Slashdot Mirror


China's Cyber-Warfare Capabilities Overstated

An anonymous reader writes "A new paper argues that China's cyber-warfare capability is actually pretty poor. '[China has] evinced little proficiency with more sophisticated hacking techniques. The viruses and Trojan Horses they have used have been fairly easy to detect and remove before any damage has been done or data stolen. There is no evidence that China's cyber-warriors can penetrate highly secure networks or covertly steal or falsify critical data,' the paper reads (PDF). 'They would be unable to systematically cripple selected command and control, air defense and intelligence networks and databases of advanced adversaries, or to conduct deception operations by secretly manipulating the data in these networks.'"

140 comments

  1. Yeah by fragfoo · · Score: 2

    Thats what they want you to think.

    --
    Sig? Heil
    1. Re:Yeah by notgm · · Score: 1

      no, *that's* what they want you to think.

    2. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google doesn't think so, either.

    3. Re:Yeah by SharkLaser · · Score: 1

      No, US wants people to think China is some powerful enemy and that cyberwar is constant threat. This enables them to pass new more powerful laws, keeps citizens in constant fear and allows US to use things like Stuxnet against Iran.

    4. Re:Yeah by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      No, US wants people to think China is some powerful enemy and that cyberwar is constant threat. This enables them to pass new more powerful laws, keeps citizens in constant fear and allows US to use things like Stuxnet against Iran.

      All US has to do is shut off a range of IP addresses from Mainland China - that would pretty much stop it. Drastic, yes, but perhaps they day will come. The US Government threatens some IP addresses in Russia, from time to time, so they certainly have dictated to those who route traffic they had best have some controls and a switch for Washington to flip if and when it wants to. Can't say I'd find the concept hard to believe.

      It's actually all coming from an attempt by Elma Sniddle to hack a C64 ...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Yeah by SharkLaser · · Score: 1

      Yes, because Chinese army is obviously attacking from their own IP addresses.

    6. Re:Yeah by fragfoo · · Score: 1

      Got to love guys correcting missing apostrophes but don't care to start phrases with a capital letter.

      --
      Sig? Heil
    7. Re:Yeah by Synerg1y · · Score: 0

      Yes, because obviously you can connect to international IPs from your country over air when your trunk gets bombed for being a fag nation.

    8. Re:Yeah by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      You can tell that to the Chinese when they invade.

    9. Re:Yeah by RenderSeven · · Score: 2

      But, actually, they do. Dont know if they're naive or overconfident or just dont give a shit, but when I look at attacks on my firewall on a given day the source IP's all trace back to China. Maybe a couple from Korea or Eastern Europe, but 95% of the stuff I see is from China. Maybe its haxorz in Iowa using compromised servers in Beijing but... well, no, its not. Its China attacking from their own IP addresses.

    10. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have used sentence instead of phrase, as I thought a phrase is a part of a sentence.
      (sticks_out_tounge)

    11. Re:Yeah by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      whargharrrbal-delight!

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    12. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China has a high software piracy rate, many systems are still running Windows XP, some without any service packs. They also have fairly large pipes that provide quicker scanning from an attackers perspective. Couple this with the fact that the compromised box is in China, and i doubt the authorities would release any sort of connection logs to the USA, or other nations.. It's pretty plausible the attackers are not actually even in China - just suing a compromised box there.

    13. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, thank you. To believe otherwise you'd have to believe that Chinese government who owns the most sophisticated firewall in the world and has a lockdown on internal affairs somehow has completely porous network borders and has owned servers all over the place command and controlled from outside their borders. Nope, this stuff is all coming from mainland. Nobody wipes their ass in that country without the consent of the totalitarian government, so this is tacitly approved of or sponsered by the government without direct ties to allow them plausible deniability.

    14. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you are trying to be funny.

    15. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're painting a scene of isolated/unrelated computers around China being hapless members of some great botnet out of reach of Chinese authorities, yet most of these attacks are traced to Chinese universities, and you can be sure those universities are running firewalls and running secured operating systems more often than the general public.

      I question your veracity and motivation.

    16. Re:Yeah by SharkLaser · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. a hacker who wants to hide his tracks would NEVER choose China! It's much better to proxy via country that actually will investigate you!

    17. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a story on slashdot just the other day, about how the Chinese hacked in to satellite ground control stations are took over control of the satellites, sometimes even undetected.

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/10/27/1633233/hackers-briefly-controlled-us-government-satellites

    18. Re:Yeah by WRX+Gav · · Score: 1

      Is the absence of evidence evidence of absence?

    19. Re:Yeah by euyis · · Score: 1

      From my first hand experience: Wrong. Internal networks of many Chinese educational institutions are total hell with all kinds of worms and trojans roaming around.

      "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

    20. Re:Yeah by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Well since it was on Slashdot and especially since it was on the Internet it must mean the story is perfectly true. No one has offered any proof except links to other Internet sites with the same story. Well I guess if it is on more than one web page it is doubly true.

    21. Re:Yeah by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      A rational nation-state planning for possible cyberwar would have domestic attacks preprogrammed to act in the event of significant (perhaps more than a few days, and with a backup in-country operator) disruption of links to the offensive nation. A communications disruption can mean only one thing...

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    22. Re:Yeah by fragfoo · · Score: 1

      Do i *really* have to put smilies for people to understand a funny statement?

      --
      Sig? Heil
  2. Stop using term cyber by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

    Can we all just agree not to use the word "Cyber" anymore? It sound like some sort of silly late 80s early 90s grade B film.

    1. Re:Stop using term cyber by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Agreed. What is your proposed alternative?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Stop using term cyber by CyberBill · · Score: 1

      awwwww...

      --
      -Bill
    3. Re:Stop using term cyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Techno"

    4. Re:Stop using term cyber by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Online, electronic, internet, or lots of other normal words that can already describe these sort of things. No new alternative is needed.

    5. Re:Stop using term cyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qwikster.

    6. Re:Stop using term cyber by SharkLaser · · Score: 2

      Online sex.. hm, no please.
      Electronic sex.. hm, it could be kinky, but no thanks.
      Internet sex.. well that's just boring.

      Now cybersex. That's something, and it's kinky too!

    7. Re:Stop using term cyber by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      All of which have prior meanings.

      "Online warfare" - Would that include stuxnet, which attacked stand alone systems and needed to be airgapped over?

      "Electronic warfare" - Lots of prior art here. This includes stuff like radar jamming. Oh, and my calculator, thermostat, and car navigation system are electronic. Are they now in this war?

      "Internet warfare" - What is that, World of Warcraft? Flame wars?

      Changing a name in midstream, so to speak, would add to the confusion for most people, not decrease it. Whereas you propose abandoning a word commonly used for decades because it reminds you of "late 80s early 90s grade B films". Maybe you could just get over it instead.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    8. Re:Stop using term cyber by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I'll agree to give it up as an adjective, but the verb is here to stay.

    9. Re:Stop using term cyber by jd · · Score: 1

      That's only OK if China's national anthom is "Close to the Edit".

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    10. Re:Stop using term cyber by alamandrax · · Score: 1

      How about Technosex?

      --
      'tis but a scratch.
    11. Re:Stop using term cyber by sycodon · · Score: 1

      That's a genre of music isn't it? Not very good music either.

      Uh Oh. Now, I'll be moded flamebait by some aging punk rocker who switched to techno.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    12. Re:Stop using term cyber by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      How about Technosex?

      A/S/L?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. Would you rather? by SniperJoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Personally, I'd rather we far overstated China's abilities and designed our systems to counter such a threat.

    Would you rather overestimate their abilities or underestimate them?

    1. Re:Would you rather? by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't be so sure that it is the case. Given my experience with a few large scale projects, the ineptitude of middle managers and a summary of what was provided as a solution for what price, I would worry about how much it would end up costing a government to make systems "impregnable". While I could well be wrong, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if the final cost of such an undertaking ended up being simply astronomical.

      If you worry too much about your neighbour getting too much advantage in manufacturing, stop buying ALL their stuff and stop sending your designs to be made there then sold back to your own country. It's not an easy fix, it's not a short term fix, but if a country doesn't have markets for anything and everything they sell, they won't be raking in all that much money - meaning that you can once again sit unfettered on the top of the SuperPower steps.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Would you rather? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Personally, I'd rather we far overstated China's abilities and designed our systems to counter such a threat.

      So, like terrorism, then?

      Do you really want the TSA administering network security as well?

    3. Re:Would you rather? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the states have a plan to disable china's internet access physically, no system is impenetrable.

    4. Re:Would you rather? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Well they'd probably just set up some sort of privacy invasive scanner to scan every packet you send to make sure the packet isn't carrying questionable material.... Wait a minute don't certain ISPs do this already?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    5. Re:Would you rather? by jd · · Score: 2

      It depends on whether it's done for action or voter consumption. For the former, I'd far prefer it to be overestimated and dealt with. However, I despair of DHS or DoD actually being capable of countering anything more threatening than house flies.

      For voter consumption, I'd far prefer there to be no estimate at all. The use of estimates to manipulate the population is very Humphrey Appleby. It is Psych Ops against the population the government is sworn to protect and serve, regardless of which way it is done. Even if it were 100% accurate, it would STILL be a Psych Ops attack against the populace.

      I see nothing wrong with the government supplying useful information (eg: pressure companies to use OpenBSD or a hardened Linux for appliances and embedded systems, not Windows under any circumstance; don't use randomly-discarded USB thumb drives in nuclear reactors; keep confidential information offline or strongly encrypted). I also don't see anything wrong with the government being required to report large-scale DDoS attacks, so long as attribution of the attacks is provable and verifiable by some independent body (even if not by the public) and where it is either not provable or not verifiable, no attribution is given no matter how politically tempting.

      I also see nothing wrong with the government actually taking cybersecurity seriously and mandating a rolling minimum standard of security for corporations. The main objection to minimum standards is that they are static and thus obsolete. So don't define it statically or in terms of specific technologies or specific threats. It's entirely possible to say that an incident involving any given compromised system will affect X number of people, given a total of Y people, by Z amount. You then mandate that companies cannot permit either X*Z or (X/Y)*Z to exceed certain totals for any given year. Compromises below those totals are fined at a modest rate but enough to create impetus to improve, compromises above those totals are fined to apocalyptic proportions. Let the companies take care of how to go about this.

      You can also specify rolling standards in other ways. Instead of stating the number of bits in an encryption key, specify that operations critical to the security of the infrastructure and economy must be either FIPS-compliant OR use encryption classified as "minimal risk" (no known weaknesses, not subject to brute force attacks with available technology, that sort of thing) within some sensible window of time. Six months sound reasonable from the time of a security announcement of a potential hazard to the end of testing and full roll-out of replacement systems in mission-critical systems? Too long and you will be attacked. Too short and the consequences of a mistake will be worse than an attack.

      In the case of systems where encryption is too difficult - for example, in automotive systems which currently use Ethernet for cabling between modules and which are starting to support wireless systems control - then specify things in terms of authentication and authority, under the same relative measure. (eg: A car should be X% certain, given known cyberthreats at the time of last maintenance, that it is the authorized user who is turning off the ignition or slamming on the brakes, where X is some well-published value that vendors and cybersecurity experts jointly agree is acceptable in terms of cost per unit mitigation). If a car isn't maintained for a year, then the vendor should be liable for any excessive exposure to risk known about at that time but not for risks discovered after then. Because there's no specific threat stated, only the permissible relative risk, no update is needed.

      (We expect the same in other industries. We care if an airline took reasonable precautions in last maintenance to ensure everything was OK, we care that the regulations ensure that critical components are tested thoroughly enough, but do we care that much as to whether the regulations specified BY NAME every nut and bolt? Should we, or should we be entit

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Would you rather? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about accurately estimate them?

      ITS ONE

      NO ITS THE OTHER!

      NO ITS ONE

      NO ITS THE OTHER!

      when actually, it is neither.

    7. Re:Would you rather? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      That's just the start.

      I mean, consider that you aren't allowed to board a plane with dangerous objects like nail clippers or a can of sprite.

      Do you really think they'd allow you to connect a personal computer that they didn't completely control to any network in their jurisdiction?

      Good God man, you can't just attach your laptop to the internet... you could be the pawn of a chinese hacker group and that laptop could be full of attack tools. Better not chance it. You aren't allowed on the network.

    8. Re:Would you rather? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Haha that's funny you'd say that.... I actually got on a plane with nail clippers a few months ago (I forgot they were in my carry-on). TSA agent took my shampoo... my toothpaste (I also forgot about the "no liquids" thing. Apparently toothPASTE is a liquid). But they left my nail clippers... I mean if I had a mind to I could have busted those babies out on the plane and... Cut some serious nails I guess?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    9. Re:Would you rather? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't really need to get into the secure systems, because weak security is so endemic. Even your average "reasonable secure" system is only secure against automated script kiddie attacks. In a targeted attacker scenario, I'd e.g. consider any machine that runs Adobe software to be compromised.

      So let's pretend that they could run a totally secure network on-site (they can't), with only secure and fully patched software on all the workstations (it isn't), and let's say for the sake of argument that all their direct employees were educated about security risks and themselves only ran secure software on approved devices, even at home.
      That still leaves the attackers reading the email of the employee's spouse, and family, and of all their friends and contacts (thanks, Facebook!)

      If reading and datamining all communication at the perimeter still isn't satisfactory, you can use your data for a social engineering attack, or start recruiting people using your highly detailed profiles.

    10. Re:Would you rather? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah capitalism sucks

      China does it better, mandating locally made goods for their govt corps

    11. Re:Would you rather? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2

      Neither. We have limited resources to defend our interests. If we overspend on an exaggerated cyber threat from China, we must needs reduce the resources allocated to something else. If we short a program that defends us from a threat that was actually understated vs. China's ability, we have made ourselves susceptible.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    12. Re:Would you rather? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      It's actually pretty easy... you don't connect it to the internet.

  4. No Evidence by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no evidence that China's cyber-warriors can penetrate highly secure networks or covertly steal or falsify critical data,'

    Because governments love to publicize when someone breaks into their highly secure networks. Every day, the spokespeople for various government agencies get to work and say to themselves, "Boy, I really wish I could announce that our networks have been hacked! That would really make my day!!". The leaders of said agencies go to sleep every night wishing that they could spend tomorrow being grilled by a legislative body over their swiss-cheese network defenses. But alas, tomorrow just brings another boring day of budget meetings.

    Or just maybe they don't talk about it.

    1. Re:No Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How will i get a raise and prove my agency is necessary and deserves more funding?

  5. There is plenty of proof by strobe74 · · Score: 2

    Look at their stealth bomber and their stealth fighter.. look familiar? You might think to yourself "hmm.. their stealth bomber looks nearly identical to ours.. and hey!! so does their stealth fighter!" And they just magic'd them out of nowhere. No decades of research.. no skunk-works or area 51 for testing.. just POOF.. a few years after we come up with them and BAM.. China has nearly identical copies. Just a coincidence i'm sure.

    1. Re:There is plenty of proof by Thruen · · Score: 2

      Actually... This article seems to suggest the Chinese aren't hacking to steal our secrets. I'd find it amusing if they were just repeatedly making silly half-hearted attempts at breaking into our systems just to throw us off the trail of the real problem: people who've lost faith in their country. Well, that and greed. Probably mostly greed. Still, not the TECHNO-warriors of China.... that does sound better.

    2. Re:There is plenty of proof by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What stealth bomber?
      Links?
      As far as I can tell they don't have one, and only some internet rumors claimed they did.

    3. Re:There is plenty of proof by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you're going to fault them for taking shortcuts instead of reinventing the wheel?

      That's nuts. Nobody reinvents wheels if they can get clues/technology/etc, from elsewhere. Absolutely nobody. Only idiots make stuff from scratch without referring to other technology and practices.

      Come the fuck on, the industrial revolution was started in the US along the Blackstone River with "stolen" British ideas. Samuel Slater was no dummy.

      What a load of crap, sir.

      --
      BMO

    4. Re:There is plenty of proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's because it's invisible, duh!

    5. Re:There is plenty of proof by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      i have a plastic model at home that looks like the stealth bomber as well. however, if you really press me on it, i'd have to come clean and admit it doesn't fly, it's made out of plastic, and exhibits no stealth capabilities whatsoever.

    6. Re:There is plenty of proof by strobe74 · · Score: 2

      No i'm just refuting the statement that they're not hacking anything. it's clear they've been through a fair amount of the RnD info from most of our defense contractors already. If there's any blame to be handed out it's that our defense contractors don't take security as seriously as they should.

    7. Re:There is plenty of proof by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyrsdmTqvY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9rvBLxGs-8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM7Tka5ir70&feature=related

      BTW, the first flight of YF22/YF23 was in 1990, 7 years before the birth of /., the first flight of this J20 is 2011, that's 21 years, not "a few years" as in the GP. And F117 was publicly revealed in 1988 ...

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    8. Re:There is plenty of proof by bmo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'll buy that argument.

      The stereotype of American companies being shortsighted is a stereotype because it's true. It's not just defense contractors.

      --
      BMO

    9. Re:There is plenty of proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's called spying. And is a key goal of cyber-warfare within the nation player realm. Kinda the whole point of the article.

    10. Re:There is plenty of proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Referring to other technology, fine. But the sneaking and the lying and the cybercrime aspect... they're doing the digital equivalent of breaking and entering our facilities to steal our technology, not going to our libraries and schools and learning it in an open way. THAT is why I take offense to, not that they want to leverage existing knowledge rather than invent everything of their own from total scratch.

    11. Re:There is plenty of proof by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That is the BS internet rumor I was talking about. The picture is not even of a Chinese plane.

    12. Re:There is plenty of proof by bmo · · Score: 1

      This is late, and I don't expect you to read it because anon cowards never do, but I am going to state for the record that calling it spying is a load of hypocrisy when people like Samuel Slater (one of many) are called heroes here in the US.

      --
      BMO

  6. Beware teh Chinese by sneakyimp · · Score: 2

    Does the summary strike anyone else as a bit xenophobic? Or perhaps a bit skewed toward occidental cultures?

    1. Re:Beware teh Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or...

      Perhaps the oldest civilization in the world (or so they claim) is stupider than a 300 year old one.

      But of course, *that* would be "xenophobic" or "racist". Because everyone knows that is Imperial America's fault. That China is such a shitty country. Definitely not China's.

    2. Re:Beware teh Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not really. There's a fairly well established perception that the authoritarian Chinese government runs a large, sophisticated hacking campaign against everyone and the US in particular. All the summary does is take that perception and undermine it slightly.

      It's not a racial perception either. There aren't similar ideas about Japan or South Korea, for example. And it's not like the "all Russians pirate everything" meme, which Valve recently attempted to debunk. It's an accusation levelled specifically at the Chinese authorities, not the people.

      If the US runs an equivalent campaign, then there's a case for a more balanced approach to reporting this topic.

    3. Re:Beware teh Chinese by poity · · Score: 1

      How so? Because there are instances of "China" and "they"? I'm not really feeling it -- replace it with "American" or "the Americans" and you'll find thousands of instances on this site, especially in articles about the US throwing its weight around. I'm Chinese-American and I can assure you you'll have a far more interesting time analyzing the possible linguistic indicators of xenophobia in the Chinese language. For example, "foreigner" is is a common word in Chinese that most people don't give much thought to when speaking, yet in the US it's almost taboo even in private conversation. Of course that's from a history of invasions and rightly understandable, but it's something that still hasn't been shed through decades of China striving to join the modern cosmopolitan world.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    4. Re:Beware teh Chinese by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      Yes I suppose it is in fact the use of "China" and "they" rather than some specific organization within China referred to as "they". If the article is about capabilities within the US or Europe, it typically refers to a specific organization of sub-group rather than the entire nation.

      Interesting point about the linguistic aspects. It's funny how vague and quaint language can be compared to experience.

  7. looks like top gun! buzz the tower!! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    looks like top gun! buzz the tower!!

  8. I'm not convinced.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the low level attacks are noise to mask something higher, I find it hard to believe China can't muster a sophisticated attack, very hard to believe.

    It's even amusing that the report is in PDF form, not like there's any danger there ::eyeball roll::

    1. Re:I'm not convinced.. by pcxmac · · Score: 1

      dang those Chinese

  9. We're Americans, it's our job to be afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did we really need this paper to tell us that China's pathetic, underpaid skeleton of a software industry was no match for the NSA?

      The Imperial mindset is this - if a potential rival or adversary is capable of even token resistance, then this is a major emergency and they are a threat to our entire way of life! See also, Sandanistas three days drive from Texas, the peril posed by Sioux and Mexicans, Saddam and his mushroom cloud, and of course the Yellow Peril.

      I don't doubt that the Chinese would love to develop some kind of "cyberwarfare" capability as a deterrent to a potential attack we might launch. You may get an occasional Chinese loose cannon who'll hack into something state-side, but they'd have to be insane to actually start anything. Meanwhile, our massive "cyberwarfare" capability would let us take their entire grid dark, if they had the poor taste to introduce modern computer control to their infrastructure, which they'll probably do anyway, counting on the continued alliance between the CPC and the 0.1% of Americans getting rich off of exploiting the slave labor the CPC sells them.

  10. Not great, but good enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were good enough to compromise the RSA token database and then use that information to compromise lockheed martin. I suppose it would be more impressive if neither company had noticed it, but of course it is very likely they have compromised other companies who have no idea it happened.

    They certainly aren't world leaders in this space, but they get the job done pretty regularly.

  11. Oh Noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A few years ago, in Ramadi Iraq I got shot by a sniper (twice!). It was pretty bad, but not nearly as horrific as if a foreign nation had totally crashed my web domain and/or email server. God help me if those bastard wrecked my telnet... I probably wouldn't be here today to tell the tale.

    1. Re:Oh Noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd think the ramifications would be greater if they had taken "state secrets"

  12. What a relief! by TwineLogic · · Score: 1

    Surely if Desmond Ball says it was not the Chinese military which took over control of U.S. Weather Satellites, potentially rendering them into anti-satellite weapons, then I guess we can stop worrying about it.
    I don't know who this Desmond Ball person is, but... he published a paper! Wow.
    Slashdot = Disinformative

  13. Desmond Ball, A.K.A. Hu Chin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    title says it all

  14. This sounds a lot like... by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..whistling past the graveyard. It sounds a /lot/ like what US automobile manufacturers said about the Japanese in the 60s and 70s. And then the Japanese whipped Ford, Chrysler, and GM's collective asses.

    Go ahead, dismiss your opponent as incompetent. Down that road lies complacency and defeat.

    --
    BMO

  15. This reminds me of something... by kikito · · Score: 1
  16. So... by binaryhat · · Score: 1

    Who or what entity has been hacking into major US companies if it's not China? North Korea, nope. Russia? Not their style.

  17. Newsflash by instagib · · Score: 1

    Politicians and journalists from English speaking countries ALWAYS overstate the potential of national threats. And boy do they love their security theatre. The best one: The American president giving a speech abroad. Hilarious!

    1. Re:Newsflash by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The American president giving a speech abroad. Hilarious!

      You've got a derp on your chin, you might want to wipe that.

  18. fool by unity100 · · Score: 1

    the principles behind how geometric shapes deflect, refract or break the radio waves have been known since 1950s. any object made to do that, would resemble another object built to do that.

    1. Re:fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Look at our stealth bomber and our stealth fighter. They look very similar. Geeze.

    2. Re:fool by strobe74 · · Score: 1

      This one..
      http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/11/xian-h-8-chinese-stealth-bomber.html

      The fighter is called the J-20 which is nearly identical to the F-22

      They look familiar don't you think?

    3. Re:fool by strobe74 · · Score: 1

      Funny how boeing and other companies are coming out with stealth vehicles that don't look *exactly* the same as the F-22. Even the boeing plane that competed against the F-22 looked nothing like it and it was stealth. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

      http://www.retrothing.com/2009/03/boeing-f-15se-stealth-fighter.html

      Doesn't like the a duplicate of the F-22 to me.

    4. Re:fool by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      It may look similar but it's not likely to have the fancy internals that the F-22 has. For one thing, it lacks the thrust vectoring nozzles on the engines. That is a significant component of the aircraft's capabilities. You can copy the outside by looking at a recent copy of Aviation Week. It doesn't mean you downloaded the PCBs and code.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can't just do that, it has to fly as well. The science behind aerodynamics is much less well defined.

      You are also making the assumption that there is only one shape that deflects/refracts/breaks radio waves _in a way to make them less detectable_. It's like saying the principles of killing someone have been known since 200000 BC, so any object made to do that would resemble another object built to do that. Yes, nuclear bombs and knives bear a remarkable resemblance.

    6. Re:fool by unity100 · · Score: 0

      there is only one shape that deflects/refracts/breaks radio waves _in a way to make them less detectable_.

      yes. read up. the shapes for that are defined. you need to break and deflect the waves, while also absorbing it with absorbent material. thats why b2s had visible radar image compared to f117s. mainly due to the round shape of the cockpit of b2s.

  19. But... by Krater76 · · Score: 1

    They would be unable to systematically cripple selected command and control, air defense and intelligence networks and databases of advanced adversaries, or to conduct deception operations by secretly manipulating the data in these networks.

    But, could we (as in the US) do those things? Because that would be super.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  20. PsyOp Trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a PsyOp article to get China to show their full strength. Trollin the Chinese.

  21. Apologist much? by FyberOptic · · Score: 2

    What difference does it make whether the attacks are detectable? DDoS for example is detectable, but that doesn't make it any less potent of a weapon. As someone who has dealt with blocking Chinese break-in attempts for years, and at one point blacklisted IP blocks from the entire region, I can tell you that China is a scourge on the internet at best, and a damaging force against major targets at worst. There's more than enough evidence of that.

  22. China high speed rail is a cheap copy of japan by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    with out the safety
    In the japan system there is a 45-year, nearly 7 billion-passenger history, there have been no passenger fatalities due to derailments or collisions,

    China system is no where near that.

    1. Re:China high speed rail is a cheap copy of japan by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Probably because their regulatory bodies are nowhere near as complex as Japan's as far as transport ion and bullet trains.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  23. Its more complicated than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To dismiss all of the attacks from China is a little naive.

    There is a lot of spyware that comes out of China, and most of it is crap. They have different levels however, much like in the army you have lots of grunts who can perform simple attacks, and a small number of highly trained specialists who can perform very sophisticated attacks (and multiple levels in-between).

    I've worked with a lot of companies that have gotten themselves caught out by the simple (grunt level) attacks because they haven't invested in security (or have does so poorly). I've also seen some very sophisticated attacks that have taken considerable effort and were entirely targeted at that organisation.

    Getting the basics right is something that everyone should be doing in terms of IT security, but there's a lot more that should be done beyond that for large companies and critical infrastructure.

    1. Re:Its more complicated than that by satuon · · Score: 1

      So far all their attacks I've heard about were made by sending emails to employees at a company and asking them to run exe files. If that's all it takes then everyone who can speak decent English and has access to off-the-shelf Trojans is a potential Hacker.

      It's not that the Chinese jump high, it's just that the bar is so low.

  24. Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making nearly identically looking copies of American products is an art the Chinese have perfected in generations.

  25. The really good hackers by Hentes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    are the ones that don't get caught. Americans only detect the lousy attempts.

  26. Don't need sophistication when your enemies use MS by antifoidulus · · Score: 0

    They don't need particularly sophisticated techniques when their favored targets insist on using that steaming pile of insecure shit known as Windows. Using Windows for anything critical is sort of like being a gazelle and bathing in meat tenderizer, you are just making it too easy and too tempting for the lion to come and eat you.

  27. Cyber Gap by Logreybaby · · Score: 1

    Sounds kind of like the Bomber Gap.

  28. Re:How'd Linux do @ CA's breached recently? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    HAHAHAHAHA, it's so adorable that you believe that Microsoft bullshit. You want to know why Microsoft servers are so rarely hacked? Because so many people got burned running Windows bullshit that very, VERY few websites actually run Windows or IIS, and thus they are not compromised. Also, the # of vulnerabilities is a bullshit metric that Microsoft likes to tout because it's the ONLY metric that makes them look good, the thing is the vast majority of Linux kernel bugs are actually escalation of privilege attacks that require a local account and even then they are mostly theoretical, now compare that to Windows where the patched vulnerabilities are serious remote exploit bugs that represent real threats. Not to mention that Linux, being OPEN, actually accurately reports it's vulnerabilities, whereas Microsoft does not.NOt to mention that huge security vulnerability that Microsoft calls a feature called Genuine Advantage.

    But yeah, continue to use that toy called Windows and consider yourself secure, I'm sure the hackers will enjoy just how easy you are making it to hack you.

  29. Do they need to be able to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary talks about 'command and control, air defense and intelligence networks', but what about plain old infrastructure networks such as electricity grids, hospitals, power utilities, etc, not to mention defense contractors and others. Just because they might not be able to hack the CIA doesn't mean they haven't been hacking the Boeings, Lockheed-Martins, Rayethons, etc, for the past decade or so.

  30. Re:There's NO DENYING the current data I put up by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    All I had to do was read the first line of your post to realize that you have 0 clue about anything, so there was no reason to even bother with the rest, you are just some MSCE who is worried because your platform is becoming irrelevant. Android uses the Linux kernel yes, but that doesn't make it some sort of "Linux variant", at least not in the same way that you seem to think it is. Unlike Windows, anyone is free to modify Linux, and the overwhelming majority of the "flaws" you point out are with things that Google or other parties have added on to the Linux kernel, Android and the OS that runs on web servers are very different beasts. But yeah, I'm sure with that MSCE cert you will go far in a world that is ditching Windows as fast as it can because it's such flaming pile of insecure shit.

  31. Re:There's NO DENYING the current data I put up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to dismantle you, point-by-point, as is my "usual style":

    "and the overwhelming majority of the "flaws" you point out are with things that Google or other parties have added on to the Linux kernel" - by antifoidulus (807088) on Tuesday November 01, @07:47PM (#37914304) Homepage

    WTF? I pointed out FLAWS IN THE LINUX KERNEL ITSELF - THE CURRENT MAINSTREAM ONE NO LESS!

    (With 3 remotely vulnerable unpatched ones as well, the WORST TYPE, & 4x++ the # of unpatched security vulnerabilities in Windows Server 2008 too, mind you)

    See again, here:

    http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/?task=advisories

    vs. this:

    http://secunia.com/advisories/product/18255/?task=advisories

    Now, you may not LIKE that, but it's documented fact!

    ---

    "Android uses the Linux kernel yes, but that doesn't make it some sort of "Linux variant", at least not in the same way that you seem to think it is." - by antifoidulus (807088) on Tuesday November 01, @07:47PM (#37914304) Homepage

    LOL, that's the DUMBEST THING you've said here so you know... it uses the LINUX KERNEL - it is THUS, a Linux!

    ---

    "Android and the OS that runs on web servers are very different beasts." - by antifoidulus (807088) on Tuesday November 01, @07:47PM (#37914304) Homepage

    That use the same core/kernel... lol, both Linux kernel, mind you, and apparently LATELY, per my 1st post to you here:

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2504516&cid=37914046

    NEITHER ARE DOING VERY WELL ON THE SECURITY FRONT LATELY, since that information is VERY RECENT TOO, no less!

    "Read 'em, & weep"...

    ---

    "All I had to do was read the first line of your post to realize that you have 0 clue about anything, so there was no reason to even bother with the rest, you are just some MSCE who is worried because your platform is becoming irrelevant." - by antifoidulus (807088) on Tuesday November 01, @07:47PM (#37914304) Homepage

    Linux already IS "irrelevant" in the eyes of the majority of users out there. See here on that note (marketshare):

    http://www.netmarketshare.com/

    So much for Linux eh? Damn near last place... it IS irrelevant in the eyes of the majority of the users on the planet.

    ---

    "Unlike Windows, anyone is free to modify Linux" - by antifoidulus (807088) on Tuesday November 01, @07:47PM (#37914304) Homepage

    Anyone is free to step trace said code to find flaws, which is far, Far, FAR EASIER than using debuggers/disassemblers on closed source code (or using fuzzers) to find flaws that way, mind you...

    ---

    "But yeah, I'm sure with that MSCE cert you will go far in a world that is ditching Windows as fast as it can because it's such flaming pile of insecure shit." - by antifoidulus (807088) on Tuesday November 01, @07:47PM (#37914304) Homepage

    I used to have MCSE (Windows NT 3.51 days) but have since moved onto coding solely (rather mostly), since 1996 onwards to presently.

    APK

    P.S.=> You can use all the "frustrated profanity" & name calling adhominem attack b.s. you like, but it only shows that TRUTH HURTS & you? You can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!

    ... apk

  32. Really, who gives a year of the rat's ass??? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    I mean, since they (Corporate America) have offshored the majority of the production assets there, and the capital assets there, and along with offshoring all those jobs, they've offshored that technology many of us were involved in creating, and both the Clinton and the Bush administrations gave them free military technology (pretty much), why would anyone really care now that those scumbags and their shills want to create fear about them. They shipped them all the weaponry, let them go fight them or stew about them, but leave us sane and poor people out of their moronic scripts.

    1. Re:Really, who gives a year of the rat's ass??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote Captain Sheridan, "Giants in the playground." If the US and China went to war, I guarantee you nobody on Earth would be completely safe.

  33. Tiger Trapped --- Not!!! by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    You should read the shill, David Wise's book, Tiger Trap, where he inverts everything and when one views the situation without Wise's assumptions, it becomes evident that it supports what Sibel Edmonds said about a secret weapons-selling network within the government (not to mention that his book was rife with errors: pay close attention to pp. 101, 106, 107, and p. 88). Although it's been long obvious to many that the FBI has been completely compromised, both the Wall Street and the Chinese Ministry of State Security.

  34. Perhaps the Mig-25 is a better comparison by perpenso · · Score: 1

    I get your point but I'd prefer to compare it to the overestimation of the Mig-25's capabilities. This seems more appropriate since it offers a comparable state vs state situation. So the Mig-25 is overestimated, the F-15 is designed to handle this "threat", and the F-15 go on to have a kill/loss ratio of 104:0. It seems there is something to be said for overestimating a potential foe.

  35. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, if you are going to accuse China otherwise, you had better be ready for an all out global nuclear war with them and their puppet countries who already hate the US and their allies.

  36. I disagree... Sort of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd put the US and Israeli hackers up against anyone. But the fact is that most security in the US is non-existent to pathetic, and it would not be difficult to create enough havoc to disrupt military operations while a sneak attack was launched.

  37. The threat still exists by Staticharge · · Score: 1

    Some people tend to worry more about fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc, than they likely need to. But they still happen, and you don't want to be the unlucky individual hit by one and be unprepared for it.

  38. Drink with a national.... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    I got drunk with a Chinese national in college once, he started going on about how China will be great in the future the way the US is great now, maybe greater.... real national pride coming through in a way I have never seen in any American, even the NASA heads in Houston weren't that fervently patriotic.

    They outnumber the US in population by more than 3-1, they have at least as many children educated to a level where they can didactically learn h4x0r 5x1llz like our kids do. And, if they give these kids enough free time, they'll be growing cyberwarriors the same way we do, but I think they'll have an easier time inducting them into the military and giving them direction.

  39. The problem is not China is the US... by feranick · · Score: 1

    According to Richard Clarke, a former National Security advisor, and Special Advisor to the President on cybersecurity and cyberterrorism, it's not that China has extraordinary capabilities for cyber attack. It's the US that has essentially no defense. The US is the country with the highest penetration of the Internet in infrastructure (power grid, defense contractors, etc), often run with systems not designed to be exposed to the Internet itself. There is currently no government plan to defend against any attack. Contrary to that China has strong defenses and it can shut itself down from the rest of the internet, to prevent major infrastractural disruption. It's all in here:

    http://www.amazon.com/Cyber-War-Threat-National-Security/dp/0061962244/

  40. Huawei Symantec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just sayin' the worlds largest "Software Security" firm is on the underside of a joint venture with a Chinese network hardware manufacturer....and by the way, all government run computers are required to run said security software....

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

  41. This article is pure conjecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article's main point is pure conjecture and speculation by the author... and some statements are provably false:

    There is no evidence that China's cyber-warriors can penetrate highly secure networks or covertly steal or falsify critical data,'

    Titan Rain
    Moonlight Maze
    Operation Aurora
    GhostNet
    GreenDam

    And that is just the publicly documented cases. How many have been hidden under the seal of "National Security" or were never detected in the first place?

  42. What about Titan Rain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say that it involved pretty meaningful stuff, suggesting China's capability. Unless it wasn't China that did it.

  43. What idiot connects important networks to the net? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that every company insists on connecting to the internet? Government and weapons tech companies should have isolated networks. Any outside communications only to be allowed by some computers or devices connected to another network alltogether. If they absolutely must, set up a firewall between the 2 LAN's only allowing very specific required forms of inbound and outbound traffic. No Web Browsers or email on the secure side.

  44. Chinese power by m1ndcrash · · Score: 0

    Chinese hackers were trying to hack Pentagon's server, after billionth try server agreed that it's password is "Mao".

  45. Re:There's NO DENYING the current data I put up by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    Did you go read that article about Turbo Pascal? Isn't that the precursor to Delphi?

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  46. ION, Chinese scientists continues to impress by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    In other news, Chinese scientists-make blood from rice!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20128572-10391704/scientists-get-blood-protein-from-rice-whats-it-for/

    "Scientists have found a way to use rice to "grow" the critical human blood protein albumin, which is used to make vaccines and to treat cirrhosis of the liver and other medical problems. "It looks like an interesting technological step forward," Dr. Richard J. Benjamin, chief medical officer for the American National Red Cross, told Fox News. "It could potentially produce large quantities in a reasonable time." How did scientists pull off something that sounds like make-believe? It all started in China, where the protein is in short supply and blood samples are often contaminated. "That's what prompted me to do something like this," lead researcher Daichang Yang, a plant biotechnologist at China's Wuhan University, told Nature News."

    So, the scientific and technical capacities of China continues to make the headlines in all scientific and technical fields, except, yes except that the Chinese just cannot seem to grasp the intricacies of cyber warfare, or?

  47. Errr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only detecting a handful sophisticated attacks is surely a massive cause for concern not vague complacency?

    Even if the opponents are completely unsophisticated you shouldn't assume that most western agencies have any degree of security sophistication.

  48. Ironic. by BlackArrow · · Score: 1

    I find it very ironic that someone posts a story about Chinese ability to hack, and it is a PDF. No way in hell I am clicking on that sucker.

    --
    "If you only knew the POWER of the DARK SIDE!"
  49. Challenged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This really reads like a challenge: "They would be unable to systematically cripple selected command and control, air defense and intelligence networks and databases of advanced adversaries, or to conduct deception operations by secretly manipulating the data in these networks." Just like the time it was announced that the power grid is vulnerable to hacking from the Internet. Are we calling them out?

  50. To quote Sun Tzu... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  51. Re:There's NO DENYING the current data I put up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you read this article? You're off topic, troll.

  52. Um, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have to respectfully disagree that China is not a threat. China is a very legitimate cyber-warfare threat. The difference between China and other countries is they don't try to hide it. But they are definitely the 800lb gorilla. Need proof? Take a look at some of the ships and planes they've been coming out with lately. Look at the technology they have been producing lately. Look familiar? Ever wonder how they got the idea? Just sayin'.

  53. Has anyone actually read this trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I die a little inside when people talk about "cyberwar" and then use terms like "logic bombs." They try to dress up technical activities in military vernacular and it just sounds like bad scifi.

    This is how you tell that the author has no real clue on the subject matter.

    The main threat from China on the internet is the size of it's population.

    "...ten cyber-warfare missions were rehearsed, including planting (dis)information mines; conducting information reconnaissance; changing network data; releasing information bombs; dumping information garbage; releasing clone information; organising information defence; and establishing âznetwork spy stationsâY.

  54. Cyber-cold war by D3 · · Score: 1

    We have been in a "cyber" cold war with the Chinese (and others) for years. The recent theft of IP at RSA and many other companies is due to reasonably sophisticated persistent malware (advanced persistent threat in marketing terms) that can take a medium size business months to eradicate with outside professional help. Basically, there is a lot of information gathering going on and a lot of theft of things the US tries to restrict the Chinese from acquiring. To underestimate their abilities, goals, and motivation is foolish. To think we are being any nicer to them is absurd.

    --
    Do really dense people warp space more than others?
  55. Decoy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else smell a decoy? Wouldn't that be an obvious move for China? Use weak and ineffective trojans and malware side by side with undetectable powerful ones to give the illusion of a weak cyber attacking ability and make the victim(s) feel like the threat has been detected and removed.

  56. also in the news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American counter-cyber-warfare capabilities overstated?

  57. How about this by Ramin_HAL9001 · · Score: 1

    Chinese chip manufacturers hack the VHDL source to install back-doors in all chips. The Chinese military then uses these back doors to install key-logging software on any computer controlled by these chips, then use the key-loggers to steal passwords from people who have control over very dangerous things. They then forge identities and start taking control of stuff that needs more than just a password to access.

    Really, this is beyond their capabilities? A bit optimistic, aren't we?