Sex-starved MPs, serious security scare or misinterpreted statistics?

Updated happygeek 2 Tallied Votes 552 Views Share

A Freedom of Information request from staff at the UK offices of the Huffington Post has revealed, according to a BBC report on the story, that more than 300,000 attempts were made to access pornographic websites from the Houses of Parliament during the last 12 months. Of course, just looking at the headlines or even the figures quoted in the stories that follow them doesn't always reveal the bigger picture. Often, sadly, all you are left with is something of a blank canvas.

The original Huffington Post story reported how authorities had "acknowledged that users of the Parliamentary Network servers, including both MPs and their staff, have repeatedly attempted to access websites classed on Parliament's network as pornographic". It also went on to note that officials had explained the figures were 'inflated' by websites which automatically refreshed, and pop-ups and pop-unders, along with embedded images or video, could also increase the access attempt numbers greatly. Perhaps most confusing, and making the whole investigation somewhat pointless, was the fact that parliamentary officials refused to define what the servers classified as pornographic in the first place, and refused to do so on the good old get out of security grounds.

Philip Lieberman, CEO of security outfit Lieberman Software Corporation, reckons that the officials are right in that regard at least: pornography is a security issue. "Porn sites as bait, has been a long time vector of malware and those that seek to gain surreptitious access to systems" he says, continuing "Web filters would not be effective in stopping the threat as many such attacks occur in email that contains payloads marked as potential porn." Not forgetting, of course, that many legitimate non-porn sites may have a compromised section containing an infection that is also representing itself as pornographic. "As strange as it might sound" Lieberman concludes "conventional porn sites run by legitimate corporations will not normally contain infections and will not compromise national security."

Tim Erlin, director of risk and strategy for security firm Tripwire, agrees as attackers will always follow the best target. "People viewing pornography tend are already more likely to be careful" Erlin explains "and less likely to share what they’ve found than those viewing religious or political websites."

Dani AI

Generated

Two separate problems need to be untangled: measurement accuracy and real security exposure. Raw "request" counters from proxies and URL filters are protocol events, not direct proof of deliberate user behaviour. Automated fetches, embedded assets, ad calls and prefetchers all inflate totals. Before treating press figures as evidence of intent, convert requests into user sessions and verify a representative sample.

Practical checklist to validate the data: pull raw proxy/access logs with timestamp, client IP or username, URL, user-agent, referrer and response code; sessionize by user/IP using a reasonable idle timeout (30 minutes is common); compute unique domains per session and per-user dwell time on each domain (last request minus first). Use dwell-time thresholds (as suggested) to reduce accidental hits, but validate any threshold by manually sampling sessions because redirects and caching can shorten measured time. Detect automated traffic by checking user-agent strings, request cadence and repeated identical URLs; correlate suspicious patterns with known crawler IPs or internal monitoring systems to test ’s bot hypothesis.

If sampling shows genuine user-initiated visits to risky hostnames, treat them as potential exposures: isolate affected hosts, run endpoint scans, review DNS/egress telemetry for beacons and unusual destinations, and preserve logs for forensic follow-up. Preventive controls include reputation-based filtering, browser isolation or whitelisting on sensitive networks, plugin hardening and least-privilege on downloads. When investigating web histories, anonymize sampling where possible and follow applicable privacy/HR policies so investigations don’t create new legal risks.

raised the topic well; ’s note about blacklist false positives and ’s caution about sensational headlines are both worth keeping in mind. Quick awk example to approximate unique sessions (adjust for your proxy log format):

# crude example: extract ip, user, ts, url then get unique (adjust fields to match your log)
awk '{ip=$1; user=$3; ts=$4; url=$7; gsub(/\[/,"",ts); print ip" "user" "ts" "url}' proxy.log \
  | sort -u -k1,1 -k4,4 \
  | cut -d' ' -f1-2 | uniq -c | sort -nr | head
happygeek 2,411 Most Valuable Poster Team Colleague Featured Poster

Typo in original posting corrected, said month when I meant 12 months. Bit of a brain fart :)

Member Avatar for Member #949455
Member #949455

Typo in original posting corrected, said month when I meant 12 months. Bit of a brain fart :)

It's fine with the typo! The article itself is shocking.

more than 300,000 attempts were made to access pornographic websites from the Houses of Parliament during the last 12 months.

That is very sad, that most UK office personal does that. It wouldn't shock me if they say Ace. I mean there's a lot of beautiful ladies over there. Their Fit.

Tim Erlin, director of risk and strategy for security firm Tripwire, agrees as attackers will always follow the best target. "People viewing pornography tend are already more likely to be careful" Erlin explains "and less likely to share what they’ve found than those viewing religious or political websites."

I mean porn and malware hasn't change a bit over the years. It's been the same. So you have to be careful.

rubberman 1,355 Nearly a Posting Virtuoso Featured Poster

The trouble with these blacklists is that a lot of the sites blocked are not porn - probably more than 1/2 of them. So, though the statistics (there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics) indicate that the UK Parliament consists of a bunch of horny, unfulfilled pricks (probably true enough), there is a good likelihood that most of these "attempts" at self-gratification have more innocent reasons for happening.

Ancient Dragon 5,243 Achieved Level 70 Team Colleague Featured Poster

That is very sad, that most UK office personal does that.

I'd bet the data is over stated. What they could count is only those who stay on the porn sites for more than 10 seconds or so. Anything less could just be accidental.

MidiMagic 579 Nearly a Senior Poster

They might be sending each other (especially the opposing party) emails with unexplained links in them.

Or a search engine bot might be following the same few links that were saved by a few MPs again and again.

When I opened this, I was thinking of the MPs in the US - military police.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.