Slashdot Mirror


Is China Creating the World's Largest Botnet Army?

david_a_eaves writes "The Chinese government is mandating that all computers sold in China come with Internet blocking software. Rob Cottingham writes an excellent piece noting how the censorship application of this software should be the least of our concerns. This new software may create an opportunity for the Chinese Government to appropriate these computers and use them to create the worlds largest botnet army." Update: 06/11 21:26 GMT by T : J. Alex Halderman writes "My students and I have been examining the Green Dam censorware software. We've found serious vulnerabilities that can be exploited by any web site a user visits with the software installed. We also found that some of the blacklists seems to have been taken from the American-made filtering program CyberSitter. We've posted a report and demo."

195 comments

  1. Correct me if I am wrong... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would it be easier to just sever the undersea fibre cable to China if it's really such a grave threat?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by phantomcircuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is economic warfare. The question is which is worth more economically to the US, a connection to China which opens Chinese citizens to the world's press or severing the connection and avoiding any potential complications.

      So the question is which one is worth more? Personally im willing to bet that being connected to them is worth more to the US than it is to China.

    2. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      This. Or firewall them off at your network's edge.

    3. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by Niris · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber

      "Fiber, also spelled fibre"
      Fail.

    4. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It's spelled both ways fuckwad.

    5. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And what this article doesn't say is that we can create the botnet ourselves! Are you telling me their software has no exploitable vulnerabilities? You bet your arse it does. We can have the baddest bot and thank them for the infrastructure to do it.

    6. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The question is which is worth more economically to the US, a connection to China which opens the Great Firewall of China to the world's press

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by evilkasper · · Score: 1

      we could "accidentally" drop anchor on it....

    8. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by Tinctorius · · Score: 4, Funny

      I knew it! I knew erbif was a word!

    9. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the question is which one is worth more? Personally im willing to bet that being connected to them is worth more to the US than it is to China.

      Do you have any rhyme, reason, or citation for saying this?

      Or is it just another "the US is the suxxor" post.

    10. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by markkezner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you do cut the cable, the traffic will try to route around the damage, clogging the "tubes" elsewhere and disrupting a lot of services.

      --
      Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
    11. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's why he posted AC.

    12. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by cheftw · · Score: 1

      Fale

      --
      Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
    13. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by mbone · · Score: 1

      You mean the ones that go through Japan ? Or the one that goes through Russia ? Yeah, that will go over well.

    14. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be easy for the people buying the computers to wipe the hard drive and install their own software, without the internet blocking software on it?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    15. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      Last year exports to the USA accounted for about 24% of Chinese exports but only about 13% of USA imports. USA exports accounted for about 6.5% of Chinese imports but only about 4% of USA exports. I wouldn't be so sure about who is dependent on who.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    16. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by bluie- · · Score: 1

      The internet was designed to be redundant. If you cut that connection, then traffic would try to get through another way.

      --
      life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
    17. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Last year exports to the USA accounted for about 24% of Chinese exports but only about 13% of USA imports. USA exports accounted for about 6.5% of Chinese imports but only about 4% of USA exports. I wouldn't be so sure about who is dependent on who.

      First off, we're talking about the economy, where a few percentage points are the difference between a good year and a bad year.

      Second your 2008 numbers are wrong

      USA imports from China = 16.1% of total imports
      USA exports to China = 5.5% of total exports
      Which works out to a combined 12% of total trade

      Third, in a world of Just In Time inventory systems, it would not be trivial or cheap to find new suppliers.
      And that's assuming you can even find such a massive quantity of unused manufacturing capacity to make up the difference.
      I'm pretty sure the shock would cause chaos in both countries.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    18. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by shermo · · Score: 1

      Presumably China will implement a DMCA style anti-circumvention law.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    19. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by c_forq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just in time inventory? Using China as a supplier? Sorry, not happening without a middleman. Shipping isn't reliable enough, unless you are using air and paying out the nose. Unless your JIT means something different to you than to my customers (several my of my customers have NO warehousing space, they need parts for their assemblies when they need them - any earlier and they can't store them, any later and they have a worker doing nothing).

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    20. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by dotgain · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, I thought 'conf t, int gi0/1, shut, end, wr' seemed a bit easier than diving for a cable.

    21. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Don't worry... it's Windows only. Therefore, the Chinese botnet will never be larger than the American botnet.

      Though, if Balmer makes good on his threat, the worlds largest botnet will belong to... the Irish?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    22. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by Eccles · · Score: 1

      The Chinese law requires the software be provided (even on a CD, not installed), not that it has to be installed on every PC. So you just buy a PC without it installed.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    23. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by g-san · · Score: 1

      Fine then, cut both of China's internet connections.

      Problem Solved!

    24. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by selven · · Score: 1

      If people are knowledgeable enough to know that the software is there, and that it can be removed in that way, and knowledgeable enough to download the windows torrent to reinstall, China can't do much about them anyway.

    25. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 1

      What if one of its (hypothetical) purposes is as a massive distributed computer? Y'know, for cracking encryption and such? Simulations? Doesn't really matter if it's disconnected from the rest of the planet - there's still a crapload of computer power available there...

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    26. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by PiSkyHi · · Score: 1

      China owns a lot of your cash.

    27. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's direct imports. How many other imports contain parts made in China?

    28. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by initialE · · Score: 1

      Can't you read? It's spelled "bothwaysfuckwad"!!!

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    29. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do exports to the USA have 13% of USA imports? That doesn't make any sense.

    30. Re:Correct me if I am wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ran a small ISP NOC a few years ago, and our standard approach to dealing with DDOS attacks was to shut down the peering with China Telecom. Crude, but it worked every time. Posting anon 'cause it was a lazy, if effective, solution, and I'm sure I was breaking out peering

  2. Is this a problem? by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How hard is it to block all traffic based on the country of origin, China in this case?

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      How is this troll? Did this guy beat a mod in an earlier slashdot debate?

    2. Re:Is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why are the replies modded funny? Someone's doing a crappy job of moderating today.

    3. Re:Is this a problem? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      How hard is it to block all traffic based on the country of origin

      A quick look at the spam trap shows more being relayed by bots in the US than China. Shall we start there?

    4. Re:Is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I being cynical, or could this all be part of China's plan?

      Rather than using a firewall to block 'objectional' websites (which can be bypassed), use this botnet to attack them, then they'll be forced to block Chinese IPs.

    5. Re:Is this a problem? by dotgain · · Score: 2, Funny

      TODAY?

    6. Re:Is this a problem? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why are the replies modded funny? Someone's doing a crappy job of moderating today.

      Or a great job. Personally, I find it entertaining to read a comment waiting for the punchline, then re-read it thinking I 'missed' something. It speaks volumes to degree I have been conditioned to trust the mods. A round of "off-modding" like this gives me a chance to reflect on my own reading-of-Slashdot habits. Quite refreshing.

      Of course, in all my comments I make sure to include a "little bit of everything", so that the less discerning reader can say "Oh! That's why this comment is Insightful/Interesting/Informative/Funny/Flamebait/Troll/Off-topic!".

      Also, I think the mods are on crack.

      Also, fuck you.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    7. Re:Is this a problem? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      This was a bit inane. Clearly, if we are speculating that China's government is building a huge botnet, we might extrapolate that in the near future, the condition you state will change dramatically. In that case, it might well be worthwhile for many transit providers and/or hosts in the rest of the world to start dropping all packets from China IPs into the bitbucket.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  3. geographically centralized Botnet by Yo_mama · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Should make it easier to block during an attack....

    --
    Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
  4. oOooo Scary! by vancondo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well if they are it's certainly more threatening than a bunch of terracotta warriors.
    -
    - - VanCondo

    --
    -
    1. Re:oOooo Scary! by Darth_brooks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if they're running pirated, unpatched copies of windows, equally as fragile.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  5. I for one... by grepya · · Score: 1

    ...welcome our chin... oh wait!!

  6. And Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting, but this means that Microsoft may create a bigger botnet army?

    1. Re:And Windows? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Already done. They call it Windows Update.

  7. Does America already have the World's Largest? by CmdrSammo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obama: Hey Ballmer, you mind if we borrow 90% of the world's computers for a quick cyber war?

    Ballmer: Finally, the moment I've been waiting for! *Throws ceremonial war chair at wall*

    1. Re:Does America already have the World's Largest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ballmer: Sure, you have have them after Tuesday, five months from now.

    2. Re:Does America already have the World's Largest? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      In all seriousness, that's not a bad idea.

    3. Re:Does America already have the World's Largest? by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      Not a likely scenario given Ballmer's threats to move Microsoft the hell out of the USA...

    4. Re:Does America already have the World's Largest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is John Galt?

      ...Apparently Steeve Balmer.

    5. Re:Does America already have the World's Largest? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Can someone please expel the parent poster from his country? (No matter what country. No person deserves someone in his country who thinks this is ever close to OK.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  8. That would be like... by starglider29a · · Score: 5, Funny

    A few million Stormtroopers standing on the surface of the Death Star with ThinkGeek green lasers.

    Archimedes would be proud!


    (Think before you mod me offtopic.)

    1. Re:That would be like... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      (Think before you mod me offtopic.)

      Think? You must be new here!

    2. Re:That would be like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I modded you off topic. As the post above me says... This is Slashdot. No thinking goes on here.

    3. Re:That would be like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail it. If you mod someone and then post, your mad machiavellian mod (de)materializes.

    4. Re:That would be like... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      You fail it. If you mod someone and then post, your mad machiavellian mod (de)materializes.

      You fail it. GP posted Anon, probably from another IP as well.

    5. Re:That would be like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You half-fail it. Anon doesn't matter; as the latter part of your post suggested, it does indeed go by IP.

      But why the fuck would you assume that the idiot moderated, and then got up and went to another computer to post anonymously? Did your cock fall off today?

    6. Re:That would be like... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would you assume they actually moderated in the first place, rather than simply claimed that they did in order to make Teh Funny?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:That would be like... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't work, because it would be nearly impossible for the lasers to get into perfect harmony. Which would mean they would randomly cancel and amplify each other, depending on the phase, resulting in a pretty weak ray.

      Welcome to Slashdot. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  9. People are such suckers by qortra · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The goal, authorities say, is to protect children from pornography

    Of course, that morsel isn't for the Chinese people. They could tell their own people "we're creating a botnet to terrorize you", and nothing would happen. In fact, it's for the benefit of people in other countries. Social conservatives everywhere will exclaim "what an excellent goal!" Those people have simply failed to realize that governments will use whatever power they have for whatever they want, and never exclusively for its "intended purpose". The US does this too, but they've been moving more slowly because more people fail to notice when the power shift is gradual.

    1. Re:People are such suckers by miggyb · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that the Chinese were using pornography as their scapegoat. Kind of reminds me of how Germany is using child pornography as the reason to have strong Internet restrictions Link (probably NSFW, but no pictures, so you decide): http://wikileaks.org/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn

      --
      This signature serves no purpose other than to help you see which posts were made by me.
    2. Re:People are such suckers by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Social conservatives everywhere will exclaim "what an excellent goal!"

      Socially conservative != Machiavellian sort of ends-justifies-means. I think I'm "socially conservative," but I'm not stupid enough to think that a good goal = good actions.

    3. Re:People are such suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice straw man.

      A. Social conservatives aren't idiot.
      B. What makes you assume social conservatives are in favor of massive government control like this in the first place.

  10. Solution: by Random2 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Disconnect when they try to attack.

    --
    "Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
  11. I've already blocked the Idle news items. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I block the stupid Idle videos too?

    1. Re:I've already blocked the Idle news items. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      IINM you can if you're logged in.

  12. It is a problem by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Funny

    For the sake of argument, let's assume this is the case. (And to correct me if I am wrong here.) To be able to block, at the very least the packet header has to be examined. If remote attacker can generate packets faster than you can examine and drop them, you've just been DoS'ed. Multiply the number of packets by the number of computers in China...

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:It is a problem by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For the sake of argument, lets assume the transit providers drop China's interconnects. 0% CPU overhead.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:It is a problem by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be able to block, at the very least the packet header has to be examined. If remote attacker can generate packets faster than you can examine and drop them, you've just been DoS'ed.

      You also have to look at the packet header in the course of regular routing decisions. Would it really take more CPU to look at the packet header and drop it into /dev/null than it does to look at the packet header and send it out a different network interface?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:It is a problem by caladine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You also have to look at the packet header in the course of regular routing decisions. Would it really take more CPU to look at the packet header and drop it into /dev/null than it does to look at the packet header and send it out a different network interface?

      That's not what really causes the extra CPU usage. It's the sheer volume of the packets you now have to handle. It's not as if these botnet computers are generating traffic like the would during a normal transaction. They're transmitting as fast as they can.

    4. Re:It is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really, we need to rethink being so close to our adversaries online. I mean, isn't that obvious?
      It's like we're waiting for the cyber-911 (god that's terrible) before we have the mandate to act.

      They have to come over the same sets of pipes. You can't get around that.
      At some point, you can shut off mega.undersea.cable01 and all traffic stops.
      Cut the ties that bind the C&C with the bots, and monitor what happens next.

      If sh!t hit hit the fan, the USAF/NSA/??? would step in and do this. The question is,
      under what circumstances, and what good does that do us in the long term?

      You can't disconnect CN forever. This problem will remain as long as we're tied to them.
      If we treat our enemies as trusted friends and get screwed, whose fault is it? Exactly.
      I think there's a word for this in Cantonese, but my pronunciation suffers.

    5. Re:It is a problem by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can be DOSd with legitimate traffic just as easily as a botnet. Too many packets is too many packets.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:It is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and no: The volume of packet headers you would have to examine would be much higher than your normal routing load. That would still cause problems even if you just throw all them in /dev/null.

    7. Re:It is a problem by Oewyn · · Score: 1

      For the sake of argument, let's assume this is the case. (And to correct me if I am wrong here.) To be able to block, at the very least the packet header has to be examined. If remote attacker can generate packets faster than you can examine and drop them, you've just been DoS'ed. Multiply the number of packets by the number of computers in China...

      I will correct you.

      Generating enough packets to DoS a router would do you no good against the rest of the network. The router's buffers would all fill up and any traffic from China to say, the US would experience 99% packet loss. After this "first line of defense border router", the traffic would be relegated down to the maximum throughput the router supports, so, aside from causing some latency issues w/ longer than normal buffer queues, i don't think this would take down an entire network.

      Basically china would be DoS'ing itself from the outside world as all border routers would be DoS'ed from it's own traffic.

    8. Re:It is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, you are not sending packets "to /dev/null". That would be even more overhead.

      You just "don't do anything with them".

    9. Re:It is a problem by ZigiSamblak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right. Aren't we supposed to be the experts at that here at slashdot?

    10. Re:It is a problem by g-san · · Score: 1

      No, because he said, "legitimate traffic."

    11. Re:It is a problem by tattood · · Score: 4, Informative

      The interconnect routers are all using hardware ASICs for their routing. It is absolutely NO problem for a core Internet router to block an entire subnet/country without a single hiccup.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    12. Re:It is a problem by tattood · · Score: 1

      In re-reading your comment, you have a point. If the interconnect link is 1 gigabit (for example) and the router on the other side is trying to send 2GBps through that single link, some of the packets will be dropped, creating a (sort-of) denial of service.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    13. Re:It is a problem by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Cut the ties that bind the C&C with the bots, and monitor what happens next.

      Wait, you mean Kane is behind all this? Aw crap, we're screwed.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    14. Re:It is a problem by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      Any sane upstream provider should be able to add a block for you on their end if someone (say, china) is flooding your connection with packets beyond capacity.

    15. Re:It is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we treat our enemies as trusted friends and get screwed, whose fault is it?

      Who are you calling our enemy?

      China may be our rivals in many respects, and they are certainly interested in getting their hands on our industrial secrets. But botnets are weapons of destruction, not espionage. It's hard to imagine many plausible scenarioes in which China would deploy a botnet against the USA.

      Possibly if Taiwan declared independence. But that's all that comes to mind.

    16. Re:It is a problem by talkingpidgin · · Score: 1

      "They have to come over the same sets of pipes."

      I believe the technical terminology is "a series of tubes".

  13. All your computer are belong to US!!!! by Uchiha · · Score: 0

    All your computer are belong to US!!!!

  14. The "least of our worries" ? by qoncept · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let me get this straight.

    China further on intruding on its citizens who are already exploited and given no voice is a valid concern -- until it causes the rest of the world the slightest discomfort?

    --
    Whale
    1. Re:The "least of our worries" ? by Stargoat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let me get this straight.

      China further on intruding on its citizens who are already exploited and given no voice is a valid concern -- until it causes the rest of the world the slightest discomfort?

      And what exactly would you have the rest of the world do about it? Chinese are already subject to an oppressive dictatorial government, as are North Koreans, Vietnamese, Cubans, Laotians, Burmese, Iranians, Zimbabweans, and in general around half the total world population.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    2. Re:The "least of our worries" ? by qoncept · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I would have the rest of the world do about it is escalate "it" from the "least of their worries" to something just a bit higher.

      --
      Whale
    3. Re:The "least of our worries" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Iranians are in a democratic process to elege a new presidente.

    4. Re:The "least of our worries" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? The Iranians have the opportunity to vote out Kammenei? That's news to everyone on planet Earth!

      Achmenuttyjob is the Iranian government's equivalent to White House press sceretary Gibbs.

    5. Re:The "least of our worries" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You got it, buddy. Anything else?

    6. Re:The "least of our worries" ? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      I think the Chinese gov't has themselves a couple hundred /. accounts, for which it has harnessed their collective mod power to trivialize everything said in reply to this article by hitting everything with 'Funny" mods.

      Well, at least I stop taking someone seriously when they've been modded funny...

      Anyhoo... back to constructing my New and Improved Tinfoil Skullcap...

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    7. Re:The "least of our worries" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but not with military action or anything, doesn't work as neatly as you'd expect.
      We all ought to be boycotting products from the opressive countries of the world. Toss in the MPAA into that.

    8. Re:The "least of our worries" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a more democratic UN? At the moment over a billion Chinese are represented by a (non elected) government with only one vote in the general assembly, no more than a tiny country like Belgium. Even if the Chinese government were elected, each Chinese citizen would only have a fraction of the vote that a Belgian citizen has.

    9. Re:The "least of our worries" ? by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      Would you like the CCP appointing one fifth of the delegates to the General Assembly?

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  15. M$ made largest botnet, Cisco the next Echelon by kubitus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The US is in the dominant position regarding hidden backdoors and establishing Trojan Boot loaders into routers.

    I advice any government to use in their networks only SW they can compile by themselfes!

    And even more important: use routers ( and switches ) where they compiled the firmware/software themselves!

    1. Re:M$ made largest botnet, Cisco the next Echelon by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem with this paranoia is where does it end. Compilers have known to have backdoors, you can code in assembly but you still need to compile it, what about a backdoor in the BIOS? Hidden microcode in the CPU?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:M$ made largest botnet, Cisco the next Echelon by Niris · · Score: 1

      Solution: Paper and pens! But wait, what if there's hidden recorders in the pens? We're all screwed :(

    3. Re:M$ made largest botnet, Cisco the next Echelon by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

      Well, the NSA allegedly has done all of those but eventually you just have to say screw it.

    4. Re:M$ made largest botnet, Cisco the next Echelon by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No worries! Patriotic Chinese engineers working for Cisco and other companies will insert their own government's backdoors into American products.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  16. Yes it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but it's got nothing to do with that censorship proggie... :-/

  17. Look.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Look, in a "cyber war" you don't fight with DoS attacks, you fight by simply severing the undersea cables. If we were really "attacked" by China this way (which, we won't be, it would end their economy and their leaders seem to be halfway sane unlike that of North Korea) we could simply sever the lines.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you fight by simply severing the undersea cables.

      Is there no other way for traffic to reach the US both across the Pacific?

    2. Re:Look.... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look, in a "cyber war" you don't fight with DoS attacks, you fight by simply severing the undersea cables.

      Well, severing the cables would be expensive. More likely we'd just filter incoming traffic from that address space. If every computer in China today started sending a DoS attack at something in the US or Europe, an IT guy would get beeped and would authorize their automated system to blackhole that traffic at the core routers. Basically, it would just cut off traffic originating in China and the rest of us would go on as usual except there would be some interesting network security articles. Heck, with some of the systems in place, companies with regular traffic to china might not even have their normal traffic disrupted since it had been previously mapped out as normal and white-listed.

    3. Re:Look.... by illiter4te · · Score: 3, Informative

      Look

      at this... under sea map of fiber connections How do you propose the US cut off those connections?

    4. Re:Look.... by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

      Why would China attack? They already own the US why would they break their new toy?

    5. Re:Look.... by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      USS Jimmy Carter is ready and willing.

      Or you could just use the SHUT command on some routers. Either way.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    6. Re:Look.... by evilkasper · · Score: 1

      Its not expensive, didn't you read about all those ships that just dropped anchor in the wrong place... its only expensive to fix, not break. In the case of "cyberwar" I assume we don't care about fixing it.

    7. Re:Look.... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't even need to cut the cables. They have to come out somewhere.. switch the routers off.

      If you can't do that, advertise high priority routes so that all traffic to china gets null routed (they can do the same to you, theoretically, if they get in first).

    8. Re:Look.... by SSCGWLB · · Score: 1

      How is that? Are you trolling or is my 'humor' button stuck?

    9. Re:Look.... by T+Murphy · · Score: 2, Funny

      except there would be some interesting network security articles

      If it is a big enough story to be covered everywhere, the whole internet will be slashdotted. THAT is their true plan.

    10. Re:Look.... by Ashriel · · Score: 1

      Neither - parent is merely using a little hyperbole.

      China owns the vast majority of our foreign debt. Should they decide to take the financial hit themselves, they could just dump that debt onto the market and devalue the dollar. This would, in all likelihood, result in a flurry of worldwide dollar selling, and in a matter of days we here in the U.S. would be burning our currency to keep warm at night, seeing as it wouldn't be useful for much else.

      Of course, they've got their own financial issues, and I doubt they'd do such a thing thing - at least not right now.

    11. Re:Look.... by g-san · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they haven't discovered spoofing.

    12. Re:Look.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, in a "cyber war" you don't fight with DoS attacks, you fight by simply severing the undersea cables.

      +3 interesting? /sheesh the mods here are getting easier to troll everyday

    13. Re:Look.... by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      The same way we usually do. Instruct some "fishermen" to drop their "anchor" in the wrong place.

    14. Re:Look.... by stei7766 · · Score: 1

      Not the vast majority, they're pretty close to japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Foreign_ownership

    15. Re:Look.... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they haven't discovered spoofing.

      You can't spoof which line the packet is coming into the core router on.

    16. Re:Look.... by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of scissors?

  18. Internal Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if they had a botnet army, the botnet is only as smart as the person(s) controlling them.

    That being said, even if China itself didn't use this software as a backdoor into people's systems to install botnet software, a skilled group of hackers can.

    What could they do with it? They could... use it to gather intelligence. China's security software already gathers info, directing a copy of that same information elsewhere should be trivial.

    As far as more nefarious uses? What could they do that we haven't seen before? Hack into the Pentagon? Oh, that's already been done.

    This looks like more of a threat to China's internal security than to the USA's security. They could gather any information they wanted to, including finding dirt to smear political opponents with, or using it to find out what tidbits there are out there.

    Considering that this won't really affect computers outside of China (with the possible exception of exported pre-loaded PCs), the most harm they can do to us is a DDoS attack. The noticeable lack of security within this software is much more of a threat. (memory address copy? OK! I don't even have to decrypt it!)

  19. Don't usually get dupes the same day by DrData99 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Did I miss something or isn't this essentially the same story as this:http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/11/1347219/Chinese-Govt-Spyware-Puts-Computers-At-Risk?art_pos=9

    1. Re:Don't usually get dupes the same day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This story spins the spyware as a DDOS weapon for the Chinese government, the other story does not.

      It's like the difference between these:

      Story 1: There's a mysterious big box in Manhattan.
      Story 2: The big box in Manhattan is a nuke!

      If you think that the nuke part isn't important then the two stories are essentially the same. Most sane people would disagree.

    2. Re:Don't usually get dupes the same day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats funny is if you look at the comments in that article, some one posted "is this china amassing a giant bot net?? and it got score of a 2....
      now there's another story about it...

  20. Isn't that a bit dangerous for China? by ChrisMounce · · Score: 1

    I mean, if this is true, what if the Russians found a way to activate the botnet first?

  21. Stating The Obvious by BigBlueOx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the FA:
    Conceivably, everything from hospitals to electrical power grids could be targets.

    Here's a thought! Make sure hospitals and electrical power grids AREN'T ON THE INTERNET! This is hard? VPNs and darknets are hard??

    Choir, consider yourself preached to.

  22. Typo correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your computer are belong to CHINA!!!!

    There, fixed it for you.

  23. Wrong country in Asia by emocomputerjock · · Score: 1

    I hope everyone's spam filters are up to date, because I'm sure crimeware authors would exploit it first..

  24. Yawn by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

    I think it is bad enough that the Chinese government is forcing people to have censorship software installed on their computers which obviously will have to know what sites they are visiting and probably what else they are doing on their computers without having to engage in idle speculation on what else it can be used for. In any case, the idea that it will be used as a botnet is kind of weird and imho unlikely. You'd think that the Chinese government would have enough computing resources to do what it needs including waging cyberwar without having to resort to something as messy as this. Or it could commandeer an existing botnet, or, being a totalitarian government it could simply make it mandatory to install botnet software, or it could build one in "traditional" way using viruses etc.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:Yawn by cyphercell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "it could build one in "traditional" way using viruses etc."

      yea, it's a huge vector for launching a traditional attack though. It hasn't got to go boom on day one, the attack could begin silently by spreading crap slowly over the course of years.

      Other than that, I'm guessing Chinese Wikipedians are crapping themselves over this news.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  25. So this is a dupe? by Looce · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Chinese Govt Spyware Puts Computers at Risk. It was posted this morning.

    1. Re:So this is a dupe? by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Redundant

      What's ironic is you're going to be modded redundant for that comment! Yes, your comment is a dupe!

  26. Easily identifiable source = easy blocked traffic by nuckfuts · · Score: 5, Informative

    What makes a botnet potentially devastating is that it can create traffic that's indistinguishable from legitimate traffic. When a large enough number of computers from random locations request a page from your webserver, how do you sort the bad requests from the good? It's the slashdot effect on steroids.

    If all the traffic was originating from within a particular country, it would be straightfoward to drop that traffic and let other traffic through.

    It's interesting to note that in the early days, it wasn't possible to determine geographic location based on IP address. Address blocks were originally assigned rather haphazardly. As the number of networks grew, routers had to store larger and larger routing tables. Eventually this led to a push to reorganize address block allocations in a more hierarchical fashion, which ultimately made geolocation possible.

  27. A China based botnet army only threatens China by kawabago · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All we have to do is filter them out at our end of the intercontinental cables and the army can't get in here. The same applies to everyone else so a Chinese botnet army only threatens China.

  28. Or just block their IP space by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only reason botnets are so effective is they are distributed. When they come from all over the place, you have to do a ton of individual blocks. If they are all from the same IP space, ok just black hole China's space and that's it. Wouldn't take a block from very many top level providers and they'd be doing nothing at all.

    1. Re:Or just block their IP space by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree, personally I would worry more about the private key for Windows Update finding its way into the wild. Now that is centralized administrative authority.

    2. Re:Or just block their IP space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now that is centralized administrative authority."
      Wow, possibly the most ominous thing I've heard in a while. Why do companies even let this Windows Update software onto their computers?? It seem like total security suicide.. Ohh, its the Redmond thing.

    3. Re:Or just block their IP space by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they are creating a super duper distributed 'puter to control their very own RowwwBahhht kung-fu warrior.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  29. Not smart by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Massive botnets have already been infiltrated and subverted. So those computers meant to ban pornography, and maybe anti-government web sites could any day be used to send anti-government propaganda with maybe simple commands... not sure how comfortable are chinese with double-edge swords, but this could be a good example.

    Anyway, i would be more worried about the US government botnet construction kit, a.k.a. microsoft windows, that seems to be putting that power to individuals, groups and foreign governments.

  30. while of course this is fud by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    trusting the chinese government at their word is equally foolish. there are no deep nefarious plots and twisty hidden meanings in this piece of censorware most probably. but at the same time, the chinese government is certainly no paragon of virtue that we should trust is motivated by exactly what they say

    not that western nations are any more trustworthy. its just that there is this idiotic notion i often encounter that says "western critics are complaining the chinese have hidden purposes, so since i don't trust western mouthpieces, i'll believe the chinese at their word that they are completely virtuous and innocent in their motivations"

    you know, like iran is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. "that's what they said, that's what i believe. because i won't be a naive idiot for the west. i choose to be a naive idiot for the west's enemies"

    hey, here's a radical idea: how about you trust no one and be a naive idiot for no one? that is: distrust the west, distrust china, and distrust iran, all at the same time

    thunderclap

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:while of course this is fud by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

      um - hate to tell you this, but I think you need a new keyboard. It appears that your shift key is not working...

    2. Re:while of course this is fud by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      His keyboard has never worked. Check the date stamp on the linked comment.

    3. Re:while of course this is fud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trusting the government at their word is equally foolish

      Fixed that for you, you had an extra word in there....

      Did you not read his post? His entire post made that point so you are utterly and thoroughly redundant.

      Besides, "fixed that for you [tee hee]" quit being cute and funny a long, long time ago. It was never very clever, it's rather presumptuous, and it makes you a dick. Why would you do that?

    4. Re:while of course this is fud by Drake42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      TRUST NO ONE!

      DO NOT TRUST THE CHINESE! (But eat their food, wear their clothes, use their electronics)
      DO NOT TRUST THE USA! (But obey their laws, enjoy their movies, work for their money)
      DO NOT TRUST THE IRANIANS (But ignore their democratic progress and ignore their people's work for peace)

      Here's the real answer:
      DO NOT TRUST YOURSELF, because you're an idiot.

      Distrust is for the weak. Optimistic skepticism and honest effort are for the strong.

    5. Re:while of course this is fud by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good advice. I'll trust no one. I don't trust you. Horrible advice. I'll trust everyone.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    6. Re:while of course this is fud by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      Dude, how could you not mention the awesome concept that is the Time Cube?

    7. Re:while of course this is fud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trusting the chinese government at their word is equally foolish. there are no deep nefarious plots and twisty hidden meanings in this piece of censorware most probably. but at the same time, the chinese government is certainly no paragon of virtue that we should trust is motivated by exactly what they say

      not that western nations are any more trustworthy. its just that there is this idiotic notion i often encounter that says "western critics are complaining the chinese have hidden purposes, so since i don't trust western mouthpieces, i'll believe the chinese at their word that they are completely virtuous and innocent in their motivations"

      you know, like iran is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. "that's what they said, that's what i believe. because i won't be a naive idiot for the west. i choose to be a naive idiot for the west's enemies"

      hey, here's a radical idea: how about you trust no one and be a naive idiot for no one? that is: distrust the west, distrust china, and distrust iran, all at the same time

      thunderclap

      Dude, haven't you been making this movie for like.... 5 years now?

    8. Re:while of course this is fud by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm more convinced that circletimessquare intentionally avoids capitalizing words in his comments to bring more attention to the abhorrent misuse of them in his sig/advertisement.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    9. Re:while of course this is fud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a standard procedure for this sort of situation. "Trust but verify"

    10. Re:while of course this is fud by obscuro · · Score: 1

      You don't have to distrust any of these nations to accept the notion that they are acting in the best interest of their country AS THEIR LEADERS VIEW THAT INTEREST. Any dictatorship is likely to do whatever it takes to perpetuate its own power. Sometimes providing economic and social benefits to its people is in the dictatorships best interest.... Sometimes not. Sometimes dealing in a perfectly strait-forward way with other players is in the dictator's best interest.... sometimes not.

      The fact that a state acts in its own best interest and is willing to spy and lie doesn't make it automatically an enemy. It makes it a STATE. Its in the nature of international power to build and deploy weapons, spy on other players and lie when necessary.

      The mistake the US has made continually about China is to presume that the scope of China's self interest is identical to the US scope of self interest, namely, free market economic prosperity and growth. I've actually talked to financiers who think that they have the option of "pulling their capital" if China acts outside of the realm of what we consider reasonable. Like their ownership is somehow independent of the willingness of China to enforce it. What are they going to do. Go into China and take back a bunch of factory equipment?!

      China can close its doors to the world again tomorrow and have tons of raw materials, inventories and productive capacity to keep their society pretty damn comfortable for the next 50 years.

      Bottom line. Is their mandated nanny software a potential weapon? Yes. Can we defend against it by cutting off contact? Yes. Can a day come when its in China's best interest to beat up the US or other nations' internet knowing that the attack can't last forever? Yes.

      Surprise, surprise. China is an independent, autonomous state with weapons and secrets that we need to watch carefully. I would hope that the NSA et al look at all international traffic with an eye toward potential threats. Its part of their job.

      --
      Every rule has more than one consequence.
    11. Re:while of course this is fud by khallow · · Score: 1

      This sounds pretty stupid to me. Especially the idea that "ignoring" Iranian democracy means I am somehow "trusting" Iran. Sure, you need to extend a small degree of trust to someone, if you eat their food or accept their money. But trust is not a bit flag. I can chose to trust enough to eat someone's food without having to give them my wealth or personal information. And as far as Iran goes, there's absolutely no interaction between me and Iran, hence, absolutely no reason to to go through the effort to trust them or for them to trust me.

    12. Re:while of course this is fud by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      He was doing that before he even had a sig. I wonder if they're ever going to finish that movie?

  31. A botnet that lives within one's own borders... by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...would seem to have some serious limitations.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:A botnet that lives within one's own borders... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Unless the entire botnet is just the initial C&C system for a wider array of international botnets.

  32. Re:Easily identifiable source = easy blocked traff by philgross · · Score: 1

    I was going to add the same comment. The point of a botnet is that the computers, being hijacked consumer/corporate pcs, are from all over the world and indistinguishable from random traffic IPs. If you're getting attacked by an all-China botnet, just cut off a well-defined set of addresses and the threat vanishes.

  33. Why worry? by sehlat · · Score: 1

    They still have to get their updates from Microsoft. [long, slow, evil grin]

  34. ASTEROID DEFENSE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could we use this system for zapping asteroids?

  35. all chineese botnet? by bizitch · · Score: 2, Informative

    Assuming that this is true - all the bots would be contained inside China

    If they unleashed the botnet on something outside China

    1) Would it not just crush the internal network(s) inside China?
    2) Would it not just crush the connections to the rest of the world?
    3) Would it not just crush the massive control and filter systems?
    4) Would it not just super easy to identify and quarantine?

    What am I missing here?

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
    1. Re:all chineese botnet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's to stop them from using their botnet to subvert other botnets not in China?

  36. mother of god by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

    Can you say DDoS? Obviously the top priority of the military in all other nations of the world should be learning how to hijack that beast.

    1. Re:mother of god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the least insightful comment of them all.

      +5000 Obvious, the DDoS is the entire point of it. Are you a college kid? Did you just LEARN HOW TO BE A SCRIPT KIDDIE?

  37. No, the typo is yours by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, all your computer belong to someone who wants to harm China. This is more of a threat to China itself, than anyone else.

    From a point of view outside China, this botnet is not distributed. It all shares a few links (possibly saturating them if the botnets gets too crazy), shares netblocks, etc. This botnet isn't capable of doing anything that the Great Firewall operators aren't already able to do.

    From a point of view inside China, the botnet is distributed and its crap looks like it's coming from everywhere.

    All your computer are belong to US.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  38. This is new.. how? by XiaoMing · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember that trigger built into windows 98 that showed a message informing you your computer was being commandeered for the government?

    China is obviously in the dark ages, using additional software for potential commandeering when we just have it built into ours!

  39. To answer the headline... by cylcyl · · Score: 1

    No, they're just creating skynet.

  40. Don't panic! by C_Kode · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't panic, we will be ok! I have Windows Firewall!!!

    1. Re:Don't panic! by FireFly9 · · Score: 1

      There goes the neighborhood!!!!!

  41. Not too far-fetched to me by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I'll believe this. I don't really believe the Chinese government gives a rat's ass about their youth beyond them being more slave labor in a country that doesn't value the lives of their citizens. I also wouldn't put it past them to make their net-nanny software appear to be uninstallable, but that does leave behind a 'bot for them to control. Cut the cables now and isolate them, it seems to be what they want anyways -- to be isolated.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  42. The connection is to slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like the idea but right now Skype to China is barely usable. I wouldn't be worried until the pipe to the US is a lot bigger.

  43. Is it April 1st? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    It would do the same amount of damage as the year 2000 bug.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  44. the truth is by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    that trust is a balance. you can be too distrustful, you can be too trusting, and its hard to get the right mix

    and so i protest that you extrapolated too much from my words to make your point. however i agree with your point and its an important one, so i'm not going to protest too much

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  45. Distributingly brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    qed

  46. just imagine a Folding/SETI@home team by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    just imagine a Folding/SETI@home team they could create with this.
    it would obliterate any other team.

  47. WTF? by Alarindris · · Score: 1

    So is China the new Russia now? I don't understand the fearmongering.

  48. You guys really know what you are talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a "Parent Control" software! It is used to block porn sites and other not-for-kids websites! It won't be installed in the new computer, well it just comes with the installation CD of the computer. And last, almost every computer sold in US has parent control software installed.

    Shame on the reporter! Where are you trying to lead the readers to?

  49. More info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to remember reading an article about this that said that, while the Chinese government was requiring it on new computers, it was an independent company(*) that created the software and maintains the block lists / etc. It also said that there would be a password that parents could use to be able to browse without the software blocking them and to uninstall the software if they chose to.
     
    * of course, this "independent company" was most likely created, funded and run by the Chinese government.

  50. whats awesome is how by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    you can see that world governments aren't composed of mostly well meaning but bumbling fools with bad ideas, but alien overlords hellbent on sneakily taking away your rights just for the hell of it

    equally awesome is how you alone see through the charade, while everyone else is fooled

    zzz

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  51. Uh, unless it is a highly distributed botnet... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    it's useless. China in general is poorly connected to the rest of the world (chokepoints are handy for censorship), and if the botnet is centered in China, then the rest of the world could easily blackhole China. I call bullshit, alarmist rhetoric.

  52. Let's be charitable by wytcld · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Chinese government obviously understands their people better than we do. No other government anywhere, at any time in human history, has directly controlled so many people as the current Chinese government. Success counts for something. Obviously in some basic ways they're brilliant at being a government.

    So let's grant for argument that they're telling the truth: That pornography is among the most dire current threats to the continuity of their control of their population. We need to get funding from our own government to build a massive distributed porn collection, that in times of crisis can be forwarded by every available channel and modality to China. Thus can we destroy them!

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  53. Did Japan already do this? by Kineel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This reminds me of the 60's when there were actually people who believed that all of those little Japanese cars were programmed to fall apart when a signal came from Tokyo. We'd be stuck with no transportation and Japan would finally win the war.

    I'm not saying this couldn't be done with computer software today. But obviously paranoia isn't limited by technology.

    --
    -- Should there be smoke coming out of my CPU?
    1. Re:Did Japan already do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But as it turns out, it was the American cars that were programmed to fall apart and the Japanese ones just about last forever.

  54. Yes, I think so. but I have another question- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the creation of the world's largest botnet army attributable to malice, or stupidity?

  55. I see it the other way around by Maniacal · · Score: 1

    According to the update to the story the software they are using is extremely vulnerable and opens up the host system to attack. Uncle Sam just needs to throw up some sites that exploit the flaw(s) and attract Chinese visitors and they'll have their own botnet, internal to China, courtesy of the Chinese Government.

    --
    MG
  56. Oblig by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Funny

    *sigh* I thought it was the most well known classic blunder not to start a LAN war in Asia!

    *DUCKS*

  57. completely misleading article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is basically like a netnanny program. Plus government programs in China are rarely enforced. This is basically some company getting a shit load of money for free, and some politician being able to brag about how he's protecting the children. In reality it will never be enforced.... biggest reason is if people hate it then they will just buy computers without the OS and install their own copy of windows. Which a lot of people do already... If you expect this to be strictly enforced then I suppose you think everyone uses Red Flag linux already... oh, but wouldn't that be ironic since this is a windows only program, haha..

  58. non-sense..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is the country that has biggest population.........
    anything she does is already the MOST/BIGGEST/LARGEST in any sense of any area......

    let alone computing......
    just all the Chinese breath at the same time.......u can tell the "green" gas as well.....

    that's why westerners can't think of anything or think like any model that China does......
    because they never reach such scale.....

  59. Nope, it's this simple: by mynickslongerthanurs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1, Get 'elected' as high government official at the Industrial and Information Department.
    2, Start your own company (using someone else's name of course) selling filter software (with OpenCV (BSD licensed) binary lib without any proper credit).
    3, Win the contract in the government <sarcasm>public bidding</sarcasm>.
    4, Enjoy mandatory installation across the country.
    5, The one-year free trial expires.
    6, ???
    7, PROFIT!

  60. think global by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and here was I thinking they were just doing it to create an easy way to spy on their own people (or to create the not-so-subtle indication that they could, so you better be good for goodness sake). I'm just not thinking globally enough!

  61. While we worry about the botnet by Cryp2Nite · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the chinese would get a kick out of this paranoia....
    If they weren't so busy overtaking the west on the economic front.

  62. Re:Don't panic! Yes, don't & here is why... ap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Don't panic, we will be ok! I have Windows Firewall!!!" - by C_Kode (102755)
    on Thursday June 11, @04:23PM (#28299531) Homepage

    Yes, you do, but you also have this:

    ----

    HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (&, beyond):

    http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=da9e00ecfeb1ec4065b3c748e4ee4e02&showtopic=2662

    ----

    And, it works...

    APK

    P.S.=> Layered security, above & beyond the std. practices of a software firewall, antivirus, &/or antispyware programs resident + how to make it as easy as it gets (due to the CIS Tool making it so) to have a secured Windows NT-based OS of modern variety, step-by-step... apk

  63. Relax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    relax, pals, these ridiculous bits won't really be used at all

  64. WC3 is under DDoS by Java. by Tei · · Score: 1

    This remind me the daily "attack" from java to the W3C site. Theres like 160.000.000 request for the DTD, from dumb applications. In one case, a site was asking the DTD 100 times for second. Muahahaha...

    Is soo bad, that the W3C has started to give 503 errors to people that ask that document.

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  65. But... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    ...how are they going to put it on every computer on every backwater town home, and check if it works?

    I mean, I bet there is already a tool out there, to put the government software in a sandbox/VM/honeypot, with minimal resources assigned, to circumvent this.
    (It would be just like a Matrix for that thing. Muhahahaaa!)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  66. Oh no...its begun by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    If you couple this with , the 100$pc movement in India....where everyone gets a pc for a cheap price...
    you would have an incredible botnet. 1 billion chinese....let's say half are without money to pay for a computer...
    and half of that again is using a regular old computer without the malware...leaves you with 250million...
    still pretty nice size botnet!

    I wonder how much more we could play with the number to get an estimate..I just started the ball rolling, but I would be interested in a mathematical formula to calculate the approximate value for the botnet based on.....oh no...I am sounding like Charlie from NUMB3RS