Slashdot Mirror


China's 5-Year Cyberwar Met With Western Silence

jfruhlinger writes "McAfee yesterday outlined what it calls Operation Shady RAT, a five-year campaign of cyberespionage launched by a national government against international organizations and private corporations. That government was almost certainly China's, so the question becomes: why are the Western nations silent about it? One fact revealed by the raids is that, predictions of cyberpunk novels nonwithstanding, private companies are still quite weak in the face of national governments — and it's those national governments that must act against such intrusions."

132 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Not so much that they are weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's just not in their interest to fight.

    1. Re:Not so much that they are weak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because no one cares. Nothing of value was lost and no one gives a crap.

      Ohh a cyberwar. What the hell is that? Phishing emails and selling wow gold? And of course all the security companies are trying to sell it as the new cold war to ramp up profits. Until it actually affects us then no one will care.

    2. Re:Not so much that they are weak by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2

      I don't think so. In my experience big corporation have really crappy security and a lot of disgruntled and/or underpaid employees practically begging for someone to offer them cash to screw over the man. So they're poorly equipped to counter any kind of real threat.

      Maybe I've just been working in the wrong places :-/

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    3. Re:Not so much that they are weak by jandersen · · Score: 1

      It's just not in their interest to fight.

      And the difference is?

      To turn this story on its head: I think it is quite encouraging to know that the almighty mega-corporations are not quite as strong as we all thought - the reason being that whereas a business, and especially a big one, is only accoutable to its investors, a government is accountable to its people. This is true even in countries without Western-style democracy; ultimately the power of the state does derive from the people. It is sad how often that is forgotten, not least by politicians and big business.

    4. Re:Not so much that they are weak by gnick · · Score: 2

      Nothing of value was lost and no one gives a crap.

      Right. Not yet, but it will be. And just because there are few published reports or incidents of the "West" retaliating doesn't mean there isn't massive preparation underway. If there isn't, it's due to incompetence. Waiting to show your hand is just a smart play in the game.

      Or am I just paranoid and the "rival"/"co-dependent" governments are just looking for a way to stay friendly and exchange daisies?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:Not so much that they are weak by bberens · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a different view. Megacorps view this stuff the same way they view the rampant theft at retail stores. It's a cost of doing business and it's passed on to competitors. It's only worth fighting to the extend that they can get a competitive advantage over their competitors to improve their margins. Given that the effort required to have a meaningful affect on the "hackers" is quite large and the return on that investment is quite small, it doesn't happen and the cost is just passed on to customers.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    6. Re:Not so much that they are weak by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's a cost of doing business and it's passed on to competitors

      If you could work out how to do that, you'd be rich...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Not so much that they are weak by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      I have a different view. Megacorps view this stuff the same way they view the rampant theft at retail stores. It's a cost of doing business and it's passed on to competitors.

      You can pass losses on to competitors!? In that case, Walmart should open it's door, fire the staff and put up a sign saying "PLEASE DEPOSIT CORRECT PAYMENT INTO BOWL BEFORE LEAVING". This would cut down on labor costs and really stick it to Target when they pass any losses on.

    8. Re:Not so much that they are weak by gmack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or it's due to the fact that China could bankrupt the US by simply refusing to buy any more treasury bonds.

    9. Re:Not so much that they are weak by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      You've been working in the wrong places. While the impact on employee functions is not a good indicsator of corporate security effectiveness, where I work we struggle against many restrictions and much software intended to prevent us from sending sensitive data, even accidentally or via malware etc. Data is inspected repeatedly, I can see, and ultimately anything encrypted in a way they cannot decode is rejected or held pending business justification. Social sites are blocked, including a slew of comment sites (not /. yet), and virus scanning is conducted multiple times a day by different methods.

      The most likely vectors for data loss here are workers with sufficient rights ( a small subset of the total) jacking a USB drive or using a CD/DVD, and swapping data to that, taking their notebook to another location and avoiding the corporate network, tethering their machine to a smartphone/etc., ane maybe pulling the hard drive and mounting it elsewhere. Since we use PGP to encrypt the drives, that poses some problems.

      I'm not sure how you defeat all of those methods. Some users do have legitimate needs for removable media. Going off-network is pretty much impossible for mobile users at the airport, and I VPN into corporate whenever I'm out of office. Pulling the hard drive is the equivalent of stealing the machine, except a user has their PGP key or passcode.

      Here, at least, they take security seriously, and follow through,and we are not small, nor the largest.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    10. Re:Not so much that they are weak by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Because no one cares. Nothing of value was lost and no one gives a crap.

      Maybe. Nobody knows; but Chinese companies have been winning lots of surprising contracts recently. And Chinese people have been dying because their government thought they could build signalling systems just because they had a few new blueprints. Quite a bit may have been lost by some people. On the other hand, maybe the Chinese deserve a bit of development. It's not like they go around killing that many foreigners since Tibet. Even in India they have been pretty restrained (relatively speaking).

      Ohh a cyberwar. What the hell is that?

      Not really relevant to the current case which seems to be Cyber-Espionage or maybe at most Cyber-cold-war. You'll know a cyber warfare when parts of power plants near you start exploding and your nearby dam opens it's flood gates with no warning. Cyber warfare should be clearly defined as people dying in large numbers and/or huge amounts of property damage. I'm not sure there's such a thing as a pure "cyber war" however because I would guess that in most cases conventional forces will get involved pretty quickly. However it's possible (e.g. due to outside constraints and/or limited goals).

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    11. Re:Not so much that they are weak by gnick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that's an economic version of Mutually Assured Destruction. Of course, both sides are trying to get out of that cycle and China is prevailing, but right now China would never go to economic war with the US because there is no winner, only multiple losers. Cyber warfare, however, just gives one side an edge over the other with little repercussions. Sometimes I feel like, here on /., anytime rivalry between the US and China comes up somebody just knee-jerks and feels the insatiable need to bring up the debt regardless of how irrelevant to the discussion.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    12. Re:Not so much that they are weak by josephtd · · Score: 1

      Ah, but what CAN they do? Tightening of security is an obvious step, but if any of these private entities did anything in retaliation, our own government would be out to prosecute them. Pretty sad. US society, hell all Western societies, are really meant to pull all but the super elite down to a common lowest level. Wasn't always this way, but we must think of the children.

    13. Re:Not so much that they are weak by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      You've been working in the wrong places.

      Hah, well at least I'm still moderately gruntled :-)

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    14. Re:Not so much that they are weak by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 2

      Sometimes I feel like, here on /., anytime rivalry between the US and China comes up somebody just knee-jerks and feels the insatiable need to bring up the debt regardless of how irrelevant to the discussion.

      Except if you're looking for motives to tip-toe around China, the U.S. debt is a big one.

    15. Re:Not so much that they are weak by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

      I think there's another potential actor to consider: large scale organized crime. Investment houses routinely profit off of talking up and down stocks in ethically questionable ways. Small scale organized crime may manipulate a company with a few threats to employees or infrastructure. What if the two combine and the threat of copying/corrupting key corporate databases become a vulnerable spot by which megacorps can be manipulated by criminals safely sitting in a sanctuary country but using the same general tactics as a shakedown of a corner store?

    16. Re:Not so much that they are weak by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Informative

      To quote a line from one of my favorite old movies 'ya know how they do this? Its because they fucking steal, they steal every idea that ain't nailed down" and in the end that is what most of this "cyber" bullshit is about, it is another classic case of sticking "On The Internet" to something that every single government has done for ages. let me give a few examples.

      My grandfather used to be posted on one of the USAF bases on the edge of West German territory and he used to laugh about how "If the Russians ever wanted to attack all they'd have to do is use a single plane with a bomb". why was that? because the guys had standing orders don't shoot if its a single plane because it was common knowledge we were offering a "bounty" on any Soviet aircraft that a defector could snatch so whenever a new model would come out, sure enough some pilot would take his and fly it straight to us. Sure the Russians bitched, sometimes we gave it back (after "inspecting' it of course) sometimes we didn't, but this let us know EXACTLY what they were up to behind the curtain.

      On the flip side the Russians paid good money to the Chinese for the USA Sidewinder missile. Apparently when they first came out we gave some to Taiwan who were getting their F86s stomped by the faster MiGs. One actually stuck in a plane but didn't go off and they managed to land it. According to Wiki after the wall fell they called that sidewinder "A university course in modern missile design" and the version they cooked up was so damned much a copy of ours you could interchange parts and the missile worked. but that is no surprise as they copied the B29 after we refused to give it to them on lend lease but had to set three down there after bombing runs over Japan. Again this gave the Soviets a BIG boost to their bomber design.

      Then you have the Israelis and the Mirage which they stole the plans to after the French hit them with an embargo to make the Nesher. And finally speaking of China they paid dirt farmers in Kosovo to go dig up the remains of our downed F117 which crashed there in the 90s so they could steal stealth technology, which they are using for their new stealth fighter.

      So while you will get a few like Israel and Stuxnet most of this stuff is gonna end up about theft, pure and simple. If you can steal your potential adversaries (or even allies, there have been cases of Israel snatching tech that the USA didn't sell) technology not only does that give you an idea of what to expect but depending on your own tech can give you a BIG boost without the R&D costs. Hell it has been going on for ages. I'm sure we are currently setting up some "cyber command and control" that will look good for the press, but it isn't like the CIA and NSA haven't been doing the same shit for years and years, they just don't go blabbing about it. But if someone in the BRIC comes up with some whiz bang new military tech you can bet your last dollar if they won't sell it to us we WILL have it, one way or another, and they'll do the same to us. that is just how the game is played.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    17. Re:Not so much that they are weak by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      China owns a small percent of us bonds. More are owned by our TRUE allies such as Japan, the UK, etc.

    18. Re:Not so much that they are weak by stefanPryor · · Score: 2

      Currently china's holdings of usa treasury debt ($1.16 trillion ---> http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt).

      USA cash deficits (issuance of new debt) [approximate to 1/10 $trillion)

      fy 2008 $0.5 trillion
      fy 2009 $1.4 trillion
      fy 2010 $1.2 trillion
      fy 2011 $1.6 trillion (projected)

      While china does hold a lot of USA treasury debt, they are hardly the only buyer. As of late the USA treasury has been issuing more new debt in one year than china's entire holdings of said debt.

      I don't believe the claim "china could bankrupt the US" is strictly factual. As we continue to issue more debt, the impact of any hypothetical liquidation of USA treasury debt by china, would become more and more muted.

    19. Re:Not so much that they are weak by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they refuse to buy more I'm sure someone else will.

      In order to a entice sufficient "someone else" to buy the Treasury bonds we'd have to raise interest rates -- unless the bonds are being purchased for non-investment reasons. The Federal Reserve is buying the bonds to artificially lower the interest rates on the bonds: the major side effect of this action is inflation.(1)

      Or we could just default on the ones they are holding.

      If we default on the ones we're holding (yeah! debt free!) then no-one in the future will buy more bonds for fear that we'll default on their holdings -- we're now an incredible credit risk. If we eventually do con people into buying our bonds again, they'll want exorbitant interest rates: just like if you walk away from your house, you'll be charge a significantly higher interest rate on your next house.

      Either of your solutions means that the United States stops borrowing. While that is a good long term fix, we're currently too addicted to spending to quit cold turkey.

      (1) We do have ourselves in an interesting predicament where we have both deflation going on in durable goods (cars, appliances, houses) and inflation on the consumable level (e.g., food). This shows that (a) the fundamentals are bad for the currency, and (b) consumer confidence low enough that people don't want to make major purchases. What they're forced to buy (food) is going up in price; what they can avoid buying (durables) they are.

    20. Re:Not so much that they are weak by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Or it's due to the fact that China could bankrupt the US by simply refusing to buy any more treasury bonds.

      Please. Ok China already owns a huge amount (roughly 30% last I heard) of T bonds. Ever hear the saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket"? If those bastards in congress did not find a way to increase the debt ceiling our precious triple A credit rating would have dropped significantly and the value of those treasury bonds would have went with it. China has emough trouble with their own economy growing too fast so they don't need additional problems from us. But that's just what will happen. Yesterday the Dow Jones Industrials dropped 1% and Nasdaq was down bout 2%. The markets are concerned about job growth among other things. The Euro zone is not doing much better. Greece has been bailed out once and will probably have to have a second bailout before they are out of hot water. Ireland, Portugal and Spainare also having trouble and may need to be bailed out as well. All of these things and more combine for very unsteady world markets and devalued currency. Allthough China has a stronger economy than most of the western world they too will be in trouble if their investments are devalued. None of this has to do with their brazen penetration of our networks and secrets stolen. I threw all of that out there simply to illustrate your ignorance and to show that China too has problems she must overcome.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    21. Re:Not so much that they are weak by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 2

      Actually, China buys our bonds to keep the dollar strong. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/mar/30/us-economy-china-debt. That would bankrupt a lot of people who depend on "free trade" with China to maintain their wealth and their profits.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    22. Re:Not so much that they are weak by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      anything encrypted in a way they cannot decode is rejected or held pending business justification

      Most of the rest sounds great (at least from the point of view of being secure), but I bet that this means you send most of email unencrypted. Hmm.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    23. Re:Not so much that they are weak by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Not if it contains certain recognizable data, it gets returned. Without spilling the beanZ, stuff like account numbers, etc are blocked, even if they are inside encrypted files. This often results in innocent email getting returned to me cause something looks suspicious. Even images containing this data are being caught. These guys are fairly good.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    24. Re:Not so much that they are weak by gtall · · Score: 1

      Like Wow, man! The 60's called and want you to come back home. The government itching to take over companies? How do you explain them giving back GM, Chrysler, etc. Or letting the large banks largely free? The only banks they take over are the ones scheduled for liquidation because they've screwed the pooch.

    25. Re:Not so much that they are weak by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      If those bastards in congress did not find a way to increase the debt ceiling our precious triple A credit rating would have dropped significantly and the value of those treasury bonds would have went with it.

      Not really. Not raising the debt ceiling would be tantamount to "daddy taking away the credit card" and is not the same as "not paying on what you currently owe on the credit card." The U.S. currently takes in roughly $200 billion a month (and spends between $300 and $400 billion a month). As long as the current bond holders are paid, the credit rating would not have been threatened.

      What is a threat to the "precious triple A credit rating" is the perceived ability to repay that debt. Raising the debt limit without slowing the growth of debt is a direct threat to being able to repay the debt -- a direct threat to that precious AAA rating.

    26. Re:Not so much that they are weak by dgower2 · · Score: 1

      I bet you'd still get your ass whooped, AC! Muhahaha

      --

      Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

    27. Re:Not so much that they are weak by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

      You mean like viral packages being inserted into the world wide internet so that they could seek and destroy uranium enriching centrifuges? The real world applications of a "cyber-war" are very very serious, and if you don't know that, HERE on this website, well then we are all fucked. Please, oh god please, tell me you don't run any infrastructure?

      Your kiddy land concepts of so called "cyber-war" (the name is awful) are antiquated and foolhardy. In the last 6 months, we've seen dozens of individual cases of "hacking" affecting the real world. We've seen the release of secret documents, the uncovering of conspiracies, and the widespread disruption of commerce. That's just the tip of the iceberg, and the people here should know that. This storm is just getting started.

    28. Re:Not so much that they are weak by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Not really. Not raising the debt ceiling would be tantamount to "daddy taking away the credit card" and is not the same as "not paying on what you currently owe on the credit card." Yes but if Moody's lowers the rating (which they may yet do) it will impact our ability to borrow money and eventually we will have to make severe cuts to balance the budget. So in a way we are just buying time until the inevitable or till someone comes up with a good idea (like stopping corporate welfare and raising taxes for the rich).

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    29. Re:Not so much that they are weak by tloh · · Score: 2

      Forgive me for being unimpressed, but this argument has been carried out to the point of absurdity. From the article itself:

      The U.S. could protest cyberattacks by sending a couple of aircraft-carrier groups to the China Sea for a little gunboat diplomacy, but it would be pretty embarrassing if China were to just repossess the whole fleet as partial repayment of the $1.2 trillion the U.S. owes it.

      We'd end up having to pay off the whole debt just to get the boats back—plus whatever huge fee there would be for the towing and daily storage fee at the aircraft-carrier impound lot, and that's a lot of money to spend for bit of saber-rattling that would be futile in the real world and irrelevant in the virtual one.

      Seriously? Take on a nuclear carrier group with a repo team? This kind of crap is even worse than the most egregious trolling by some of the loud-mouthed idiots found on slashdot. Please put some thought into a reasonable argument.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    30. Re:Not so much that they are weak by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "And just because there are few published reports or incidents of the "West" retaliating doesn't mean there isn't massive preparation underway. If there isn't, it's due to incompetence. Waiting to show your hand is just a smart play in the game."

      For five years? Seems to be 100% incompetence and lack of will.

    31. Re:Not so much that they are weak by mbkennel · · Score: 2

      They wouldn't bankrupt they U.S., they would make interest rates go up.

      However, China couldn't maintain the peg of their currency with the dollar if they stopped buying bonds, and that peg keeps the business in their factories.

      Remember, China buying all these bonds is a policy that China instituted for the benefit of China and against the long-term interests of the USA.

    32. Re:Not so much that they are weak by Courageous · · Score: 2

      Remember, China buying all these bonds is a policy that China instituted for the benefit of China and against the long-term interests of the USA.

      U.S. "Hey, we need to borrow some money."
      China: "Okay"
      U.S. "Bad, China, bad!".

      You do know how stupid this sounds, right?

      C//

    33. Re:Not so much that they are weak by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      Yes but if Moody's lowers the rating (which they may yet do) it will impact our ability to borrow money and eventually we will have to make severe cuts to balance the budget. So in a way we are just buying time until the inevitable or till someone comes up with a good idea (like stopping corporate welfare and raising taxes for the rich).

      If your goal is to raise taxes -- go for it. But frankly, that's a short sighted and stupid goal. At this point the goal should be to increase tax revenue. There's a major difference between the two. Assume for argument sake that you raise the tax rate to 100% on anything a couple earns over $250K. How much extra revenue would you generate? Given the change in behavior, you'd raise pretty close to 0 -- and the economy would tank.

      So the goal should not be to raise taxes, but to raise tax revenue (which may include increased taxes, but you have to account for the change in behavior that offsets your increased taxes). When some genius decided to raise the taxes on yachts the result was the death of the American yacht industry as it all moved overseas.

      Given the increase in spending over the last several years, doing actual cuts to spending -- not just cuts in projected growth -- is going to be required to bring the budget in line.

    34. Re:Not so much that they are weak by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      I completely agree that you need to raise revenue in order to find our way out of this fiscal jam we created. Congress is the problem here. They can't even scratch their collective asses without engaging in some bullshit partisan battle. The congress hasn't represented the people for quite some time now and until they do the only way I see out of this is to earn revenue through taxation of those that have the money (big corporations and people with million dollar incomes). In reality that probably won't happen either as these people have power and better representation than middle income folks such as my self. So until the president bitchslaps each and every one of them (not likely either) we're just going to have a whole lot of finger pointing on both sides of the aisle and no progress on the issue (or in other words, more of the same).

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  2. Not just weak to national governments by spudthepotatofreak · · Score: 1

    Given the recent anonymous/lulzsec/anti-sec hacking/ddos campaigns, I think it's become pretty obvious that it doesn't take a lot of man-power or resources to cause chaos. If companies and governments can't defend against a small group of teenage hackers they certainly don't have any chance of stopping a government with an army of hackers.

    1. Re:Not just weak to national governments by LastGunslinger · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Companies and governments can't defend" - Companies, perhaps. Governments, not so much. http://xkcd.com/932/

    2. Re:Not just weak to national governments by alexborges · · Score: 1

      They sure as hell should have the capability to strike back. They don't. That is lame.

      --
      NO SIG
  3. McAfee Has A History... by vajrabum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're like fire extinguisher salesman who rave about the dangers of fire. They sell FUD. There's I'm sure some truth to this, but let's not accept whole the idea that what's good for McAfee is good for the nation.

    1. Re:McAfee Has A History... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Well... Nobody knows who's behind this. The Chinese government might be our best bet, but I don't expect all western countries to shout at them over a wild suspicion.

    2. Re:McAfee Has A History... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for McAfee's research. However, I can speak with professional authority that their products have caused me more problems then they solved. Now we can talk about the pitfalls of any AV solution, but McAfee rolls out by far the biggest steaming pile of shit to grace my workstations and servers. Screw them, and screw anyone else that peddles their shit on to me.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:McAfee Has A History... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      The list of suspects that could pull this kind of operations is pretty small: US, Russia, China and maybe Israel and of those China and Russia are the most credible. But I don't expect anyone to make a fuss even if it was known. At that level, that's all hush-hush diplomacy.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    4. Re:McAfee Has A History... by timeOday · · Score: 1
      While we're bashing, did anybody else find the itworld story horribly written? Check out this paragraph:

      The chief executive of the International Cyber Security Protection Alliance (ICSPA) - sort of a law-enforcement version of NATO charged with helping member countries track and fight online attacks - said the McAfee report makes the threat of cyberwarfare irrefutable, apparently to those few people computer-savvy enough to spell "Internet" correctly without knowing that connecting "Internet" and "security" makes a cliched oxymoron more popular and more accurate even than pairing "military" and "intelligence."

      Huh? It's like he set out to say something and got lost halfway through.

    5. Re:McAfee Has A History... by mlts · · Score: 1

      It depends on their product. I've used McAfee on AIX, Linux, and Solaris for a long while, and it has been very well behaved.

      The reason I've had to put it on these platforms is not that the Solaris cluster running the Oracle transactions is going to get nailed by a virus, but to make the bean counters happy. A lot of business contracts have stipulations requiring machines to have antivirus software on them, and checking this box off can mean a successful deal or a no go.

      As for McAfee on Windows, the latest iterations seem to be a lot better than the past, even on backlevel hardware. I rather use Forefront (hell, most businesses license it in their large bundles) because Microsoft's AV is decent and easy to manage/pull reports on.

    6. Re:McAfee Has A History... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      1. Locks on doors cause more problems for users than they solve, if they are not implemented well. But you need locks on some doors, or everything on the other side is gone in 60 seconds.

      2. Today it's McAfee. Tomorrow Symantec. Trend Micro. Sophos. They all are awful to someone. Why on earth do you stick with them? Oh, because there are no clearly better alternatives? Actually, I feel your pain, I used to do that also. There is no solution. This stuff is complex and will never be excellent.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re:McAfee Has A History... by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      So, I'm just wondering, wouldn't adverse encounters with advanced persistent threats be systemically highly classified to protect any notional countermeasures or responses? And, then, wouldn't any intentional public disclosures be, therefore, very highly sanitized, and focused to achieve some specific aim, such as policy or budget justification, perhaps even some subtle diplomatic effect? I wouldn't dream of speculating that governments are always ingenious, but, reality can be complex, and when events are viewed selectively through a soda straw, incomplete or distorted perceptions are possible.

    8. Re:McAfee Has A History... by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Are we sure it was all done by just one organization?

    9. Re:McAfee Has A History... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      " There's I'm sure some truth to this, but let's not accept whole the idea that what's good for McAfee is good for the nation." Why must there necessarily be truth to this? Our govenment could have asked them to make this announcement? Why? * Help justify our own future initiatives whatever they may be. * To politically get the SE Asian nations to look less favourably on China and turn to the US instead. * To heighten security awareness. Of course McA would play along- it is publicity. (unlikely to lie without gov't backup as I'm sure the feds would ask for evidence). I'm not saying there is some conspiracy theory/hoax here- I suspect chances are low. BUT there is plausible motivation for the government to ask McA to do this without it actually being true. Dangerous to assume everything you read is true.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    10. Re:McAfee Has A History... by jojoba_oil · · Score: 2

      Well, from my understanding of "Operation Shady RAT", they found out which organizations/gov'ts were targeted by taking over/siezing one of the info-collection and zombie-controlling computers. Much of the speculation that it was China is based on the fact that the hackings targeted the US, Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea, etc...

      For all we know, it could be North Korea or the US doing it. The fact that the controlling computer indicates only those targets could be a frame in case they get caught. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more control computers targeting other sets of countries and organizations. I also wouldn't be surprised if China really is behind it.

  4. Big = Safe! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    LulzSec / Variants copy some email addresses - GET TEH TERRORISTS!!!

    China wages a 5 year espionage capaign against multiple targets:

    ((Crickets))

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:Big = Safe! by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Ok, first, since when did the "we speculate that the Chinese government might have been involved" become "its almost definitely the Chinese"? Yeah, sure, it's likely China, but do we really have any evidence at this point? Hell, for all we know it could be our own governments (that'd certainly explain the silence).

      And secondly, if it is the Chinese, chances are the US government has its own program that they've been pursuing for quite some time, and calling out China for its actions would, if they call us out in return, simply make us look like hypocrites. For those who think we don't have a cyberwarfare program in secret, look no further than Stuxnet. It was so well created, it was almost by sheer luck that it was even noticed at all (beyond simply as a generic malware). Sure, the Israelis were likely behind it in part, but I'd wager a fair amount of money the US was heavily involved. Could be our cyber warfare program is just good enough that no one has even noticed it. Well, that and it hacks Chinese companies, who are hardly going to report it to Western news services.

      Oh, and since when did it become the national governments job to defend against cyber warfare threats? Isn't that kind of dangerous, in the "the government now controls the Internet" sort of way? I, for one, do not want the government taking up that job. That way leads to a closed-gate Internet with government regulation at every level. Freedom that is not.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Big = Safe! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I am still looking for any evidence that it is even likely China. Some attacks come from hosts in China, is that all we have about it ? China != Chinese government. While it is a plausible theory, I would like to see if any evidence gives it any merit.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:Big = Safe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      USA wages 60 year espionage and social engineering campaign against basically all nations on the planet:

      ((silenced gunshots))

      (Person in black suit and sunglasses:) Thereâ(TM)s nothing to see here. Move along.

  5. See, it wasn't me! by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

    Honest, boss, I wasn't on goat.sx it was a one-armed Chinese man with an eye-patch!

    Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, gang.

    --
    Who did what now?
  6. Re:Easy: follow the money... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2

    Eh? The majority of the US debt (~68%) is owned by he US. Next troll please.

  7. I would think the answer is obvious... by imperious_rex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because, financially, China has the West (especially the US) by the balls and everybody knows it. "If you're unhappy about our alleged cyberespionage, then you'll be even more unhappy when we buy fewer bonds or make fewer investments in your country."

    1. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by TimeOut42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, sheesh, the West's combine economic output drawfs China's. They are, without a doubt, large, but they are not the largest economy in the world; they have the third largest, even then they aren't close. By most standards the US or EU GDP is nearly 3 times as high as China's. If China were to move forward and start paying their workers better they would move even further back. They can only sustain their growth as it is now by repressing their population and keeping them isolated. In this age that possibility is quickly eroding.

      Quit watching the news and do some real research.

    2. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Or, it's just possible that we've known about this all along, and security concerns prevent us from discussing it openly.

      In this case, the security concerns might be preventing the Chinese (or whomever) from knowing just how much we know. Think of Coventry in cyberspace....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Because, financially, China has the West (especially the US) by the balls and everybody knows it. "If you're unhappy about our alleged cyberespionage, then you'll be even more unhappy when we buy fewer bonds or make fewer investments in your country."

      You don't kill your cows because the people stop buying milk. If they did that, and somehow managed to make our economy collapse (or at least fall further into recession) they would land a major blow to their own economy as well. Where do you thing the burgeoning middle class in China is coming from? It is being funded by us, through our buying of Chinese manufactured goods. China does not have another market as large as the US. They are hoping to eventually have a large enough internal consumer base for their own goods but, while it is still growing, we are funding it. If we stop buying, they stop growing and they stop making. They are so reliant on us right now for their growth that, if they try and kill us, we will drag them down with us.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But we want China to buy fewer bonds. China buying bonds is what keeps their currency artificially low and therefore makes their exports cheaper than they otherwise would've been. The US government has been after China to change that policy for years.

      Incidently that would also raise the living standards of the Chinese by increasing the value of their money, but Chinese corporations oppose it, because it helps them sell more and make more profit. In other words governments everywhere in the world serve the interests of the wealthy and the powerful.

    5. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      No they don't. What China has are a bunch of "promises" that they'll get money in the future. If China tries to bring down the US, the US will default on everything to China and really screw up both economies.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    6. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by Biff+Stu · · Score: 1

      I agree with your premise that China would hurt itself as much as it hurts us if they try to screw with their T-bond holdings. A default would be extreme. If the Chinese wanted to "teach us a lesson" they could dump a bunch of treasuries on the market. This would cause bond prices to go down, interest rates to go up, and if they dumped enough bonds, the dollar would also drop. In order for them to really make a painful impact, they would need to sell a lot of bonds into a market that's already depressed by previous sales, causing them to loose a lot of money. Furthermore, they wouldn't benefit from the higher interest rates since they wouldn't be holding near as many T-bonds. Finally, their economy is driven by cheap exports. If the dollar tanks, their economy goes down the tubes.

      The only scenario where we come close to a default is armed conflict. In that case, we would probably pay interest into an escrow account in order to provide leverage for eventual peace negotiations and secure our credit rating.

    7. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by tokul · · Score: 1

      Because, financially, China has the West (especially the US) by the balls

      Works both ways. US has China by the balls too. If dollar has zero value, then Chinese have lots of zeros.

    8. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by BZ · · Score: 1

      I think you have the tail and the dog confused here on the bond-buying issue. China buying fewer US bonds is something the US has been asking for for years. It's also known as allowing the yuan to appreciate against the dollar.

      This would be a very good thing for the US economy in general, I suspect.

    9. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Separate the two and the West's GDP would probably fall by 2/3. China's would fall too, but they are used to low wages and a lot worse. The West has more to lose.

    10. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by nomadic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More importantly from our perspective, their economic health depends on ours. China needs us to import their goods or their economy grinds to a halt.

    11. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Not only that, China buys U.S. Treasuries to prop up the dollar. If the dollar drops, then the U.S. cannot afford as many Chinese goods. Also, they've pegged their currency to the dollar. They then have to distort their own economy by driving down their own currency if the dollar drops and suddenly the newly minted rich Chinese have one less reason to respect a corrupt and dysfunctional political system.

    12. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      This report is stating that some of China's growth is in fact fake. Interesting read.

      http://consumerist.com/2011/07/chinas-hypergrowth-fueled-by-building-giant-cities-no-one-lives-in.html

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    13. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by swb · · Score: 1

      The way a lot of modern construction is done in the west, there's lots of reasons to not build cities no one lives in yet, but I wonder if there's any percentage in building "spare" cities like this for some undefined future use.

      The living and commercial spaces are priced high enough that the space is nearly empty, but a few people/entities are given cut-rate access to keep it minimally occupied to keep key systems working (water? power?) and maintained.

      At some point in the future (10 years? 20?) when the capacity is needed due to expansion/disaster/growth, you have cities ready to be occupied completely by millions without having to actually build them at a higher cost.

      It sounds crazy, and probably is, because I'd imagine that the slow rot that occurs with most structures is worse when they are unoccupied, but somehow in a planned command economy it seems like there's some angle here beyond just propping up the economy, speculation or corrupt local officials.

    14. Re:I would think the answer is obvious... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      China has severe social problems that aren't being addressed and are being papered over by economic growth. If they stop economic growth the entire nation is likely to self destruct, possibly even into civil war. They buy American bonds precisely to keep the dollar elevated against the Yuan, they stop buying and the Yuan goes up and unemployment goes up and the social structure self destructs. They have claimed numerous times to stop buying bonds and have been shown to be buying through shell corporations in the UK. Actual holdings by China are nearly impossible to determine for this reason.

  8. Governments are acting, just ineffectively. by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

    National governments send in non-technical spokespeople from their security agencies to talk to company IT departments, giving general ominous warnings along with cryptic and non-specific hints ... essentially the same things you would see on the evening news. Then the IT people go back to their desks and see that in the elapsed hour a new batch of tickets has arrived about failed servers, a meeting invite to discss the state of an overdue project and a voicemail from a manager suggesting a better shade of orange for the spreadsheets to be coded in.

  9. Why would retaliation be public by wintercolby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Come on now. IF the West has been secretly attacked, why would it/we launch a PUBLIC attack in retaliation. I'd be inclined to believe that there are constant "cyber attacks" in both directions. I'd say you'd be a fool not to believe that there is retaliation of some sort, after stuxnet.

    --
    Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:Why would retaliation be public by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      As long as the West thinks they have the upper hand in cyber skills, it's kind of like the cat letting the mouse run around in the kitchen: study his moves - learn from what he's showing you he can do, and why kill him? He's not really eating that much, yet. Presumably, as long as the losses are trivial, policy will continue to be to study the attacks and develop counters, rather than crying foul and threatening open retaliation.

      And, if the mice have a few of generations of children, that's hundreds of tasty snacks in the future...

    2. Re:Why would retaliation be public by swan5566 · · Score: 2

      Yeah. No offense to the Slashdot community, but a lot of the thinking and philosophies of government intelligence (i.e. NOT having things open and freely disseminated) might seem a little bit foreign. Just because we don't have 20 links posted already to what the West doing about this, doesn't mean they aren't doing something about it.

      --
      In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
  10. so if someone in the US where to hack china what w by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    so if someone in the US where to hack china what will happen?
    Or is the west saying it's a free for all?

  11. No chance. by marto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobody will start a fight with China, at least while they manufacture Apple products, how would the west cope without iPads etc?

  12. Re:Easy: follow the money... by TimeOut42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Same misconception that people had in the 70's and 80's about Japan buying up America. Do some research before your spout off stats feed to you by the media.

    US and Individuals own: 42.2%
    Social Security Trust Fund: 17.9%
    All other foreign nations: 11.6%
    China: 7.5%
    US Civil Service Retirement Fund: 6.4%
    UK: 3.4%
    US Military Retirement Fund: 2.1%
    Oil Exporters:1.6%
    Brazil(?): 1.3%

    So, that means 68.6% if our debt is held by ourselves.
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/246958-guess-who-owns-the-most-u-s-debt-not-china

  13. Different forms of retaliation by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Retaliation doesn't even have to be in the form of a cyber attack. You can have the embassy in Beijing send over a note saying basically "hey, we know you're doing this, you need to stop." It can take the form of a little extra military aid to Taiwan, or encouraging some companies to switch to Taiwanese suppliers for the next contract. Maybe we just have a few extra ships stop by Taiwan for liberty, or have a large exercise in the area. Maybe a few extra flights right outside Chinese territory. Remember, in the international arena, you don't always respond tit for tat, or even immediately. Retaliation can come weeks or months later, and it can be in a form dissimilar from the original injury. So, just because we aren't talking publicly, doesn't mean we aren't responding, and they don't know we are responding.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Different forms of retaliation by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Even so, why NOW of all times? This has allegedly been going on for five years. Many big-name companies have been hacked, no doubt including Sony. Why hide it and now suddenly decide to announce it?

      Are they prepping us for some big announcement or trying to get any particular legislation passed? Reminds me of the timely news of Bin Laden's death, just a couple of days before the Patriot Act extension was to be signed. Tinfoil hat, therefore all arguments are irrelevant..

      The government has made no such announcement. McAfee has. But I would assume that the government has known and keeps track of any systematic attack. Just like any counterespionage case, once you detect something, if it's not a vitally pressing issue that could cause major damage, you let it go. You watch it, track it, see if it leads you anywhere; either back to the source, or possibly alert you of other clandestine operations. If an operation has been compromised, the last thing you want to do is let the opposition know you've compromised it.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  14. Re:I could set my watch by it. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Has Rupert Murdoch bought Slashdot?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  15. Hypocrisy, maybe? by OwenTheContrarian · · Score: 2

    Really, who would cry foul when we are doing the exact same thing? Sure, our companies may be upset, but there is little chance any Federal agencies will lend real support when we are actively pursuing intelligence and assisting with cyber-attacks. Does anyone really believe that the Israelis managed the sophisticated Stuxnet attack on the Iranian uranium enrichment centrifuges all by themselves? The cold war is not dead, it just went cyber, and the list of hostiles grew exponentially.

    1. Re:Hypocrisy, maybe? by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      But those are the bad guys. You're supposed to root for the government that is in your location. It's very important that the people be distracted by the idea that some foreign actor may do them some harm so that they do not realize that it is in fact their own state that is not only failing to act in the interest of the majority of citizens, but openly acting against them (cutting SS and Medicare in order to solve the fabricated debt crisis, for a recent example).

    2. Re:Hypocrisy, maybe? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yes, but without proof you are just talking out of your ass. Stop it.

  16. Chinese hackers? by moozh84 · · Score: 1

    In Command and Conquer: Generals, you just nuke them. They'll be sitting in a field with a laptop.

  17. Re:Why are western nations silent? by LastGunslinger · · Score: 1

    If the US defaulted on it's debt, who stands to lose more, China or the US? China's put their eggs in one basket. They're not the ones with the power. Besides, the overwhelming amount of US debt is owned by, wait for it, the US. It's China that controls much of the foreign-owned debt.

  18. Chinese students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I used to work at a fairly large mid-western university and my experience was the Chinese government was sponsoring kids who came to the US to learn how to hack. I was responsible for network security for the engineering and CS building's network and saw many attempts at hacking by Chinese students within the network and directed outward to the Internet. No one in the university was interested in taking action against these students when incontrovertible evidence was collected and offered. Faculty were defending the hackers and administration largely supported faculty so there were no sanctions. I don't know if these students were directed to this behavior but there was certainly a culture which was pervasive among these Chinese students that you did not see among other groups of international students from places like India, Pakistan, Nepal, the Mideast, the former Soviet republics and/or eastern Europe.

  19. Re:so if someone in the US where to hack china wha by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    so if someone in the US where to hack china what will happen?

    I suppose that depends were in china they hack. Their probably not going to hack Chinese government wear there going to notice. That was harder to right than it is for you all to reed.

  20. It's Not 1870 by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    Given the interdependency of everyone, I fail to see the international cabal of bankers rooting for war. Anyone you want to identify?

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  21. Re:Why are western nations silent? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

    I take it you really mean, the vast majority of US government debt is owned by US-based banks. Its pretty hard to owe yourself money :)

    Still, China owns enough ot make everyone worried, and yes they're foreign (to the US) so they would own most of the foreign-owned debt.

    FYI, China owns a vast load of Euro debt too, they just have so much of our money they don't know what to do with it.

  22. Re:Why are western nations silent? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    Reading http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/09/operation-shady-rat-201109
    "After identifying the command-and-control server, located in a Western country" ....
    Mb the average Western spook wanted to keep it flowing to see who collected or what was been collected in a part of the world where telcos where 'friendly'.
    Nothing like a "Room 641A" in a "Western country" for ducting off a telcos bulk data in real time, no questions, legal teams, contacts, requests, meetings...
    Also think of national self interest and the joy of having a huge flow of interesting international data ending in a local telco/isp- and getting the first look.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  23. Stop calling it war. by MarkvW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have information crimes punishable by 16 years in prison. And now we're having information "wars."

    The Internet is the Wild West. If you don't like it, create a physically secure regimented network and don't let unregistered bad people onto it. Stop with the "war" rhetoric.

    Think for half a second. Who would want a cyberwar and who would benefit from one? Now ask yourself: Who would end up doing the dying when the cyberwar turned ugly?

    This is just a variant of the nonsense that the RIAA is trying to pull. People with money want to capitalize and control the internet, and violence, and the threat of violence (the killing and imprisoning kind) are the traditional means of imposing control.

    Don't buy into the bullshit. "Information war" can become just another synonym for the restriction of free speech.

    1. Re:Stop calling it war. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      war: 4.active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.-dictionary.com

      I don't know, sounds like "war" pretty accurately describes what's going on right now. A war does not have to include violence or death. And the RIAA is not trying to kill you.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Stop calling it war. by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      "War" is a bad word choice because it lacks precision in this context. The current situation can be escalated. What word would you use to describe that escalation?

      War is pretty much at the top of the conflict pyramid. I'd want to use a word that leaves room for the conflict to get much worse.

      Talking violently is the necessary precursor to any group acting violently. Why not avoid the rhetoric of violence?

    3. Re:Stop calling it war. by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Thanks and you're right on track, of course.

      America has Narus boxes at strategic switching centers and EPs or IXPs (physical points of concentrated ISPs connections) while Narus (a Boeing subsidiary, along with Extreme Rendition Airlines -- Jeppesen DataPlan) opened offices in China back in 2005, so I'd imagine a similar situation exists there, also the Chinese government charges retail sites which offer free wi-fi for installing Web tracking software to track their individual users.

      Furthermore, I hear they exchange information with one another on their "dissidents" --- yup, any differences between the Totalitarian Capitalist State of China, and the Corporate Fascist State of America are quickly disappearing.

  24. Re:Easy: follow the money... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    UK: 3.4%

    This just confuses me. We have a massive debt of our own, why are we lending money to the USA? We owed the USA a lot after World War II, and that was only paid back in the '90s as I recall, so this is recent borrowing. Unless we each lend each other money using some kind of crazy accounting trick.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  25. What's to be gained from exposing them? by russotto · · Score: 1

    OK, Western governments (and corporations) know damn well China is conducting cyber-attacks. Suppose Secretary of State Clinton goes to the Chinese and makes a formal accusation, what do they do? Deny it, of course, complain about how the West is oppressing them, threaten to do various nasty things.

    OK, suppose she brings irrefutable proof that the attacks originate from China? Well, they deny some more and complain some more, but maybe they get pinned down. Now they blame some "rogue elements", execute a few random people they wanted to execute anyway, and continue doing what they've been doing.

    Suppose she brings and demonstrates proof it originates within a certain department of the Chinese Government itself? Again, same reaction: denial, rhetorical counterattacks, and maybe execution of a few scapegoats.

    To who's benefit is any of this? They aren't going to stop. Nobody is going to think any better of the United States or worse of China if the accusation is made. It's just a waste of diplomatic effort.

    BTW, I'm pretty sure that despite was implied in the rest of the article, Google is still not censoring search results in China.

  26. Why the silence? To conceal their own activites by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's not for a second think that this is a one-way street. If one nation is at it, you can bet that pretty much everyone else is, too (just like torture). That it's done under the radar and with no public acknowledgement just tells us that it falls under the category of black-ops, rather than ordinary warfare.

    And unlike ordinary warfare, where it's pretty obvious who's shooting at you, in cyberwar I doubt that it's possible to tell who are your friends, or even if the concept of allies actually exists. It's not about ideology it's about sticking the boot in to anyone who appears to be getting the upper hand.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Why the silence? To conceal their own activites by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      And unlike ordinary warfare, where it's pretty obvious who's shooting at you, in cyberwar I doubt that it's possible to tell who are your friends, or even if the concept of allies actually exists. It's not about ideology it's about sticking the boot in to anyone who appears to be getting the upper hand.

      If you've read the newspaper over the last 30 years, there's no doubt our allies are definitely doing the same thing to us.
      Of our allies, Israel typically gets the most press for their repeated spying/hacking/espionage attempts and successes.

      Every year, Congress gets a report titled "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage Reports"
      This obviously doesn't include thefts from the government, but it'll give you an idea of what's happening.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Why the silence? To conceal their own activites by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      Your theory presumes that they have something we'd want to steal.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    3. Re:Why the silence? To conceal their own activites by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

      Your theory presumes that they have something we'd want to steal.

      No, as I said: "it's about sticking the boot in to anyone who appears to be getting the upper hand." But to turn your question around, why would think they could NOT have something that other countries would want?

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  27. Let's try an analogy... by Empiric · · Score: 2

    I found it rather astonishing while watching CNN a week or so back to hear them reporting that the DoD was indicating the U.S. had been subject to a large-scale hacking attack by a sovereign state, but -they weren't releasing which one it was-.

    I couldn't help thinking about this stance as it would be applied to, say, Pearl Harbor. "Yes, the United States is under attack. No, you as an American citizen and taxpayer aren't entitled to know who is attacking you, from your own defense agencies. We're prioritizing the interests of Said Foreign Power, including any right-to-know you may feel you have, ahead of our citizenry."

    This is an incredible stance to take, and the fact it was a "cyber-attack" seems be pretty irrelevant to the basic questions regarding representative government this raises. Yet, CNN doesn't even blink an eye flatly reporting this without noting any objection.

    Strange Days.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    1. Re:Let's try an analogy... by 3dr · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it was Eastasia, or if those longtime friends of Eurasia betrayed us...

    2. Re:Let's try an analogy... by sgt_doom · · Score: 2

      Why should that be astonishing since the media in America is essentially controlled by one or two corporations today (technically 5, but since they collude so much it really comes to to primarily GE and Murdoch or Clear Channel).

  28. This is a good thing by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    Without these hostile actions, we'd never harden our defenses. We'd never worry about XSS or SQL injections.

    I was shocked the first time I looked at the http logs of a "real site" It just amazed me. So now, even if I am going throw-away work on a hobby site, I am sure to guard against these attacks. And everything is better.

    Better to know the hackers are out there, rather than assume they don't exist. It makes the threat credible and real and that leads to improvements.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  29. GN Fail by Inf0phreak · · Score: 1

    "open it's door"? Way to fail at a grammar nazi post there. http://www.angryflower.com/aposter3.jpg

    --
    ________
    Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
    1. Re:GN Fail by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 2

      Way to fail at a grammar nazi post there.

      I keep forgetting ... are they going to kill all the grammar Nazis before or after all the lawyers? At the very least I expect them to board the same ship as the telephone sanitation engineers and beauticians.

  30. Re:Easy: follow the money... by Biff+Stu · · Score: 1

    The link in previous post doesn't have a lot of specifics, but I suspect that the UK debt is largely held by individual investors and banks. Also, whatever the UK has for a central bank probably needs to sit on some large and liquid dollar investments in order to help regulate the monetary supply and keep the currency stable.

  31. Re:Easy: follow the money... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    By "UK", I assume they mean "bond investors in the UK", not "the UK government".

  32. China is a basecamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you were to think of where is the best place to stage an attack from, it would probably be China. That doesn't mean that you are Chinese.

  33. Ignore China by jekewa · · Score: 1

    In addition to blocking unwanted open ports to the world, have just about all of China's IPs in my ipfilter, denying them access to anything but HTTP (they might want to read my blogs...right?). Also the other countries called out by http://www.countryipblocks.net/malicious-internet-traffic/malicious-internet-activity-the-top-10-countries/ are likewise blocked. Yeah, that's about 10K IP blocks in the filter, but it seems to run just fine, and I end up with only sporadic and apparently random (or maybe successful) failures in my auth files.

    Not that I want anyone to see this as any kind of challenge...I'm sure someone is spending more time to access and zombie my machines than I'm spending to try to cut them off!

    --
    End the FUD
    1. Re:Ignore China by Juser · · Score: 1

      I agree. Your network doesn't need to talk to the world and more importantly, you don't need the world to talk to your network.

  34. Re:it's likely China by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I'll leave it to my tech betters to do the chops on things like Chinese ip addresses vs proxies vs Chinese Govt involvement. To get the kids from Lulzsec we called four countries worth of law officials and picked up the ... likely ... middleman.

    If the Chinese Government spent *five years* attacking targets, I think we'd notice - now reporting it is something else again, and there are Onion Layers of partially correct news here, but to play the "no evidence" card is a little thin - after McAfee put themselves on the line saying it was. If that was a total lie don't you think McAfee would be pulverized for it?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  35. I can tell you why by ISurfTooMuch · · Score: 1

    The answer is quite simple: It's because China is a huge market, and Western companies want to be there much more than they mind being attacked.

    I can give you a perfect example of this. I have a buddy who is an engineer with a major auto manufacturer. A few years ago, he was telling me how the Chinese car companies are blatantly ripping off the designs of other companies. He even said that GM found that Cherry Motors was doing such a good job of it that their parts were identical to and interchangeable with Chevy parts. Still, the big car manufacturers were lining up to enter into partnerships with their Chinese counterparts. I asked him why they would do this, knowing full well that their designs would be ripped off. He said that, yes, they knew this would happen, but the Chinese market was so big that they felt they could still make money there, and besides, the Chinese companies were going to rip off their designs whether they were partners or not, so they might as well form partnerships and at least make some money.

  36. I don't think "GDP" covers it by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

    For a nice visual, try

    http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/china-vs-united-states-a-visual-comparison/

    As you can see, China is bigger with manufacturing, US is bigger with services; China doesn't have the debt, or the excesses in the stock market. China has cash, and gold reserves. China doesn't have external debt. China exports more than it imports.

    About the ONLY metric that China falls behind in is GDP -- which, from the other indicators is simply being propped up by... China.

    (Oh, and the US has more energy reserves).

    Have fun with the easy graphics. The GP was right -- China pretty much owns the US.

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  37. Re:Easy: follow the money... by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Yep, it's not "lending money" in an altruistic sense.

  38. Re:it's likely China by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    ...but to play the "no evidence" card is a little thin - after McAfee put themselves on the line saying it was. If that was a total lie don't you think McAfee would be pulverized for it?

    Except for the fact that the McAfee report doesn't say it was -- everyone REPORTING on the report says it was. McAfee just says there are some possible Chinese connections (there are likely some possible Russian connections and Romanian connections too; this is points of operation, not places where we've outed ringleaders).

    There's a reason McAfee didn't say it was the Chinese government -- that's because they don't have proof it was the Chinese government -- just as they don't have proof it was the US government, NATO, the UN, Iran, and North Korea. McAfee *would* likely be pulverized for blatantly blaming the Chinese government -- although with the publicity they'd get, they'd probably weather the pounding rather well.

  39. This Was Not China by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    I'm sure China does their share - like France, Russia... Hell even bleedin' Scotland.

    When you have a serious foreign policy allegation released by the subsidiary of a major corporation, it is wise to question the release as disinformation.

    Again, I would put Israel at the centre of any serious inquiry of large-scale, cyber-espionage.

    Whatever the case, I would categorise this story as misdirection - and would request that the authors disclose their full evidence and sources for public scrutiny - if they are to be taken as legitimate.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:This Was Not China by dgower2 · · Score: 2

      We're (the US) one of Israel's strongest and most powerful allies (sans the weakened support by the current administration). Your "Israel" comment is buffoonery. As an aside, the day our support for Israel stops, so will our existence as a "blessed" nation. (Replace "blessed" with any positive adjective ascribable to our "greatest nation on God's green earth").

      --

      Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

    2. Re:This Was Not China by everett · · Score: 1

      And what exactly does it mean to be a "blessed" nation?

      --
      Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    3. Re:This Was Not China by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      What you mean "we", white man?

      Judaism is a satanic religion. Like the devil, it's practitioners are forbidden to speak the name of GOD - and like the devil, use deceit to clothe this refusal in mock-piety and false-respect, It is in fact, rejection of God's invocation, and shunning the means of calling for God's attention.

      "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
      -- Romans 10:13

      "Oh, give thanks to the Lord! Call upon His name."
      -- Psalm 105

      "Whatever the name you call Him, all His names are beautiful."

      -- Quran 17:110

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:This Was Not China by dgower2 · · Score: 1

      Quoting from a theological dictionary: God's intention and desire to bless humanity is a central focus of his covenant relationships. For this reason, the concept of blessing pervades the biblical record. Two distinct ideas are present. First, a blessing was a public declaration of a favored status with God. Second, the blessing endowed power for prosperity and success. In all cases, the blessing served as a guide and motivation to pursue a course of life within the blessing. Considering the prosperity in the US, especially relative to the rest of the world, for the past century or two, I'd say this fits. Although I do feel that we are in the process of losing that status, and we will watch the demise of this great nation. http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/blessing.html

      --

      Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

  40. Re:Easy: follow the money... by alexborges · · Score: 1

    Because the USA pays interest on it. What, lending != giving away

    --
    NO SIG
  41. Re:Easy: follow the money... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    And we pay interest on the money that we're borrowing. Since the USA has a better credit rating than the UK, I'd expect the interest that they pay to be less than the interest that we pay.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  42. Hacker call-to-arms by w1nt3rmute · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It sounds to me like this is an opportunity for US hackers to give the Fox News Twitter account a rest and do something for their country... I don't know about the rest of you, but at least 2/3'rds of the hack attempts we see on our servers come from IPs originating in China. It's like every restaurant has a box in the kitchen scanning for exploits. Maybe it's state-sponsored and maybe it's not, but China is a haven for hackers that seem to focus specifically on theft of classified technological and military information and intellectual property. This is a fact and it's been common knowledge long before this particular news story broke. It's also common knowledge that China influences economic and foreign policy in this country. It's been that way going back 20+ years to the days of Most-Favored Nation (MFN) status and it's worse now that China is the #1 investor in US Treasuries. I suspect that makes it pretty hard for the US Government to mount any kind of meaningful retaliation against the Chinese. But clandestine hacking groups are under no such restrictions. Maybe US-based members of hacking groups such as Anonymous and others should stop slipping porn vids onto YouTube and DDoS'ing Australia for a few months and focus on tracking and sabotaging hackers in China in retaliation. Kind of like a modern-day cyber militia defending the virtual homestead. Call it Project AybabtUS.

  43. HUMPH by McGiraf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "private companies are still quite weak in the face of national governments" [Citation needed]

  44. Re:so if someone in the US where to hack china wha by I+Read+Good · · Score: 1
  45. Re:Easy: follow the money... by alexborges · · Score: 1

    Why? That is set by the markets and the markets are run by ugly mean people that do whatever they want to make more money. You might not like the interest rates and cry foul at them all you want, but that doesn't keep your government from borrowing money anyway.

    --
    NO SIG
  46. Super Computer Hacked by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    My main fear is, what if they hacked the super computer at the centre of our government that tells cogress and the president what to say and what to argue about. C'mon- you don't think they were really arguing about the debt deal all that time- they were trying to get the computer to reboot to tell them what to do!

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  47. China doesn't not have the US "by the balls" by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Because, financially, China has the West (especially the US) by the balls and everybody knows it.

    How exactly do you figure that? Sure China sells a lot of merchandise in the US but that means they are exactly as dependent on the US as the US is on them. In fact if anything China is more dependent on the US because it's not like there are a lot of other markets the size of the US market. The old maxim goes that if you own the bank $1000 and can't pay, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $1 million and can't pay, the bank has a problem. Same thing applies here except the number is roughly $1 trillion and the bank is China.

    Furthermore virtually everything made in China can be made elsewhere. Might be inconvenient in the short term to do so but certainly possible. I used to do global sourcing of manufactured goods from Mexico, China and elsewhere. China is merely one option and not necessarily the best. Heck, they aren't even the largest trading partner with the US (that would be Canada).

    you'll be even more unhappy when we buy fewer bonds or make fewer investments in your country."

    China buys those bonds to control their currency valuation. Until very recently the Yuan was pegged to the dollar. You maintain a peg by buying sovereign debt. They can't get rid of it easily or quickly. There is no one to sell that much debt to and even if they did sell it it would invite all sorts of problems. There is nothing the Chinese can do to the US that wouldn't cut their own throats in the process.

  48. Yeah right by Sean · · Score: 1

    "The U.S. could protest cyberattacks by sending a couple of aircraft-carrier groups to the China Sea for a little gunboat diplomacy, but it would be pretty embarrassing if China were to just repossess the whole fleet as partial repayment of the $1.2 trillion the U.S. owes it. "

    As if.

  49. Bots repeating the "obvious" talking points as pro by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
    ..grammed. Listen, I appreciate you can hear, and without ever cognitive reflection taking place, repeat what you've head.

    Now let's examine the facts, shall we? American-based multinationals have offshored the jobs, the technology, the US foreign aid (to build all those factories, production facilities, high-end chip factories, R&D labs, etc., etc.) as have Japanese and Euro multinationals as well, so what exactly is the logically framed problem????

    If they don't like the cyberespionage (only repeating that godawful word "cyber" in context) then they wouldn't ship all the tech there, now would they??? That's rather obvious now.

    As for that talking point mantra you repeated, it's a symbiosis, although it is both economically and financially too complex for you to grasp, they shipped the jobs to China due to the cheap labor, and there's a reason the third-world countries have the cheapest labor, dood, it's called poverty ---- and what do you suppose China originally purchased American bonds (junk paper) with???? Obviously, there's a Ponzi scheme of international proportions taking place --- the Transnational Capitalist Class offshores the jobs and technology and aid to build the infrastructure there and elsewhere, and they purchase the Treasuries and bonds, etc. (Beginning to grasp the overall structure by this time, one hopes?)

    Remember, David Rockefeller established his bank branches in Beijing and Moscow back in 1973. 1973, got that? Figure it out for yourself, the next time.......

  50. Security Scenarios by tyrione · · Score: 1

    Consider Corporations as the game pieces upon which the Governments of the world are the Board. They will most certainly let security breach scenarios run their course to see how close predicted outcomes are to reality. From there they will develop new security models to adapt.