The Invasion of The Chinese Cyberspies

HorsesAss writes "Time Magazine has an article up entitled 'The Invasion Of The Chinese Cyberspies and the Man Who Tried to Stop Them', which outlines how Chinese PRC is cracking DOD networks and downloading massive sets of files detailing every aspect of military planning and practice." From the article: "The hackers he was stalking, part of a cyberespionage ring that federal investigators code-named Titan Rain, first caught Carpenter's eye a year earlier when he helped investigate a network break-in at Lockheed Martin in September 2003. A strikingly similar attack hit Sandia several months later, but it wasn't until Carpenter compared notes with a counterpart in Army cyberintelligence that he suspected the scope of the threat. Methodical and voracious, these hackers wanted all the files they could find, and they were getting them by penetrating secure computer networks at the country's most sensitive military bases, defense contractors and aerospace companies."

Comments

Geopolitics of the next 100 years

[pieterh]

USA vs. China

While the rest of the world chooses sides or tries to get out of the way...

Re:Geopolitics of the next 100 years

[MyLongNickName]

Kinda reminds me of Hulk Hogan vs whomever. The 'whomever' is built into some type of super-human villan. It is curtains for Hogan. All over finished. Then Hogan drops the leg and is victorious once again.

Then next bad guy. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Last 'bad guy' was the EU. Last bad guy before that was Japan. Last bad guy before that was Russia.

Stupid analogy. Probably. But I am kinda tired and cranky right now, and haven't bought into all the China terror stuff. More tahn likely, China will hit a plateau that they won't be able to crosss as long as things are centrally planned. They will be a force to be reckoned with, sure, but won't be too interested in anything beyond their thousands-of-years-old sphere of influence.

And all of this will just take our eyes off of the fact that we are decaying from within. Much like Hulk Hogan's skill, physique and hairline were in decline 20 years ago.... Maybe the analogy wasn't as stupid as it first sounded...

Or maybe it is...

goodnight all...

Re:Geopolitics of the next 100 years

[mprinkey]

A succinct and apt analogy. Maybe now graduates from the Vince McMahon School of Political Science will finally start getting the recognition they justly deserve.

Re:Geopolitics of the next 100 years

[globalar]

"Invasion", hackers (with a sense of purpose no less!), "new breed of enemy". Typical Time insight.

The reason to release information on this is almost purely a Pentagon press game. They have their own little war going on with China already. It's mostly been bearucratic (arguing over how much money is being spent on military budgets, saying one side is a threat, etc.) Occassionaly they move major pieces of the Pacific fleet, just to stir up speculation (in the U.S. press mostly). The Pentagon does have some necons nesting there, so taking a coarse line is in vogue.

Practically speaking, the Pentagon has also long been aware of the "soft-power" threats, especially IT. They have invested in computer networks for decades. Over the last decade work has gone into networking everything (in terms of information) and finding ways to control their resources electronically. The technocrats are keen on the U.S. military's weaknesses. This is translated by the more politically-minded managment into a counter-statement: The U.S. is vulnerable to an information war, but the better way to say this is to play up the threat of China in terms of cyber*buzzword*.

The Pentagon can argue for more funding this way and field little/no criticism. Same with the PLA in China (who has a growing budget). Both militaries are getting what they want without a huge payout in budget (i.e. a traditional war). And I definitely wouldn't rule out ego on both sides of the Pacific.

Re:Geopolitics of the next 100 years

[Master of Transhuman]

Actually nothing you've said indicates that China is an "enemy" of the US.

Everything you've said is related to China increasing its economic development and exerting influence over its historical area of influence to assist that development and the large Chinese populations in those areas.

The problem with your concept is that the US believes it and it ALONE can hold ANY influence ANYWHERE in the world. This was EXPLICITLY stated in the PNAC documents that formed the foreign policy of the neocons and Bush. It is a pure implementation of imperialism.

Therefore it stimulates conflict with states attempting to build their own influence. Iraq, for example, had NO conflict with the US in its sphere of influence. It DID, however, have a conflict with ISRAEL, which used its control over US foreign policy to force a war with Iraq which could cost the US up a trillion dollars.

The bottom line: the state is the problem, not the populations of those states. The Chinese have no quarrel with Americans, and vice versa. It's our "glorious leaders" and their rich backers who have the problem.

You want to stop war, get rid of the state.

Re:Geopolitics of the next 100 years

[Thomas Miconi]

1. Issue 1: Taiwan. The U.S. has supported the rights of Taiwan to de facto order its affairs. PRC has insisted on a one-China policy. When the time is right, the PRC will try to back its policy with force.

And get away with it. See Tibet.

Energy is irrelevant - the US can't force 1.2B Chinese to gulp less oil than 280M Americans.

North Korea, admitting it survives that long, may start a war, but not one that would involve China. If Kim Jong Il decides to nuke Seoul, the Chinese won't raise a finger to protect him.

4. Southeast Asia. That part of the world has cooled considerably in the last 30 years, but China still has trading interests there. In fact, it appears to be regrouping its strategy towards diplomatic influence.

Duh. 30 years ? China has dominated the social, cultural and political landscape in the whole far east for two fscking millenia. They are the big powerful neighbours that you don't want to piss off. Relationships may be uneasy at times, but when it comes to China vs USA, well, one is "the local", the other is "the foreigner". No points for guessing who is who.

5. South and Central America. For reasons that are unclear, China has made significant inroads into South and Central America: the purchase of the Panama Canal, and sweetheart deals with Venezuela.

About as unclear as the reason why the US essentially purchased Saudi Arabia in the 40s. Re-Duh !

Thomas

Re:Geopolitics of the next 100 years

[Paua Fritter]

Iraq, for example, had NO conflict with the US in its sphere of influence

Actually I don't think this is true: prior to the invasion, Iraq had started to sell its oil in Euros instead of US dollars. As long as the world's oil trade is conducted in dollars, the world is essentially lending the US vast sums of money, loans which are backed by the assets of oil exporters. That's why the US "sphere of influence" includes the entire international oil trade.

If international oil trade were generally conducted in Euros, these benefits would accrue to the European Union. Or if OPEC denominated their product in a currency of their own (a hypothetical petro-dinar), then they could get the benefits themselves! There are other good reasons for OPEC states to drop the dollar, so IMHO the US government was quite right to be concerned that this might trigger a sell-off of dollars. This, I believe, was the real trigger for the invasion, not WMDs, human rights, political reform, terrorism, or whatever the latest excuse is.

Re:Geopolitics of the next 100 years

[Liam Slider]

1. Taiwan is a small and culturally and economically insignificant island off the coast of a massive country. Almost everyone of economic significance in Taiwan is forging commercial links with the mainland. The mainland see it of minor importance, gaining points purely in chest beating; 300 years ago Chinese were a minority on the island, Ploynesians were the majority. It has zero cultural or economic significance for Chine.

Actually, Taiwan is fairly economically significant, regardless of it's small size. It has a GDP of $576.2 billion, and a per capita income of $25,300 (not great, but not exactly horrible either). It's an important international trade center as well.

2. China, unlike the US, has huge coal resources, which can provide the bulk of national power requirements for the next 30 years (providing the power plants and lines get put up).

Where do you get the idea that the US doesn't have lots of coal? Most of our electrical power comes from coal, and it's not imported, it's mined here. There are parts of this country where the entire economy depends on coal mining, as it's the major industry (certain areas of my own State for example) and a huge source of jobs. Heck, we export coal to other countries.

Just the Chinese?

[kitsook]

If the DoD systems are so easy to crack, what is stopping others to attack them?

Re:Just the Chinese?

[Poromenos1]

And, more importantly, why doesn't the DoD get their files off internet-connected PCs?

Re:Just the Chinese?

[MoogMan]

The Law.

Re:Just the Chinese?

[John Seminal]

If the DoD systems are so easy to crack, what is stopping others to attack them?

Did you consider the USA wants those systems hacked by the Chinese.

It is like the old lawyer trick. My company made a product we knew would break and result in death (Say a car tire that we knew would explode and cause cars to turn over). Now your lawyers knows this, so they get a court to subpeona the papers showing we knew the product was bad. Instead of sending that one report, we send you that report mixed in 250,000 other reports. Hell, we might send you 249,999 reports and the 1 you wanted is missing. We send you so much stuff, that your whole legal staff is running at 110% and getting nowhere.

The point is if lawyers can use misinformation, I am sure the government is too. We did it with the USSR, causing them to spend so much on the military that their economy collapsed. Are we doing the same thing with China? Giving them a bunch of false "intel" that the Chinese believe they "stole" when in fact we wanted them to get it??

Re:Just the Chinese?

[saridder]

That theory isn't far-fecthed. We've already done it :)

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntr41080.htm

Meh. I wouldn't worry about it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like they're terrorists or anything

Separate networks

[confusion]

Isn't this the reason that there is supposed to be an air gap between classified networks are and unclassified networks?

I'm wondering how much of what was obtained is planted information to look like something valuable. Then again, it is the government we're talking about, so it could well be national secrets.

Jerry
http://www.itcapability.com/

Re:Separate networks

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a gap between the 2. As far as I know, there has never been a hacking of a classified computer system in the DoD. The problem is that while single documents may be marked unclassified or for official use only, gathering a large number of those documents could actually be marked secret.

Re:Separate networks

[gabacho4]

As someone who uses the many networks available, if the day comes that our classified systems are compromised we are all severely screwed. The article is misleading as the sites being exploited are one the internet. Available to anyone with an internet connection. There is a huge jump from the open internet (NIPR) to the SECRET(SIPR) and TOP SECRET(JWICS) networks.

Fortunately!

[Seumas]

Wow. And it isn't an article written by John Markov? I'm shocked!

I guess the government and corporate world should have been paying more attention to what breeches by harmlessly curious teenagers signaled rather than harassing and fining and jailing them for embarrassing them for their own incompetence while letting actual national threats from foreign nations occur.

It's a good thing they turned those 13 little kids from that one school into felons for typing in a password that was obvious and widely available to install stuff on the laptops they were given to use. Today, installing iChat. Tomorrow? - secret highly paid communist spies haxoring into the super elite United States government. OH NOES!

Uh...

[mcc]

They already did that

'Secret' procedures....

[Halfbaked Plan]

...like democratic practices.

I wonder if the clever cyberspies have downloaded the minutes from any Town Meetings, or 'subversive' documents like Robert's Rules of Order?

The US should just import in more pop culture. That is what has successfully subverted communist regimes best in the past. Send 'em Ramones, The Clash, Gang Of Four punk rawk.

This article is funny

[tsotha]

The writer tries to dance around it, but if you read between the lines you see reason these servers are connected to the internet is they don't hold classified data. Every day the DoD produces an unthinkable amount of documentation, and only a small portion of it actually matters to anyone (including DoD).

Oh, and this guy is a moron. Part of the counter-intelligence game is to make sure the enemy doesn't know he's been caught. This guy is such a bull in the china shop he's destroyed any chance we'll be able to learn "means and methods" information from this ring.

Re:This article is funny

[CHESTER COPPERPOT]

but if you read between the lines you see reason these servers are connected to the internet is they don't hold classified data. Every day the DoD produces an unthinkable amount of documentation, and only a small portion of it actually matters to anyone (including DoD).

I disagree if you think gathering innocuous near-open source information isn't important. In the article it stated "these hackers wanted all the files they could find." It's obvious now that the Chinese way of collecting information is to throw a massive net into various geographical realms (including cyberspace) and gain as much information as possible. Who knows what data these guys are getting. The data may seem innocuous to us but to the Chinese it may be pertinent competitive information. In a worst case scenario this information gathering could be a reconnaissance for future cyber covert action.

In the SIGINT world while breaking cryptography and traffic analysis are considered more important much more manpower goes at targeting weaker sources like plain voice traffic and technical parameters. This method of attacking a a FUOU network that doesn't haven't high level classification goes along with the Sun Tzu-based chinese way of war. In Sun Tzu's art of war he stated "To effect an unhampered advance, strike their vacuities." That is what these guys are doing-attacking weak unclass networks rather than go after harder to attack classified networks.

Part of the counter-intelligence (CI) game is to make sure the enemy doesn't know he's been caught.

While that is so, it's a pretty sophomoric view of CI. Usually CI runs through a couple of stages:

1. Ascertaining what needs protection in the first place and assigning priorities (time and money) to targets. In this case the US probably now realizes that these low level networks need as much protection as high level networks. So the priorities will probably change in the future.

2. Second stage is analysis needs to be done to ascertain the particular vulnerabilities of those secrets that were ID'ed in stage one. If the higher officials were worried about this cyberthreat there was obviously vulnerable information on those networks. Probably either put there due to incompetence or if the information is put into context with other disparate info.

3. Third stage is where CI assesses what areas foreign intel is targeting and assess its ability to reach those targets. Obviously these guys have the ability to target the low level networks.

The American CI have a pretty good idea about the Chinese hackers technical means, their operational means and what information the Chinese are exactly getting-hence why they are worried. So to publicly out this through the press really isn't a big deal because they know everything they need to know, they now need to assess their vulnerabilities and run through the CI cycle again.

Absolutely Expected

[Alric]

While the article was written to be dramatic and exciting, this scenario is assuredly based on truth.

Does anyone seriously doubt that China, India, Russia, and Israel have teams of computer scientists probing U.S. government and corporate networks?

Does anyone doubt the U.S. has many, many teams (NSA, CIA, DIA - especially AirForce Intelligence) probing foreign networks and eavesdropping on practically ALL digital communication?

Would you be surprised if a CIA field op were found in China? Digital espionage is the future. Expect it.

Re:In The Other News

[-brazil-]

It feels like someone is trying to find an excuse to go on war with China.

Not until it's hyped up a LOT more.

But that's not going to happen. Next on the list is Iran, unless they manage to get the bomb first (which is exactly the reason why they want it). Attacking China itself would be suicide, it's way too big and powerful, and already has the bomb. The only way the USA and China could end up in a war is if China starts it by attacking Taiwan, and that would be a limited scenario.

Re:Geopolitics of the next 30 years

[ScentCone]

Look at your clothes, computer, TV, video, car labels.

Well, 20 years ago, you'd have said the exact same thing about Japan. They themselves were banking on their demonstrably superior manufacturing ingenuity, efficiencies, and focus to make them dominant. They then totally overextended themselves, and their economy has been more or less in the tank ever since.

Now, the difference between them and the Chinese situation (also sitting on top of an economic bubble they won't be able to sustain) is that the Chinese, having not been aggressors in WWII, don't have any of the politically correct inhibitions about using force to prop up the weak spots in their system. Taiwan would certainly be their first target, and that will cause a wretched mess. But the whole southeast Asia area will feel their influence as they look, themselves, for more resources.

I'd like to say that the currency float you mentioned was a good thing, but there isn't a single economist who sees it as anything other than an empty political gesture. All they did was let it "float" within very narrow bounds, defined by them, with essentially no impact whatsoever on the real underlying exchange mechanics.

The real issue here is going to be energy. Probably the most alarming development is the Chinese coziness with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. They're taking a lot of their cash surplus (um, that would be the cash we're spending on their inexpensive products) and pumping a lot of it into investments in that oil producing country. That's fine with Chavez, because China is the nearest thing to an idealogical opposite to the US he can find (well, one that isn't clearly a broken-down mess, like Cuba).

My guess is that Venezuela will become, is essence, a Chinese outpost. And a huge foothold, economically, in Central/South America. Just in time for the economies in Brazil and Argentina to start looking ripe for more investment.

So, we may see Wal-Mart eventually filling up with "Made in Brazil" goods, but made by firms operated by Chinese interests.

I'd not, though, call them the next "superpower" any more than one could refer to the Soviets in that sense. They were, in that they had the military and the nukes to be hugely influential, but it was a house of cards. That won't be as true of the Chinese, in that their businesses are tilting capitalist despite the (now mostly smoke) communist creed of their heavy-handed government. But as long as they are to a large degree centrally managed, they're going to make a lot of the tone-deaf mistakes that the Soviets did. And this time, a whole lot of Chinese citizens are going to be a whole lot quicker to step up and try to prevent the economic flushing that happened in Russia after the USSR tanked. It's going to be fascinating. In the meantime, I'd vote for policies that encourage more US investment in central and south America, and policies that ask the same thing of China that the US must do to do business in their country.

Re:Why doesn't the DOD just lock out all of China?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Is there a reason that they even bother accepting traffic from any where outside of the US?

Sure. Data sharing with allies, aircraft, ships, ground equipment is frequently designed/built elsewhere, and the myriad of US bases in other countries.

In addition, the 'compromised' systems are not actually DoD, but contractors. Boeing, LockMart, etc.

Lastly...if you read the article, no actual classified systems were compromised. OF course...gathering and putting together a lot of unclassified info can be quite bad.

Re:Geopolitics of the next 30 years

[antifoidulus]

It's not just a bubble, China has copied EVERYTHING Japan has done right down to the bad loans.
The dollar bought 360 yen from after the war into the 70s, just like a dollar right now buys an inordinate of RMB
China's industry started off by manufacturing cheap labor intensive goods at western company owned factories, as did Japan.
China eventually started moving up the food chain, and even making things for their own companies, as did Japan
Everyone thinks that China's record growth will continue unabated, so banks loan money to businesses that have no realistic hope of ever making a profit. Same thing happened in Japan.
China's bubble will be bursting, much like Japan's did, but as you pointed out, Japan didn't have nuclear weapons or one of the strongest conventional forces on earth when it's bubble burst.
China is heading towards having too much capacity, they can't even sell all the stuff they are making, but they are making it anyway. The problem with the export economy is that it cannot grow when it doesn't have anyone to export to anymore. The centrally planned(yes, China's economy is still centrally planned, just not as tightly controlled by the government, much like Japan's economy) works well when you are trying to grow, but the distortions introduced eventually warp the economy. For instance, everyone lists Japan's high rate of savings as one of the reasons that Japan grew so quickly, however now the problem is that they cannot get consumers to spend their money. Every economic report coming out of the country states that, and thus Japan seems to only be able to grow by exporting more.
The export economy can also warp the economy on the whole in more subtle ways as well. For instance, in Japan the export industries are among the most efficient in the world, but everything outside of it is a mess. All one has to do is walk into any big store in Japan and you are just hit with how many store clerks there are. Overemployment is phenominal there. There are even people at some of the bigger stores who are solely in charge of managing the umbrella condom dispenser(umbrella condoms=the plastic bag you put over your umbrella when you enter a building in Japan. They really aren't called umbrella condoms, but it's an accurate description) China seems to be suffering from some of the same problems, only it's going to get worse there as they have 10x the population of Japan.
I honestly don't think the world economy can continue on this pace forever. Every poor country wants to get rich the same way Japan did, but for that to happen, the dollar has to remain strong. However, for every dollar they import, the dollar just gets that much weaker. When only 1 country was doing it, but now there are a lot more, and eventually, something will have to break.

Re:Geopolitics of the next 30 years

[thogard]

There wasn't a time when everything was made in a Japan. Go try to buy a toaster that isn't made in China. I don't think you can do it. When Japan was rumored to be making everything, you could still find a US made toaster and a few made in Malaysia or Hong Kong. Now you have only one choice and you don't have a choice about many other things as well from kids bikes, kitchenware, ball point pens and even food, so much is now made in China that if there is ever an economic problem between China and the US (or EU or anyone else), there is simply no place else to get some things. As it stands right now, the US can not have a war with China simply because there are not enough non-Chinese pens to fill out the red tape.

I see you arent aware that the war has begun

[elucido]

It's called a cold war. Just like the war with Russia, and its started already. The problem is America is losing. Americans are so greedy and selfish that China has learned to exploit Americas corporate weaknesses to its own advantage.

Outsourcing? It's simple. People who support outsourcing are supporting the Chinese. China is already kicking our asses in the economic war. If you want to win the war with China, you have to win the economic war. There is about 0% chance of the war becoming a physical war because at this level, with this much money at stake, neither country will ever want to have a physical war, and America will not go to war to defend Taiwan just as China will not require physical war to take Taiwan. China will buy Taiwan.

And before people post saying I don't know what I'm talking about, here is an blog for you all to read. Thomas PM Barnett is a war strategist. Read his blog, do some research on the subject, and then respond to my post.

Thomas P.M. Barnett is a strategic planner who has worked in national security affairs since the end of the Cold War and has operated his own consulting practice (Barnett Consulting) since 1998. Recently, Tom founded a consulting partnership with two other outstanding individuals called The New Rule Sets Project LLC. The consultancy was acquired by Enterra Solutions, LLC. in August of 2005, with Dr. Barnett as Senior Managing Director.

Thomas PM Barnett's Blog

Re:So who is the new threat if not China?

[0x0000]

America needs an enemy. American always requires a new threat if you havent seen the pattern by now.

While you are mostly right about this, you have limited the temporal scope of the point, I think, in order to focus on the US. Fact is, many (most?) world power nations have had this same problem - they require external enemies in order to thrive. This is 19th Century politics, I think (I hope), but that remains to be seen...

America = capitalism.

Your statement here represents a fond dream for some, and an overwhelming fear for others. However, it is simply not the case. The US has adopted some capitalist principles, but so have most other nations that have progressed beyond basic agricultural economies. Capitalism is not a form of government - it might be considered a sociological phenomenon, but it definitely economics, and while Economics and Politics are related, they are not precisely the same thing. The US is hybrid of a number of things - it has some Capitalist genetic heritage, but it is hardly synonymous with Capitalism. An obvious support of this idea is the dominance of monopolistic and trans-national corporations in the US economy. There is almost no economic competition within the US - there is a great deal of price fixing and monopolistic practice. That doesn't support your assertion of a "need for competition".

I will give you that in order for the monopolies to appear capitalist there must be a perception of competition, but that's an entirely different matter than Capitalism in a true sense.

I think its stupid for any American to think that America can exist without a global threat when America has been fighting threats sinces the very beginning.

Well, I hope you're wrong - I happen to be one American who believes that America can and will exist without endless hot or cold wars and manufactured threats against its security. In fact, I believe that it must take that path into the future or it will cease to exist.

I view this principle you are outlining as something I call "The Myth of the Perpetually Expanding Market". It is the (fallacious) idea that Capitalism is a short term proposition that involves nothing more than market growth.

As you say: The US has ever had a threat to deal with. From the very beginning. That's true, as far as it goes, but remember that the US is an infant in terms of national political and ideological maturity. Well, maybe an adolescent - I'm not really enough of a Historian to say - but the fact is that the US is a young nation. If we go to other nations in history and examine their growth (and in some cases, decline) we find that many nations have survived this particular phase of national development not by seeking out new, better, bigger, or more winnable wars, but by re-examining this concept of unlimited growth - the "Myth of Perpetually Expanding Markets".

The Europeans have done it. The Chinese have, as well (I think - I'm not an expert on China). For China, it the reason they have continued to survive for longer than most Americans can even imagine, let alone plan for.

. We either fight the threats overseas or we will start fighting them here at home, and I'd rather it be overseas.

Fair enough, if you assume that we must fight in order to either survive or progress. You should realize, though, that that assumption can only lead (ultimately) to the annihilation of one of the warring parties - the US has got by so far by being a very efficient killing machine. But then, there are examples throughout history of societies (nations) that tried to hold on to that "fastest gun in the west" status against the rest of the world. They have all failed. If you examine it dispassionately, it becomes evident that any nation that tries to hold onto that "best fighters