance system was installed. Although the Syrian government denied any links to the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), undercover interviews with members of the SEA revealed that the Syrian government has funded SEA members and hired hackers for different operations against opponents. 

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?