Chinese Military Hacked Into Pentagon

iFrated informs us of a successful penetration of US Defense Department computers by the Chinese military last June. From the article: "The Pentagon acknowledged shutting down part of a computer system serving the office of Robert Gates, defense secretary, but declined to say who it believed was behind the attack. Current and former officials have told the Financial Times an internal investigation has revealed that the incursion came from the [Chinese] People's Liberation Army. One senior US official said the Pentagon had pinpointed the exact origins of the attack. Another person familiar with the event said there was a 'very high level of confidence... trending towards total certainty' that the PLA was responsible." The PLA is also accused of breaking into German government computers, including a network in the office of the Chancellor.

Comments

Sanctions

[BWJones]

Here's the deal.... While I acknowledge that there is a potential risk of engagement (and the big Navy folks desperately want this possibility to be the case), I have a tough time thinking that China will allow the PLA to escalate this much given the financial commitments that Chinese industry is trying to maintain and expand with the West..... especially prior to the Olympics. That said, I expect more "defense" related activity in the guise of IT based attacks and probes from the PLA rather than traditional military actions in the future.

It will be interesting to see just what form the response to these sorts of attacks will take. Hard-liners will want old school military war games and confrontation, but I suspect steps like US and EU invalidation of Chinese purchased US and EU debt and economic sanctions will be far more effective.

Re:Sanctions

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really see anything coming out of this. It sounds more like a pissing contest to me than anything else, and I'd be more concerned about their other capabilities (e.g. nuclear warheads, lasers that can shoot down satellites ala Cardinal of the Kremlin, Chinese economy) than how well they can hack into some bigwigs computer.

Additionally, there seems to be enough doubt as to provide "plausible" deniability, or it could just be attributed to "...someone's unilateral wet dream" (quoted from Enemy of the State). Seems too small to make a big deal out of, to this observer at any rate; who knows what they're not telling us...

Re:Sanctions

[heretic108]

I don't really see anything coming out of this. It sounds more like a pissing contest to me than anything else, and I'd be more concerned about their other capabilities (e.g. nuclear warheads, lasers that can shoot down satellites ala Cardinal of the Kremlin, Chinese economy) than how well they can hack into some bigwigs computer.

The problem: if the Chinese military can get enough control over Pentagon computers, then it doesn't really matter what their own hardware capabilities are, they'll be able to deploy some US military hardware for their own objectives.

Re:Sanctions

[sumdumass]

We could secure both Afghanistan or Iraq. The problem is, that to do it effectivly, we don't get the governments we want put in place. We end up with more of the same to no end. The idea behind putting a democracy into the mix is two fold. One, it lets the people have some say in how their countries go, and two, it makes it extremely obvious when a totalitarian group like th Taliban takes over and imposes a bunch of restrictions.

In the later case, it would be very likely that other countries would come to their aid if more then a minority of citizens wanted the democracy back. It creates a sense of stability even among chaos if it is present. If we chucked all that out the window and just went for securing the countries, it would be done by now.

Re:Sanctions

[vandan]

We could secure both Afghanistan or Iraq.

That's SO far from the truth that I don't know whether you're lying or incredibly deceived. The US army is at breaking point, and the situation is spiraling out of control in both occupations.

The problem is, that to do it effectivly, we don't get the governments we want put in place. We end up with more of the same to no end.

There's no such thing as a democracy under military occupation. The UN even says so.

In the later case, it would be very likely that other countries would come to their aid if more then a minority of citizens wanted the democracy back.

That statement carries the absurd assumption that some people don't want democracy. EVERYONE wants democracy, apart from the small group of people who currently have control, of course. But the majority of the population will ALWAYS support democracy AND self-determination.

If we chucked all that out the window and just went for securing the countries, it would be done by now.

You're obviously under the false impression that our aim there is to create a beautiful, blossoming democracy! It's not. It's to grab resources and set up military bases. Democracy is a word that the ruling class throw around. It's meaning in this context is, "A group of individuals of considerable power who will do our bidding". And they can't even get THAT right. But the main goal is to secure Afghanistan and Iraq, and is slipping further away from us each day.

Re:Sanctions

[fluffy99]

Exactly. China doesn't want war, but they want desperately to close the military and technology gap. Stealing the technology instead of developing it themselves is vastly cheaper, quicker and easier. The are not the only country friendly or not who engages in corporate and military espionage against the US. ANd don't think the US isn't spying on the other countries either.

Re:Sanctions

[DavidShor]

"The problem: if the Chinese military can get enough control over Pentagon computers, then it doesn't really matter what their own hardware capabilities are, they'll be able to deploy some US military hardware for their own objectives."

Bullshit, do you really think we have not done the exact same thing to their networks? Besides, this is not a movie; most military systems (and all if they felt the need) are on a private intranet. While this can be hacked into in theory, if that becomes an issue, we can simply take the stuff offline. Tanks don't need Wi-Fi uplinks to kill people.

And besides, this is moot. China does not have to resort to high-tech fantasy tricks to beat us. China has a GDP of 7 trillion dollars, while the US has one of 12 trillion. Their economy is growing at 10% per year, ours grows at 3%. Do the math, in a decade or so, even if Chinese have one 5th the per capita income of the US, they will have a larger GDP.

With a larger GDP, they will be able to outspend us militarily, without causing any strain on their economy. In the face of such a demographic certainty, the worst thing we can do is to act aggressive and provoke China into an arms race. Unlike the Soviet Union, they could actually win one.

Re:Sanctions

[delt0r]

EVERYONE wants democracy, apart from the small group of people who currently have control, of course. Can you back that up? I doubt it, because its one of the things that comes from the USA, that democracy is good and pure and everyone wants it. Like everyone wants to live in the USA.

Oh yea, just so you know, most of the 6 billion people on this earth don't want to live in USA.

Re:Sanctions

[w000t]

it looks like China won't care for talk once they're in a position to do away with the US. that sounds an awful lot like the WMD bullshit used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
enough with the paranoid FUD.

Re:Sanctions

[coaxial]

That statement carries the absurd assumption that some people don't want democracy. EVERYONE wants democracy, apart from the small group of people who currently have control, of course. But the majority of the population will ALWAYS support democracy AND self-determination. World history is full of dictatorships that rose to power with popular support. And I'm not even talking about bait-and-switch dictatorships (ala communism). To say a majority always wants democracy is absurd. People always want security. They always want a food and shelter. They always want "respect," whatever that means to them. That democracy isn't on the list.

Re:Sanctions

[vandan]

Would you caret to give us a proof for your statement?

Firstly, have a quick think about things. People like being in control of their life, right? No-one wants to be a slave or anything like that, do they? Show me ONE society on Earth that actually WANTS to be enslaved, as individuals. If you look at the history of imperialism, it's also the history of national liberation movements. Examples are aplenty, but a couple are: Ireland, India, even the fucking US of A. This translates naturally from the national level to the personal level. People also want to have a say in how society is run. To suggest otherwise - to suggest that people don't want a say in how the society they live in operates - is absolutely absurd. It's so clearly against human nature that I am astonished that I hear it so often - but then I remember the racist propaganda we're drowning in, and I understand a little ...

Seriously, all people want a say in how society is run. If you don't believe me, ask people. Travel and ask people. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

As for the bit about stability, it all depends on your perspective. I think people are willing to endure some turbulence in the name of achieving real democracy.

But in e.g. China and Russia, a lot of people support nondemocratic measures taken by the government when they are perceived to be for the sake of stability and prosperity of the nation.

Yes, these are different forms of capitalism: State Capitalism, and they are typically even worse than Western capitalist formations in terms of democracy. It's important to remember that in Western countries, people are falling over themselves at this very moment to support anti-democratic measures such as the Patriot Act and the rest of the 'war on terror', and all in the name of stability, prosperity, security, etc. Unfortunately, with the media being almost exclusively corporate-controlled, it's easy to get the population to rally behind some very stupid and dangerous stuff.

Re:Sanctions

[dnoyeb]

"That statement carries the absurd assumption that some people don't want democracy. EVERYONE wants democracy, apart from the small group of people who currently have control, of course. But the majority of the population will ALWAYS support democracy AND self-determination."

That is completely absurd. In the US conservatives are generally not after democracy. They want the rest of the country to live under rules they choose. That is not self-determination.

Most people's views on government is tied strongly to their beliefs and values which is tied to their religion. Democracy is not a common theme in world religions.

Re:Sanctions

[sumdumass]

That's SO far from the truth that I don't know whether you're lying or incredibly deceived. The US army is at breaking point, and the situation is spiraling out of control in both occupations.

You must not be paying attention. First, the army isn't over stretched. They might be stretched further then they want to be, or more likely more then you want them to be but they aren't in any place that cannot handle. Second, The reasons we are in the position we are in is because we aren't fighting to win a war like traditional wars have been won.

Instead of going in and defeating the countries to the point they want to give up and give in, we are attempting to retain a resemblance of their nationality and instill a governmental system we approve of. This is completely different from a traditional war where you go in and destroy anything capable of fighting back then enslave the people while gradually letting them have their rights back. And to that note, America hasn't been very successful in the past when fighting wars like we are now. It seems that if you don't beat the will of the people, you have a lot harder time at it.

There's no such thing as a democracy under military occupation. The UN even says so.

I don't know why you even put this on the block. I said we are having the problem we are because of what we are trying to do. That would be instilling democracy. You already pointed out that we aren't doing that very well. But you see, as long as democracy isn't there, we will be and then when they are closer to democracy, we start moving out. Then about the time they are a democracy, we are gone. Well, at least from a controlling position. We might stick around for defensive reasons at their request. And as of right now, we are there at their request. Bush had said repeatedly that is either countries acting/controling government asks us to leave we would. It would be an insane move on their behalf right now but it would be an option.

that statement carries the absurd assumption that some people don't want democracy. EVERYONE wants democracy, apart from the small group of people who currently have control, of course. But the majority of the population will ALWAYS support democracy AND self-determination.

History has proved that too many times people will give up democracy in support of some dictatorship. Everyone doesn't want democracy, maybe most everyone but it would be foolish to say every one. There are non democracies that don't abuse the citizens and there are non democracies that don't enslave the people. And to the point that people think something is right or wrong is subject to the relativeness of their experiences.

If you had no idea what a democracy was, you wouldn't miss it. And if you never experienced it, you wouldn't miss it. It is like having a craving for a food. You can't crave a food if you have never saw it or tasted it before. You can crave something sweet, something chocolaty but if you never tasted a chocolate bar, you couldn't crave it. Now take chocolate and place democracy in there, it is completely interchangeable.

And to the point i was making with the statement I made. If we don't stay and attempt to set a democracy up, a dictator will rise from the chaos and we will be in the same boat we are in or were before the wars. I wasn't making any point to someone not wanting a democracy. It was to the likely chain of event absent our presence.

ou're obviously under the false impression that our aim there is to create a beautiful, blossoming democracy! It's not. It's to grab resources and set up military bases. Democracy is a word that the ruling class throw around. It's meaning in this context is, "A group of individuals of considerable power who will do our bidding". And they can't even get THAT right. But the main goal is to secure Afghanistan and Iraq, and is slipping further away from us each day.

Re:Sanctions

[vtcodger]

***The problem: if the Chinese military can get enough control over Pentagon computers, then it doesn't really matter what their own hardware capabilities are, they'll be able to deploy some US military hardware for their own objectives.***

Not a problem. Really. Not a Problem

• First of all, this is EXACTLY what the NSA routinely does wrt to Chinese, Russian, French, Israeli etc computers. Probe the things. Look for weaknesses. Extract any accessible data. Nobody thinks that the NSA is going to take over the world. The NSA apparently can't even find Osama bin Laden.
• Nobody, not even the bumbling incompetents in the Bush administration, is going to put command and control for weapons systems onto the Internet. There ARE limits to human stupidity (At least I think there are).
• The DOD has rules about handling classified data. There may be interesting and sensitive stuff on the computers in question, but things like the Permissive Action Link codes for US nuclear weapons are not going to be anywhere where China, Isreal, or a teenager in Bulgaria can get to them.
• If you want to know what is going on in the DOD, you do not depend on hacking the computers. You get a few of your people hired as bartenders and wait staff at watering holes near the Pentagon.
• China is doing quite well with a multi-decade effort to buy the United States piecemeal. Why would they imperil that and damage both the home country and the property they are acquiring by starting a war? The US may be led by fools. China is not.

Re:Sanctions

[delire]

Agreed. Beyond pissing off the government, you're also encouraging desperate retaliation from other groups (eg terrorism).

Terrorism follows fast in the footsteps of trade embargos and economic sanctions: a fast and reliable way to incite hatred in anyone is to restrict their growth. The one reason some countries are so angry at America is precisely because of it's embargos: the assumption that it has the right to police and punish them economically or otherwise.

The popular press will tell you terrorism is an expression of "a hatred of freedom". It couldn't be farther from the truth: terrorism is so often just a desperate and sadistic act designed as a message: "We want our freedom back - leave us the fuck alone."

The Bush administration has created enough trouble for Americans and people elsewhere - I doubt the angst many countries feel toward America could be greater right now. More embargos would be foolish - and nothing short of dangerous for the American people.

Re:Sanctions

[tha_mink]

And besides, this is moot. China does not have to resort to high-tech fantasy tricks to beat us. China has a GDP of 7 trillion dollars, while the US has one of 12 trillion. Their economy is growing at 10% per year, ours grows at 3%. Do the math, in a decade or so, even if Chinese have one 5th the per capita income of the US, they will have a larger GDP. To use your word, "Bullshit". While their GDP might match ours, their per captia GDP barely beats out the Philippines and lies slightly under the vast military power of the Republic of the Congo. Of course their GDP is huge, they have billions of people. The problem is, they have billions of people. GDP by itself is a useless metric.

Re:Sanctions

[t0rkm3]

You present the answer to the problem, or more correctly stated, why their GDP is not necessarily a problem in your diatribe.

Simply put, their GDP is based on population size, that population has to be supported via that self-same number. Our per capita productivity and wealth far outstrips their numbers by such a margin as to be laughable. Therefore, we can afford to spend far more of our capital on warfare than they can without resorting to cannibalizing our infrastructure or quality of life to do so.

Over time this gap will shrink. What will be interesting to see is how quickly the tables will turn against China's economy as their productivity far outstrips their ability to import foodstuffs and raw materials.

That will be an interesting geo-political situation.

Re:Sanctions

[Anonymous Coward]

Beyond pissing off the government, you're also encouraging desperate retaliation from other groups (eg terrorism).

I believe this to be true. You'll piss off "terrorist" orgs. as well.

a fast and reliable way to incite hatred in anyone is to restrict their growth.

Technically, what you need to say here is to "repress" them. I believe there to be a difference between the two.

The popular press will tell you terrorism is an expression of "a hatred of freedom". t couldn't be farther from the truth: terrorism is so often just a desperate and sadistic act designed as a message: "We want our freedom back - leave us the fuck alone."

The problem with the 21st century and the "rise of terrorism" (so to speak) is that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. But I think the appropriate phrase here is "two wrongs do not make a right."

The Bush administration has created enough trouble for Americans and people elsewhere...

If you believe it's just the Bush administration that's created these problems, then you're the one who needs to stop believing the "popular press".

Re:Sanctions

[ThousandStars]

China has a GDP of 7 trillion dollars, while the US has one of 12 trillion.

How does this idiocy get modded up, when even a cursory examination (warning: .pdf) shows that China has a GDP of 2.6B, compared to 2.9 for Germany, 4.3 for Japan, and 13 for the U.S.

With a larger GDP, they will be able to outspend us militarily, without causing any strain on their economy.

We spend about $466B, the rest of the world combined spends about $500B, and China $65B. Granted, China's PPP means they get more stuff for their $65B, but they still spend far, far less than we do.

The parent post is so wrong that it should be modded down.

Re:Sanctions

[Retric]

GDP is only one factor in a countries ability to support military spending. The real cost of feeding 1billion people > real cost of feeding 300 million people. So if GDP A = GDP B and Country A's population is 3x as large then they have less surplus capital spend on the military.

Think of it this way substance farmers increase GDP but they do little to aid military spending.

Carte Blanche

[Enderandrew]

What is the US going to do?

Nothing. Quite frankly China has tested the limits of both the US and UN for years, and neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations were willing or capable of doing anything. With problems in Iran, Syria, North Korea, oh and those two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US does not have the capability to swat a fly elsewhere, let alone threaten the military might of China.

China knows they can get away with such actions, so they will. If you don't believe me, look up recent actions regarding Taiwan, Tibet and East Timor, amongst other things. China also does nothing to combat the millions of dollars in lost US revenue from stolen IP, yet we give them favored trading partner status, making our trade deficit worse.

Re:Carte Blanche

[Anonymous Coward]

But they did give us General Tso's chicken, which is worthy of not only favored trading partner status, but worthy of several Nobel prizes.

Re:Carte Blanche

[hasbeard]

I looked at a carton of General Tso's chicken at the supermarket the other day. With all the carbohydrates in it, it should probably be classified as a bio weapon.

Re:Carte Blanche

[demachina]

"Quite frankly China has tested the limits of both the US and UN for years, and neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations were willing or capable of doing anything."

What exactly do you propose the U.S. do? The Chinese are holding such huge U.S dollar reserves they could ruin the U.S. economy just by dumping them, though they would probably cause a global economic collapse and suffer as much as everyone else if they did.

The U.S. has transfered so much capital and IP to China, and we are so dependent on the steady stream of container shipping from China you pretty much have to look the other way at anything short of open warfare.

Besides which China is a Republican businessman's fantasy come true. It has a vast pool of dirt cheap labor, no labor unions, almost no business regulation, no environmental controls, and workers either keep their mouths shut or they are harshly dealt with by the state. They have one party authoritarian rule and as long as that one party is pro business, which they have been for the last couple decades, they are a Republican's wet dream. Why do you think so many big western corporations are rushing to China lock, stock and barrel. Liberal democracies sucks for business, you have to pay people more than a subsistence wage, you can't kill 4000 a year in coal mines like you can in China, you can't lock workers up if they bitch....

The new Fascist China is pure heaven for Republicans, so their is almost nothing China is going to do they are going to have a problem with including this. Most western businessman and politicians are way more fixated on kissing Chinese ass these days than they are starting some kind of confrontation with them.

Besides which when it comes to network security if you are stupid enough to put anything important on the Internet, and you can't keep it secure you kind of deserve what you get, doesn't really matter where the attack comes from.

Re:Carte Blanche

[tshetter]

But seriously, how many chineese can tell the difference between a british and an irishman?
Or a frenchman and a german?

Nationality doesnt mean much, and really it shouldnt.


But back on the topic....the US, China and every other nation has services that spy on other countries.

Im sure the US has compromised some Chineese systems but they would never reveal that.

I would also assume that the Chineese still have access to other systems, maybe in multiple other departments of the gov.

Re:Carte Blanche

[kcelery]

That's because rice in Hong Kong is cooked differently. Chinese in that neighborhood like soft rice, it is made by pouring water into a pot of raw rice, filling the water level to about 3/4 inch above the surface of rice and slowly cooked until all water evaporates.

Westerners like rice more chewy, so for the same rice, it is put into a big pot of hot water and the rice is cooked like sphagetti.

Windows to blame?

[Orthuberra]

I know this is gonna sound like a troll to some, but it isn't, imo. But with Microsoft's shared source program with governments (China's included) what if they found an exploit and and simply didn't tell Microsoft, but instead used it to their advantage. Could shared source create problems such as this? I know the military uses Windows for most of its computers (at least when I got out last year). Not sure about the ones attacked, however. Just some musings from me.

Re:Windows to blame?

[jombeewoof]

Ok, I use Linux, but that doesn't make a lot of sense...

Why is Windows Shared Source more vulnerable to this type of attack than Linux and other Open Source things? Simply put,
With thousands of eyes that have many varying goals, any security vulnerability in an "open" sourced product would be reported to the correct people many times by many different users.
Closed source projects on the other hand have very specific sets of eyes on them, with very specific goals. If a vulnerability was found it would be less likely to be reported.

that's my take on it anyway.

Unclassified

[ratnerstar]

DoD unclass networks aren't any more secure than your standard corporate ones. Obviously, it's not good if the Chinese (or anyone) gain unauthorized access to them. But hacking something like JWICS or even SIPRnet would be much more disturbing.

questions, assumptions

[Gothmolly]

Questions:
* were they secured computers? You know, the ones networked via fiber in concrete-filled conduits so that the physical layer can't be compromised?
* is this even a new thing?

Assumptions:
Is everyone so sure that the US hasn't ALREADY hacked the Chinese computers?

Before everyone gets their panties in an uproar, some context would be nice.

It cuts both ways

[Nazlfrag]

You know, America has tested Chinas resolve for years by sending hackers into its systems, yet China isn't willing or capable to do anything. With hundreds of American military bases around the world and a mass of troops in Japan, Taiwan and the rest of the Pacific, they do not have the capability to move an inch outside their borders, let alone threaten the military might of America.

Re:It cuts both ways

[Enderandrew]

I've seen first-hand some of the incredible technology and training we had in the military, but neither China nor the US really wants a piece of each other. That is a conflict that only ends badly pretty much for everyone.

Re:It cuts both ways

[TapeCutter]

"they do not have the capability to move an inch outside their borders"

Regardless of who is in power China it has had a "foreign policy" that for 2000yrs has shown little (if any) interest in expanding China's borders.

US generals have all read and still use Sun Tzu's "art of war", I suggest you read the bit entitled "on the use of spies" before you pick a fight with the guys who turned strategic "games" into an artform.

Don't worry...

[Jafafa Hots]

This won't escalate into anything. While its true it could be seen as an act of war, we in the U.S. are not going to do anything that might jeopardize our supply of Happy Meal toys.

Re:Don't worry...

[Oktober Sunset]

dude, the lead is what makes them tasty.

Wire up the IDS

[Quila]

Having an IDS hooked up to some missile launchers is starting to look good around now. I don't see any real difference between online war and physical war, and this was an act of war.

Re:Wire up the IDS

[qbwiz]

Make sure you tell the enemy first, or they won't know to avoid triggering your doomsday device.

Re:Wire up the IDS

[PhreakOfTime]

Well, if you dont see any difference, I expect to see you in the enlistment line first thing tomorrow morning. And dont make up some BS that youve 'already served' because it will be a lie. NO SINGLE PERSON who has been in war, will make the suggestion to simply to go to war over a PC break-in.

And if you STILL dont see any difference, try the following links; http://theheretik.typepad.com/the_heretik/images/c hild_of_war_life_in_death_053005.jpg http://www.videos1.informationclearinghouse.info/i mages/seven.jpg

Those that modded this 'insightful' I would expect will be in the front of that enlistment line tomorrow, right ahead of you.

Re:Wire up the IDS

[sholden]

Because no country has ever tried spying before in all of history.

Life would have been so much better if any spying attempt by the USSR/USA on the USA/USSR had resulted in the nukes being launched. Would have made the cold war a lot shorter anyway...

Re:Wire up the IDS

[Mr. Roadkill]

Yeah, smart move.

I can see it now. Some wack-job malcontent who would otherwise have loaded up a truck with explosives and taken out half a federal building and its daycare centre will instead penetrate the network of a western company in China. From there, he will penetrate a Chinese low-security network, and launch an attack against the toilet paper inventory system at the Pentagon. This will trigger the IDS, and the next thing we know the United States of America launches a first-strike against the Henan branch of the People's Yak Testicle Grading Board because that's who the attacking IP address belongs to. China retaliates. The U.S.A. retaliates against the retaliation.

Still look like a good idea?

(And for fuck's sake, nobody mod this funny. Okay, the People's Yak Testicle Grading board is hilarious, but the thought of *any* automated system being hooked up to launch controls is the stuff of nightmares... especially when there's no real way to tell if the "attack" is from your opponent or someone else who wants to pin the blame on them. Someone massing troops on the border or lobbing nukes your way? Worth a military escalation. Someone probing your network? Not so much.)

Re:Wire up the IDS

[darkmeridian]

People die in real wars. And knocking out electronics sounds great, but if you fight a war with a country that owns the bears' share of your stock, and to whom you are indebted for billions each year, and which provides a lucrative potential market for your industry, that may not be good for the economy that keeps the war machine going.

Why do you think America is on good terms with Communist China--even bringing them into the WTO--while we have an embargo on Communist Cuba? Because China doesn't execute people and steal their organs? Or because China doesn't kill religious practitioners?

Be realistic. That Tom Clancy novel you read isn't accurate anymore. How are you going to fight against the guy who's cutting you checks to fight Iraq?

Why?

[WindBourne]

Look, America has shifted a lot of manufacturing to China. They have a trillion dollars of ours. But so what? At this time, the chinese leadership can easily attack us, and simply bit the bullet WRT to the deficit. If they were really concerned about the deficit, they would be spending a lot of that money on cleaners for coal plants, bigger nuclear plants, equipment for cleaning up their pollution. But they are not spending 1 penny on it. Instead, they are trying to get us to GIVE them the know-how. They are not concerned with the lose of the money. It would simply be considered a minor lose, if they are able to take America (and perhaps EU) on and defeat them. If they can do it with out a war, all the better for them. BTW, you should look in at CIA.gov and check out the deficit. They take a lot of good from Japan, but not from America. My guess is that they are trying to draw Japan into being dependent on them, and separate them from us.

Re:Why?

[Sycraft-fu]

That's not as clear cut as you might think. Lots of people make the mistake of applying the kind of economics that happens on a personal scale to nations. Doesn't really work that way. What we have with China is sort of an economic MAD situation. It isn't a case of them holding the stick, it is a case of them being able to fuck up our economy, and destroying theirs in the process.

There's two problems with trying to use their cash to screw over the US. The first is that what good is money if you can't spend it? What they hold, by and large, is promissory notes and bonds from the government. If the US government wishes, it can simply refuse to honour those. Doing so would have severe consequences as currently US treasury securities are thought of as some of, if not the, most secure in the world but they have the power to do that. All of a sudden that wealth is just non-existent, unspendable, especially if the US's allies play ball.

The second, and more important, is that China's economy is totally dependant on its continued growth and that, indeed even being able to sustain where it is now, it totally dependant on the US as a customer. Screw up the US economy, people will go in to recession mode which means less spending, especially on non-essentials which is most of the Chinese market. They stop spending, your economy starts shrinking, there's big problems, possibly even civil unrest or revolution. To destabilize the economy of their biggest customer could, literally, be suicidal for their government.

As such we have a somewhat stable situation. Neither country may see eye to eye and both want to use the other for their own gain, but neither is going to fuck over the other one just to be spiteful, as it would fuck them over as well.

It is not the situation that so many people online like to portray of the Chinese being able to just sink America any time they want and have no repercussions.

Highly Armed Nincompoops

[Doc Ruby]

Is anyone else nervous that these clowns are armed to the teeth, with enough firepower to destroy the world and make the rubble bounce several times?

They're not just too incompetent to defend their systems (I'm sure the US penetrates the Chinese, too). But they're too dumb to refrain from penetrating each other, or just not get caught.

These are the kinds of "brinksmanships" that keep us all close to the edge of destroying each other ("ourselves"). The kinds of stupid, complicated slap-happiness that gets out of hand. And gets into killing.

Re:Highly Armed Nincompoops

[Dunbal]

Is anyone else nervous that these clowns are armed to the teeth, with enough firepower to destroy the world and make the rubble bounce several times?

      Yes. America makes me very nervous. Oh, isn't that what you meant?

      China has around 200 nuclear weapons, compared to the US's 5000+.

Does anybody actually believe

[denissmith]

Come on....the Chinese military is capable of hacking Robert Gates' office, yet is completely incapable of obscuring their tracks? You really believe that? This is another set up situation - an insider trying to scuttle a deal, or to embarrass someone, or to effect policy in some minor way, or just to get you going. I have no doubt the office was hacked - why admit something that makes you look so incompetent, but are we really to believe that they tracked down the ACTUAL culprits? Let's ask to see the evidence, for once - they never seem to have any of that these days.

Re:Does anybody actually believe

[Dunbal]

This is another set up situation

      I agree. Yet another anti-china story, in a long list of anti-china stories over the past few weeks, ever since the chinese threatened to call in the US debt when the US demanded the chinese revaluate the Yuan. More American propaganda being fed to the people, to make sure that China is slowly moved to the "axis of evil" category.

Re:Does anybody actually believe

[DavidShor]

And if we stopped trading with them, who exactly would that hurt? The Communist party leaders will be rich anyway, using at least the black market to procure US goods. The people however, will be stripped of their prosperity.

Besides, if the US never traded with autocracies, there would never have been a US in the first place.

It's not very hard...

[theMerovingian]

Everyone knows the password is "Joshua"... Just stick to the Chess simulation when you get inside the DoD servers or you could be absconded by the FBI in an unmarked panel van.

US Military could benefit

[heretic108]

Plant a few honeypot boxen around the Pentagon network, and load them up with tasty disinformation, aiming for outcomes like:

• Making an advanced US capability seem flaky or ineffective
• Making a flaky or undeveloped US capability seem advanced and devastating
• Sending the Chinese into fruitless directions in R&D, costing them billions
• Trick the Cninese into types of action that could yield up some useful intel for the US

The opportunities are endless.

Re:US Military could benefit

[king-manic]

Plant a few honeypot boxen around the Pentagon network, and load them up with tasty disinformation, aiming for outcomes like:

        * Making an advanced US capability seem flaky or ineffective
        * Making a flaky or undeveloped US capability seem advanced and devastating
        * Sending the Chinese into fruitless directions in R&D, costing them billions
        * Trick the Cninese into types of action that could yield up some useful intel for the US

The opportunities are endless.

Operation GW commenced January 20th 2001 and has successfully misled the world into thinking we are idiots. We have made it appear we make vast amounts of wealth disappear through military industrial graft and sunk our monetary values 40% relative to other western powers. We've gotten involved in a war we knew we couldn't leave gracefully, and shown corruption at every level. We have given the appearance of crushing our education system with theology, and appeared to have revised the public education curriculum to cater to the dumbest common denominator. We have lulled the entire world into thinking we are a country of backwards mouth breathers.As soon as we devalue our currency to 20% relative value and ensure 99% of all top ivy league school student are foreign we will truly be in a position to surprise the world without awesome cunning and leap forth and conquer the world.

It doesn't make any sence...

[B5_geek]

Lets make a couple of assumptions..

(1) That the Pentagon doesn't have a Windows box connected to the Internet with a public IP address.
(2) That the 'hackers' are smart-enough to actually hack into the Pentagon (ergo they are not script-kiddies).

Wouldn't these hackers be smart enough to originate these attacks from some-other hacked network via an anonymous proxy? (And then delete any logs that still might point to their activities.)

At the very least I would expect a simple IP spoofing to have taken place.

This was too easy, something is up.

Re:It doesn't make any sence...

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Lets make a couple of assumptions..

(1) That the Pentagon doesn't have a Windows box connected to the Internet with a public IP address.

Why would you make such an almost certainly erroneous assumption? The U.S. Military uses Micro$hit, as do most (all?) fortune 500 companies. There are an astounding number of incompetant "sysadmins" who think that an M$ certification is an indication that they are computer gurus. There is a reason why there is a joke about Military Intelligence being an oxymoron.

Are there some super-smart people in the military? Of course. Are there incompetant ones in positions of power as well? I don't know. Let's ask the Commander in Chief ... Oh wait ... I do know ;-)

Re:It doesn't make any sence...

[thanatos_x]

I recall reading a story about attacks on one of the research labs (Los Alamos, I think). Someone noticed something was going on, the attacks were incredibly well disciplined, like a good burglar - get in, get what you can grab quickly, and get out. They didn't spend too much time on anyone thing, they just downloaded anything they could grab and got out, to repeat some other time (~2am local time)

He eventually traced their attacks to a Chinese IP, after they hopped numerous machines in the process. He turned his findings over to the CIA, and in the end got what he deserved; fired, for violating and hacking the Chinese - despite the "We'll ignore how you got this information if you just give it to us" from the CIA.

The point is I'd hope we could figure out who did it.I would hope the computer experts at the Pentagon knew a bit more about hacking/counter hacking than you, and have some idea how to trace the hacking to the root of the problem. The point is that you're assuming they didn't have to do 'work' to get the information. The article doesn't state what they did, but I imagine the Chinese and US both used methods of which the actual implementations are beyond most people on slashdot.

Of course this forgets the prime rule that most people who post on the internet have a PhD in the subject they comment on.

Re:Ummm...

[MightyMartian]

I'm agreeing with most of what you say, but why would anybody be surprised that China is using its hackers to bust in to foreign networks. Everyone, I'm confident does it, including the US trying to break into Chinese state networks.

Espionage is one of the oldest tools of civilization. Heck, even allies spy on each other. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Brits were doing the same things to the US.

Espionage, in fact, can be a very good thing for peace. The Soviets and the Americans knew so much about each others' military capacity and arsenals that neither side dreamed of an open, direct conflict. A lack of knowledge of the opposing side's capacity would have been infinitely more dangerous.

I'm impressed

[jollyreaper]

74 posts and no jokes yet about the Pentagon having a chink in their armor? I'm impressed. Honestly, I'm not sure what's scarier, this or all the cheap crap on the shelves at Wal-Mart.

Re:Unacceptable

[Dunbal]

and the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

      This has been the case since the first man beat up his neighbor and forced him to become his slave. This rich will ALWAYS be richer, but the poor increase their standard of living. Today being "poor" in the West means having a small tv, and a second hand car, a used fridge and electricity, and a menial job. 200 years ago it meant starvation, and it still does in some places. Your point is?

Nothing's up

[NeutronCowboy]

I've worked with military networks. No, not everything that ends in .mil is classified. Yes, they also run windows boxes. No, it doesn't require special skill to hack into that kind of network. It's very similar to breaching any ol' corporate network. Granted, the people I worked with were fairly paranoid and quite up to speed on proper security procedures. But this crack isn't the same as getting access to classified hardware.

Call me again when that happens. In the meantime - congrats, they probably found out who went to lunch with whom last Friday, or read the Navy newsletter.

NSAKEY

[Werrismys]

Do you truly believe the US has not done the reverse a hundred times already? No wonder China wants to move away from M$ "operating systems."

What's the big deal?

[r_jensen11]

How many Americans are in prison for cracking in to the pentagon? The only difference here is that rather than a group of crackers with no political affiliation, this group of crackers is part of a foreign military. Who honestly believes that the US (ala CIA and NSA) isn't doing the same to some other country (e.g. Russia, North Korea, China) right now?

Re:What's the big deal?

[DragonTHC]

The difference is that the NSA has a back door into all major operating systems. They don't need to crack in.

This sort of issue could be fixed if the Pentagon switched from using windows based systems to using SELinux systems with mandatory smart card access.

Remember, there are 2 levels of privilege above administrator in windows, and there are 3 backdoor keys into windows. Microsoft's, the NSA's and who knows who has the third?

Re:Cut the crap

[emilper]

If they are in prison, they are not "the brightest".

de-Baathification

[Anonymous Coward]

That's SO far from the truth that I don't know whether you're lying or incredibly deceived. The US army is at breaking point, and the situation is spiraling out of control in both occupations. That's actually not quite true. The occupation of Afghanistan is going pretty well considering the history of occupying armies in that country since Alexander the great and keep in mind that that history includes some of the most disastrous attempts at occupation in recorded human history. According to a recent discussion forum on BBC world the Afghans interviewed stated the mood in the country was that people generally aren't happy about having occupying forces in country. They are, however, even less happy about the prospect of them leaving and watching the country degenerate into either the kind of vicious civil war that followed the Soviet occupation or a the kind of Theocratic nightmare it was under the Taleban. That may change in the decade or so but at the moment things could be a whole lot worse.

  Iraq however is a different case. The big mistake in Iraq was the Rumsfeld/Bush position that US forces "dont do nation- building". What did they expect? That they would invade Iraq, everybody would dance in the streets, be really grateful and that reconstruction would happen by it self while they watched? The USA already sucessfully handled such a situation once before, the reconstruction of Germany after WWII, many of the lessons of that effort were forgotten in Iraq. Starting with the fact that disbanding the national army and police is just about the worst single thing you can do closely followed on the dumb ideas scale by failing to (rapidly) reconstruct even basic facilities like water supply, sewage disposal and electricity. All this was handled in Germany post 1945 in a pretty no-nonsense manner. De nazified soldiers and police officers were recruited for the re-organized police force, the Infrastructure was rebuilt with the help of US engineers and local people which often involved rebuilding local industries and experienced civilian administrators that passed de-nazification were quickly put to work running much of this effort under US supervision. As it was the de-Baathification of Iraq was far to stringent and it kept important professionals like teachers, doctors, engineers and experienced military officers out of circulation until the whole process was finally rationalized in 2004 which was far to late.

Re:Unacceptable

[coaxial]

The point was apparently completely missed by you.

The line wasn't "the rich are richer," as you implied but rather "get richer" as in "increase wealth relative to the rest of society." It is well known that of the destabilizing influence large economic gaps have on societies. The creation of a permanent underclass is not conductive to democracies, nor productive economies. For instance, it's well known that the wealthy have better access to the legal system through being able to afford more and better lawyers, while the poor often have no access to legal council in civil settings, and inadequate council in criminal settings.

It's relative wealth, not absolute wealth that matters to the fabric of a society. Attempting to place emphasis on absolute wealth, while ignoring the very real effects of large relative wealth disparity is a well known trick of the wealthy to attempt distract the majority poor into supporting that are not in their economic self-interest.

You really should learn some socioeconomics.

Micro$hit?

[Vicsun]

I prefer the term MiKKKro$hit myself. Not only does replacing soft with shit indicate my opinion of their software, along with the dollar sign indicating how greedy they are, I believe replacing the 'c' with KKK will portray them as the oppressive organization that they are, along with completely destroying any semblance of respect my post might have commanded up until that point.

Re:Cut the crap

[ScrewMaster]

it really boils down to how much you're willing to spend on your next pair of Nikes.

I'd say it really boils down to how much you're willing to spend on your next pair of Nukes.