US Inadvertently Enabled Chinese Google Hackers

Phrogman writes "In this CNN article by Bruce Schneier, he states that the US Government inadvertently enabled Chinese hackers access to Google's Gmail. The article states 'Google made headlines when it went public with the fact that Chinese hackers had penetrated some of its services, such as Gmail, in a politically motivated attempt at intelligence gathering. The news here isn't that Chinese hackers engage in these activities or that their attempts are technically sophisticated — we knew that already — it's that the US government inadvertently aided the hackers.'" Update: 02/22 20:26 GMT by S : As readers have noted, Schneier said not long after he wrote this article that he no longer thinks this is what happened.

Comments

Ahem.

[Pojut]

http://livingwithanerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TerroristsHateFreedom.gif

That is all.

Re:Open letter to Chinese computer professionals:

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice sentiment, but Capitalism isn't the problem. Crony Capitalism is the problem. The wealthy gamble with the people's money. If they win, they keep all the profits. If they lose, politicians make sure the taxpayer bails them out. This needs to stop.

Re:Booga booga

[TubeSteak]

I don't see how doing what is required to not be put in prison, is "inadvertently aiding" anything.

You're an idiot if you can't understand how government backdoors into our (tele)communication infrastructure is at least as bad as backdoors resulting from coding mistakes.

Hint: Both can be exploited by bad actors, but the government backdoors can also be exploited by anyone authorized to access the system.

Not only that, but even more relevant...

[daveschroeder]

...is the fact that 30-some other companies -- companies without any such lawful surveillance facilities -- were also compromised as part of this Chinese operation, and all accounts indicate it was via 0-day vulnerabilities in IE and JavaScript-enabled PDF documents, not via any mechanism to enable surveillance intercepts.

This was Schneier using the incident as a platform to grind a political axe (probably based on a bogus tip), from which he wisely backed off.

Opinion Section

[rm999]

Every article I have read that explains who committed the hacking, how, and why has been an opinion piece, and ends with "the opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of X". I have no problem with this per se, but we should all take it with a grain of salt; Slashdot should preface it's headline with "Theory:" or "Opinion:".

I prefer my news to be my news, and my conspiracy theories to be my entertainment.

tired, failed argument

[circletimessquare]

the banking system bubbled and bursted a number of times in the 1800s-1920s, because it wasn't regulated. so the government came in and regulated it. it bubbled and bursted again in 2007 because the government was hard at work REMOVING regulations for a decade before that

and then idiots like you come along and go "look, the government is involved, so its all their fault"

the only thing at fault in the government is idiots in the government who think the solution is less government

you WANT heavy government regulation for a healthy functional economy. simple solid fact

Re:tired, failed argument

[PPH]

I find it strange that the business community claims that capitalism thrives in a society with a strong rule of law. Except when those laws apply to themselves, of course.

And I find the claim that the sorts of crimes that business tend to commit are somehow 'less serious' than those of common criminals. "I don't worry about someone approaching me in a dark alley selling unregistered securities", the saying goes. The problem is that, in the long run, its this sort of crime that does the most damage to society as a whole. The individual is less equipped to deal with complex white collar crimes than they are with simple thuggery. If Bernie Madoff had been a stick-up artist, odds are pretty good that he'd have been killed long ago by one of his potential victims. But due to the complexity of things like contract law and financial markets (something our government helped to create) the average person is helpless in the face of these scams. We need a strong regulatory infrastructure to protect us.

Re:Olllddd

[Anonymous Coward]

Backed off? Looks more like he retconned it.

In his original CNN article he stated it as hard fact, omitting any mention of rumour or speculation.

In his revisited article it is suddenly an unconfirmed rumour that he used as a newshook.

If he actually had backed off and said something along the lines of "I thought this, I was wrong" he would have lost a lot less respect in my eyes.