The old-fashioned way to skirt the OCBC Phishing Scam

A month has passed since a new shockwave hit Singapore - not the COVID-19 pandemic, but a plague of an entirely different kind. A wave of phishing scams which caused customers of Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC) to lose their entire life savings.  The perpetrators spoofed the number of OCBC which was responsible for sending out text messages to customers, putting in a link to a page that looked eerily similar to OCBC's official site, where they proceeded to trick these customers into entering their details.

This was sadly not even a new trick. As scams go, it was actually one of the oldest in the book. It bypassed technological safeguards and used good old-fashioned social engineering to gain access to the accounts of the victims.

No to Internet Banking

Despite having multiple OCBC accounts, I was immune to this little trick. Not because I'm smarter than average, but because I don't have Internet Banking. I don't have an OTP token, and any SMS sent to me in this vein would merely raise an eyebrow. (My wife, too, is immune to this little trick, but for a different reason - she doesn't speak English, and any SMS she receives that she can't read, she simply deletes.)

Getting a Phishing message.

That also means that any banking I do is on-site - at an ATM or an actual bank. Yes, it is a far more laborious activity. Yet, that is what I do. Many people have questioned why I, as a software developer, do not engage in the convenience of Internet Banking. After news of the islandwide scams broke, they are no longer questioning.

This does not just apply to iBanking. It is an established pattern for many aspects of my life.

Tech people being technophobic

Smart refrigerators, Internet of Things, Alexa - nope. My career as a software developer stops at my home. I still write code at home, but any compromise of security at home would merely affect the laptop and mobile phone.

No smart home for me.

Is this technophobia? Perhaps. But I seriously doubt I'm the only software developer who lives life like that.

The reason is simple. It is precisely because I am a software developer, that I've seen how things work. Mistakes happen. Negligence happens. Software developers are human and sometimes they get tired. Sometimes they're just sloppy, or irresponsible. Sometimes they just don't know better. They might cut corners or do whatever they can get away with, as opposed to doing a proper job. And I am acutely aware of just quickly things could go to shit if any of the loopholes we sometimes leave open, are exploited. A layperson has the luxury of being blind to all this, and just assuming that shit will work. I don't.

I've seen enterprise level applications fail a simple Cross-site Scripting check. Experienced developers who use unsanitized data in Stored Procedures. Essential software that don't even pass basic security tests.

And I'm supposed to just trust software?

In all fairness...

The recent scam was not due to security flaws on OCBC's side. Their systems were not compromised. The breaches were due to mistakes made on the part of the users. If OCBC is to be blamed for anything, it would be the lack of user education. And that, is as much the responsibility of the individual as that of the organization.

If you can't stand the cheat, get out of the kitchen!
T___T

Film Review: Child's Play (2019)

"Hi, I'm Chucky! Wanna play?"

Anyone having childhood memories of this has gotta be old as dirt, and that unfortunately describes me. I was eleven when Child's Play came out, and while I can't say I've watched all of the sequels, I did managed to catch Bride of Chucky ten years later. Fast forward more than twenty years, and a reboot of Child's Play just appeared in cinemas.

Was I excited to watch this murderous psycho doll at work again? You betcha!

Warning - spoilers ahead (duh), not for the weak of stomach!

As would be expected of any Chucky movie, this flick is full of gleeful violence and campy humor. But I'm not going to try that hard to avoid spoilers. Fuck that shit. If you're watching a Chucky movie, plot twists are probably not all that high on your list of priorities.

Also, I got the pictures below of the dolls, from the Internet. It's just to illustrate a point and I'm not trying to profit off this, so please don't sue (or eviscerate) me.

The Premise

Andy is a shy boy with a hearing disability. One day, his mother gives him a present - a doll named Chucky which has an AI chip. The doll is capable of connecting to the internet and learning all the things it sees. Unfortunately, it learns all the wrong things, and without any inhibitions against violence or understanding of boundaries, it soon becomes possessive of Andy and this snowballs into a bloody homicidal spree. Along the way, Chucky even picks up the ability to control other toys via the Internet of Things, and as you may expect, it's total mayhem from there.

Unlike the original Child's Play which was a supernatural thriller about a serial killer whose soul got transferred to a doll, this movie is a tech horror thriller about the Internet of Things and wayward machines. Nothing new there; that theme has been pretty much done to death (pun intended) since Skynet in the era of The Terminator. Still, we're here to watch Chucky stab some hearts and slit some throats, and trust me brother, that little bastard delivers just the same.

The Characters

Mark Hamill voices Chucky, the friendly toy turned slasher robot. And just in case you think Hamill is too much of a good guy to voice Chucky, remember that he was the voice behind The Joker in the JLA Animated Series.

Gabriel Bateman puts in a strong performance as Andy Barclay. Bateman plays the shy antisocial Andy well, isolated as much by his hearing disability as by his awkward social skills, and later on his increasing paranoia. He reacts superbly to the growing horrors that Chucky introduces to him.

Aubrey Plaza is Karen Barclay, single mother to Andy. Plaza brings a certain sardonic wit to her character, and shares good chemistry with her onscreen son. She also provides a fair amount of fanservice later on when a voyeur peeks at her in the shower.

Brian Tyree Henry as Detective Mike Norris, the good-guy cop who befriends Andy and acts as a potential love interest for Karen at the end. Equal parts badass and jolly everyman. I last saw him in Widows as a very different character, and I think it was a good casting choice here.

Carlease Burke as Mike's mother Doreen. Burke is a hoot. Her Doreen is a nagging mother and sassy black woman all in one. I was sorry to see her die. She gets easily the best pre-death line in the entire movie.

Ty Consiglio as Pugg, the crass teenager who ends up befriending and helping Andy. Fun to watch, hope to see more of him in the inevitable sequel.

Beatrice Kitsos as Falyn. She personifies Girl Power here, and is a reassuring voice of reason.

Marlon Kazadi as Omar, a bratty teen who also winds up becoming Andy's friend.

David Lewis plays Karen's cheating boyfriend Shane with as much unlikeability as possible, and his eventual death is both horrifying and satisfying. I actually groaned aloud at the scene where he broke both legs. It was so good.

Trent Redekop as Gabe, a creepy voyeuristic basement-dweller who happens to be very good at electronics.

Tim Matheson as Kaslan CEO, Henry Kaslan. He had this prim, proper signified air about him and I was hoping he would make an appearance beyond onscreen advertisements. Alas...

The Mood

It starts off with a storm, and we're introduced to the factory where these dolls are made. After a cringey starting sequence I honestly could have done without, it's pretty much sunshine and daisies, and gradually gets more unsettling as Chucky is introduced. There are plenty of laughs here, and even later on when Chucky starts embracing his inner psychopath.

At the end, things go way over the top with the violence, but it's all rip-roaring hilarity.

What I liked

The tech-themed update on this old-school horror flick was great. I loved it, not just as a tech; but as a person living in the now, it appealed to me. It made things relatable. Chucky is now a WiFi-enabled gadget that can be accessed via a mobile app. Neat!

The Child's Play franchise is famed for its unflinching delivery of the good old blood and guts, and this movie did not disappoint.

Aside from Shane and Gabe who were supposed to be detestable, the other characters were likeable and this contributed to me, as the viewer, being emotionally invested in seeing them survive. The actors really seemed to be enjoying themselves. Pugg, Falyn and even Omar warmed my heart when they stuck with Andy to put Chucky down. Mike and his mother were a lovable bickering mother-son pair. Karen and Andy had a great dynamic going, too. Damn, I even felt sorry for Chucky! All the pint-sized maniac ever wanted was a friend!

The theme song was deliciously cheesy. It keeps running through my head now!

Cheeky references to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Robocop!

What I didn't

The factory sequence was pretty lame and illogical. It was set in Vietnam, and the suicidal worker was seen programming Chucky to remove his violence inhibitors. In Vietnam, if you are this skilled, you probably don't need to be in a factory taking shit from supervisors.

The updated 2019 look for Chucky is not an improvement over the original. One of the reasons why Chucky was so frightening was because the doll was really cute and innocent-looking before it began its rampage of carnage. The doll in 2019 looks creepy from the outset (resembling a midget Steve Buscemi from Con Air), and when it starts exhibiting malevolent behavior, somehow this takes away from the menace.

From this...

...to this? Seriously?!

Chucky is seen needing to stand on a chair to get to knives on a table. How is it at the end, he can leap at Andy? Makes no goddamn sense. Totally inconsistent.

Conclusion

The reboot of Child's Play isn't for everyone. You might be a huge fan of the original and hate this one on principle. But honestly, as a techie, I loved this version. It gave me all the in-your-face bloodshed I've come to expect, along with dark humor and sinister vibes.

All in all, if you don't take your movies too seriously, it's a real scream. I know I had a ridiculous amount of fun.

My Rating

7 / 10

This movie absolutely kills it!
T___T

Denial of Service Attack on Dyn!

Boy, that does sounds like the title of a sci-fi flick.

Anyway.

I'm sure many of you have heard about the massive DDoS attack on Dyn by now. You know, the one that caused several Internet services to be unavailable for extended periods of time? Services like PayPal, Amazon and Twitter? It happened just around the third week of last month and caused quite a stir.

Dyn themselves released a statement on this attack. The details are interesting. Apparently, while Dyn employs safety and security features such as load-balancing and malware protection, the attack that occurred was of an unprecedented scale and sophistication, and actually caused them some concern. Dyn is a Domain Name Server (DNS), which basically means they help map URLs to numbered IP addresses, the kind only computers can read without great discomfort. And the attack caused those addresses to go AWOL for the duration.

OK, so what's a DDoS?

For those who aren't sure what a DDoS is, it stands for Distributed Denial of Service. What happens is that attackers make use of several computer terminals to send requests over the Internet to their target, flooding it with traffic and eventually causing it to stumble (or even crash) under the load. Mothers would probably understand this one - imagine feeding a  baby, talking to the mother-in-law on the phone while five other kids clamor for your attention. Now imagine juggling five babies, ten phone conversations and twenty kids. And then multiply that stress level by several millions.

That's what Dyn's servers had to deal with - a motherload (pun intended) of spam in one go, drowning out the legitimate users of their services.

Now, while the attacks were of an extensive scale, the nature of the attack was DDoS, which has existed for as long as - well, let's just say that DDoS ain't the new kid on the block. If I were to say it has been around for 30 years, that wouldn't be stretching the truth.

Yep, older than this.

The mode of attack wasn't new - it was the implementation that gives one pause.

The Internet of Things

Unlike the old days, in this particular assault, venues of attacks weren't restricted to computer terminals with an Internet connection. Now many things have Internet connections - mobile phones, copiers, webcams, smart toasters, the list of devices goes on. Now with the Internet of Things being in vogue, Dyn was under siege from all manner of devices. And that's a scary thought. Imagine Twitter being brought down by your refrigerator.

A group that calls themselves New World Hackers has claimed responsibility behind the attack, and stated that it was their intent to bring awareness to the vulnerability. Whatever their intentions really were, I say bravo - it certainly accomplished that. A great many people have been shaken out of their complacency.

I think many people constantly underestimate just how dangerous the Internet is. It's a useful tool, yes, and at times an untamed and unpredictable one. Who's to say the device you're reading this blogpost on, isn't at this moment being compromised for nefarious purposes? You think that nifty new antivirus program you bought last year, or even last week, is bulletproof? Please. As long as you're connected to the Internet, you're vulnerable. Don't ever forget that. The worst thing is, dependency on the Internet is growing as we speak. Can't log into your computer without a Microsoft account? Gotcha. When's the last time you used your phone for, I dunno, making a call instead of surfing the net?

If you've gone this far without any obvious signs of having been compromised, it's not because you're good, it's not because you're well protected, it's not because God is smiling on you after you gave up your seat to the old lady on the train today, and it's certainly not because hackers are afraid of you. It's because you've been lucky. Simple as that.

Ya feelin' lucky, punk?

There anything you can do about it? Sure. Don't use the Internet. But please don't heed my advice, because that would eventually put me out of a job.

Seriously, though.

The Internet is a useful tool (did I just say that twice in one blogpost?) but don't ever let it be more than that. Exercise due caution. Don't get over-dependent on it, because I'm pretty sure this historic attack isn't a one-off thing. I mean, really, do you absolutely need a smart toaster? The capability is in place, and the potential to do a great deal of harm on a massive scale is there, and has been there a while now. This attack shouldn't have surprised anyone. It was a matter of when, not if.

At your (denied) service,
T___T

Film Review: I.T

Now with Internet of Things being a, well, thing, this movie was just begging to be made. I.T is a techno-thriller (no relation to the horror thriller, Stephen King's It) that lives up to its billing, albeit barely.

The synopsis sounded promising - rich dude pisses off tech support guy and techie gets his own back through an escalating series of IT-related pranks. Also, as an ex-desktop support office drone, I felt compelled to check this out. Plus, it starred Pierce Brosnan! How bad could it be?!

Well, I was about to find out...

Warning - many spoilers ahead and possibly objectionable content!

I'm going to shamelessly spoil this one, because the plot is so utterly predictable you could see every twist and turn a mile off. No shit; the plot could have been written by a primary school punk, it's that simple. Trust me, I'm doing you a favor and saving you the money.

Also, if profanities and partial nudity offend you, sod off from here, you oversensitive wanker.

The Premise

Mike Regan is the head honcho of a large tech corporation, husband to Rose and father to teenager Kaitlyn, whose troubles begin when he makes an enemy of his IT guy. His smart home, wired with gadgets of all sorts and run with computer intelligence, becomes a ripe battlefield for the wronged techie.

The pranks begin harmlessly enough with the sound system blaring music in the middle of the night, appliances turning themselves on and off, etc. But they soon progress to the malicious (falsifying evidence of corruption via forging emails sent from the company's server), the sadistic (falsifying Rose's mammogram report results and making viral a video of Kaitlyn diddling herself in the shower) and the outright psychotic (taking control of Mike's smart car while he's driving).

Mike needs to fight back, and does so by engaging his own security expert who helps him take his life back, bit by bit.

This culminates in a showdown as the enraged nerd breaks into his home with a gun...

The Characters

Pierce Brosnan as Mike Regan. Something of a technophobe who ironically owns a tech company and wants to launch the aviatory version of Uber. He has trouble with basic IT security and yet wires his entire mansion with all manner of gadgetry. He's portrayed as a bit of an asshole (Getting your IT guy to do free work for you on the weekend? Really?) who wears his power way too easily. Also, the first time Ed broke the employer-employee boundaries and the way Mike put him down, was unnecessarily high-handed. Made it hard for me to sympathize when the techie started getting his revenge. Still, he's also portrayed as a devoted family man who stops at nothing to protect his wife and kid. Pierce Brosnan's a fine actor with one hell of a resume. I've been watching him since his days as James Bond, and flicks such as Mrs Doubtfire and The Thomas Crown Affair. He projects the layers which make up Mike Regan, quite effectvely. Affable tycoon? Sure. Arrogant bastard? Oh yeah. Aplopetic rage? No problem. Loving husband and father? You know it. Alpha male? In spades, brother. Unfortunately, he's also let down by a really crap script.

Anna Friel as Rose Regan. Other than looking worried and fretful, she didn't have much to add to the plot. It wasn't too believable anyway. One moment she's greeting Ed cordially and next moment, she looks concerned when he shows up. Doesn't add up at all. The producers must have sensed this, because they seemed to be getting her to contribute more near the end of the movie, with gratuitous cleavage shots.

Stefanie Scott as Kaitlyn Regan, the bratty daughter. Having seen Stefanie Scott's restrained performance in Insidious: Chapter 3, I believe she can do way better. Why she would even bother with this movie is a mystery to me.

James Frecheville as Ed Porter. Guy overacts. To be fair, with a script this bad and a character this stereotypical, he might as well have fun and really ham it up. He did a credible job portraying dorky friendliness, cool intensity, neurotic fragility... and really ramped it up when putting on the "psycho face". Eye candy for the ladies - big on the jaw and kind of pale, but tall and well-built, a right pretty boy.

Michael Nyqvist as Henrik. He's the guy Mike turns to when he needs a tech security expert to counter the hostile actions of the geek he pissed off. And counter Henrik certainly does, with a composed, grandfatherly air reminiscent of Albus Dumbledore. I almost expected him to break out a wand at some point. Nyqvist is a pretty versatile actor and I rate him higher than even Brosnan in this cast. Which is why, though he nails the damn role with near zero effort, I can't help but think he's really slumming it here. This is the guy I watched in The Millennium Series, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and John Wick? He's far too cool for this shit.

When I was watching him, however, it occurred to me that he and Pierce Brosnan have something in common. Both have had movie franchise characters taken over by suave, macho Daniel Craig - in Nyqvist's case it's the role of Mikael Blomkvist in The Millennium Series, and in Brosnan's case it's the role of James Bond.

The Mood

This was supposed to be a techno-thriller. They got the "techno" part down, but the "thriller" part? Yawn city. The miserable excuse of an utterly unimaginative plot didn't raise my heartbeat a tick. All I felt was disgust. I didn't care what happened to Mike, Rose and Kaitlyn. Whatever, kill them all. They suck.

What I liked

Production was slick, man. Gorgeous visuals of the Regan home and the surrounding scenery, and the glass tower office. Insane lightning and grimy feel when around Ed's crummy apartment.

Michael Nyqvist was a welcome presence. He just somehow made everything less depressing simply by being there.

What I didn't

Ed being a psycho with a history of mental instability, abused as a child, etc. Real original, dudes. You think only psychos could pull this shit? Guess again, morons. The average computer nerd has the ability and connections to make your life utterly fucking miserable, given enough motivation. Sure, a non-psycho wouldn't (intentionally) put you in harm's way, but the rest of it? All too possible.

The progress of Ed and the Regans' relationship from trusted employee to outright hostility went too fast to be believable.

What's up with Kaitlyn's Stars And Stripes bikini? Gaudy much?

I'm supposed to believe that an old rich fuck could consistently beat up taller, younger and buffed dude?

Conclusion

Could have been better. Way better. For a movie that dragged on almost two hours and boasted a cast consisting of Pierce Brosnan and Michael Nyqvist, I sure expected a hell of a lot more than tech-guy-makes-dick-boss's-life-miserable-because-he's-a-nutcase. Again, save your money. Watch something more interesting... like paint drying or grass growing.

My Rating

4 / 10

This film needs to be de-fragged, pronto.
T___T