Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Gov't Victim of Cyberattacks
courteaudotbiz writes "Canada and all members of the U5 (United States, Germany, United Kingdom, France and New-Zealand) state that they all suffered government-directed attacks between June and September 2007. These seemed to be Chinese government sponsored attacks." It's a Google translation, so it's a bit hard to read, but it seems to be a recurring story these last few months.
I'm sure we are returning the favor and have been for decades.
When is the US going to "Cyber invade" China? I'm not sure how exactly they would do it but I'm guessing it would involve telling people that they export viruses of mass destruction, letting people know it'll take a day or 2 to get the Chinese servers in line, and the backbones there will welcome them with open arms. The US will then be there for a month or 2 before they get someone in the government to call it off leaving the Chinese networks in the hands of a few ISP "Warlords" for a few years...
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
Hey, don't cyberattck me buddy!
What are the U5 nations? The article didn't say, and Google wasn't much help. I'm not used to seeing NZ in the short-list for anything, especially not with USA, France and Germany.
Anyone know what that group is?
So at what point does someone decide this is with hostile intent? Does this apply to corporation as well? Can DuPont invade Johnson's and Johnson's?
lick the cancle button (at least thats what our Chinese QA says)
Why not just make it legal for us to hack Chinese IP addresses? This could be fun!
Then once we have their systems they will negotiate.
This is all I could dig up really - seems to be some cyber-security e-commerce related group?
Whereas work in other areas of shared concern, such as international trade, is conducted in line with some "ground truths and principles," there is little by way of standards, laws, regulations, etc. to guide international cooperation between key partners on cyber security. Mr. Aisenberg argued that such cooperation could be especially fruitful between the so called "U5 Countries" - Canada, Great Britain, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. As countries with a shared history, common language, and similar institutions and values, the U5 countries could work together and "develop a doctrine that they can all believe in," before moving policy, regulation, and legislation in that shared direction. In fact, Mr. Aisenberg emphasized that the democratic, liberal, free-market commitments common across the U5 countries are a logical starting point for cooperation, as they can anchor cooperation in common objectives and principles.
OK, OK I didn't RTFA. My way's better.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
It is baffling to me how these sort of Cyber-wars can go on and in the meantime countries will continue talking to eachother like nothing's the matter.
Understandably, one can draw parallels to the ongoing espionage among all countries during the 20th century. Still, this seems like the militarization of the internet, which is a civilian construct. That sets a troubling precedent.
It's a google translation, so it's a bit hard to read, but it seems to be a recurring story these last few months.
Qxe4
I'm surprised Google can do it at all. Removing the "u" from words like "color" is easy enough. But the hostile subtext in the Canadian niceness and politeness is hard for machines to render into American.
The further you get from the border, the harder it is to understand. Of course Canadians will deny it. But they'll do it politely.
The article tosses around the word "accused" a lot, but dosn't really point out if they have any hard evidense to back it up. Of course China is a likely suspect to "accuse" any high tech cyber-attacks of, but really, wouldn't you think any country that has a strong backbone to the internet would be capable of doing these attacks? Or am I just missing something completely?
They have standards? ;)
But more serious, this post has Australia in the list.
sound like they have a "u" or "yoo" in them somewhere...
Yoo-knighted-sutates...
Can-u-dah...
Furansu (if hailing from Korea or Japan...)...
Yoo-knighted-king-dum
Germ-u-knee...
What is probably yoo-s-ful to consider is that Can-u-da probably hasn't really colun-ized any other sove-run nation... LOL!
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Don't call me "buddy" friend!
Can anyone who knows more about this than me comment?
Oh, and regarding the "U5" debate, RTFA. From the article "We have had confirmation from our partners U5 (USA, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada)" This corresponds to the UKUSA member countries.
sigs are for suckers
He's not your "friend", guy!
which is totally what she said
To what extent has our critical network infrastructure retained the sort of "after-the-bomb" resilience of the original DARPAnet project? As I recall from a long ago text-book, our forbears with slide-rules and lab-coats worked out that if each node had separate links to three independent communication peers, that for most random removals of up to 90% of those nodes the remainder could still communicate. That is the design spec/philosophy that gave rise to the whole "built to survive a nuclear attack" meme.
Fast forward half a century, and everyone knows that our overall network infrastructure has nowhere near that level of redundancy and robustness, owing reasonably to that fact that most of our deployed applications don't require it. If it's not needed, why pay to build it across the board.
However, for those applications for which high-availability under outage/disaster/attack/DoS conditions is critical, have we been building appropriately? Or, as I fear, are we reliant on a small handful of satellites and long-haul backbones in support of everything else?
Is there anyone more current than I in that realm who might care to weigh in?
What if the Chinese gov simply told a bunch of lonely Chinese teenagers that they'd get access to playboy.com if they ran some scripts for them on the weekends?
anyhoot, here are the only "facts" from TFA:
- over 20 branches of CA gov hit
- "U5" is quoted from a note given to Stockwell Day
- link to China is unconfirmed by US and Canada
- in an unrelated case, Le Monde (France) traced attacks back to Chinese nodes
The Canadian government has been the victim of a massive cyber in June and July 2007.
Last time I checked, that country name wasn't hyphenated...
Even TFA doesn't include France and Germany in this "U5" boy band thing or whatever it is.
Welcome to Slashdot, where even the submitter doesn't need to RTFA.
This seems like it's aboot to go on forever.