Teenager beats $84million Australian Gov porn filter in 30 mins.
Mikey 21 comments
Don't be alarmed, but someone has managed to bypass the Australian Government's new $84 Million Internet porn filter.
Sixteen year old student Tom Wood hacked the security within 30 minutes of it going live.
The Government embarrassingly responded by uploading a patched filter, which Tom was able to break again in only 40 minutes.
What's truly amazing about all of this is the false hope they are actually going to be able to stop kids from getting around it. All I can say is, I am glad they are footing the bill for this one.
You can download the filter here.
Sources: .
Jake
Tuesday 28th August 2007 | 08:09 AMGood call Rodney. This is THE BIGGEST waste of both federal government developer time and taxpayer money.
Seriously, the govt turns up a surpluss $2bn more than expected and we still pay through the nose for child care and schooling!
That is farcical!
As a tech savvy parent I have more confidence in my own abilities to lock down my kids computer than I do in the Fed Gov. In fact my eldest has been online for nearly a year and so far hasn't been able to even accidentally venture beyond the wiggles, hi-5, pocoyo etc...we designated. I might point out using Firefox is a good start :-)
Gilly
Tuesday 28th August 2007 | 02:29 PMAs a non tech savy parent I am happy to get any assistance I am offered. My computer is in the family room, but how can parents monitor it all the time.
I dont expect I could ever stop my kids beating the system if they desired.
What I hope from this system is they wont have it forced on to them or stumble accidentaly across it.
Its a step in the right direction.
Jake
Tuesday 28th August 2007 | 02:53 PMGilly, While I agree with you in principle, I would still be very reluctant to accept such a tool from the government.
For the first time I agree with something Gilly says. It is a step in the right direction.
Perhaps I am being cynical but traditionally this very same idea has failed in every other country. Though how you measure success will show a great difference of opinion.
I want it to work. All my years in this industry make me doubtful.
Rodney
Tuesday 28th August 2007 | 06:00 PMGilly's perspective is correct - any tool that helps can't be all bad.
The problem is this tool won't help. This is just the equivalent of trying to build a city with one brick. Sure it helps but it won't do anything meaningful.
There is in fact a real danger that people will get a false sense of security. Kind of like the countless people I meet who thought they couldn't have computer problems because they have AV software.
So I guess we shouldn't mock it entirely but it should come with a huge and obvious disclaimer, something like: "Warning. This product will do nothing useful and may degrade system performance."
andrew
Tuesday 28th August 2007 | 06:47 PMshould get kids to make these filters and see if the adults can break into them....yep parents should be aware of what the kids are upto and put pc in an area where it can be viewed by all
Hoggy
Tuesday 28th August 2007 | 07:31 PMI think you are both wrong. What you mean is the gov has it's heart in the right place. Acknowledging the problem and committing to doing something about it is 'a step in the right direction'.
After an 84 million dollar investment we should expect nothing short of a working solution.
Jake
Tuesday 28th August 2007 | 09:07 PMYes Hoggy, though the problem with any Australian government is they are seldom willing to fork out the cash for 1 incredible $84m product, instead opting for several thousand recent IT graduates, who will program using C++.
We see this time and time again with government sponsored information systems and CRMs, it is the unfortunate consequence of the bureaucracy.
Rodney
Tuesday 28th August 2007 | 09:40 PMHuh? The government builds IT stuff? Not likely.
$84 million would have gone like this.
1) Establish a working committee.
2) Find out what other governments did.
3) Conduct focus groups, into what people want to hear.
4) Spend several months in infrequent meetings and listening to the odd vendor presentation.
5) Buy some junk from some other company who already scored a sale to a progressive sounding nation like Denmark or Sweden. For God's sake don't make anything yourself coz then you're responsible for support.
I've worked in government IT decision making groups. This is exactly what happens.
Rodney
Tuesday 28th August 2007 | 09:42 PMOh I forgot to mention, 80% of that $84 million would have gone on consulting fees which had nothing to do with software development. Then the product would have been bought for the "special government price" of a few million (but the retail price is $49.95).
Jake
Wednesday 29th August 2007 | 12:53 PMRodney, you left out the preamble... the beaucratic business case, which of course differs greatly from a business case written in the private sector as this also needs a project officer who will then also appont a focus group.
Yes, you make a good point, they would of course outsource product development.
What is it with Gov departments and their uncanny ability to pump out sub-standard solutions for every project? Everyone I know in the Gov says it takes months/years to even get to the production stage sometimes, and when they finally deploy the project, it is half-arsed.
Jake
Wednesday 29th August 2007 | 02:15 PMWell the thing that you always need to keep in mind is that no one in the government likes or wants any sort of change to occur which will invariably affect them. I'm lucky in that I am placed quite highly and have a great deal of support for what I do, though everything I do, I need to do 100% myself... otherwise it is simply not done or very slightly done.
You must also respect that no one in the organisation is open to change and thus you must manipulate individuals to gain support instead of just assuming that logic will gain support.
Basically, the system is bogus and it has been quite challenging, coming from private enterprise with $m's at my disposal to this. I liken it to wading through fast setting concrete.
Gilly
Wednesday 29th August 2007 | 03:47 PMYou are all missing the point. It is there to help stop Children accessing or stumbling across -porn.
16 year olds are a different story. Surely
ToGilly
Wednesday 29th August 2007 | 10:28 PMIt is there to help the government disappear 84 million in front of people eyes.
Anyway, if a kid has the ability to bypass any (good) porn filter I think he has won the right to watch it. ;)
Jake
Thursday 30th August 2007 | 08:48 AMGood point.
Gilly, the point is well taken, though from experience in my teens attempting to break such filters, they tend to only block sites where the filter finds certain words, things like sex or nude etc.
Gilly
Thursday 30th August 2007 | 01:38 PMTo Gilly, said-
It is there to help the government disappear 84 million in front of people eyes.
End Quote
Gilly sais
Touche
Monday 3rd March 2008 | 11:53 AM
I congratulate Tom Woods, basically for showing up an inferior product which has cost a fortune! I have read the comments about where the money went and appreciate the knowledge of the whistle blowers in this. What to do about it? The interested parties on Tom,s side could maybe arrange a contest to test the best system,probably Tom,s would win and therefore should be bought and recommended by our government,hopefully to be on-sold overseas as well. We have to work together to re-establish INTEGRITY in Government and Business,we the people are the shareholders in government decisions,who are the major shareholders in business profits? The people who make these decisions are not fools so what does that leave as the reason for "POOR" outcomes? $$$$$$s bribery&corruption is alive and well in ozz; re AUSTR. trade agreement with America!
Hoggy
Thursday 19th June 2008 | 09:56 AM...in response to this comment by Hoggy. my name hoggy too du u lik coc aswell..............
Rodney
Monday 27th August 2007 | 09:06 PMIt's farcical.
Most of these filters require buy-in from the sites or some kind of warning on the site. So we basically ask the people we want to block to help us block them. Ain't gonna happen.
How will it block torrents? How does it block avi's (which cannot be viewed until completely downloaded)? The list goes on and on.
How about the parent's being the filter instead? Put the computer in the living room, not the bedroom. Pay attention to your kids and what they're doing.
You know, be a parent?