White House Confirms Chinese Cyberattack

Lets see if there's parity.... by chizz · 2012-10-01 06:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

.... between what happens to the chinese perpetrators and what has happened to Gary McKinnon over the years!

Re:Lets see if there's parity.... by tgd · 2012-10-01 06:53 · Score: 0, Flamebait

.... between what happens to the chinese perpetrators and what has happened to Gary McKinnon over the years!
Are you really that stupid, or just trying to start a flamewar?
In either case, I'll hypothesize that you really are that stupid, serving either as an observation or as fertilizer to your flamewar, depending on your original intent.
Re:Lets see if there's parity.... by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-01 07:26 · Score: 5, Funny

Are you really that stupid, or just trying to start a flamewar?
That is grossly unfair.
There's absolutely no reason it can't be both.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Lets see if there's parity.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:02 · Score: 0

All I have to say to this is... "FLAME ON!!!"
Re:Lets see if there's parity.... by jmerlin · 2012-10-01 08:57 · Score: 2

To be fair, he didn't say xor.
Re:Lets see if there's parity.... by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-01 09:33 · Score: 1

There is a school of thought (consisting of just me for the sake of winning this argument) that "or just" is equivalent to "xor" :)

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Lets see if there's parity.... by BitterOak · 2012-10-01 16:14 · Score: 1

.... between what happens to the chinese perpetrators and what has happened to Gary McKinnon over the years!
Why exactly is this modded as flamebait? It sounds like these breaches were actually more serious as they targeted computers involved in nuclear commands. How is that not more serious than what Gary McKinnon did?

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re:Lets see if there's parity.... by nobodie · 2012-10-03 13:16 · Score: 1

This is incorrect, TFA as corrected said that it was not C&C computers that were compromised but other computers in that part of the White House. The computers infected were not part of the military networks where the C&C resides.

--
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.

So... by Sparticus789 · 2012-10-01 06:38 · Score: -1, Offtopic

It takes the White House 2 weeks to acknowledge that the assassination of a U.S. Ambassador is a terrorist attack.

It takes the White House less than one day to acknowledge that Chinese hackers have breached an unclassified system.

--
sudo make me a sandwich

Re:So... by benjfowler · 2012-10-01 06:44 · Score: 2, Informative

I call right-wing partisan beatup.
Stupid talking point for dumb people, who don't realize that in real life, a crime can't be solve in 40 minutes, like on CSI: Miami.
Re:So... by Sparticus789 · 2012-10-01 06:53 · Score: 1

First off, CSI Miami is 42 minutes long.
Second, the Libyan President went on TV 1 week after the attack and said it was a terrorist attack. With the enormous intelligence budget we give to all the various Three-Letter Agencies, the U.S. should have known before a fledgling country with no intelligence agencies.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:54 · Score: 0

Excuses excuses yet had this happened to a Republican executive you know exactly how you would be responding to it. Your double standards are showing leftist.
FYI Bill Gertz is a very credible reporter, benjfowler, not so much.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:56 · Score: 0

And it took people like you almost no time at all to turn the murder of four people who died in the service of their country into a prop for an absurd smear campaign.
Re:So... by jesseck · 2012-10-01 06:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Stupid talking point for dumb people, who don't realize that in real life, a crime can't be solve in 40 minutes, like on CSI: Miami.
It took me less than a minute to realize a coordinated attack on an embassy is not "spontaneous". If anything, it should be easier to determine the Embassy attack was "terrorism" (or at least coordinated and planned) than a Chinese hacker spearfished a certain person on a certain system at a certain time. Just because you stick your head in the sand and ignore warning signs of attack and indicators of planning, it doesn't mean the attack was spontaneous. Even during deployment in Iraq, I saw sugarcoating of events... I see through that bullshit. The Embassy attack was planned, plain and simple. It was well executed. A mob doesn't have that coordination.
Re:So... by Sarten-X · 2012-10-01 06:57 · Score: 2

Of course.
First, there's a "smoking gun" in the breach. The attack's general incoming direction can easily be traced to china, which at least indicates a proxy's sitting there. That gives China an opportunity to cooperate (if it really wasn't the government, or at least if they have a scapegoat handy), leading to some diplomatic goodwill and good PR all around. In an assassination, the evidence takes far longer to work out and get a general direction from, and accusing another country of assassination is a much more serious accusation, that can't be spun into happy cooperation as easily.
Then there's the target. An unclassified system being breached doesn't really matter, so even without any definite culprit or even many facts, the news can be released without too much worry. For an assassination, everyone involved in the investigation will immediately be inundated with requests for more information, taking precious time away from the investigation itself.
Less need for careful tact means the news can be released faster. This principle is unrelated to what politicians are in charge.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:So... by Sparticus789 · 2012-10-01 07:00 · Score: 0

So tell me, how many years did you spend "serving your country"?

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:So... by postbigbang · 2012-10-01 07:06 · Score: 1

It's not so tough to look inside a payload and scoop out an address and say: oh look! Chinese! But that's not necessarily where the original attackers are from: they are from anywhere, but the address was in a Chinese CIDR block somewhere, on a system that may or may not have been externally controlled from anywhere in the world.
Politically, however, the finger was pointed at China. Whether it was pointed correctly or not isn't really known. For now, however, if you believe the WH, then it's Chinese. But Chinese "patriots" or Chinese military or Chinese officials or who? No mention is made. Could be someone over-stoked on caffeine at an all-night CyberCafe for all we know.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:So... by M0j0_j0j0 · 2012-10-01 07:12 · Score: 5, Funny

If you read TFA "Soy sauce has been found all over port 21 and a Beijing duck was stuck on the firewall".
Re:So... by Sarten-X · 2012-10-01 07:23 · Score: 1

Of course. That was a point I made in my second paragraph. Now China can step up and help, offering some token gesture of cooperation, like extracting/forging logs pointing in some other direction. This is a chance for diplomatic small-talk, where a little good-faith effort on a task that's meaningless in the long run can help hold off the prospect of an upcoming war with China.
China also has the opportunity to take this flimsy accusation as a grave insult, so they could start rattling sabers and head closer to war... but then they look like aggressors just waiting for an excuse to pick a fight.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:So... by postbigbang · 2012-10-01 07:29 · Score: 1

I wonder if: the WH picks up a phone and calls somebody in the Chinese Embassy or straight to the right contact and says: yo, is this yours? Do you realize we interpret these things as an act of war?
Or does this online Spy Vs Spy game continue until something really evil happens?

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:38 · Score: 0

Then how do you explain the White House jumping to the conclusion that it was all caused over a video instead of waiting for the results of said investigation?
There were no reported protests in Libya, unless you mean guys with mortars and heavy machine guns were just "protesting". There's "doing an investigation" and then there is dissembling known facts, like the people attacking used heavy weapons and indirect fire (mortars), that there was no protest, and that it was obviously a military attack and not a protest that just got out of control. But don't let reality dissuade you from what the "most transparent and honest administration ever" says.
But I see your point about dumb people.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:45 · Score: 0

Oh right, because I'm sure the Obama administration is just wailing over their lax security or that CNN's scoop on the amabassador's journal showed that he had been requesting security upgrades for some time? If people don't hold the white house accountable for their abject incompetence, then why should the white house care? I mean it was Obama, not his detractors, who so eloquently stated that the murder of 4 Americans was a mere "bump in the road" for Libyan/US relations. How's that for callous and uncaring?
Re:So... by Sarten-X · 2012-10-01 07:46 · Score: 1

There are supposed to be secure channels for having informal diplomatic discussions that are kept private, where a conversation like the former could take place, but I suspect that diplomats are a bit wary of making "private" comments these days. That leaves only the subtle dance of public politics, where the latter is likely.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:So... by publiclurker · 2012-10-01 07:49 · Score: 1

As opposed to what, serving yourself and now trying to play the victim?
Re:So... by RabidReindeer · 2012-10-01 07:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

First off, CSI Miami is 42 minutes long.
Second, the Libyan President went on TV 1 week after the attack and said it was a terrorist attack. With the enormous intelligence budget we give to all the various Three-Letter Agencies, the U.S. should have known before a fledgling country with no intelligence agencies.
Oh yeah. Just like they did on September 10, 2001.
There's a country full of milling militias, any one (or more) which might seize an opportunity in a condition of general unrest. There's the possibility that one single militia had one single pre-prepared plan that they could roll out. There's the possibility that Al-Qaeda had a plan already set up and scheduled. Then again, there's a load of politically-based sensationalism a certain so-called "News" network wants to promote, which is basically trying to convince us that Osama, er, "Usama" bin Ladin personally led a wave of jihadis in a grand, pre-planned anniversary wave of jihadis - but only in one of the several unsettled countries making noise at that time.
Since when do we blindly believe what politicians say? Especially other people's politicians?
OK, I'm keeping an open mind. It's possible that this really was all an al-Qaeda plot. But I'd rather wait until the evidence was all collected, sifted and cross-checked. There's no ticking bomb here, and I'd really rather not have another pants-wetting rush to find ways to curtail our freedom just because some gang broke in and committed atrocities again.
Re:So... by sumdumass · 2012-10-01 07:58 · Score: 1

You made a mistake, it took 2 weeks to accuse the right party instead of blaming our free speech, some corny movie that would struggle to be B quality and the awesome tolerance other cultures have for ours.
Madeleine Albright was just in Ohio campaigning for Obama, and she said it's a difficult situation to understand and that Romney was wrong in criticizing the White House because it takes time and investigation to determine what happened. I hoping someone would ask "why was they speaking about it before having those crucial facts then?" but the topic didn't allow questions.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:05 · Score: 0

He's just pissed because this is one thing they cannot blame on Bush. Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of always hearing, "I may not be good, but I'm not bush and look what he did".
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:17 · Score: 0

I agree with the GP.
I stubbed my toe on my kitchen table this morning. Are you claiming that wasn't a right-wing partisan beatup?
Re:So... by Sparticus789 · 2012-10-01 08:17 · Score: 1

What victim? The only victims are the 4 people who died. They died after 6 hours of fighting. There's an entire Brigade stationed in Italy, a few hours flight away. Where were the Marines to stage a rescue? Those 4 men died because of the administrations failures. We should have reminded the residents of Libya why the Marine Corps Song start with "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli."

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:So... by Tough+Love · 2012-10-01 09:13 · Score: 1

Politically, however, the finger was pointed at China.
Technically, the finger should be pointed at Microsoft.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:So... by lightknight · 2012-10-01 09:16 · Score: 2

Oh please! The DoD has been aware since, I don't know, the 1980s that anything important is not hooked up the public internet. I imagine that if they've been following their own doctrine, it's a treasonous offense to put any material not for public consumption on an internet-accessible machine, whether or not they think it's publicly accessible. Hell, it's been a long standing joke in the hacker / cracker communities -> "So tell me again, PH3@RMe, how you hacked a FBI / CIA / DoD server and got access to some uber-elite secret files" with full knowledge that nothing important is kept on those servers, and defacing the website (or serving up pr0n / warez on the FTP) is simply for bragging rights.
Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the web servers for many of these organizations lacked a hard drive, and booted purely from a burned DVD. Just reboot the machine whenever the checksums on the files change.

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 09:27 · Score: 0

Seriously. If the murder 3000+ Americans didn't put a dent in Saudi-US relations, it's pretty stupid of Obama to even notice this minor hiccup.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 10:34 · Score: 0

So true- I mean, any other president / administration would have done the same things Cheney / Bush did, no?
On the other hand, you're an asshole.
I'm no fan of Obama, but what the Bush administration "accomplished" during it's 2 terms was, in it's totality, unprecedented in the history of the US. The disasters were pretty much moving along on rails for whomever took over after Bush. I don't believe there was a way -any- administration could have removed banker influence in the aftermath of the collapse.
HEY- Fox is on...what are you wasting your time here for?
Re:So... by Peristaltic · 2012-10-01 11:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seriously. If the murder 3000+ Americans didn't put a dent in Saudi-US relations...
You're correct- It didn't put a dent in the relations the US has with a certain group of Saudis that hold power in their nation.
The ties of the powerful to any particular nation have been fading for a while now. The small groups in each wealthy nation across the world, groups that hold much of the assets and power, identify more with each other than their birth nations.
Remember the phrase "Any problem in computer science may be solved with another layer of abstraction"? Think of these groups of ridiculously wealthy and powerful people as a layer of abstraction placed above the nations of the world- In my opinion, the interactions between many nations that exist under this abstraction are largely attempts at scripted drama, random aberrations, or corrective actions brought about to manage those not yet aligned to the majority's interests.
I don't think it's any of this "New World Order" crap- It's just what people do, all the time: Those of similar socioeconomic position and means, with similar outlooks on how society should work, tend to clump together to their mutual benefit. I hang out with my neighbors, I belong to an investment group of similarly minded co-workers and friends that exist in roughly the same socioeconomic plane. If someone either fabulously wealthy or very poor were to join this group, it wouldn't work out very well.
I believe some of the extremely rich and powerful take this to a higher level in that they want to shape society to fit their own views, but this is the same principle writ large. I'm not trying to label this negatively or positively in regards to ethics or morality, just summarizing what I believe I have observed.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 11:24 · Score: 0

Whether or not it's the Chinese, a thought comes to mind: If there's no way you can best a potential future enemy on a battlefield, why not take all the time you have available until some potential conflict kicks off, to lay the groundwork for asymmetric warfare? Hell, I would.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 11:29 · Score: 0

Lots and lots of little bits at a time.

We put our spear in your by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:40 · Score: -1

white house phish, bitch! -signed, chinaman

Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:40 · Score: 0

You are NOT allowed to download and/or trade music/pr0n.

Nuclear weapons? by girlintraining · 2012-10-01 06:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Obligatory: Would you like to play a game of thermonuclear warfare?

Next up, petitioning the White House to find out why the fuck nuclear control systems are on the internet ...

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:Nuclear weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:52 · Score: 1

So the guys in the launch control centers can surf porn, duh!
I say LET LOOSE THE CYBER DOGS OF WAR
though they look like cats
and want cheeseburgers
Re:Nuclear weapons? by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-01 06:53 · Score: 5, Funny

"Next up, petitioning the White House to find out why the fuck nuclear control systems are on the internet ..."
Well that is easy. That is because IE 6 is required to administer.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Nuclear weapons? by Sparticus789 · 2012-10-01 06:58 · Score: 3, Funny

IE6? You are being way too generous. Try Netscape 3.0.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:Nuclear weapons? by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-01 07:06 · Score: 1

Nah its not PHB approved by mega-lobbiest corp. With IE 6 anyone can send the missiles and it was made by state of the VBscript technology developed in India by contractors freshmen at Bangalore Institute of Technology. I mean with that what could possible go wrong!

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Nuclear weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:07 · Score: 0

Also, why is the password for them 00000000?
Re:Nuclear weapons? by SmurfButcher+Bob · 2012-10-01 07:07 · Score: 1

Because they have to be, stupid! They're SCADA!

--

help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Re:Nuclear weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:23 · Score: 0

I don't think they are, because I think this story is pure propaganda. The US will only ever "confirm" attacks from entities they want to portray as enemies.
Re:Nuclear weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:56 · Score: 0

I imagine that between command and control systems, with data aggregation and collection, and a lot of secondary but still important sensors, it would be impossible to not have at least some of all that on the ol' DARPA net. I understand that was at least one of the original reasons that the internet was funded in the first place...
Now the real question after that is... if every one of the sensors that could be outside compromised from being on the internet were to "go off" but none of the internal, "theoretically secure" sensors did (like direct satelite feed, or radar stations, and the like), could a nuke be coaxed into launching? (computer or missile command trained to flip the switch being irrelevant if the end result is the same...)
Re:Nuclear weapons? by girlintraining · 2012-10-01 07:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well that is easy. That is because IE 6 is required to administer.
If software had to go through the same rigorous background checks that the employees who use it have to at these facilities, I don't think IE6 would have gotten a security clearance. How is it that the government can refuse to grant a security clearance based on sexual orientation under the notion that it could be used to blackmail someone, but allow the use of software with a proven and highly publicized record of leaking information? What's more, people with security clearances are subjected to intense scrutiny -- their supervisors know about every little aspect of their lives, including that little dimple on the inside of your right thigh, yet routinely employ software that is essentially a big black box -- nobody knows how or why it works.
The government needs to start taking software review as seriously as it takes personnel review with regard to security clearances and access to classified and/or sensitive materials. From a security standpoint, it doesn't matter much whether it was a web browser or a person that passed information to an enemy; The end result is the same.
Many of our enemies are now seeing that it is comparatively less costly to exploit technology than people. You'd think we'd have learned this lesson after the second world war -- wasn't cracking Enigma enough of a wake up call?

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Nuclear weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:08 · Score: 0

I suspect it is closer to,
telnet icbm12bravo.nukular.mil
username: president
password: 12345
Fire missile (Y/n)?
You may think I'm being facetious, but there are TONS of legacy systems everywhere (not just military) for which the air-gap security is the only security. No encryption. No ACLs. Connecting these systems to any network is beyond retarded. I would consider it sabotage for these system to have network access.
Re:Nuclear weapons? by TheRaven64 · 2012-10-01 08:16 · Score: 1

I don't think it still is (it's probably 12345), but the idea was that it needed to be something that someone in the highest-stress situation possible (i.e. just about to kill a few million people and the likelihood that millions that he represents are already dead) would have to be able to remember it.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Nuclear weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:17 · Score: 0

Its not. TFS is horribly misleading. Here's what happened:
- Conservative reporter releases story about nuclear computer being hacked
- White House acknowledges that an UNCLASSIFIED computer was hacked
Someone is lying here. TFS makes it look like there was a confession. There wasn't.
Re:Nuclear weapons? by couchslug · 2012-10-01 08:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Next up, petitioning the White House to find out why the fuck nuclear control systems are on the internet ..."
They aren't, (also Read The Fucking Article) but tech reporting and public ignorance in the US are so horrid that all PCs owned by the military are presumed to be connected to each other.
Hint:
Unclassified networks are used for Unclassified activities, of which there are many. They are different from Classified networks of various types. The usual communications necessary to getting ordinary business done (ordering asswipe, telling folks physical training is rescheduled, what the fuck ever) don't go on command and control networks.
An office in one building may (shock, horror) have systems connected to DIFFERENT networks, technologically astounding as that concept may be.
freebeacon got its page hits (hence the sensationalist title) and you got modded Insightful for displaying no Insight.
Mods, "Insightful" doesn't mean "me like, yay!". :-)

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Nuclear weapons? by SomePgmr · 2012-10-01 09:59 · Score: 1

Huh, what a coincidence... that's the code on my luggage.
Re:Nuclear weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 10:50 · Score: 0

Umm, the government has the source code to Windows. If you think they don't audit/modify it, especially for sensitive systems, then you are naive. Of course, it would be better if they avoided Windows all together for sensitive systems.
But whatever the case, I am certain this story is mostly hype. I seriously doubt the hackers breached anything even remotely related to nuclear command and control. Our government is incompetent in many ways, but I am certain the boys at NSA and DoD are not stupid when it comes to security of extremely sensitive networks.
Re:Nuclear weapons? by ohnocitizen · 2012-10-01 11:05 · Score: 1

I wonder if they are using drupal or a custom VB app for the server. Probably BF.
Re:Nuclear weapons? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 11:38 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link#Development_and_dissemination

For the Minuteman ICBM force, the US Air Force's Strategic Air Command worried that in times of need the codes would not be available, so they quietly decided to set them to 00000000. The missile launch checklists included an item confirming this combination until 1977.
I guess now they upgraded to 12345678
Re:Nuclear weapons? by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-01 13:06 · Score: 1

Sadly I was half joking as the government outsources to contractors who do not have these same clearances as easily. Of course because any Republican will say the private sector is always better.
In all seriousness, I hope I am joking about this. I have heard horror stories of SCADA requiring IE 6 for internet access for key nuclear powerplants and critical infrastructure. Sure they maybe on a private subnet but all it takes is some Chinese or Iranian user with a bad PDF to spoof an email address to infect the whole network and from there rootkit the routers and proxies to gain access that.
If China can even hack printers and themastats from the Chamber of Commerce my guess is they are already monitoring whitehouse email and probably have full access to the nukes if they do use IE 6 to administer the launches or ruin the equipment for them if they are intranet enabled.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Nuclear weapons? by cusco · 2012-10-01 16:36 · Score: 2

They use Windows because of NTFS. In the late '90s it was the only file system able to pass the extremely stringent testing that DOD conducted. Of course Windows NT came with NTFS, and then with Win 2000 Active Directory and Group Policies made it possible to secure entire networks to a degree not possible with any other OS of the time. Since then it's been inertia to a great deal, but really what other system allows an administrator to secure 10,000 machines at one time?

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Nuclear weapons? by airdweller · 2012-10-02 07:43 · Score: 1

" Windows NT came with NTFS, and then with Win 2000 Active Directory and Group Policies made it possible to secure entire networks to a degree not possible with any other OS of the time."
Seriously? No one is ripping this guy a new one yet? :)
Re:Nuclear weapons? by cusco · 2012-10-02 08:27 · Score: 1

Lots of people on this web site were around the industry in 2000, and remember what the industry was like then. What else were you going to use, FAT and Banyan Vines, or maybe Netware? Seriously, those of us who had to administer networks with hundreds of desktops jumped with joy when we found that we could lock down an entire group of (l)users' desktops so they couldn't fuck them up every week. Exchange 2000 allowed us to block attachments like ElfBowling.exe, which took out our SMTP server twice in a week, we could remotely edit the registries of 100 computers at a time to change the ODBC settings to point to the new DB server. This was revolutionary stuff!

Guess you had to be there.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Nuclear weapons? by bhiestand · 2012-10-02 19:12 · Score: 1

How is it that the government can refuse to grant a security clearance based on sexual orientation under the notion that it could be used to blackmail someone, but allow the use of software with a proven and highly publicized record of leaking information? What's more, people with security clearances are subjected to intense scrutiny -- their supervisors know about every little aspect of their lives, including that little dimple on the inside of your right thigh, yet routinely employ software that is essentially a big black box -- nobody knows how or why it works.
I am not sure where you got this information, but it is incorrect. I am not aware of any agency discriminating on hetero/homosexual orientation. Some sexual activities (bestiality, child molestation, pandering/prostitution) may become factors. Somebody may still care about orientation, but these days, I highly doubt it. The original NSA decision on orientation revolved around whether the person was out of the closet. If they were out, they couldn't be blackmailed. If they were in the closet, they could be. That is probably still the case, esp. if someone has a straight facade and is cheating on their spouse.
Supervisors don't know about every aspect of their employees' lives. The security people, however, may know quite a bit. It really depends on where the person works, their position, etc.

--
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling

Wait, what? by Alphanos · 2012-10-01 06:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

How can the attack include military systems used for nuclear commands, yet not include any secure classified systems?

When they made a list of which government systems should be secured, they decided to leave the nukes off that list?!

--
Alphanos

Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:49 · Score: 0

Simply they hacked the U.S. Nuclear Command Computer used to control their Facebook and Twitter Account.
Now with them taking that computer down for security reasons we can no longer let our friends know we are about to launch global thermonuclear war and tweet about it.
Re:Wait, what? by Anubis+IV · 2012-10-01 06:49 · Score: 4, Informative

Key word: "reportedly".
The initial report claimed that those were the systems that were compromised. The White House insider denied that those systems had been compromised, but confirmed that a non-classified network had been compromised.
Re:Wait, what? by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-10-01 06:54 · Score: 4, Informative

The press is most likely wrong. I've been on the news a couple of times, and they always get something wrong.
Any classified info is airgapped, end of story. I can do drawings on the [system] on the same computer I'm using for /. The vast, vast majority of drawings are not classified. (I joke that part of the OpSec is that if we get captured, I tell them everything I know, and when they fall asleep, we tiptoe out of the room. "In this circuit, we use cable LS2SJ-14. But in this circuit, we went to LS2SJ-12. Hey, PAY ATTENTION!" So like I was saying, we used LS2SJ-12 here...) If I want to look at anything that's classified, or even something that's CG, I have to do the following:
1. Have the clearance and the need to know.
2. Get a copy of the document sent to me, usually by FedEx.
3. Get a supervisor and go to the secure room, sign in, close the blinds and the door.
4. Get the HDD from the safe.
5. Check the computer, then put in the HDD.
6. Power up the computer. It's a stand-alone machine, that's what I was checking for.
7. Work.
8. Finish working. Print up stuff or burn it onto a disk. Fill out the form that shows that another copy of the material exists.
9. Power down the machine and put the HDD back in the safe.
10. Sign out of the secure room.
11. Mail the printout or CD to whoever it was that wanted it.
And that's for CG stuff. The TS stuff is watched constantly by people with weapons.
If someone can hack their way into a system where the info is not only powered off, but in a separate room from the equipment that can read it, inside a safe, then it's time to give the fuck up.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:59 · Score: 0, Troll

You shouldn't be revealing this stuff.
Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:13 · Score: 1

Any classified info is SUPPOSED TO BE airgapped, end of story.
...
FTFY
Re:Wait, what? by Quakeulf · 2012-10-01 07:25 · Score: 1

It is pretty obvious what security measures you can have. It's not like the whole thing was guarded by lasersharks and bahamuts trapped in a vortex existing between universes and only accessible between 11:54 and 11:57 every other Tuesday and you have to walk sideways in and backwards out again while saying the secret greeting three times and clap your hands, and failing to do so would only mean you would get teleported to a dark place beyond eternity.
Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:25 · Score: 0

Yet Bradley Manning managed to (allegedly) get out a copy of all those classified and secret diplomatic cables.
That dude - Sandy Burglar - managed to remove and then subsequently destroy highly sensitive material from the National Archives. I don't know what classification level it was, but still.
While I suspect the gov has some good processes in place, it's obvious there are holes in the system to be exploited.
Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's funny. I was at a client site (aerospace contractor) doing some software training in the mid-2000s, and when I asked why IE wasn't working on the computer I was using to demonstrate something I was told, "Oh, that's a DoD station; use this one right next to it."
So it was sort of airgapped, but all that Men In Black access control you were talking about was nowhere in sight.
I've had similar experiences at other defense contractors, too; although in that case I wasn't allowed to actually use the classified computers in the room with me, and it was suggested that I shouldn't really stare too long at the RC quad-copter some guys were working on over in the corner (although nobody put up a curtain or anything).
Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:45 · Score: 0

It is pretty obvious what security measures you can have. It's not like the whole thing was guarded by lasersharks and bahamuts trapped in a vortex existing between universes and only accessible between 11:54 and 11:57 every other Tuesday and you have to walk sideways in and backwards out again while saying the secret greeting three times and clap your hands, and failing to do so would only mean you would get teleported to a dark place beyond eternity.
Of course not, that's for talking to the Architect in The Matrix 2.
Re:Wait, what? by jovius · 2012-10-01 08:01 · Score: 1

If someone can hack their way into a system...
The first step is enough.
The problem is the bureaucracy of secrecy; not that secrets exist. On the other hand if everything was open there would be no threats, but it's immensely difficult to let go of the selfish illusions.
Re:Wait, what? by phorm · 2012-10-01 08:32 · Score: 1

So what happens when FedEx loses the package?
Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:52 · Score: 0

Not all the press, just Free Beacon, and apparently Slashdot. This is just some conservative hyperbole to make Obama look weak.
Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 09:00 · Score: 0

There are holes, but they all require some physical access. Meaning, you have to have an SC. It's always been the case throughout history that attacks can come from the inside. Technology doesn't change this.
Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 09:03 · Score: 0

Oh, that's a DoD station
That station is only SIPRNET, aka Secret level classification. We share that info with allies and allow contractors onto it. TS/SCI networks are entirely different and you were not in a room with one unless you were already cleared TS/SCI or being escorted by someone approved to escort you into the room. Even with an escort, red flashing lights are turned on to tell everyone in the room that TS/SCI level talk and material are not to be discussed.
Re:Wait, what? by Gryle · 2012-10-01 09:14 · Score: 1

Where were you at? More than likely the DoD station was cleared for something other than SIPRNET access, possibly CENTRIX usage or FOUO/CONFIDENTIAL.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Re:Wait, what? by Charliemopps · 2012-10-01 09:55 · Score: 1

More like: The air-force decided to make the Nuclear protection codes 50 diget, random ascii character monoliths imprinted on semi-holographic, impossible to put in a photo-copier keycards. After forgetting the card several times while going on vacation, several Generals got fed up, copied all the codes manually to a text file and stored it on their home PC and on their cellphones. Hackers got that text file. So while no classified networks were compromised, they still got the codes.

imo, the best way to safeguard the codes is to throw them away and just not tell anyone. The nukes are a deterrent. By the time we actually need to use them, we're screwed anyway so fuck it. And don't bring up aliens. If aliens show up and want to fuck with us, we're dead. Nukes or no nukes.
Re:Wait, what? by captain_nifty · 2012-10-01 10:11 · Score: 1

Matrix 2 you say?
I remember The Matrix it was a great movie, I always thought it was too bad they never made any sequels.
http://xkcd.com/566/
Re:Wait, what? by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-10-01 10:13 · Score: 1

The disks are encrypted, so it doesn't really matter.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 12:23 · Score: 0

Stand alone - awesome no HIDS HPSA modem FTW.
Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 20:29 · Score: 0

It's a wonderful way to create a casus belli against China though. Declare them the enemy and avoid paying them back all that money the US owes them. The public at large never seem to care too much if cacus belli are true or not. I'm sure fear-mongering military contractors would have a great old time with a new cold war.

no, the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:44 · Score: 0

...why does hacking is equated to phishing? Also, who designs a system like that? Right credentials.. that is all it takes,,

Okay by ledow · 2012-10-01 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Backing up my suspicions for the last 2+ years:

How does the US know the actual nationality of the hackers and not just their end-proxy?

The US have been trying to insinuate a cyber-war for years now, and never said how they know who's behind it (if you said the *ATTACK* came from China, fair enough - to say it ORIGINATED there is more of a stretch, and to say it was Chinese hackers is just ludicrous).

Of course we have suspicions and think we might know who's behind it and who owns the net-blocks, but what a wonderful way to discredit a nation and put the blame on someone else when you want to cyber-attack the US - just proxy through China and start WW3 when the US relatiates.

Really, US? How do you *KNOW*? On the scale that you can confidently state the Chinese "attacked" you (and coupled with your statements that cyber-attacks could be considered acts of war?)? You're REALLY that sure it was China that did it? That you can announce on the news that it was the country itself?

Or do you just want to start a war with China for some reason?

Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:52 · Score: 0

Backing up my suspicions for the last 2+ years:
How does the US know the actual nationality of the hackers and not just their end-proxy?
The US have been trying to insinuate a cyber-war for years now, and never said how they know who's behind it (if you said the *ATTACK* came from China, fair enough - to say it ORIGINATED there is more of a stretch, and to say it was Chinese hackers is just ludicrous).
Of course we have suspicions and think we might know who's behind it and who owns the net-blocks, but what a wonderful way to discredit a nation and put the blame on someone else when you want to cyber-attack the US - just proxy through China and start WW3 when the US relatiates.
Really, US? How do you *KNOW*? On the scale that you can confidently state the Chinese "attacked" you (and coupled with your statements that cyber-attacks could be considered acts of war?)? You're REALLY that sure it was China that did it? That you can announce on the news that it was the country itself?
Or do you just want to start a war with China for some reason?
Because they also went pee-pee in our coke.
Re:Okay by firewrought · 2012-10-01 06:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

How does the US know the actual nationality of the hackers and not just their end-proxy?
Perhaps they have collaborating intel from another source (e.g., spies or signals intelligence).

Or do you just want to start a war with China for some reason?
I wouldn't be surprised if it was posturing for election rhetoric. Could have been done to preempt a GOP leak ahead of Wednesday's debate, or it could tie-in with Obama's recent "tough on China" talking points. I try not to follow this stuff too closely though, so take my speculation with a grain of salt...

--
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:58 · Score: 0

Seriously, please quit the subterfuge. When a page is defaced in Chinese, based on a Chinese national talking point, from a Chinese IP address, it's harder and harder to blame say Romania.
In either case, hopefully the political pressure leads to either
A) Less attacks (my version)
B) Systems that aren't as exploited for "THEM" to use to pretend to China (your version)
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:58 · Score: 0

there was duck sauce all over the keyboards.
Re:Okay by JoeMerchant · 2012-10-01 07:01 · Score: 2

Because they got an agent into the hacker's den and looked over his shoulder as he was working?
Maybe the same sources that assured our leadership that there were WMD in Iraq are still knocking around the intel branch?
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:03 · Score: 0

I don't know how they can tell where the actual originating machine is, but it's not like China is not hacking the US (and vice versa):
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219437/China_hacking_video_shows_glimpse_of_Falun_Gong_attack_tool
http:/www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/chinese-state-tv-shows-military-cyber-hacking-clip/article535217
Re:Okay by Hentes · 2012-10-01 07:09 · Score: 1

They don't want to start to war, but as the wars in the Middle East are about to end the US military sector needs another reason to justify its massive funding.
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:18 · Score: 3, Funny

How did they know? Easy! The e-mail went like this:
"Hello Sir, very fine day indeed. I would like to inquire you buy cheap Sony cameras from our company. Not Chinese product, 100% original product. Please, look our offer in attached brochure.
I hope the day is very generous and we may come to agreement soon. Thank you!
Yours faithfully,
Clint Eastwood, CEO
Sony Company LTD."
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:21 · Score: 0

unicode comments
Re:Okay by s.petry · 2012-10-01 07:24 · Score: 1

You do realize that even with proxies one can track down addresses right? Sorry, but if you get a few hundred thousand probes come in from addresses that belong to China, you can probably be sure that it's China making the attack. Here is why: The US generally reports these attacks to China and asks them to stop the attack, so the Chinese Government is aware of the attack. Being the Chinese Government, they can either investigate and shut it down, or allow it to happen. If they choose the latter, they are at least accomplices correct?
Now are you fool enough to believe that China would allow free-for all hacking if they did not want it to happen or were not behind it? I guess you need to learn what they do to people that bypass their firewall system, or perhaps make a visit and try it yourself.
So yeah, we can usually be sure of where attacks come from. It's really not technically difficult, but rather politically difficult to stop.
Which does lead to the question of "Why the fuck do we have military installations, especially that sensitive, on the Public Internet to begin with?

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:35 · Score: 1

The hack described in this story does not involve the defacement of a webpage saying 'hacked by chinese'.
Please RTFA next time.
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:59 · Score: 0

Even with a definitive IP address and no proxies, the true identity can still be very much obscured.
Was it a transnational actor that took a trip to China to make this attack?
Was it through a TOR proxy chain and only the endpoint was in China?
Was the network in any way compromised (think C&C botnet)?
It is a dangerous game tying identities to IP addresses, as seen in the RIAA/MPAA war on intellectual property. Don't be so quick to place the blame on the easy target, for reasons the GP already outlined.
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:07 · Score: 0

You're REALLY that sure it was China that did it? That you can announce on the news that it was the country itself?
Apparently yes, since that's exactly what they did.
Re:Okay by poity · 2012-10-01 08:20 · Score: 1

Why would the Great Firewall allow other countries to tarnish China's good name?

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Re:Okay by poity · 2012-10-01 08:23 · Score: 2

Whitehouse confirms
Yes, Obama wants to start a war with China. You have singlehandedly exposed this conspiracy. Enjoy your +5 Insightful

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:53 · Score: 0

Actually, Iran. China is good friends with Iran and Russia. We need them too much. Iran, we need too. We might just end up in a war with all three. We can safely assume North Korea will join in. I see WWIII on the horizon.
Re:Okay by jodido · 2012-10-01 09:45 · Score: 0

If they also found fortune cookies, that proves it was--New Yorkers!
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 09:52 · Score: 0

Iran has nuclear weapons, china has cyber nuclear weapons. When the time is right. The build-up will have convinced people.
Re:Okay by s.petry · 2012-10-01 10:33 · Score: 1

You make it sound so easy to hide, when in reality it's not. You are not talking about a secure services or networks like TOR, you are talking about open connections which are not obscured in most cases.
You also ignore the fact that even if it is originating elsewhere, and all you can do is find the origin and it happens to be in China.. are you saying China can't shut down the route? Working at a DOD contractor for almost a decade, this was routine. It's called "cooperatioin" and happens pretty often to stop attacks.
Most of these types of attacks are open connections, and routes are very clear. Did you look at the part where it was the result of a spear phishing campaign, which is generally how people are breached in DOD land? Why hide after they get your username and password? Brute force or DOS attacks are not the same, obviously.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Okay by evilviper · 2012-10-01 13:15 · Score: 1

You should put away the tin-foil hat...
It's SOP that the US government doesn't disclose HOW they get their information, nor do they disclose how quickly they discovered such information.
The US most certainly has the resources and skilled personnel to track down the true perpetrators, even in the face of savvy use of chained proxies and zombie computer systems.
And finally, China is now the #2 economy in the world, and our major trading partner. There's practically nobody in government who wants to start a war with China, and there's certainly no public officials who have been log advocating for one, unlike Iraq.
If you want to be paranoid, why aren't you jumping to the conclusion that the White House is putting out misinformation, telling the Chinese government that they had reached critical systems, instead of just some honeynet the DoD wanted them to access? Or you could go for this being justification for the next round of legislation giving the White House the authority to control the internet.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 14:49 · Score: 0

No no, you miss his point. It's Bush's fault, or republicans. Either one will get you +5.
Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 01:42 · Score: 0

A typical Chinese Water Army response. Let the floods begin. We can trust China...don't worry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Water_Army

The dumbest people work in government by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:51 · Score: 0

Proof positive the dumbest people on the planet work for government.
Who in this day and age opens email from people or companies they haven't first contacted.
Who in this day and age clicks on a URL they don't know that arrives in an email from someone they don't know.

Re:The dumbest people work in government by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:06 · Score: 0

You're more vulnerable to a spear phishing attack than you might think you are...
Re:The dumbest people work in government by Sarten-X · 2012-10-01 07:09 · Score: 1

Very few people will click links from unknown sources, even in government.
However, when the email comes through saying it's from a common company such as Intuit or Chase (both of which have been used in phishing attacks I've seen lately), and comes from an email address from that domain, and looks legitimate (pictures and all), and it tells them that they can either click the link or type in the address, and can even address the target by name, most people won't think twice about clicking that little link to save some time.
As far as they can easily see, it's an email from a company they're in contact with, offering them a convenient link to take care of some important issue.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:The dumbest people work in government by jgtg32a · 2012-10-01 07:39 · Score: 1

You want to know how I know you don't work in security?
Re:The dumbest people work in government by sumdumass · 2012-10-01 10:16 · Score: 1

Yep.. Remember farm sluts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snjCj0ntG8E

How do you know? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:51 · Score: 0

WHen Obama first arrived in the whitehouse in 2009 the computers still had floppy drives and Exchange was down 25% of the time!

I highly doubt even with the new CIO Obama quickly hired to fix this that the whitehouse has any real security if the infrastructure was that poor? That scares me more than the president not receiving his email. I could imagine all the printers, servers, routers, and everything being rootkitted just lke the Chamber of Commerce was where even the thermastat sent data to Chinese IP addresses.

They aren't on the internet by wiredog · 2012-10-01 06:54 · Score: 1

They aren't even on siprnet.

--

Best Slashdot Co

Re:They aren't on the internet by girlintraining · 2012-10-01 06:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, not directly. But clearly there's data from public networks leaking into it; Security is badly broken somewhere.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:They aren't on the internet by Sparticus789 · 2012-10-01 07:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

No matter how secure you think a network is, there's always some idiot that does something like:
1. Upload 50 GB of downloaded music onto a secure network.
2. Upload 1 TB of downloaded movies onto a secure network.
3. General wants his/her Wikipedia fix, so there's one hole in the network security.
4. General #2 wants to check his/her Fantasy Football team from a secure network, hole #2 in security.
5. Etc. Etc. Etc.
So-called "secure" networks are nothing of the sort. They leak like a colander.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:They aren't on the internet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:45 · Score: 0

Why do you need fantasy football/wikipedia on siprnet when the secure computers are invariably sitting next to a niprnet terminal with a different colored desktop background?
Re:They aren't on the internet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 13:15 · Score: 0

The US classified networks (SIPRNet) are airgapped from the public internet. Access to the public internet is handled by simply having a second computer with normal internet access.
Also, I'm at a loss how copying pirated music/movies over a secure network would affect its security. Or why it would happen.
Re:They aren't on the internet by Sparticus789 · 2012-10-02 00:42 · Score: 1

The "air-gap" in SIPRNet is what they tell you, and how they say that it works. How far do you trust the US government to be honest?
That fact aside, when a General says they want something, it happens. Perhaps the act of shifting 2 feet to the right to access a standard network computer is too far for them to move. Whatever their reasons, all a General needs to do is go find his S-6 and order PV2 Snuffy to plug in some cables so he/she can access whatever they want on any computer they want. Do you think PV2 Snuffy is going to have the guts to tell a General no?
Let's just say that pirated music and movies are not always just music and movies. First, it eats into the limited bandwidth these systems have. Since you average computer user is not smart enough to realize that streaming one movie over a LAN does not impact performance, however when 500 other people have the same idea your network runs like molasses. Second, there's malicious software present on a lot of these. Like say, PVT Snuffy rips a bootleg DVD bought from some local merchant onto a thumb drive.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:They aren't on the internet by mcmaddog · 2012-10-02 10:23 · Score: 1

You have no clue what you are talking about. No General or Admiral with clearance to SIPRNet is then going to turn around and tell a minion to violate every security procedure and hook up a non secure network to a secure terminal. For starters the DoD was burned too badly by thumb drive based attacks on NIPRNet and so security awareness is much greater now, and secondly I doubt most General's with clearance to SIPRNet even access it themselves let alone your preposterous scenario of wanting to watch NetFlix.

Some may be thinking... by Sir_Eptishous · 2012-10-01 06:54 · Score: 0

October Surprise. Or a lame attempt at one.

Also, have fun reading the ridiculous comments on the Politico site.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range

WTF? by Lucas123 · 2012-10-01 06:54 · Score: 1

White House sources partly confirmed that U.S. government computers ...including systems used by the military for nuclear commands, were breached by Chinese hackers. I'm speechless. May heads roll!

Chinese hackers or just Chinese IP address? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

How do they know the phishing emails were sent by Chinese hackers? Are they just using the IP address of where the email originated to determine the nationality of the hackers?

Hurray! We've been Saved! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:58 · Score: 0

They were able to save us from doom this time, but we might not be so lucky the next time.... ... unless we give them all of our privacy rights and billions of dollars.

May you live in interesting times by subreality · 2012-10-01 07:03 · Score: 1

Definitely some interesting times ahead as the US's knee jerk SPREAD PEACE LOVE AND DEMOCRACY WITH BOMBS response meets the reality of that whole starting a war in Asia thing.

Re:May you live in interesting times by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:01 · Score: 0

Peace? Who said anything about peace?
"We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing."

Direct conflict's STUPID (as in real war) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:03 · Score: -1

The Chinese even have Sun-Tzu telling them this iirc! It's wisdom-to-the-max, but imo, also teaches a "wuss weasel" way of doing things in conflicts (then again, "all's fair in love & war", right?)

"Or do you just want to start a war with China for some reason?" - by ledow (319597) on Monday October 01, @02:46PM (#41516421) Homepage

I shouldn't answer for the person you're replying to, but I do NOT *think* anyone here is THAT stupid... especially with an opponent that one HAS to respect!

This?

Well, imo @ least - So far, this isn't "serious" enough to start a REAL war over - even though the U.S. has said it constitutes an "act of war" to do 'cyber-war' style attacks...

No, not serious enough - @ least, not yet, & there's no REAL "solid" proof as you noted too, that it IS the actual Chinese government behind it!

Hey - personally?

Yes - I suspect they ARE to some extent, but largely for "research" purposes...

(Why? This time, let's quote the Roman General Vegetius: "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (if you want peace, prepare for war)).

* In ANY event? I think it would be HELLISHLY interesting though I must admit, to see what nation actually WOULD "come out on top" in a 'cyber war' though, stupid as it sounds & contradicting myself above!

APK

P.S.=> Hey, it's "the primitive in me" man... lol! Everyone LOVES a good fight - what makes me laugh? Even though MOST FOLKS WILL DO ANYTHING TO AVOID GETTING INTO A FIGHT (rightfully so)?? They always watch when ones "goes down" though, don't they??? LOL!

... apk

Budget Appropriations by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:03 · Score: 0

I'll bet appropriations for cyber security have a lot less trouble passing in the next budget session.

Proverb by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-10-01 07:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

The web page is slow, but the phish is patient.

Closing days by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-10-01 07:11 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Chinese or the GOP? Down the strech, shenanigans like this are very possible from a trailing party. Crooked voting machines? Check. Must be this white to vote? Check. Cyberattacks? WHY THE HELL NOT.

Re:Closing days by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:14 · Score: 0

Wow... HOW tight is your tinfoil hat?
Re:Closing days by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 13:45 · Score: 0

Or maybe... it's aliens! Get the tinfoil hat, quick!!!

Need new goggles? by s.petry · 2012-10-01 07:14 · Score: 0, Troll

Are you still under the delusion that the Politicians for the US Government or any of the 3 letter agencies really give a shit about the USA, or the people that live in the USA?

For anyone under this delusion, I can only ask you to look around. I'm not claiming that everyone working for these agencies is bad mind you, most I consider people that just want to do a job and get a pay check. The people running the shows however, are very bad people. I'm sure many people working at these agencies realize this, but fear opening their mouths for obvious reasons. We all saw what happened with a whistle blower in CA right? I mean, their house was raided, father was left to die having a heart attack. Of course their house was ransacked costing them money, they lost their job, and had to pay a fortune in legal fees. That's one of the few stories that made it to the public, and not an isolated incident.

Currently, we are pretty fucked. Way to many people sleeping through what's been going on, and those that are awake prefer complacency to action.

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Re:Need new goggles? by sakshale · 2012-10-01 07:47 · Score: 2

May I point you to Hanlon's razor?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

--
For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.
Re:Need new goggles? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 09:49 · Score: 0

News Translation:
We hid the key inside a pot saying "keys inside" beside our front door and the bad neighbor used it.
Re:Need new goggles? by s.petry · 2012-10-01 10:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

How long will you excuse the stupidity before you realize that it's intentional? It took me quite a long time, and I ignored all the warnings from people around me at the time. Now that we have descended in to the state they predicted, bankrupted and near tyranny I get it.
Instead of wasting your time making excuses for them, do something productive. Go get some people you trust on ballots and campaign to get them in to offices, and get the turds out of the punch bowl.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Need new goggles? by s.petry · 2012-10-01 10:15 · Score: 1, Interesting

And just to be clear, do you think Obama is just "Stupid" when he is spending 2 times what the Government income is every year? Does anyone not know what happens when they have 0 savings, and spend twice their income year after year? Come on now, you can't be that gullible can you?
Do you think that Fast and Furious was just a stupid idea, and of course ignore demand letters 1-3? I'm guessing so, because they are too stupid to make those kinds of mistakes intentionally right?
The NDAA was just another mistake I'm sure. Lets ignore the fact that Obama and his attorneys have appealed the judges ruling twice now, it's just stupidity at work and he really does care about John Q Public and would never put them in jail or kill them without trial.
Yeah, I mean.. these guys are just stupid. I mean, all those years of grooming and college to prep them for the office and they are just.. well, stupid right? Or are the people that believe they are stupid?

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Need new goggles? by ryanov · 2012-10-01 10:39 · Score: 1

The US economy is not your stupid household budget. Stop making that asinine comparison.
Re:Need new goggles? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 11:12 · Score: 0

Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
Re:Need new goggles? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 13:50 · Score: 0

That's right, countries can't go broke, it's never happend. .... O wait. IDIOT.
Re:Need new goggles? by ryanov · 2012-10-01 20:09 · Score: 1

Yes, countries can go broke. NO it's not like a household budget. It's not. Period.
Re:Need new goggles? by s.petry · 2012-10-02 05:02 · Score: 1

Have you bothered to study any history at all? Do you know what happens when a country goes bankrupt? I'm guessing not, since you seem to believe that it's no big deal. Go read some fooking history, the get back to us on the issue.
And to say it does not compare is completely asinine on your part, at least in the basics of an economy and budget. Since you fail to read history, I'm guessing that you really truly believe that comparing spending money I don't have is different between a Government and a Household, which means that you severely lack education.
Ever hear of Morgan Friedman? Go listen to some of his speeches so that you don't have to work very hard to get educated. Heaven forbid anyone exert any effort in knowing what they hell they are talking about.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Need new goggles? by s.petry · 2012-10-02 05:25 · Score: 1

Deficit spending is the same, no matter who's budget you are looking at. Whether Government or you at home, spending what you don't have with no plan to get out of debt ensures bankruptcy. The difference of course is a matter of whom gets fucked when the bankruptcy occurs, in which case a Government should never have been allowed to spend money it does not have since every citizen gets fucked over on a default. See here.
To claim there is no similarity without qualifiers screams of ignorance. If you had claimed the difference is that the Government fucks over a lot more people in the process, I'd agree with your claim. You however seem to be under the delusion that it's okay for a Government to spend in a deficit, take money from funds of the people (see what the US President EO's have done to Social Security over the last 30 years), etc.. etc.. and it's not. A Government should NEVER spend money it does not have, ever.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Need new goggles? by ryanov · 2012-10-02 09:16 · Score: 1

They are not the same, and you are not an economist. It has been written many times by people who DO work with the economy that it is a stupid analogy.
Are you getting Milton Friedman confused with Morgan Freeman in a message where you're scolding me for not knowing what I'm talking about? Just so we're clear.
Re:Need new goggles? by ryanov · 2012-10-02 09:19 · Score: 1

No, it isn't.
Among many: http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why
Re:Need new goggles? by s.petry · 2012-10-03 06:28 · Score: 1

I never claimed to be an economist, however I have studied many and what their thoughts are. There is no confusion in whom I was referring. Here is a Wiki page with his information, but there are numerous speeches from him available on Youtube. A quick Google search would have yielded the same result as I posted, so you obviously care very little about your ignorance.
Pay attention to what he says regarding deficit spending, and remember that he is not alone. Every great economist over the last 300+ years has said the same thing. If you want to bankrupt and kill a country, spend what you don't have. This is not rocket science at all, you are just believing a fallacy that someone taught you claiming it's okay for a Government to spend spend spend even when they don't have it. You have been mislead, and all you have to do is study a bit to see that the fallacy is just that.
If you fail to believe the economists, why not look at history? I gave you an example, but there are many more. Germany was not the only country to do this. And don't keep fooling yourself, how economies work does not change over time. The mistakes being made now will yield the same results as they yielded the Germans in the early 20th century, and have yielded for every country that has taken the same path. As the old proverb states "those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

That's one problem with cyber by daveschroeder · 2012-10-01 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Attribution.

Disclaimer: I am a Navy Information Warfare Officer.

First, it's important to note that the White House didn't confirm the suspected source. It was anonymous officials who said this appeared to originate "from China" -- take that as you will.

As you point out, an attack may appear to come from a particular (set of) IP address(es), network(s), or source(s). An attack may have a certain profile, or share a profile with other attacks. An attack may have an assumed motivation based on its target. The attacker(s) may even wish to make it appear that the attack is originating elsewhere.

Even if the "source" is established, is it a nation-state? Hacktivists? Nationalist hackers acting on behalf of government or at the government's explicit or implicit direction? Transnational actors? None of the above?

No one wants to "start a war" with China, but the error in balancing the cyber threat against the "hype" is assuming that all threats are bogus, or must be the result of hawks looking for neverending war, excuses to begin/escalate the next "Cold War", and similar. The threat from China is very real, long-established, and well-understood for anyone who cares to look. It has been discussed thoroughly, even for the Chinese, in their own strategic literature, and there are very public examples of China's offensive cyber capabilities. China's investment in offensive cyber capabilities comes because of the understanding that dominance of the information realm will essentially allow China to skip large chunks of military modernization and still be highly effective in any conflict with the United States.

Think of it this way: it's now assumed that the Stuxnet/Duqu/Flame family were created by the US and/or Israel. (Keep in mind that even overt admissions prove nothing, and can be self-serving...) Even before the books and articles about OLYMPIC GAMES, attribution was assumed because of the target and because of snippets of clues in the code. In general, why is that assumption any more or less valid than this? Is it because some are more inclined to believe that of course the US engages in cyber warfare; but any cyber attacks against us are suspect.

Of course, there are those who will assume that indications of any cyber attack will always be a "false flag" and/or used by those with ulterior motives who want war. It can't possibly be that there are aggressors who indeed want to attack the US, and who greatly benefit from the odd proclivity of those in free societies to see the enemy as their own government, while overlooking the actual adversary. Sun Tzu would be beaming.

Background:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html?_r=1

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

China is on track to exceed US military spending in real dollars by 2025
http://www.economist.com/node/21542155

China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

The dragon’s new teeth: A rare look inside the world’s biggest military expansion
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

Essential

Re:That's one problem with cyber by DigiShaman · 2012-10-01 09:15 · Score: 1

Except that China's own worst enemy is itself. It will be interesting to see how much longer their government can continue its reign before corruption pulls it under in revolution. I'm a firm believer that all social groups such as family, tribes, corporations, all the way to entire systems of governance falls to corruption. The end result is inevitable. It's only a matter of time. The real question to ask is which form of government can withstand the corruption, fall, and cleansing process?

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:That's one problem with cyber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 09:33 · Score: 0

Commenting like this on specific countries isn't too smart dude. As stupid as it sounds that is considered "Secret".
Re:That's one problem with cyber by girlintraining · 2012-10-01 09:41 · Score: 2

...and who greatly benefit from the odd proclivity of those in free societies to see the enemy as their own government, while overlooking the actual adversary.
After noting your disclaimer and then reading your post, two thoughts occurred to me. First, that they've trained you well. Your response was concise, well-articulated, and you were careful to define the limits of what you know (and what, by extension, anyone could know from the data). As a US citizen, this is comforting to me. The information and understanding of our military is often sensationalized, spun, and twisted to serve particular political ends to the point that a clear picture of what our military is actually about is lost. To hear a first-hand account directly from someone on the front-lines is invaluable to me precisely because it is so hard to come by. Thank you for sharing.
The second thought stemmed from your comment towards the end about how citizens of a 'free' society often consider their own government to be the enemy. I'm sure you'll agree that many of the threats to our country aren't conventional. From terrorism to urban combat, cyber to commercial -- arguably, some of our enemies don't even consider themselves as such. Nowadays neglecting to secure a router could take out internet access for millions of people and cost many millions in economic damages.
When you consider how varied the attacks and attackers can be, and how they could combine in novel ways not anticipated by either the defenders or attackers, how do we go about defining our enemies at all? If a system administrator misconfigures a router and damages our information infrastructure, is that any less relevant than someone sticking C4 to the side of a power transmission tower to cause a similar amount of damage? Both have harmed the country's interests -- arguably, both could be called enemies of the state for having done so.
To bring it all home, my point is this: How do we, as citizens, trust our military when we can't be completely sure whether an action (or inaction) could lead to a military response? Likewise, how can the military trust us? Much of the infrastructure that units like yours seek to protect are under civilian control. How do you separate friend from foe in a battlefield where accidents and mistakes are as costly as attacks and sabotage? Especially when the theatre in question is one where misdirection and disinformation are so prevalent? Everything has the potential to be a threat or a decoy.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:That's one problem with cyber by girlintraining · 2012-10-01 09:52 · Score: 2

Oh, and P.S. Thank you for your service. I would serve with you if I could, but at the time I would otherwise have been eligible to enlist, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was still legal and prevalent in our armed services. If I can't stand with you, the least I can do is stand behind you. Again, thank you.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:That's one problem with cyber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 11:34 · Score: 0

imo: this is a simple ruse as the leverage to grant POTUS the passing of the next Executive Order to get an InterNet Kill-Switch+. We have seen many "anonymous sources" which have since proven false with obvious intent of political gain.
Re:That's one problem with cyber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 12:55 · Score: 0

I am a Navy Information Warfare Officer
Are we supposed to believe that everything you post here as fact then? Or exactly the opposite? Well, at least we know why you get all defensive about American adventurism, while attacking other countries that may only be trying to defend themselves from you.
Re:That's one problem with cyber by daveschroeder · 2012-10-01 15:07 · Score: 1

If a system administrator misconfigures a router and damages our information infrastructure, is that any less relevant than someone sticking C4 to the side of a power transmission tower to cause a similar amount of damage?
One word:
Intent.
Intent matters. That's why we punish people who kill someone or cause property damage, etc., intentionally, and don't punish those who do the same things, but don't do so intentionally (and also don't do so because of negligence or reckless disregard). It's the same result: someone is dead, property is destroyed, etc., no?
(Ahh, the gray area -- negligence. What if that network admin can be proven "negligent"? Well, I'm not a lawyer, but the general answer is still intent.)
So, intent matters. We care when someone is actively and purposefully trying to do us harm. That's also the simple answer to the question of why we prosecuted a "war on terror", and why we don't have a war on ladders, a war on lightning, a war on car accidents, or any manner of other things that can kill people. Those things are accidents. Sure, sometimes there is negligence peppered in, and there is immeasurable complexity beyond how I've distilled it down here.
But what of cyber -- when we talk of something like "neglecting" to secure a router (secure how? by whose standards? by what measure?), and it is compromised and real, quantifiable damage is caused, who is at fault: the admin, or the attacker? There are two general camps here: those who believe that the admin and/or router vendor is at fault, and those who believe the attacker is at fault. The truth usually lies somewhere in between, but on the friendly side it's less about "fault" and more about responsibility.
If you leave your house unlocked, and someone comes in and burns it down, is that your "fault"? There are all sorts of ways to argue this, but the bottom line is that while you might have a responsibility to protect your property in a sensible manner given your circumstances, it's still the attacker who is solidly at fault, and subject to punishment.
When it comes to cyber war it's a complex landscape. Civilian, academic, financial, critical infrastructure, government, and military systems are all interconnected. What's the difference between cyber war, cyber espionage, cyber crime, cyber terrorism, hacktivism, or simple malicious hacking? We as a society rely on these systems. We want to be protected, but we don't trust the government to do it. Perhaps that will always be a shortcoming of free and open society in this and other realms; the benefits of open society certainly outweigh the risks. But that also puts us at a distinct disadvantage to those who wish to attack us, whatever their motivation and affiliation.
As for how we trust the military? By learning what the capabilities, techniques, and threat landscape looks like. Sure, some information is classified or so arcane as to be boring, but it's all out there. How can we trust the military to properly execute any military action -- to maintain air superiority, to drop a bomb, or to capture a city? Because, politics and personal feelings on any particular issue aside, these things are well-understood concepts. Cyber might not yet be as well-understood, but even for all the obfuscation, confusion, and hype, it's a realm that also has rules and can be understood.
Militaries have been deceiving their adversaries for literally millennia. Cyber is new, but it is no different. Yes, it is powerful, and a single person or small group can create havoc far disproportionate to their manpower. But we've had many significant force multipliers over the course of warfare. We develop new tactics, new intelligence methods, new techniques, new capabilities.
If an adversary attacked a US civilian asset militarily, is it not the job of our military apparatus to protect us...? It seems we have gotten to a point where people believe it is laughable to "trust" the US government or the military, when there is egr
Re:That's one problem with cyber by gmhowell · 2012-10-01 15:49 · Score: 1

There are ways to serve in a similar capacity without coming anywhere near traditional military.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:That's one problem with cyber by girlintraining · 2012-10-01 16:24 · Score: 1

Well, again, you're pretty much right clear across the board. I guess the only thing I can say is, I think the reason people have lost perspective is because we don't see the whole production, just the highlight reel. It's not really newsworthy to report that everything went according to plan. I don't have absolute confirmation or proof that terrorists are out there, planning to include me in their next political statement. I don't need to either. I know that yes, there's probably some asshole in a cave right now making bombs who wants me dead. I also know there's another asshole, my kind of asshole, making sure he fails. It doesn't make the news when J. Random Terrorist takes two to the chest courtesy of Uncle Sam because that was the plan all along. As long as everything is going to plan, even if the plan is shit nobody blinks.
Of course, you know what happens when things don't go according to plan... we get to watch it on CNN. The problem with the news is the same as the problem watching NASCAR. People watch it to see cars wreck, not go in circles. Of course, whereas most people know race car driving is entertainment... they don't look at CNN the same way.
... They really should.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:That's one problem with cyber by girlintraining · 2012-10-01 16:39 · Score: 1

There are ways to serve in a similar capacity without coming anywhere near traditional military.
True, but they require security clearances and background checks. I have no criminal record save a speeding ticket, but I fail every time; They still consider anyone who isn't heterosexual to be a security risk. They aren't allowed to say that's the reason for the denial, of course, but I've been told by enough people who hold or have held them it's still going to be awhile before people who are LGBT are considered equal in that area... like so many others. The other thing is, and it's something not many people know: Security clearances at the higher levels become increasingly subjective. The closer a person is scrutinized, the more likely they are to find some random attribute that's probably harmless as threatening, simply because someone many years ago who also possessed said random attribute did something they shouldn't have. And especially for fringe-communities like LGBT, the most common rejection reason is that they're worried the person's lifestyle could be used as leverage against them. Your cross-dressing coworker of 20 years probably doesn't want his conservative boss to know about his hobby at the local gay bar. So although it may be illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation... that doesn't mean much in the world of security clearances. There, it's all about liabilities and exposures... and until LGBT folk are socially equal to their non-LGBT peers, they'll always be turned away.
This is one of the reasons why I suspect all government agents seem to look and act alike... they've boiled away the other 97% of applicants that had any personality or interesting quirks and were left with these rarified beasties that are put into those positions precisely because they're completely sterile.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:That's one problem with cyber by gmhowell · 2012-10-01 17:02 · Score: 1

No idea about the trans portion, but the LGB part? You need to be applying to the right contractors with the right agencies. With the explosion of security theatre post 9/11, there are many openings, and an American boy who likes to kiss boys (or American girl who likes to kiss girls) is pretty low on the list.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:That's one problem with cyber by jdogalt · 2012-10-01 20:26 · Score: 1

ok, you trolled me into reading that first page of that one article, and then replying when drunk and stoned. So I read that, particularly the last lines of the page. As you seem to be someone doing a good job of portraying themselves as a rational actor- How do _you_ think the issue should come down on whether or not it is the civilians or the military that should have the crown of control over the internet? You make some legitimate references to people who too easily dismiss the foreign threat in the name of fearing their own government. How do you personally come down on the issue of whether or not the tech for actually secure communications belonging in the hands of all civilians or not? Should ssh be mandatorily backdoored as the FBI is currently requesting Google and Facebook to fall in line with? Is that your assessment of the best path forward?
-dmc
fyi, my manifesto is located here- (work in progress)- http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121001.pdf
Re:That's one problem with cyber by daveschroeder · 2012-10-01 23:49 · Score: 1

This might be more true in the uniformed services (though I've certainly worked with a pretty diverse array of people and ideas; perhaps not as diverse as our society at large, but diverse nonetheless) and a lot of direct federal government employment at some of the intelligence agencies, but it's definitely not true of contractors. What you're describing is true in agencies that have a very established and rigid culture, like has been developed for a lot of the federal law enforcement positions (such as FBI). I've seen my share of combinations of eccentric, gay, pierced, odd, tattooed, interesting folks with clearances working for DOD/IC contractors.
The biggest issue with a clearance is getting your foot in the door because you have a special skill set. Many go the military route -- they already have a clearance, and it's any easy choice when they go to the civilian or contractor side. It's a big investment to hire someone who is uncleared, start paying them, and wait a year while their clearance investigation is in process. It's definitely akin to the whole, "they won't hire without experience, but how will I get experience if no one will hire me?" Persistence, mainly.
The repeal of DADT will go the furthest to changing the broader culture, I think. But you know what? I've met very few people, save perhaps some young kids who don't yet know any better, who really cares. And if any of the senior or middle leadership personally cares, they don't show it. This is a non-issue for the military. I'm also glad to see ROTC being welcomed back to institutions like Yale. It was the right thing to do.
And as was noted there are plenty of ways to perform service to your country and those around you without serving in the military!
Re:That's one problem with cyber by daveschroeder · 2012-10-02 00:34 · Score: 1

The answer is simple: in our country and system of government, the military fundamentally, and as a matter of law, answers to civilian authorities.
The military doesn't need to have day-to-day "control", but we need to have the capability, when attacked militarily, to defend ourselves militarily -- including in the "cyber" realm.
The mistake people make is believing it's a binary either/or; either civilian or military. The fact is that our information capabilities are so critical that they need appropriate levels of protection. The notion that civil authorities can defend systems from a cyber attack is a fine notion, but not realistic if we are under a coordinated cyber attack from a nation-state explicit seeking to cripple us. If a foreign military is bombing civilian targets within our own borders, is not the purpose of our military to protect us? Sure, civil first responders will be involved, too, but I think most would expect a military response. We as a nation are so used to the military being something we use in foreign lands and faraway places that the concept of our military being here to defend ourselves at home is a concept that is, well -- foreign.
There can certainly be (and already are) public-private partnerships, civilian-military cooperation, etc. This also doesn't mean that secure systems and protocols should be "backdoored" for the government, but it might mean having some combination of infrastructure, equipment, accesses, standards, partnerships, rules, and similar in place at civilian facilities.
I think the problem people have is that we can see planes, tanks, and soldiers -- we are worried we can't "see" what "the government" is doing, as is the case in the digital realm. But what we can "see" is the law and a robust system of oversight. Yes, history tells us that there have been abuses. There no doubt will be again. It is a system made up of humans and all of their requisite imperfections.
But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater -- just because we know we can't do something perfectly doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Does the benefit outweigh the risks? Some believe that giving any military or intelligence service ANY control over defense of systems and networks represents too big a risk -- I would ask those people to get a broader perspective.
Hope this answers at least part of your question; this is just my own view.
Re:That's one problem with cyber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 02:44 · Score: 0

Most of your statement isn't true. Being LGBT isn't considered a risk. If you are open about sexual orientation it is no risk at all and none of the agencies I worked with consider it so. What makes a person a security risk is traits or behaviours that can potentially be used to extract information out of them in the form of blackmail or some other extortion. So basically the rule is if you're LGBT and you want to work in one of the agencies (maybe not the military) then you just have to be open about it. There are even LGBT community groups at the agencies I use to work at so I don't think its fair to say that they are banned from security clearances. Also I think your view of the people working at these places is off. They are not as cookie cutter as you like to believe. At the agencies I've worked with you see a pretty even distribution along the political and ideological lines. I've worked with republican athiests, liberal christians, and everything between those two.
Re:That's one problem with cyber by jdogalt · 2012-10-02 06:51 · Score: 1

The answer is simple: in our country and system of government, the military fundamentally, and as a matter of law, answers to civilian authorities.
That's not a simple answer at all. It's an easy 'corporate' line. But the truth is that strategic economic decisions made on the behalf of the US for the past 20 years have put China in a position to be able to use vast amounts of US currency to influence civilian businesses. But no, it's not like I think I'm telling you something you don't know. I just think that we deserve apologies from the companies that got rich selling out the human rights of the Chinese (e.g. the first public caving of Yahoo handing over a free speaking dissident to the authorities. Then up to e.g. the amount of Chinese cyber intrusions that all these companies covered up for years, providing the internet users of the world false illusions of levels of communication security).

The military doesn't need to have day-to-day "control", but we need to have the capability, when attacked militarily, to defend ourselves militarily -- including in the "cyber" realm.
Yeah, OK, whatever, pull the plug on Skynet. You guys have a lot of guns and bombs and money, and in a 'military defense' posture, can no doubt again, ask the network operators to pull the plug on Skynet. But the issue I brought up, which I think is central and stated in terms that most of us here can understand- Is it a good thing that the FBI is asking Google and Facebook to mandatorily backdoor ssh (or, if you want to be pedantic, any subsequent point release of ssh that includes fixed algorithms that block all exploits the US gov has. I.e. that could be 0 or more exploits now for all I or any civilian knows, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that at some point some minor point release of ssh, if not secure from the USgov, might become secure again for awhile. And the cnet disclosure of that FBI pressure on businesses, described a policy that boils down in essence to outlawing non-backdoored versions of ssh.

The mistake people make is believing it's a binary either/or; either civilian or military.
OK, nice strawman then, as it was your super highlighted article that made that point which you now purport to tear down. I agree, it's not black or white, so lets get back to my question- government mandated backdoors in ssh??

The fact is that our information capabilities are so critical that they need appropriate levels of protection. The notion that civil authorities can defend systems from a cyber attack is a fine notion, but not realistic if we are under a coordinated cyber attack from a nation-state explicit seeking to cripple us. If a foreign military is bombing civilian targets within our own borders, is not the purpose of our military to protect us? Sure, civil first responders will be involved, too, but I think most would expect a military response.
That's almost funny. Where has this military response been for the last 10 years? All I've seen are lazy greedy corporations that don't give a rats ass about human rights or privacy, at least when it comes to standing up to threats to those arena from China. And then there is sad of how economic policy, i.e. to the point of folks like me not really believing there is a relevant line between the China and US governments. I mean, can folks like you do anything but order another drink and sigh when you look at the ongoing deficit issue with China, and then pretend that this can be looked at as a military issue between two superpowers, rather than a citizenship of the world issue trying to figure out how to live under a new government that is effectively, if not superficially, a single unified entity?

We as a nation are so used to the military being something we use in foreign lands and faraway places that the concept of our military being here to defend ourselves at home is a concept tha
Re:That's one problem with cyber by girlintraining · 2012-10-02 08:29 · Score: 1

And as was noted there are plenty of ways to perform service to your country and those around you without serving in the military!
I've wanted to get into digital forensics with the FBI's cyber crime unit here, but despite having a clean record (minus a speeding ticket, heh) they told me to bugger off. I still help people who do work with law enforcement off the books, consulting and offering advice. It's just not the same though -- it's sad when someone feels a duty to serve, but can't find a home with most federal agencies. The few that would take me I'm just not interested in -- my skill set is computers, not busting street dealers. I would jump at the chance to work with people catching pedophiles, stalkers, and other online dirtbags, in any capacity... even just as a consultant, getting paid dirt to do it. I was raised in a small town... I don't know what it is about that, but everyone I know who feels the same way comes from a small town; We all seem to have a code of ethics that tells us we need to serve our community in some fashion.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:That's one problem with cyber by daveschroeder · 2012-10-02 08:55 · Score: 1

A couple of things:
1. I thought your Google manifesto was very good (I know it's a work in progress).
2. I think you're reading WAY too much into certain things.
There is no grand conspiracy at play to "prevent people from running their own servers". There are many normal things on even client systems that can be described as a "server" such that the distinction is almost meaningless. Yes, there are plenty of traditional "server" and cloud services which many people use. The reason that Google has such language in the TOS isn't to do things like break the fundamental promise of the Internet or to enable government surveillance; it's because Google doesn't want people running businesses on 100 Mbps connections out of their homes. The promise of Google Fiber is predicated on the assumption that it's going to be consumer-type use; consumption, educational use, interaction with content, etc.
We all might be able to say that no one can predict what kinds of legitimate, high-bandwidth outbound services someone might be able to dream up from a home setting; Google is saying, "Don't set up the next slashdot or a cloud virtualization business from your house." The net neutrality argument is interesting, and I have to say I agree with the essence of everything you wrote on that subject.
Back to the other issues. I'm a little disappointed you called so many of my responses straw men; they're not in any respect.
I have not seen any serious calls for "backdoors" in secure protocols. You're completely misunderstanding what even the FBI wants: you're imagining a scenario where "the Man" has a secret backdoor to any running system, encryption, or secure protocol, anywhere. That is not only false, it actually would be gravely detrimental to our own security: we -- individuals, the civilian sector, the government, the military -- rely on the security of these protocols. It's similar to the belief among some that NSA has a "secret backdoor" in AES, even though AES is well-understood, and we use various levels of AES to protect everything up to the most sensitive classified information. If AES has a backdoor -- ANY backdoor -- it is useless to us.
What the FBI "wants" is the ability to lawfully wiretap communications that occur on the internet just as easily as it's been able to with, e.g., something like landline telephones. Telephone companies have implemented equipment and procedures which let law enforcement say, "We have a warrant, and we need to tap phone number XXX-XXX-XXXX in realtime," and the telecom operator needs to provide that capability in a timely fashion. Not a log of past activity, not days or weeks later -- realtime. This is a long-established practice.
The proposed CALEA modifications are intended to extend that capability to major internet communications providers. The Yahoos, the GMails, the Facebooks. So that instead of phone number XXX-XX-XXXX, a law enforcement entity has a clearly established procedure for obtaining a realtime "tap", as it were, on a person's private Twitter activity, Facebook activity, Yahoo email account, or similar. Again, this is using the same standards for probable cause and warrants which have been applied to communications for decades.
This doesn't mean "the FBI" wants a "backdoor" in ssh, ssl, or any other protocol. It's not even a "backdoor". If anything, it is a FRONT door: a formal set of procedures, and the systems and processes in place at internet and communications providers to handle it, which allows for the same kind of lawful "taps" on internet/digital communications.
So, what's "lawful"?
Why should law enforcement not have a capability to intercept communications with a warrant? Why is "the Internet" different? Because it's not just a thing, but also an idea which allows the free global exchange of ideas? Sure, but why does the body of law on our own society not apply to "the Internet"? Why should the FBI or any other law enforcement entity with a properly-obtained warrant not be able to have a mechanism to tap
Re:That's one problem with cyber by jdogalt · 2012-10-02 14:17 · Score: 1

A couple of things:
1. I thought your Google manifesto was very good (I know it's a work in progress).
2. I think you're reading WAY too much into certain things.
On 1, my deepest gratitude. On 2, you may be right, or I may request your forgiveness for using arguably 'information warfare' tactics in this to achieve an end such as (1). Or rather, the more specific end, Vint Cerf's attention. I just emailed my brother asking for Mr. Cerf's email address (because googling 'vint cerf email address' didn't help). But I doubt he wants to be involved with this (and rightly so as he has nothing AFAIK directly to do with GoogleFiber), so I'll also ask for it from you- please send to dmc@cloudsession.com .
I'll hold off on detailed comments to the rest of what you said, which, makes a certain amount of sense, but at the same time doesn't. But I'm hoping that some feedback from Mr. Cerf will shed important light on the nature of specifically those confusions. Thanks again for the feedback. -dmc

You know, why don't you just email Vint Cerf and see what he thinks about the core of your net neutrality question wrt Google Fiber? He just might respond.
Re:That's one problem with cyber by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 10:34 · Score: 0

They still consider anyone who isn't heterosexual to be a security risk. They aren't allowed to say that's the reason for the denial, of course, but I've been told by enough people who hold or have held them it's still going to be awhile before people who are LGBT are considered equal in that area... like so many others.

People who are open about their lifestyle don't have much problems. People who are hiding their lifestyle from anyone are a security risk. If you're in a fringe community and your mom doesn't know it, someone could blackmail you. Plenty of LGBT people have clearance.

Ridiculous Headline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:23 · Score: 0

"Chinese Cyberattack" WTF?

Just because the attack came from someone in China doesn't mean China is attacking the USA, the headline implies that.

If some hacker in US attacks a govt computer in another country the headline would not be "US Cyberattacks Country X"

This just shows US Chinese paranoia

Re:Ridiculous Headline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:29 · Score: 1

Every person in China is sovereign property of the Communist Chinese Government. Therefore, if any person in China attacks the US, China is attacking the US.
This is a blatant Act of War that deserves an immediate response.
Re:Ridiculous Headline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 14:41 · Score: 0

We are in favor of self determination -- or were. All we have to do is shut down internet access to China -- but we want our internet to inspire political change there. Well, it seems like it can go both ways....

If you can't attack the message... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:24 · Score: 0

...attack the messenger. Brilliant.

Re:If you can't attack the message... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:27 · Score: 0

Distract, deflect. What you do when you have no response to a valid point.
You cannot hold a candle up to Gertz, you cannot deny how the left would treat this same information were it to come out during a Republican presidency.
Go on, provide some substance, make your argument, prove me wrong, which of course, I am not.
Moron.
Re:If you can't attack the message... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:10 · Score: 0

attacking the messenger works for Slashdot mods
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2270668&cid=36575646

I thought I was "bad" with links! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:39 · Score: 0, Interesting

Thanks for them though, I have "interests" in this area's why!

* One of the dumbest things we've also done (in a way, it does have a "good side", as do ALL 'hack/crack' attempts (yes, I do believe in making lemonade out of lemons))?

When Microsoft licensed out the sourcecode to Chinese educational institutions (as well as other nations). This can be a real "double-edged sword" for step-tracing & finding potential 'bugs' to exploit.

Then again, as I noted above? Once they're exposed in these "cyber attacks", it's 1 time that "trickledown" thinking, works - since you can BET that MS or other OS makers will patch for it, once it's discovered + used.

(The ones that spook me most? The ones you DON'T know about & haven't been exposed...)

I've met & worked with Chinese programmers since 1994 here & there in both academia, AND in professional environs: They're as good as anyone else is, & quite clever!

APK

P.S.=> Plus, we both noted Sun-Tzu in our posts as well, so, I had to reply (good read from you, must be an INTERESTING job you have there)...

... apk

YOU FAIL IT. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:40 · Score: -1

alike to reap States that there lagged behind, kked to be Kreskin

LoL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:46 · Score: 0

God Doman MONGORIANS!!! Why they gotta break my SHEEETY FIREWAWL!!!!

Propaganda time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:47 · Score: 0

And it starts up again. The propaganda about how unsafe cyberspace is from other countries, and therefor we should accept and want our government to have more authority, more power over how it functions. We are supposed to like them having all kinds of additional power, because its for our own good.

BULL!

And we will NOT TOLERATE it.

Our next big attack/war by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:48 · Score: 1

The next time the US is attacked by a nation - in the sense of Dec 7, 1941, it will go down like this outline:

1. Cyber attack knocking out our infrastructure and parts of our military and government.

2. My fellow Americans run around like the scared sheep that they are.

3. Dorks with AR-15 with the M-4 conversion kits start running around shooting people to "protect" everyone. The cops hide.

3. Attacker sends over wave after wave of really cheap aircraft knocking out all the high tech planes like the f-22 and everything else.

4. They win.

Re:Our next big attack/war by Dahamma · 2012-10-01 18:20 · Score: 2

I know you're an AC but I have to reply...
Unlikely. A large part of the US nuclear arsenal is actually on submarines these days. And if you really think a "cyber" attack could be so effective that not only the US but the entire NATO infrastructure could be permanently disabled (which is absurd outside of sci-fi) don't worry... the Brits still allow their subs to launch nukes at the discretion of the crew, yay!
So, a good enough attack would basically ensure the end of the world, so point #4 is pretty much moot.

FREEZE BARACK! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 07:59 · Score: 0

Latest update to the situation room:
These were from one Uighur Muslims with a slight limp in China (obvious from scrutinizing at the IP address by our experts).
Of course Islam absolves the perpetrator from guilt especially if done in response to endless western insult of the Prophet Muhammad.

Unrelated Events by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:14 · Score: 0

In unrelated news: a recently de-throned Nigerian prince has acquired US missile codes, along with "$15.000.000 USD".

Wait a second... by asylumx · 2012-10-01 08:16 · Score: 2

White House sources partly confirmed that U.S. government computers — reportedly including systems used by the military for nuclear commands

Wow, that sounds bad.

None of the White House’s secure, classified computer systems were affected

Wait, so there are only a couple ways that these could both be claimed:
1. Someone is lying
2. Our gov't is actually dumb enough to not classify & secure systems used by the military for nuclear commands
3. Someone is lying

I'm guessing it's either 1 or 3.

Re:Wait a second... by asylumx · 2012-10-01 08:17 · Score: 1

Oops, forgot to mention that also we have White House staff checking their email on systems used by the military for nuclear commands and clicking on links in emails that say things like "Your order receipt" and have a .zip attachment...
Re:Wait a second... by rwise2112 · 2012-10-01 08:28 · Score: 1

White House sources partly confirmed that U.S. government computers — reportedly including systems used by the military for nuclear commands
Wow, that sounds bad.

None of the White House’s secure, classified computer systems were affected
Wait, so there are only a couple ways that these could both be claimed: 1. Someone is lying 2. Our gov't is actually dumb enough to not classify & secure systems used by the military for nuclear commands 3. Someone is lying I'm guessing it's either 1 or 3.
No. See it's easy. Only the insecure, classified computer systems were affected!

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:Wait a second... by asylumx · 2012-10-01 08:58 · Score: 1

Right, of course! How could I have missed that? :)
Re:Wait a second... by fatphil · 2012-10-01 20:56 · Score: 1

Or secure classified computer systems in the hands of the military were compromised, not Whitehouse ones.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863

Horrible Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:25 · Score: 3, Informative

Shame on you samzenpus. The white house has only confirmed that an unclassified computer has been hacked. Not one capable of nuclear commands, not that it was a Chinese attack.

That's what happens when you employ dumb sysadmins by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:33 · Score: -1

First of all, why are these systems connected to the internet ? IDIOTS!

Speaking of classified... by TiggertheMad · 2012-10-01 08:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

Anyone else do a double take while reading summary?

"White House sources partly confirmed that U.S. government computers — reportedly including systems used by the military for nuclear commands — were breached by Chinese hackers."

Check. Got it.

"Nor had there been any attempted breach of a classified system, according to the official.'"

Chinese breach nuke system, no classified systems were breached, so nuke systems aren't classified....?

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Re:Speaking of classified... by Sarten-X · 2012-10-01 08:59 · Score: 1

No, the computer that stores the OSHA training videos and viewing records for the janitorial staff does not need to be classified, no matter what floor the janitor mops.
"Systems used by the military for nuclear commands" can have a very broad scope. Very few of them actually have classified information, or can access other classified systems.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Speaking of classified... by ThatsMyNick · 2012-10-01 09:34 · Score: 1

No, what it means is some systems used by "Military for nuclear commands" are not classified systems. In any environment you will find both classified and unclassified systems, so it is no surprising that some systems used by them are unclassified.

Headline November 7 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 08:50 · Score: 0

It was Iran behind the cyber attack. Troops en route, war declared.

Its ok folks, they make our iphones. Sigh. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2012-10-01 09:07 · Score: 1

China is the enemy.

Obama hoping it goes away ... by schwit1 · 2012-10-01 09:26 · Score: 1

With the amount of US Debt that China holds, Obama will say nothing and hope this goes away. At any other time and with any other Administration, we would be floating 2 carrier groups into the Sea of Japan and preventing any Chinese trade vessels from docking at our ports.

They are nothing without the American consumer.

Re:Obama hoping it goes away ... by blueg3 · 2012-10-01 15:53 · Score: 1

What're they going to do, stop buying US bonds? They're still one of the world's most stable investments. China getting into a disagreement with us won't change that much (though China deciding they're not as valuable could), so there will still be plenty of buyers. So the rate we're currently paying on bonds, which is incredibly low, will go up slightly? Big deal.
We sell bonds. As a result, we're not really beholden to the people who own that debt.

Flase flag op? by TiggertheMad · 2012-10-01 09:27 · Score: 1

Of course. That was a point I made in my second paragraph. Now China can step up and help, offering some token gesture of cooperation, like extracting/forging logs pointing in some other direction.

This was a state acting, as cyber criminals likely don't care about nuclear delivery infrastructure. Assuming that I am a black hat in the official service of state intelligence attempting to compromise highly sensitive information, I am going to work through compromised foreign proxies ("I'm behind 7 proxies!"), burning one or more of them after each use, via drive wipes and deliberate infection with destructive viruses.

It seems weird that you would try something this daring directly from your home soil. It would be a great way to frame China for your misbehavior though, and throw the US off your scent.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Agreed, 110% (history shows that much) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 09:30 · Score: 0

It's human nature to "want more", but, when is enough, enough? I feel that is what causes it. How so though??

Well, think about U.S. History - We had the depression era, the wars (WW I, II, Korea): With Germany in largely ruin, we had NO manufacturing competition really!

That made for a FAT & HAPPY populace, the "golden age" of America & all that... which is great for the USA! However, there's a downside:

"Spare the rod, spoil the child"

I don't mean that in "corporal punishment" but rather when say, your parents are doing well for themselves AND YOU? They "over-indulge" & spoil you.

Going back to the above in "wanting more" now based on that? I'd think you SEE where it leads, eventually!

(To corrupt children becoming corrupt adults who basically have it all, but want more, & usually that goes past just money, but rather to controlling power being their "want")

I mean... hey, look @ rich folks kids like Paris Hilton for example: The woman HAS money, born into millions... but, obviously, she wanted FAME too ( & with that kind of Ca$h? You can buy PLENTY of press-time & agents to promote you into said "fame")

APK

P.S.=> In the end, I agree, since history shows us that time & again (makes me wonder about the human race, thank goodness we have enough SENSE as well as cowardice actually too, to avoid utter total destruction... @ least SO far! Be a damned shame to "blow it all up", since I feel that we've accomplished a HELL OF A LOT being only what? 100 generations out of cave-dwelling?)

... apk

How it works by TiggertheMad · 2012-10-01 09:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wonder if: the WH picks up a phone and calls somebody in the Chinese Embassy or straight to the right contact and says: yo, is this yours? Do you realize we interpret these things as an act of war?

US Diplomat: We have found out that there are attempts to gain access to US secure systems coming from Chinese controlled IP addresses. We take offense at this activity, and request that you cease immediately.

China Diplomat: The Peoples Republic abhor illegal and immoral activity, and in now way condone such behavior. While we are on the topic, we have discovered similar attacks on our systems coming from US controlled addresses.

US Diplomat: It is not the policy of the US to engage in clandestine cyber attacks on state controlled computer systems. We do not condone any such action.

China Diplomat: Excellent, we are in agreement then!

....And both sides keep hacking.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

HEY MODS! by s.petry · 2012-10-01 10:16 · Score: -1, Troll

Fuck you! Now you have a troll to mark, but correct the OPINION I presented above you fucktards!

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Which is it? by Type44Q · 2012-10-01 10:33 · Score: 1

after the Free Bacon story appeared

Which is it, shortage or surplus??

Here we go again. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 11:32 · Score: 0

The US government making up shit as an excuse to blame another country and give us an excuse to invade, or act like dicks, or blow off some obligation to them or something. More than likely though this is a scare tactic used so when they block US internet access to chinas site later and get more funding for some cyber security division they want to create for a couple billion dollars.

Remember Japan? by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2012-10-01 11:34 · Score: 1

The corruption is at worst a symptom of a larger problem. China appears to be suffering from the same problems experienced by Japan on its way to surpassing the US as an economic superpower. Now, that didn't happen, did it? Japan faltered because for the longest time Japan was virtually a one-party state. Now look at that other "great" one-party state, the Soviet Union.

There are otther factors of course, such as Japan's graying population, a problem that China is also facing because of its ill-conceived one-child policy. But even minor, public policy differences produce an incentive to search for solutions different from the accepted orthodoxy.

Monopolies aren't good, whether it's a company or a state party. China most likely wont' surpass the US as a superpower. Both may well go into a state of decline and be surpassed a third country with enough sense not to nurture economic or political monopolies that breed both corruption and stagnation.

Re:Remember Japan? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 12:11 · Score: 0

You've overlooked one thing: The Democratic-Republican party. The USA has been a one-party state since the fall of the Federalists -- So, how do you explain that?
Correlation != Causation. Deduction != Facts

red fins by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 12:08 · Score: 0

Where they trying to cut fins off? Fuckers

"Nuclear Commands" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 12:19 · Score: 0

A "Nuclear command" that is a unit that has a nuclear capability... so hacking into the airman's computers on say: the 91st Missile Wing would only reveal what YouTube videos are being watched... all the nuclear launch code stuff isn't linked into the world wide web at all... they even have really draconian restrictions on wifi being in the LCCs and LFs etc.

could we hack china legally? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 12:21 · Score: 0

I'm just wondering if that's possible, not going to do it because I don't know how to hack, but in theory, why would it be illegal?

Launch Codes, Please ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 12:26 · Score: 0

Fuck the Chinese cocksuckers. Please, let's just nuke 'em back to the stone age while we still can.

It was an EMAIL! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 13:35 · Score: 0

In my mind's eye I picture a young Tom Hanks delivering these lines with great passion: "Holy crap, folks, the reported breach was a spearphishing EMAIL. This wasn't HACKING, it was just a goddamned EMAIL. You can slice it any way you want to, but there is no way on God's green earth that the delivery of a properly addressed email is a SECURITY BREACH."

Plus the security awareness program for whoever got the malware-laden missive is clearly working properly because no one opened the attachment. This article was just Obama-administration-baiting by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication, and is chock-full of scary terms clearly not entirely understood by the so-called journalists writing it.

Have you considered by mbkennel · 2012-10-01 13:38 · Score: 1

that the intelligence services actually wanted to analyze the data and question people before making a conclusion?

Chinese Cyberattack!? OMG, I know what we must do! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 18:25 · Score: 0

We must do "shock and awe" style denial of service attacks on Japan, Mongolia, the Philippines and everyone else around China, but not China itself.

Whatabout Ratting Out The Good General by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:44 · Score: 0

INSCOM always wants to know. And they know how to make General's life miserable or how to put him into a Crackistan shithole full of Malaria and AK47s.

OR by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 08:47 · Score: 0

just make the codes 111111. Curtis LeMad did exactly that. Word of mouth authorizes.

I do not need to read the article by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 12:51 · Score: 0

Do not trust what the White House says about cyber attacks from China; this is just a precursor to justify another potential war as the United States of America did not get their own way at the recent UN meeting! and if you want to see Julian Assange's footage you can download it from http://www.rt.com

I feel that is enough to say for the time being.

Slashdot Mirror

White House Confirms Chinese Cyberattack

212 comments