The trial of sensitive cases, including crimes against humanity, is currently under way at the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), making the security of judicial documents, witness testimony, personal data, and other digital records of paramount importance.
However, recent questions regarding the security of the tribunal’s computer systems have raised serious concerns over whether the issue is merely about software piracy or represents a far greater security risk.
The allegation in court
These questions came to light following recent statements made in the courtroom by Zunaid Ahmed Palak, the former state minister for information and communication technology (ICT).
Standing in the dock as an accused, Palak claimed that the Windows operating system running on the tribunal’s computers is highly vulnerable and alleged the use of unlicensed software.
Following his statement, warnings were issued from the tribunal against using pirated software, and the prosecution indicated that they will discuss the matter with an IT expert.
However, whether the tribunal’s computers are genuinely running pirated Windows remains unconfirmed, as Palak’s statement currently stands as an allegation in the absence of any public technical audit report or test results.
Technical risks of unlicensed software
While using pirated software does not automatically mean a computer has been hacked, unauthorised software creates tangible cyber security vulnerabilities. Unlicensed Windows systems are often activated using third-party activators, cracks, or modified system files, making it difficult for users to verify their contents.
Such modified files can introduce malware or create back doors, allowing security breaches to spread to other devices across the same network. If the affected computer is part of a network used for storing or exchanging sensitive documents, the level of risk increases significantly.
Threats to Judicial Integrity?
The primary concern in cyber security extends beyond the theft of information. Unauthorised entry into an important computer or network creates opportunities to copy, delete, or alter data, while attackers may remain hidden inside the system undetected for extended periods.
In judicial proceedings, where case files, evidence, witness testimony, personal data, and internal communications are handled, unauthorised access compromises far more than privacy.
Therefore, the fundamental question extends beyond whether the Windows software possesses a licence.
Need for a cyber security audit
Determining whether an essential institution’s computer system is secure requires a comprehensive cyber security audit rather than assumptions.
Such an audit needs to examine operating system versions and licensing, security update status, installed software, antivirus and protection measures, network configurations, user access controls, and any signs of suspicious system activity.
Even in the absence of pirated software, systems can remain vulnerable due to outdated software, weak passwords, misconfigured networks, excessive user privileges, or a lack of regular backups.
Consequently, technical examinations rather than political statements provides the most effective response to the allegations.
Unanswered questions
While debate may surround the political context of the statement made by the former ICT minister, the technical dimension requires separate verification.
If the allegation is true, questions arise regarding who managed these computers, who holds responsibility for software installation and updates, how frequently security checks were conducted, where sensitive documents are stored, whether backups exist, and whether unauthorised access has ever occurred in the past.
Until these questions are answered, digital security at the tribunal cannot be assured. An independent, comprehensive, and technically verifiable cyber security audit remains the only reliable way to establish the accuracy of the claim.
If such an evaluation proves the computers are secure, the basis of the allegation will be cleared; conversely, evidence of unauthorised or unsafe software will raise even more serious concerns.
Moreover, should evidence emerge that unsafe or unauthorised software was in use, more serious concerns will arise. How secure, in truth, have the computers processing such sensitive judicial information been until now?
