Slashdot Mirror


Google Attackers Identified as Chinese Government

forand writes Researchers, examining the attacks on Google and over 20 other companies in December, have determined 'the source IPs and drop server of the attack correspond to a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof.'"

65 of 651 comments (clear)

  1. World War III - The Cyber War by ATestR · · Score: 5, Funny

    Coming to a planet near you.

    --
    âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    1. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Like 9/11, this was actually organized by the US Government to foster dislike of China to facilitate favorable actions by the US military,

    2. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Cybermilitary, get it right. We're facing an ipv4 shortage, haven't you read peak ipv4?? We must reclaim all of the ipv4 resources that China has been hoarding these years!

    3. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thanks, I hate waiting.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    4. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's time, my friends:

      10 years ago, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as hackers of fortune. If you have a problem with crackers, if no one else can help track them down, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The G-Team.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    5. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks, I hate waiting.

      unlike osama bin laden, saddam hussein, al-qaida and others, we can be pretty confident that the USA CIA has not trained and sponsored the Chinese government.

    6. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course it is. Don't you find it just a LITTLE bit odd that if you convert "don't be evil" to Hexidecimal, move some of the numbers and letters around, and do a few arithmatic operations on some of the numbers, you can get the Hex for "osama bin laden"! Seriously sheeple, wake up!

      It all started years ago with King Henry the 8th and his second wife Anne Bolyn. They had a plan for a new world order under the Church of England (Anglican) but too few of the populace wanted to convert away from Catholicism. Later they started turning Lutheran which kind of pissed him off. So he went back in time and told his ancestors (Like King Richard the Lionheart) to go and Crusade Jerusalem which was and still is one of the worlds religious centers. Using the power of Religion he was able to pull the hood over everyones eyes and secretly worship the Pagan Gods, because that is somehow important, but I'm not sure how, I heard it on Zeitgeist. And then while banging his 5th or 6th wife (evidence isn't sure which) King Henry drafted up a plan to assassinate whatever political leader of the new world had the most power, a hundred years or so later. Using his time machine he was able to get to America and pick off JFK from the Grassy Knoll.

      He has now gone into hiding, using nefarious agents to do his bidding. Rumour has it that it was HE who convinced Ronald Reagan to go into acting, thus ruining the lives of many people across the globe. This severe depression mutated into a heireditory trait, which started the spawn of Emo kids. This is also part of Henry's plan, as he is training the youth of tomorrow to where lots of black clothing and makeup - both male and female, making them more difficult to see as assassins. Secret schematics have discovered that tight pants have been introduced to help reduce the noise created while moving stealthily.

      Up until recently, everything was going according to plan. Little did King Henry expect that computer technology would be such a huge influence on the world of tomorrow. With the free flow of information it was highly likely that someone would stumble across his plans. He sent his emo-assassins after Steve Ballmer, who failed. With this failure he visitted Ballmer at a conference, who was shocked and dismayed. Ballmer was so shaken up that the only word he could say was "Developers". Ballmer rushed on stage to warn everyone about this nefarious plan, but couldn't deliver the message. He was brainwashed shortly after.

      With Microsoft under control King Henry then targetted Google. Employing a new strategy he tried corrupting them by posting links to a Michelle Obama Monkey picture on his blog, forcing them to censor images. When Google went into China, Henry didn't like the idea of Google becoming more powerful then his pawn Microsoft. As such, he hired hackers to infiltrate the Chinese government and then attempt to Hack Google, thus removing any suspicion of an American company attacking Google, as well as forcing Google out of China.

      And here we are in the present day, STILL with the hood pulled over our eyes, because all of the media outlets are controlled by the worlds greatest ruler, King Henry the 8th.

    7. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by BiggoronSword · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if we took all our IPv4 addresses back, It won't make a difference. The Great Firewall of China will just start using NAT.

      --
      interactive hologram, or it didn't happen.
    8. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 5, Funny

      ah, but what about a LAN war? Thats good to go right?

    9. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > the USA CIA has not trained and sponsored the Chinese government.

      We can credit the corporations, the banks, and bonehead economists for this one.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    10. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by natehoy · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I love it when a LAN comes together."

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    11. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by Westech · · Score: 5, Funny

      "ah, but what about a LAN war? Thats good to go right?"

      Sorry, no. In response to the changing technological and political landscape all international conflicts must now be run through battle.net.

    12. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by WoLpH · · Score: 4, Funny

      World War WAN? That might be confusing

    13. Re:World War III - The Cyber War by Stealth+Dave · · Score: 5, Funny

      ah, but what about a LAN war? Thats good to go right?

      You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a LAN war in Asia"!

      - Stealth Dave

      --
      Evil is as eval("does");
  2. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It couldn't be them. China would never do anything wrong.

    That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.

    1. Re:But... by a-zarkon! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am the last person to defend the Chinese government - but I read the article and it is not too clear on how they determined that the source is actually the Chinese government? Is it all based on the fact that the traffic is coming from certain IP addresses or is there (hopefully) more than just that to support the conclusion. Not advocating anyone trying to hack google, but if they did - pwning some unpatched pirated copy of Windows in China to use as a launching point wouldn't exactly be the worst approach to keep the heat from finding whoever was doing it.

    2. Re:But... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It couldn't be them. China would never do anything wrong.

      That... or they'll just blame it on their status as a "developing nation" and that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.

      The original official notification of this from Google's Chief Legal Officer where he mentioned human rights advocates and human rights issues causes this to seem above the average security breach:

      Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

      I can understand how "We can't enforce copyright on software and music when we're busy lifting hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty as a developing nation" works but I can't understand how "We need to arrest and persecute human rights activists because we're a developing nation" works.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:But... by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Funny

      We know because we hacked their servers ... duh.

    4. Re:But... by FlyingBishop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They traced it to Chinese government IPs. Unless China comes out and says they were hacked, and are working with Google to find the nature of the attack, that's pretty ironclad.

    5. Re:But... by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's botnets running on government computers in most countries, China is probably not an exception. I'm not saying they didn't do it, just that IPs are not complete proof.

    6. Re:But... by dave562 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hacking Google does not help China develop its industries.

      Yes it does. At least according to the Wall Street Journal, the compromise goes far beyond a Gmail compromise of a few accounts belong to some human rights activists. Google is claiming that they've suffered an intellectual property loss due to a server compromise. Any time that China steals research from someone else, they've improved their industry without having to invest in the R&D. Beyond Google, the official count is up to 34 companies far that have suffered severe breaches.

      We are in an era where China is being more and more restrictive on foreign companies. China was open when it was beneficial to them. They were open when it brought foreign expertise into their country. They welcomed foreign companies with open arms because they stood to benefit from the knowledge those companies have. Now that the Chinese have the knowledge, they are becoming more nationalistic (as if that were possible). They are heavily favoring national companies. A recently passed government procurement process contained a provision that government agencies must find local suppliers for IT systems and software. The Chinese have stolen enough technical know how from HP and Dell and IBM and Cisco and the rest that they can produce hardware that is good enough for their needs. China is now the largest automobile market on the planet, and they're building cars based on designs and with processes stolen from American and Japanese manufacturing firms. I read a story last year where Ford or GM was suing a Chinese company for selling a car that was more or less based entirely on a design and manufacturing process that was stolen whole sale from (Ford/GM).

      The Chinese are smart. Our year 2010 is the Chinese year 4707. They have an ANCIENT culture. All of the games that people play have been played, observed and pondered in China for A LONG TIME. For the past couple of decades they have been benefiting from American processes and technologies. Americans have benefited from a Chinese willingness to use our processes to provide us with affordable goods. At the same time, they have developed the knowledge to create goods for their own growing "middle class". One of their goals is to increase domestic consumption. As the years continue to go by, more and more of the world's resources are going to be going to China, for the good of the Chinese. There is a reason that the Chinese are playing such an active role in Africa.

    7. Re:But... by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's botnets running on government computers in most countries, China is probably not an exception. I'm not saying they didn't do it, just that IPs are not complete proof.

      Nor does it have to be. China's government is screwed either way. If they claim they are not the attackers, but were working from owned machines, then their "perfection" and "infallibility" are gone. Given the inherent insecurity in authoritarian cocknozzles, that will hurt them where they live.

      OTOH, if they don't cop to being hacked themselves, they have no other defense to being the source of the attacks.

      Either way, they've gotten taken down a notch (and I bet you they are PISSED about it), and I'm betting that our own cocknozzles in DC are hoping they opt for the second approach. Nothing heavy will come from it, but we'll get a few more of their chips in the big game.

  3. Re:can't say i'm surprised by Cornwallis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing.

  4. Finally above ground by mejogid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's hardly a secret that governments conduct cyber-espionage - what seems shocking in this instance is that they have been caught and that a major company, a telecoms giant and the US government have all gone on the offensive. This seems like a pretty dramatic shift, and you have to wonder what China's really done to provoke such a reaction after everyone's spent the last decade quietly appeasing them to try and get a foothold in their markets. It sounds like reading the subject lines of a few Chinese activists' emails is only the tip of the ice berg in this case, it'll be interesting to see what else has yet to be revealed.

  5. Re:Honestly by snowraver1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bad China! BAD! Now give me more cheap, exploitable labor. AWWWE, how can we stay mad at you!

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
  6. Our response is? by zero_out · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what are we going to do about it? By we, I mean we as:

    1. a body of corporations (those 20 or so affected)
    2. a nation
    3. a global community of nations (UN)
    4. a cybercommunity

    What can we do, and what is most likely to happen?

    1. Re:Our response is? by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. a body of corporations (those 20 or so affected)

      Nothing of note. If they pull out publicly, they will continue to work with the Chinese through third parties. Shareholders don't give a damn about human rights or free speech. They just want their money.

      2. a nation

      They've already sold us poisoned toys and drywall. They've been using what amounts to slave labor for decades in order to provide cheap products. As long as the aforementioned shareholders are running things, you're not going to hear about the problems, and the American populace is too apathetic to sacrifice any amount of convenience.

      3. a global community of nations (UN)

      They'll pass some resolutions denouncing interference in the sovereign affairs of other countries. They'll slide in some language about Palestine or Iraq, and it will be vetoed by the US and Israel and maybe a pacific atoll that happens to have a bathroom.

      4. a cybercommunity

      Learn Chinese and troll MSN Spaces?

  7. No, Seriously... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If a foreign government had attacked non-digital assets of any US corporation, you would expect some kind of formal reprisal. Maybe not an airdrop of Marines, but certainly something more than Hilary Clinton threatening to write a stern letter.

    What I have not doped out yet to my own satisfaction is whether the tepid response from Washington is the fault of the current administration, confusion regarding the digital nature of the breach and assets, or a little of both.

    1. Re:No, Seriously... by MakinBacon · · Score: 5, Funny
      There's nothing tepid about sending in Hillary Clinton. In fact, China would probably prefer if we used the marines.

      http://www.theonion.com/content/video/u_s_condemned_for_pre_emptive_use

    2. Re:No, Seriously... by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a foreign government had attacked non-digital assets of any US corporation, you would expect some kind of formal reprisal. Maybe not an airdrop of Marines, but certainly something more than Hilary Clinton threatening to write a stern letter.

      What I have not doped out yet to my own satisfaction is whether the tepid response from Washington is the fault of the current administration, confusion regarding the digital nature of the breach and assets, or a little of both.

      I think it has something to do with Chinese savings now being the foundation of much of the western economy, and the fact that China is a major nuclear power.

      What China realised and the USSR didn't, IMO, is that they could forget the cold war and essentially buy the west with the west's own money.
      /crazy theory

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    3. Re:No, Seriously... by Neoprofin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem with this theory of winning the new cold war simply by buying the opponent is that it doesn't, and can't, lead to any kind of victory. By investing in US debt China has bound themselves in an unholy blood pact to the U.S. economy. We on some level need them to continue pouring money into the economy to pay for poorly thought out foreign policy, they on the other hand need us to continue to prosper or all of their investments become worthless. If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose. The Chinese have already shown their realization of this in their effort to keep interest rates low to prevent inflation from devaluing their assets.

    4. Re:No, Seriously... by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 5, Informative
    5. Re:No, Seriously... by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with this theory of winning the new cold war simply by buying the opponent is that it doesn't, and can't, lead to any kind of victory. By investing in US debt China has bound themselves in an unholy blood pact to the U.S. economy. We on some level need them to continue pouring money into the economy to pay for poorly thought out foreign policy, they on the other hand need us to continue to prosper or all of their investments become worthless. If one side wins both sides win, if one sides loose both sides loose. The Chinese have already shown their realization of this in their effort to keep interest rates low to prevent inflation from devaluing their assets.

      Was that a long winded post for "The US is facilitating a Ponzi scheme, with China being the the bottom rung contributors."?

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    6. Re:No, Seriously... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In circulation, maybe.

      But, they hold the vast majority of the U.S. federal debt obligations. The federal government is reliant on China to finance it's operations because of the massive deficit in the budget. If China were to stop buying the federal debt instruments, interest rates in the U.S. would soar and the value of the dollar would drop.

      If China dumped all the U.S. federal debt instruments it owns on to the open market, it would take a hit in the wallet, but the United States would experience hyperinflation on par with Zimbabwe. The U.S. would be bankrupt and it will take thousands to millions of dollars to buy a cup of coffee.

      It is not the circulating dollars they hold that is the problem. It is all the paper they hold that says we owe them trillions of dollars.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    7. Re:No, Seriously... by rgviza · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't the use of Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi against the Geneva convention? We could get in a lot of trouble.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    8. Re:No, Seriously... by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What did Google and the rest of them expect, they got in to bed with a country that has little to no regard for the privacy of its own citizens, did Google honestly think they would be treated any different? I surely don't feel sorry for them. Google compromised so much in order to "compete in the world economy", and now they are shocked that they got bit?

      The Scorpion and the Turtle.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    9. Re:No, Seriously... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 5, Funny

      it will take thousands to millions of dollars to buy a cup of coffee.

      I see you frequent Starbucks too.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    10. Re:No, Seriously... by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought it was a scorpion and a frog (how does a scorpion sting a turtle in the back?)

    11. Re:No, Seriously... by Halo- · · Score: 3, Informative

      I doubt this had anything with them doing business in China. Google is a big, juicy target. This attack would have happened even if Google had been giving China the finger for a long time. In fact, it would have been more likely, since China was apparently after information of people who disagree with Chinese policies. What's interesting, is that rather than saying: "Yeah, well, we got hacked, what can you do?" Google is actually looking to smack them.

    12. Re:No, Seriously... by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      First of all, you are factually incorrect. China owns a bout a quarter of our nation's foreign debt, which is about a quarter of our nations total debt. That means that they own less than 7% of our national debt.

      Secondly, china selling it's bonds would not lead to hyper-inflation. The only thing that causes that is a rapid increase in the supply of currency. So for that to happen, the treasury would need to make more capital available (such as we saw during the insane bail-outs that have been happening). But, as is now known from the bailouts, even dumping 2 trillion on the market will not cause significant inflation (and China has less than 800 billion).

      What's the difference between Zimbabwe and the US? The problem in Zimbabwe is that the government was trying to overcome an actual shortage in resources by printing currency. Since printing currency in no way counteracted their actual food shortages prices rose endlessly as they printed more money. But, since there are no shortages in actual supply in the US, things didn't happen that way here. Banks were showing huge paper losses, so the government bailed them out to meet investor expectations. Basically, the shortage was only really numbers on paper, and raising those numbers counteracted the shortage.

      Don't get me wrong, there are real problems in the US. But those are problems of expectations, not supply. People expect to be able to retire, but we soon won't have the workforce to let them. So either the government will force younger generations to work harder for less benefit (there are various ways of doing this) or they will let wall-street shrink retirement accounts and scale back social security. Right now it looks like they prefer the former, but I'd say the latter is the safer option. The real danger is that when the government takes these steps (and they will have to) it may cause social unrest.

    13. Re:No, Seriously... by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hyperinflation, though likely in my opinion, is still not inevitable, nor can any foreign power unilaterally cause it; it is caused by massive and accelerating expansion of the money supply, which is completely within the control of the Federal Reserve and hence the federal government. The reason we will likely get it is that it is the politically easier of the only two options available for addressing the massive debt, including off-book future liabilities, of the U.S. government.

      The other option would be for the central government to accept that in order to survive, it must accept an eventual return to rule of law and to Constitutional principles. It must accept a much smaller role in the economy. It must accept that the only way for its share of the pie to grow bigger is to let the pie itself grow, which requires, at least in the short term, getting its hands out of that pie, and allowing the economy to grow bereft of any regulations at the federal level save, at most, those that are necessary to protect basic human rights. It must forever give up its present role of purposely enriching some at the expense of all others. It must forever give up its alleged "right" to manipulate the economy through the Federal Reserve. None of this seems likely to happen on its own, but, like all institutions, governments value their own survival above all else, and as the economy collapses and the prospect of widespread revolt and even civil war looms large, it will adapt (or it will die, and the states will take over).

    14. Re:No, Seriously... by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      he reason we will likely get it is that it is the politically easier of the only two options available for addressing the massive debt, including off-book future liabilities, of the U.S. government.

      Oh, for mod points. This person gets it. Historically, one of the major drivers for government laxity towards inflation (Argentina, Mexico, Pre WWII germany, etc) is that the government owes more in nominal terms than it can fund through taxes. Allow a few years of 10% inflation, and that burden is eased significantly, as tax revenues rise with inflation, while the size of the debt remains the same. We will see 6-10% inflation for 3 to 8 years sometime in the next 15 years, because that is the ONLY way the US government can get out of the financial hole we are in. This will in turn hurt the Chinese, who are holding vast amounts of dollar demoninated debt.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    15. Re:No, Seriously... by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure in the future they might try to call the debt

      This seems to be a common misunderstanding. Holders of treasury bonds cannot "call the debt."

      When China buys US debt, they buy treasury bonds (or one of the half-dozen other names the same basic instrument sells under). A treasury bond is a promise to pay a stated sum of money on a given date.

      So, today I might buy a $100 treasury bond with a maturity of 2040. In 2040 I can turn in that bond for $100 in US dollars (cash or whatever) from the US government. In 2039 it can't be turned in for a dime. Now, in 2039 you could almost certainly sell it to somebody else for very close to $100. The way China makes money is that the $100 bond might have only cost them $20-30 or whatever to buy today. Bonds may also pay interest as well.

      The only thing China can do is stop buying new bonds and cash in their existing ones as they mature. The US never promised to give them money before the maturity date, so they are under no obligation to do so.

  8. SHOCKING by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who didn't see that one coming from a mile away? I called it the moment I read that there was a sophisticated attack on Google.

    Whether its all fabricated or not, I like the idea of Google pulling out of China. Google is one of the leading innovators in the western world - and by keeping their services out of China it sends a message to the government: Stop Oppression.

  9. Write Google by WiiVault · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and tell them how proud you are that they finally took a stance befitting their "do no evil" stance. Better late than never, and they deserve our support for this courageous action. I for one have changed my mind about them significantly based on this single action alone.

    1. Re:Write Google by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful
      People keep saying that, but I don't think they've analyzed the situation very carefully. Google has gone from zero to hundreds of millions of dollars in China in the past four years. That is really good growth. Furthermore, it's not like these attacks against Google hurt their bottom line in any way, they were targeted against dissidents inside China. If Google were really going after money, they could have gone the Yahoo route and given the emails to the government directly.

      It's easy to say that all corporations are faceless entities, but the truth is they are run by people, in this case, a major person running the company is Sergey Brin. He grew up part of his life in the communist USSR, so he has first-hand experience with oppressive governments. It seems he's thought seriously about whether he should do business in China, and you may not agree with their decision, but it doesn't matter what they do, not everyone will agree with it.

      In this case the result has seemed quite good, people in China are taking notice. As soon as the announcement came out, people starting putting flowers on Google's Chinese corporate office. One of the cards pictured:

      The card below was signed in English and Chinese by a group of self described Twitter and Google fans. An English note said "Thank you for holding values over profits!" Another note, in Chinese, reads, "Google, the mountains can't stop our contacts, and we'll get over the wall [a reference to the "Great Firewall"] to find you!"

      It seems some people in China are mocking Google for having 'lost,' so this sentiment doesn't cover everyone, but it has surely had a surprising effect.

      --
      Qxe4
  10. Consequences? by psherma1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the EU can fine a US company for what amounted to unfair business practices, what should the US do to China? Debt? What debt?

  11. Re:can't say i'm surprised by jwinster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This same thing has been said for a long time. The fact is in the majority of companies (Google/Defense industry excepted), is that security is the first area of a company to get hacked to bits. So I don't think it's so much a procedural issue as much as it is a fundamental problem with visibility. The only time security workers get noticed is when something goes wrong, because when nothing bad happens, it just looks to management like they're not doing anything yet taking a good portion of their budget. All that said, you're probably right, nothing will change.

    --
    Q.E.D.
  12. Been complaining about this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Working for a Defense contractor, one of our systems was compromised. Fortunately, the idiot who gained access screwed up SSH which alerted us to what was going on, and prevented them from erasing their tracks. All SSH connections were from computers in China. They've been doing this for years, and no one has really called them on it until now. It takes Google to make a big enough splash before anyone really pays attention to it.

  13. Re:can't say i'm surprised by dnoyeb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What did China do when they found all the bugs the US government put in the plane we sold them?

    Nothing.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/20/news/mn-23796

  14. Re:Really? by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This question is repeated endlessly at almost every major world event, "Does this come as a surprise to anyone?"

    Stop already, its just a useless waste of bits.

  15. In the words of Master from Mad Max: Thunderdome by toejam13 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...embargo on!

  16. Re:next up... by noidentity · · Score: 3, Funny

    next up... google builds self-destructing data-centers that explode and erase all data when the chinese seize them...

    Sorry, I don't think it's likely Google will switch to Microsoft IIS anytime soon.

  17. Unleash the hounds by dave562 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Wall Street Journal had a great article about some of the details behind the scenes of this particular incident, and also another article that did a good job of summarizing what has been discussed here over the last couple of years. The main stream media is openly stating that the People's Liberation Army is actively encouraging "citizen cyber militias" to conduct "cyber attacks" (good Lord how I hate that term) against foreign (read, United States) corporations. Although they haven't gone so far as to state that those militias have active backing of the government, they have said that the government is turning a blind eye to their activities. Furthermore, the WSJ goes on to state that there are United States agencies involved in similar espionage activities.

    Given that background, it seems like hacking Chinese companies should be fair game for up and coming "security researchers" here in the United States. In the 1990s the United States government made it quite clear that they were going to come down hard on people who mess with government and Fortune 500 systems. Given the option between really securing the systems and punishing those who exploit the lack of security, they went with the latter. A lot of people, myself included, decided that once we turned 18 and faced the threat of real Federal prosecution, the wise move was to turn off the war dialers, stop snarfing ESN/MIN pairs out of the air, and stop trying to run exploit code against computers that we don't control.

    We can't hone our craft in the United States anymore. Although there is a whole market for securing IT resources against attack, there isn't a playground to pick up skills in. My suggestion is that China is that playground. My suggestion is that Chinese corporations in the United States are the targets. I mean lets face it, there are hundreds of thousands of compromised computers in the United States. The United States government can't be held accountable for malicious activity directed toward Chinese corporations. It would be unfortunate for those entities to be DDoS'd. It would be unfortunate for their internal workstations to be the target of vulnerability research.

  18. Where is the report? by sydneyfong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't find the link to the actual report in TFA.

    I don't doubt that there's a strong suggestion that the Chinese government was somehow involved in the intrusion attempts mentioned by Google, and generally it isn't Google's habit to lie or deceive in these high profile matters.

    But two days after the Google announcement a report comes out saying "yes it's the Chinese government, yes it's them!"? Without obvious links to the actual report?

    I just sense it's just the "security companies" trying to ride the PR bandwagon. I mean, it's just on everybody's mind, and "somebody had to say it out aloud". So you cobble together related bits and pieces and make a grand pronouncement, making everybody happy. But does it prove anything? Not until we find the evidence. Until then it's all just hearsay.

    Besides, would you really base your conclusions on findings from "VeriSign's iDefense security lab"? From the company who tried to f*ck up NXDOMAIN?

    This is not the end of the story. I suspect more juicy bits will come through.

    --
    Don't quote me on this.
  19. Why would China do this? by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The premise is that China hacked Google to access the accounts of these Chinese Human rights activists. Given that Google already complies with Chinese law, why did China not openly contact Google over this?

    1. Re:Why would China do this? by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Informative

      The premise is that China hacked Google to access the accounts of these Chinese Human rights activists. Given that Google already complies with Chinese law, why did China not openly contact Google over this?

      Because the attack's targets go beyond the authority of their laws: a coordinated effort to target specific human rights advocates not just in China but around the world .

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  20. It says they located the Command and Control box. by motherjoe · · Score: 4, Funny

    In the article it says they located the Command and Control box. I did a little investigation of my own and see what they mean. It's oh so obvious this was perpetrated by the Chinese government. Just look at the facts!

    joe@joe-nix:~$ whois PwnedC&CServer.org
    NOTICE: Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in
    determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry
    registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry
    for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its
    accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree
    that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no
    circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise
    support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass
    unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than
    the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume,
    automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of
    Registry Operator or any ICANN-Accredited Registrar, except as reasonably
    necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All
    rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any
    time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.

    Domain ID:D2289308-LROR
    Domain Name:PwnedC&CServer.org
    Created On:05-Oct-1997 04:00:00 UTC
    Last Updated On:11-Dec-2009 20:14:46 UTC
    Expiration Date:04-Oct-2010 04:00:00 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
    Status:OK
    Registrant ID:Bob@PRC.gov
    Registrant Name:Host Master
    Registrant Organization:People's Republic of China, duh!
    Registrant Street1:Main Street
    Registrant Street2:HQ for Cyber Warface against Capitalistic West
    Registrant Street3:
    Registrant City:Bejing
    Registrant State/Province:
    Registrant Postal Code:
    Registrant Country:CN
    Registrant Phone:+1-800-Yur-Pwnd
    Registrant Phone Ext.:
    Registrant FAX:
    Registrant FAX Ext.:
    Registrant Email:Bob@PRC.gov

    --
    "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin"
  21. Re:Fight China -- the capitalist way! by jgtg32a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They don't have to pull out, but removing "Most Favored Nation" trade status might help.

  22. Re:Overloards by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The government/culture of The People's Republic of China has only been in existence for about 70 years. Before that, it was the nationalistic Republic of China for about 35 years. And before that, it was an hereditary monarchy or thousands of year.

    Maybe you should pick up a history book some time.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  23. Re:can't say i'm surprised by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, the "Christmas Bomber" is in prison right now, being prosecuted, and probably, at the end of the day, going to prison for a large number of years. I doubt the Chinese will help us do the same thing to their "warriors". Or did you just fumble a rather irrelevant (and stupid) slam against the current administration?

    --
    That is all.
  24. Re:can't say i'm surprised by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

    What did China do when they found all the bugs the US government put in the plane we sold them?

    They debugged it?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  25. Re:Overloards by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Western culture goes back to the ancient Greeks, Hebrews, Phoenicians, and even Egyptians. It is extremely likely that Western culture and Chinese culture share a lot of similar roots, and they definitely did a lot of cultural trading throughout the millennia. So clearly you are not referring to culture with your 'few thousand years' statement.

    As for the current government, it's only been around for sixty or so. During that time they killed millions with famine caused specifically by poor government policy (the great leap forward: people were literally eating their own children. It was horrible). Then they killed and tortured millions more, in the temper tantrum of the youth known as the Cultural Revolution. This was once again encouraged and caused by poor government policy.

    Furthermore, I don't think I need to go over all the things the government currently does that violates human rights. Let's just say when the torch came to San Francisco, protesters had to color coordinate so they could keep track of what exactly they were protesting.

    --
    Qxe4
  26. Re:Overloards by CAIMLAS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, China

    The reason China is able to compete is because of a handful factors:

    * Enslavement/enticement of foreign countries to utilize their natural resources (see: Africa)
    * Cheap-as-fuck labor
    * Wanton IP theft
    * A docile populace
    * Totalitarian state able to push all this through to the populace
    * UN complicity towards Chinese abuse of standards which everyone else "has" to abide by. (See: pollution/global warming crap)

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  27. Re:Overloards by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, I was about to make a really rude and sarcastic comment here, but I won't.

    Western culture began in the ancient Mediterranean thousands of years ago. You would find most aspects of modern western culture in ancient Greece, but a lot of it was around even before that. The major elements are government by representative democracy, the rule of law and emphasis on scientific legalism (I don't know what else to call it) in the fields of science and philosophy. Also the belief in the right to personal liberty for land owning males remains intact even today. Your claim that western culture is young is patently absurd.

    You're trying to make a comparison between the age of the USA and the age of eastern culture. That comparison makes no sense.