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.'"

32 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 IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thanks, I hate waiting.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

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

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

    6. 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."
    7. 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.

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

    Nothing.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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 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.
    7. 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!"
    8. 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.

    9. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. Re:But... by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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?

  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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.