Slashdot Mirror


Hundreds of Thousands of Chinese Black-Hats

An anonymous reader sends us to Popular Science for a long article on the loose, uncoordinated bands of patriotic Chinese hackers that seem to be responsible for much of the cyber-trouble emerging from that nation. Quoting: "For years, the U.S. intelligence community worried that China's government was attacking our cyber-infrastructure. Now one man has discovered it's more than that: it's hundreds of thousands of everyday Chinese civilians. ... Jack Linchuan Qiu, a communications professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong [says:] 'Chinese hackerism is not the American "hacktivism" that wants social change. It's actually very close to the state. The Chinese distinction between the private and public domains is very small.' ... According to [James Andrew Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies], 'The government at a minimum tolerates them. Sometimes it encourages them. And sometimes it tasks them and controls them.' In the end, he says, 'it's easy for the government to turn on and hard to turn off.'"

30 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. Not surprising by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The chinese are just as nationalistic as any other group. Do they like how their gov operates? I doubt it. BUT, do they love their country? Sure. Of course, telling the crackers that if they crack local systems, they will get the death penality, but if they crack Foreign systems (namely the west) and share with the gov, they will get money, has a LOT to do with this. Basically, we are still in a cold war with one side KNOWING that it is, while the other side hopes that it is not.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Not surprising by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The chinese are just as nationalistic as any other group.

      Judging from some of the comments about Tibet and the reaction to the protests regarding it during the Olympics I'd say that they are even more so.

      Basically, we are still in a cold war with one side KNOWING that it is, while the other side hopes that it is not.

      Isn't that the truth? Secretary Gates wants to cancel the F-22 and cut our aircraft carrier fleet down so that we can focus on fighting insurgencies. That's understandable in short term but I pray to god that it doesn't bite us in the ass in the long term. I'm not real worried about insurgents altering the geopolitical balance of power. I am worried about China doing the same.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Not surprising by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Secretary Gates wants to cancel the F-22 and cut our aircraft carrier fleet down so that we can focus on fighting insurgencies. That's understandable in short term but I pray to god that it doesn't bite us in the ass in the long term.
      At this moment, we have no choice. Our budget and economy is a TOTAL disaster. Where we need to put the money is into getting this war and invasion/occupation finished. Sadly, Pakistan is shaping up to be a new mess that we will have no choice on (at least as long as they have nukes and the technology). Personally, having the F-22 cut back while we have 180 is not a big deal. BUT I would rather that we continue with the ABL program. In addition, my understanding is that he is putting a lot more money into intel-gathering. That makes sense.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Not surprising by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or you might have read comments that are coming from someone more extreme than the typical Chinese. There are plenty of wack-job nationalistic Americans, and plenty of more moderate Americans.

      As far as a new cold war, who cares? China can't invade America anymore than America can invade China, and they aren't seriously rattling the nuclear saber (they would rather sell us crap than blow us up...).

      China probably could find the bodies to invade the U.S., but they would have a tough time holding any territory whatsoever (unless they found a really nifty way of shifting those bodies over the Pacific ocean). The U.S. doesn't have the bodies to invade China.

      I guess there is the possibility of an economic war with China, but the coal on mainland America means that we will still be able to make electricity, mitigating the impact on our quality of life, and the fact that China has 4 times the people will make it nearly impossible for the U.S. to continue to 'dominate' the world economically.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Not surprising by magarity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Long before the US worries about Chinese military superiority there needs to be a good hard look at the very real threat of economic superiority.

      The Chinese economy is still growing, albiet at a much slower pace, while the US shrank lately. And there are only the tiniest of social programs that the Chinese government spends its money on and pretty much nothing on entitlements which make up 2/3 of the US's federal budget. There is no institutionalized 'somebody owes me' mentality keeping a large number of otherwise able bodied adults out of the workforce.

      China will out-produce the US in short order if things continue as they have been. Then the US will no longer be able to afford to keep up militarily much like the Soviets could no longer afford to keep up in the 80's.

    5. Re:Not surprising by maxume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's inevitable. If you accept that people aren't equal, the best 10% of China's workforce is larger than half of the entire United States workforce.

      Throw in that it is much easier to transfer knowledge and technology than it is to create them, and any notion of keeping a lead goes right out the window, especially over the long term.

      The upside is that we are quite a bit more likely to benefit from Chinese advancements than we are to be hurt by them.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Not surprising by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, China has a social security and socialized medicine. In addition, they spend a LOT more money on their internal security (trying to keep ppl in check). IIRC, They actually spend more on their civil programs than America does (in terms of what we think their budget is; we really do not know exactly WHAT they spend). And right now, they spend a LOT more money on their space program as well as military. Of course, they can afford this at this time.

      The real difference is that they have their money tied to the dollar designed to drain our jobs and W allowed this. That is why China has major barriers to imports and is asking for another decade to drop them, even though they were suppose to drop them in 2002.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Not surprising by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have built 135 F-22s as of now, don't you think that's enough for the time being?

      The thing is that once you shut down a production line for a modern aircraft like that it's very hard to impossible to start it back up again. I could understand if Gates wanted to reduce the number of them that we are ordering (although that also runs into issues with economy of scale, see the B-2 for an example) but shutting down the production lines altogether seems short-sighted to me.

      But then, this is the same DoD that axed production of the Seawolf in favor of the "cheaper" Virginia's -- which turned out to be only 10% cheaper in exchange for only having half of the weapons load of the Seawolf. Hmm......

      So keep your F-22 money, they're not likely to take on the Chinese air force anytime soon

      I don't think we are going to take them on "anytime soon". God willing, we'll never have to take them on. But it takes years to decades to design a new fighter aircraft. It takes years to start up a production line even for existing designs. You can't think about tomorrow when looking at these decisions -- you have to think ten to twenty years ahead.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Not surprising by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is why China has major barriers to imports and is asking for another decade to drop them, even though they were suppose to drop them in 2002.

      I've never understood why the United States engages in "free trade" when our supposed trading partners refuse to do the same. Japan is another good example -- it's virtually impossible for American car companies to sell cars in Japan yet we've allowed them free rein to compete in our own market. WTF is wrong with that picture?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Not surprising by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China probably could find the bodies to invade the U.S

      WOLVERINES!

      Sorry, that was just the first image that came to mind ;) I think invading the US would be a pretty tough undertaking. Logistically it would be a nightmare -- you'd need to move men and material across the largest ocean in the World against the World's foremost naval power. Even if you could manage to do that you'd then have to defeat the American military on it's home soil and pacify the American population.

      Pacifying a nation of 32 million where a sizable portion (a majority even?) of the population supports the invaders may well prove to be impossible. How would you go about pacifying a nation of 300 million where none of the population would support the invaders and where said population is armed to the teeth and presumably willing to fight for it's freedom and independence? Then there's the matter of nuclear weapons to consider....

      No, I'm not real worried about them invading us. I am worried about falling behind them in military capability and having to abandon allies and/or interests. At least when the British came apart there was another world power that was committed to democracy to take their place. Who is going to take our place? I suppose India is a possibility in the long term but they've got enough problems of their own right now. China isn't being very open about their military build-up and I find that troubling on many levels. Unless that changes I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be concerned and taking steps to ensure our own supremacy.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Not surprising by WindowlessView · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In addition, my understanding is that he is putting a lot more money into intel-gathering. That makes sense.

      Part of that intel gathering is, of course, the half of our recent ramp-up in cyber warfare that is less spoken about. No one thinks that in the cyber war we are only playing defense, right?

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    11. Re:Not surprising by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

      y o u l a c k i m a g i n a t i o n

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    12. Re:Not surprising by rootofevil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      this assumes they have any vested interest in keeping the civilian population alive.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    13. Re:Not surprising by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would American cars actually *sell* in Japan?

    14. Re:Not surprising by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, manned fighter aircraft will soon be a thing of the past.

      Says who? Our unmanned aircraft are all dependent upon communications with operators on the ground. For the most part those communications rely on satellites. Are you going to lay odds that an advanced nation-state like China can't figure out a way to disrupt these types of communications systems?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  2. Doing us a service? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To date, we've had hacks that are serious enough to alert us to the real threat, but rarely or never serious enough to cause us real harm.

    It's a gentle warning to our vulnerabilities, with plenty of lead time to do something about it. At this point, if we keep on producing vulnerable and exposed important computer systems, we share the blame for the consequences of a serious hack.

  3. Interesting Article by cabjf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read that article in my latest Pop Sci issue. It was very interesting that many of the Chinese hackers were not explicitly sponsored by the government, but do it for the fame and nationalistic pride. The hacker that the article zeroed in on seemed to disappear after college, but it was fairly obvious he was hired by some level of the government. It's like the Chinese government lets these young hackers learn on their own (so long as they aren't hacking their sites), then offers them jobs once they get skilled enough. The more direct damage from Chinese hackers is more likely from these uncontrollable hobby hackers than from the government sponsored and controlled ones.

  4. What's up with all these "chinese menace" news? by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's up with all these "chinese menace" news? There are two in the front page right now, and more or less a dozen this year. Stirring up the herd with this "us vs. them" mentality is something that I'm not be surprised to see on the mainstream media, but here on Slashdot?

    When it is not about the Chinese it is about Venezuela. Or Cuba. Brazil and Iran. Good old (ex)Soviet Russia. The french and the european in general.

    Echoing Homeland Security FUD the way Slashdot is doing is only to generate buzz, flamebaiting the pro- and the anti-american, creating nothing but more endless threads of mutual accusations and jingoistic regurgitation, overgeneralizing statements and outright racist/xenophobic ones.

    Fuck that, if there is nothing better to fill the main index, please, post less, not worse.

    1. Re:What's up with all these "chinese menace" news? by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's up with all these "chinese menace" news?

      <sarcasm>Yeah, and what's up with all of the "Obama administration is corrupt" news? If we keep this up, there might be an all out civil war soon. I mean, Texas is already considering secession. </sarcasm>

      Seriously, there is a difference between being racist/nationalist, and stating facts. This article is fact, and you are recommending censorship. If you don't think this article is true, than prove otherwise. Don't ridicule this article because it's "not nice."

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  5. This is America by castironpigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We only take action when our bean counters say we've sustained enough damage to cover the cost of change. Just look at flight safety regulations, or car safety regulations, or food safety regulations, or environmental regulations...

    --
    mmmm...forbidden donut
    1. Re:This is America by maxume · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you kidding?

      Many European cars fail American crash safety standards. U.S. flights are equally or more safe than the global average. The food supply is quite safe (waiter snot is probably the biggest thing to worry about, not shit in your cabbage).

      As far as the environment, you go swim in a river in China and I will swim in 20 rivers in the U.S.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  6. the idiocies of religions are only matched by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    by the idiocies of nationalism

    if anyone looks to the far east and sees a land blissfully free of the stupidities of monotheism, think again: china does have a religion. that religion is called china. han imperialism is on par with all of the other vicious forces in this world we must contend with and defeat. not that china is alone. russian nationalism and imperialism, american nationalism and imperialism... it's all evil, it all must be defeated

    one day we will have a world if not free of organized religon and ethnocentrism, at least outside the all-controlling clutches of such

    until then, we must all contend with blind pride: the source of so much evil in this world

    nationalism and organized religion are forces in this world which must be defeated if we are all to live in peace

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the idiocies of religions are only matched by themacks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      nationalism and organized religion are forces in this world which must be defeated if we are all to live in peace

      I think that contains a subset of the real problem. The real problem is people thinking that, because they belong to a certain group (country, religion, secret club), they are somehow better than people not in the same group. Nations and religions are not the problem, it's the idea that "I'm better than you" because of some group.

      --
      i read about it in a blog once
  7. Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How much of this is just loose, uncoordinated hackers, using proxies in china?

  8. Cyber threat fear is being drummed up right now by filmmaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, over the last couple weeks, several stories have made their way into the news about cybersecurity.

    These stories overstate the threat, and, in particular, only serve to loudly announce things which are already well known. For example, the fact that DoD systems are probed continuously by the Chinese. But! That's always been true. Where were all the alarming sounding news reports last year? Two years ago? Ten years ago? Where was Jay Rockefeller's Senate bill, S. 773, which aims to restrict Internet freedom in the United States in previous years? We can all expect the media heat to increase even more as the public is whipped into a frenzy of fear, and then comes to accept that we need the Federal Government to restrict our Internet freedom--for our own safety, of course!

    As these stories come through Slashdot, we all bicker amongst ourselves as to how grave the threat is. Or where it's coming from. Or how we might combat it. It's so predictable. And while we're distracted with these irrelevant (although admittedly interesting in some cases) discussions, Senate and House bills are moving through our Congress right now which I consider to be "Patriot Acts" for the Internet. Nobody is talking about those, though.

    We get what we deserve when we demand nothing at all.

  9. Cyber-Boxers? by yogibaer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The question remains, if this just (a very large) bunch of isolated individualists on the hunt for fame and fortune, or if they could be united under a common belief and turned into a nationalistic, anti-foreign mass movement like the "Boxers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion, lashing out violently against anything or anyone that critizises or threatens mother China. A lot has been writtten about the downtrodden rural masses that could destroy the chinese "Wirtschaftswunder" in a bloody uprising with unforseeable consequencesfor the world, but I wonder if we also have to be wary about something like a boxer movement in cyberspace.

  10. And here is what I propose for an answer ... by golodh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have an extensive and poorly secured (as no un-passworded systems, vulnerable dictionary-based passwords, no system auditing, almost no network auditing) IT infrastructure, we have loads of national and international computer burglars banging away at it, we have a lot of people who know something about IT looking for a job, and we have a government looking for sensible ways to spend money so as to alleviate the recession.

    Am I alone in thinking that it would be money well spent to set up 3 or so military schools in the US specifically to train network administrators? Students to enlist for the duration of their training (basic raining plus 2 years specialist training), subsequently 5 years of operational service as a sergeant. Graduates of this course to be unconditionally qualified for all basic network security and operation anywhere in the government (from local to federal).

    It helps protect both our civillian and our military IT infrastructure, it builds a reservoir of people who know how to secure and operate a computer network for any government agency to draw from, and it provides jobs.

    So ... how about it?

  11. Turn around is fair play by DnemoniX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe our government should start sponsoring patriotic groups of our own in the same way that China does. Instead of treating misguided young hackers as hardened criminals, give them a free pass to operate outside of our borders. Send them a case of Red Bull and a job offer in a few years. Sounds fair to me.

  12. why is it hard for you to perceive by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that what is motivating some people in china is exactly the kind of "us vs them" mentality you denounce in the west?

    yes, such blind nationalist rabble rousing exists in the west

    but what good does it do to pretend it doesn't exist in china?

    at best, you are intellectually dishonest, at worst, you are exactly like those who are blindly nationalistic: criticism is something that you can only point at yourself. you are exactly like a blind nationalist because you think only in terms of western actions, as if there are no other actors in the world. in your world view, all we can do is criticize the west, that, for example, if china does some horrible crime, who are we to judge?

    well, yes, we CAN judge. as a nonchinese, i am 100% free to criticize china. as long as i do it with intellectual honesty, that openly admits western crimes as well

    in fact, to NOT criticize china at all, and only the west, is to serve only some sort of defeatist attitude. not nationally defeatist, but defeatist in terms of the idea that we need to move beyond nationalism, and think critically in terms of world problems free of nationalistic prejudice. you still have a nationalistic prejudice, you just apply it backwards than most. this is an intellectually inferior approach than the idea that you freely criticizing all parties in the world, free of nationalistic prejudice, basing your observations on principles, and principles alone

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  13. Re:This is Only the Beginning by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow. I rant quite a bit about the threat that China represents, but you certainly take the paranoid cake.

    A few issues with your post:

    1. China is not an existential threat. That would indeed be the Muslim extremists. You're simply confusing the intent of terrorists with the capability of China.
    2. Nuclear boomers are not the solution, and a volley of missiles from them will not terminate the Chinese leadership. Not to mention that it will also mean the end of the US. Remember MAD? Apparently not.
    3. Panama owns the Panama Canal. You're referring to the two ports on the exits/entries of the Canal which have been leased to Hutchinson Whampoa. There's a slight, but significant difference there, especially since the US retains the official right to intervene militarily to protect its access to the channel.
    4. The treasuries currently bought by the Chinese are their Achilles hill as much as it is ours. How does it go? If you owe a bank 20k, the bank owns you. If you owe a bank 20 million, you own the bank. The comment by the ministry was the sound of a concerned investor: "Please don't fuck with my money."

    I find mostly two types of misconceptions about China: either it's a monolithic group of "Reds", with the best of the Cold War rhetoric attached to it. Or it has a master plan to gain world domination, and is deploying it relentlessly.

    Both are wrong. China has as many internal issues as any other country, and is subject to all the economic pressures that affect others. The two things that are true are:
    1 China thinks longterm. I'm talking decades, centuries.
    2 Land and respect is everything.

    China can be an issue, and is aggressively pursuing a strategy that will make it the superpower of the world. But that doesn't mean that the only interaction with them will be through nuclear volleys.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.