Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Hackers Steal Top US Weapons Designs

n1ywb writes "Chinese hackers have gained access to the designs of many of the nation's most sensitive advanced weapons systems, according to a report prepared for the Defense Department and government and defense industry officials,The Washington Post reported Tuesday. The compromised weapons designs include, among others, the advanced Patriot missile system, the Navy's Aegis ballistic missile defense systems, the F/A-18 fighter jet, the V-22 Osprey, the Black Hawk helicopter and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter." Also (with some more details and news-report round-up) at SlashBI.

395 comments

  1. Internet connection by Gutboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is information like this on computers that are connected to the internet?

    1. Re:Internet connection by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why is information like this on computers that are connected to the internet?

      So that it can be leaked, justifying the costly production of a whole new generation of warmachines.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Internet connection by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Was thinking the same thing. Used to be you kept your secure stuff on a network with an air-gap between it and the rest of the world.

      Given how many stories we've been seeing about these hacking attempts, to have those machines accessible from the outside network means people haven't been paying attention.

      Given that you still can't export some software due to encryption, to have the plans for these kinds of things be something hackers can get into is a pretty stunning failure.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's kind of difficult to fly hard drives full of out-dated data back and forth across the country for review and modification every other day?

      Or are you under the impression that designing every facet of the next generation army helicopter is being designed by just one guy in a cube in Tulsa?

    4. Re:Internet connection by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      Because the internet is this generations refrigerator. And mommy likes your drawing so much she's gonna put it up right here.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    5. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    6. Re: Internet connection by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It wasn't otherwise the whole internet would have become classified. The Chinese stole it off one of the classified networks (like SIPRNet), which the DoD has known to be compromised for quite some time. Because of this, really sensitive things aren't kept on it, only mildly sensitive things. If the article implies more, it is sensationalism.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    7. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it helps the current policy of trying to keep the public in a constant state of fear.

      It makes sanctions, import tariffs and laws like the Patriot Act II much easier to enable.

    8. Re:Internet connection by Novogrudok · · Score: 2

      So the guy in Tulsa who develops, say, rotor blades should have only the access to the relevant parts of the helicopter design. Why would this guy need to know the schematics for the targeting system, for example? Thus if a hacker gains access, he will only get rotor blade secrets, not the whole design's.

    9. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If our enemies are stupid enough to use those plans, we will know exactly how to counter their attacks.. Its top secret 101. Its the stuff movies are made of. Don't be afraid.

    10. Re:Internet connection by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why is information like this on computers that are connected to the internet?

      So that it can be leaked, justifying the costly production of a whole new generation of warmachines.

      Even better, now we don't have to violate export restrictions in order to request cut-rate second source versions of annoyingly expensive gear! Never mind the communists, feel the everyday low prices!

    11. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the converse is also true, they now know exactly how to counter our units based on those plans... Be very afraid...

    12. Re:Internet connection by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      they've spent a severe amount of money having a dedicated network for that.

      you know what's ironical? the guys designing the single parts probably have less access than what was on the hacked machines.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    13. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      /government/plans/secretplans/Don'tStealMeBro.pdf

    14. Re:Internet connection by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thing is... a lot of this is about performance. If they create, say, a fighter with the performance of the F-35, then it's a real problem.

      Granted, I do remember there being (supposedly) faulty plans during the Cold War that we intentionally allowed the Soviets to get, and when they used it in their pipelines, there were some catastrophic accidents.

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

    15. Re:Internet connection by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Guess it have to be stored somewhere and that you somehow possibly need to be able to connect to it.

      But is complete systems or many of the systems stored in the same or similar places / with information about where the other parts are stored?

      Maybe it doesn't matter / already is distributed among many somewhat similar systems.

    16. Re:Internet connection by aliquis · · Score: 1

      .. what about encrypting the designs and only do it for a specific receiver on a need to know basis?

    17. Re: Internet connection by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      The Chinese stole it off one of the classified networks (like SIPRNet), which the DoD has known to be compromised for quite some time.

      You got a citation for that? Seems to me that if true, that information itself would be classified.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    18. Re:Internet connection by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is information like this on computers that are connected to the internet?

      So that it can be leaked, justifying the costly production of a whole new generation of warmachines.

      Because it isn't like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, or various other countries would want to upgrade their military independently of the US, for their own purposes. None of their weapons designers ever had an original idea, or were the first ones to make a concept actually work in a weapon. And having US weapons data means their could either use the data to incorporate the technology into their own weapons, or use it to defeat American weapons, but they'll never do either because apparently they are lazy, or stupid, or something. None of their weapons are dangerous to US weapons systems, at all.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    19. Re:Internet connection by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Informative

      The question is - was the information really that sensitive, or was it the stuff not sensitive enough to be considered classified?

      To get anything more sensitive than FOUO, these "hackers" would have had to physically infiltrate a facility, break NSA Type 1 crypto protocols (in which case the DoD would be shitting their pants), or compromise someone with access to such information.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    20. Re: Internet connection by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Does the article say it came over the internet?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    21. Re: Internet connection by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Wasn't this over separation of designers one of the problems with bowings new plane?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    22. Re:Internet connection by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Well. I do get that you're trying to be sarcastic but at least partly:

      Yes.

      I don't know about Chinese systems but I assume they would be somewhat behind? I also assume Russia can put up a challange.

      But Iran and North Korea?

      I doubt either is on the same level as the US with their designs?

      (For planes it would be natural for me to assume that China is behind but on the other hand they likely incorporate new technology fast and release new gear. And the same for navy equipment. But I guess even having a stealth plane doesn't make it "as the US stealth plane" so there may still be some difference there. (Also of course software matters.))

    23. Re:Internet connection by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

      Probably safer than giving me a paper print-out maybe? I need to see how it's made to decide if I should spend the cash on it.
      Oh course now I can just go to the Chinese and get a cheap knock-off.
      Sure it smells a little funny and pulls a little to the left, but hey, my country is on a budget.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    24. Re: Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm a British nobody and I knew that. It was all over the news a couple of months ago. Here we are.

      Which demonstrates further that almost all classification is about hiding secrets from ones own citizens.

    25. Re:Internet connection by meglon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, if they create a fighter with the performance of the F-35, it wouldn't be a problem at all... as the F-35 is massively expensive http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/f-35-the-most-expensive-fighter-jet-ever-built/, taking years longer to develop http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-27/lockheed-s-troubled-f-35-said-to-be-unscathed-in-budget.html, and still can barely get off the ground http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/135080/f_35-reality-check-10-years-on-(part-1).html. It is a heaping pile of shith that we didn't need, and don't need, and may never get, and is sucking taxpayer money down like a drunk sailor in Subic bay.

      On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, Chinese ingenuity will come up with a way to keep the Osprey from falling out of the sky and killing people (something we can't seem to be able to do). Once they fix that little glitch, maybe we can steal the plans back.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    26. Re: Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of Generic Dynamite.

    27. Re:Internet connection by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Thing is... a lot of this is about performance. If they create, say, a fighter with the performance of the F-35, then it's a real problem.

      Granted, I do remember there being (supposedly) faulty plans during the Cold War that we intentionally allowed the Soviets to get, and when they used it in their pipelines, there were some catastrophic accidents.

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

      There were all sorts of games like that going on. For example that famous wiretapping coup the CIA/MI6 scored in Berlin. When this operation was eventually discovered by two East German telephone technicians the Soviet KGB was apparently pretty pissed off, something about them knowing about the tunnel and some other Soviet security service (GRU?) exposing it because of lack of inter-service cooperation. Turns out the Soviets already had a mole in that wiretapping project, George Blake. Although the CIA/MI6 claim to this day all the information they got was genuine, that assessment is based on cold war analysis with only limited access to Soviet sources. The KGB archives are still closed so it's entirely possible the Ivans were having a barrel of fun making fake phone calls to spread disinformation or that they simply deemed the information that the CIA/MI6 were gathering was of so little value they did not want to risk blowing Blake's cover by exposing the operation.

      Another one of my favorites is a trio of German KGB recruits who borrowed a fully functional AIM-9 Sidewinder missile and drove the thing out of a NATO base in Germany. They stuck the thing into in the back of a Mercedes, only to discover it wouldn't fit so they bashed in the rear window, threw a blanket over the protruding missile and drove it through the German countryside. They then crated the thing up and sent it to Moscow via air freight (freight costs came to a grand total of $79.25) where there were smiles all around at the Vympel NPO missile design bureau. This missile became the basis of the second/third generation Soviet Air force heat seeking missiles (the K13M and its descendants IIRC).

      Good times...

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    28. Re:Internet connection by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think about all of the people that have access to these drawings in electronic form. You have the designers, the testing folks, the documentation people, the people who approve changes, the entire manufacturing operation, and anyone with authority to oversee the project. If any of those people view the document on a compromised computer or themselves are compromised, the drawing is in the wild.

      And "compromised" does not necessarily mean "internet". And you don't even need a compromise - people make mistakes, systems are imperfect. Someone could toss a server or workstation in the trash, screwing up the wipe. A leased computer could go back without getting cleaned up. They could even accidentally wire up the "secure" computer to the LAN/WAN, wireless could accidentally be left on, USB ports left active, bluetooth, etc.

      Spying has been going on for a long, long time and is a very difficult problem to solve. Hell, even a compromised cleaning crew could snatch stuff.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    29. Re: Internet connection by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Funny

      You got a citation for that?

      I bet Bradley Manning does.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    30. Re:Internet connection by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It's kind of odd, when you think about it. It's almost like the Pentagon has purposefully left the barn door open...

      But that's silly talk. It's not like our country would ever neglect to erect defenses when needed. It's not like there is a group of politicians looking for this generation's 'Pearl Harbor,' nor have they been recorded as saying this is their objective.

      I believe I speak for my generation when I say that if they play the same games with this generation that they did the previous, they had best be looking at a retirement package that involves living in another country; failing to act on good information, for the singular reason of drumming up support for a war, and getting people killed in the process...well, we are aware now that the White House had advance notice of the Pearl Harbor attacks.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    31. Re:Internet connection by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Why are we dragging Iron Man into this?

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    32. Re:Internet connection by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      *ding!* Thanks (parent also) for saving me the trouble of posting this. Give these persons cigars.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    33. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe that's the real reason for the leaks- so the US can buy cheaper Chinese knockoffs and save money ;).

    34. Re: Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link says nothing about SIPRNet.

    35. Re:Internet connection by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Because people are stupid. There was a time that foreign governments were trolling p2p networks like bearshare (remember that?) because workers at DoD contractors had a habit of installing file sharing software and sharing out their entire computers. These were often systems that were outside of the DoD's direct control, located a the company site or (worse) laptops located where-ever. It only takes one idiot bridging the gap to make the whole thing useless.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    36. Re: Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Mcdonald's Dogcrap.

    37. Re:Internet connection by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Informative

      It makes sanctions, import tariffs and laws like the Patriot Act II much easier to enable.

      How can you possibly equate tariffs w/ Patriot Act N? Last time I checked the federal government clearly has the power to levy tariffs, and in the last 200+ years nobody has come up with a decent argument for how they interfere w/ civil liberties. By contrast Patriot Act N is another step in turning that troublesome Bill of Rights into toilet paper.

    38. Re:Internet connection by gtall · · Score: 2

      Yes, but if you read the article, it isn't the Pentagon that's the problem. The problem is the defense contractors, those paradigms of free enterprise the conservative republicans are always honking on about. It seems they've been caught with their pants down.

      Now, one might argue they just managed to cost the American taxpayers billions. Do we see the conservative republicans complaining about it. Nope.

      Just to be fair, the liberal democrats wouldn't recognize a defense industry secret if it danced naked in front of them and they wouldn't be caught dead caring...unless that secret was from a defense contractor in their district. Somehow national defense is at stake when that happens to a company in their district but can be ignored when it is in some other congress critter's district.

    39. Re:Internet connection by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Because it isn't like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, or various other countries would want to upgrade their military independently of the US, for their own purposes. None of their weapons designers ever had an original idea, or were the first ones to make a concept actually work in a weapon.

      That's utterly irrelevant, unless you believe that the same things are true of the US. You're the one who is making a ridiculous assumption about the Chinese (etc.) military and defense contractors, specifically that they suffer from NIH. I doubt they're that stupid. The US wasn't when after VE day it grabbed as many German rocket scientists as it could. You know, the folks who, in addition to their direct or indirect contributions to US military capability, were responsible for the first US satellite getting into orbit and the Apollo missions getting to the moon.

    40. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you say about RUSSIA? I come from RUSSIA! (quote from Seinfeld)

      Seriously, Russia invented plenty of original weapons and im just too lazy to look-up others but things like Kalashnikov and Katyusha comes to mind.

    41. Re:Internet connection by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      Your comment is actually quite funny. But China is still buy Russian fighters and these leaks are probably just hypes.

    42. Re:Internet connection by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      People some twit finds it inconvenient to isolate the information.

      What is likely going on is that there is a network at one of the design facilities where the files are exchanged around. That's reasonable. But then what they did was link that network to the internet at large because how else are you going to get email or post on facebook.

      We can all cite a dozen ways to make this a more secure system but they didn't. They wanted to eat their cake and have it too.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    43. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I couldn't wade through all that sarcasm without losing focus. What was your point?

    44. Re:Internet connection by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Think about all of the people that have access to these drawings in electronic form.

      We could always go back to hand-made drawings. I miss the ammonia smell of a blue-line machine.

      On a slightly more serious note, while you're right that nothing can be made completely spy-proof, making it more spy-proof helps to minimize the problem. In the days of paper drawings, you had to keep them in a locked filing cabinet and lock them up if you so much as left your desk to get coffee. A PITA but that's how security is. The article doesn't say, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of the compromised machines were, at least indirectly, connected to the Internet. That should be a complete non-no, just as it should be in SCADA. The use of thumb drives (or other removable storage) should be severely restricted. Only get them from IT (who should scrub them) and not allowed in or out of the building except literally under guard. Same with laptops. Also a vetted and enforced process for destroying old hard drives, etc., etc., etc. Again. a real PITA, but procedures that were at least as much of a PITA were used in the paper drawing days.

    45. Re:Internet connection by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Russian pipeline exploded because the micro controllers in the pumps were deliberately faulty. According to a CIA leak which I don't have a cite for.

    46. Re: Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't otherwise the whole internet would have become classified. The Chinese stole it off one of the classified networks (like SIPRNet), which the DoD has known to be compromised for quite some time. Because of this, really sensitive things aren't kept on it, only mildly sensitive things. If the article implies more, it is sensationalism.

      Where to start on this...

      "The Chinese stole it off one of the classified networks (like SIPRNet)" - really... do tell how that was done... they broke the encryption? No, wait.. they must have physically had agents here to tap the air-gap?!!!! I am sure it wasn't a defense contractor that was compromised or similarly stupid things, oh no.

      "which the DoD has known to be compromised for quite some time" - really... so you work for the DoD?

      "Because of this, really sensitive things aren't kept on it, only mildly sensitive things" - My mind imploded as you just described the obvious... only secret data resides on the secret level network and TS, etc. level data resides on the TS, etc. level network... Doesn't have anything to do with it being compromised... it has to do with classification levels.

      Please keep the .gov/DoD conspiracy theories/liberal twat agenda coming. It is so fun to read and know there are un-iformed monkeys such as yourself who keep the liberal fire burning.

    47. Re: Internet connection by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Which demonstrates further that almost all classification is about hiding secrets from ones own citizens.

      What it really proves is that the British press covers the US better than the American press. As an American, I've known that for some time, and do (at least occasionally) look at the BBC or some British papers for US news.

      As far as "almost all classification is about hiding secrets from ones own citizens", I think that's generally true but doesn't apply to the design details of weapons systems. It's one thing to know about the existence of a weapons system, its general capabilities and performance, and quite another to know all the details in the engineering files.

    48. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, there is a SS Scientist Gap, Mr Prezodent !

    49. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the day as I recall military and contractor machines were on their own separate net that was required to not be connected to the general internet in any fashion. Apparently they unwisely decided that it was cheaper to use general public net connections mistakenly assuming that they could keep the data safe.

    50. Re:Internet connection by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't know exactly why the F-35 is "massively expensive", but if a large chunk of that is labor costs, then China isn't exactly going to have a problem there. Also, if usage of rare earth elements is a significant factor in the F-35's cost, China doesn't have a problem there either. So China might be able to produce the plane very affordably for their own use.

      Also, if they tweak the design to eliminate some of the compromises that have given it poor performance (namely the fact that they're trying to make 3 different versions of the same plane), they might eliminate some of the other problems with it.

    51. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the Mig29 the run circles around the best American gear in terms of aerodynamics. Their thurs-vectored missiles are setting the standards for both SAMs and AAMs. America banks entierly on better intel, computers and electronics.

    52. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must read: "thrust-vectored"

    53. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So should I file my FOIL reqests with China now? My guess is that their responses won't consist of 400 blacked out pages preceeded by: "Here is the information you requested."

    54. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the stuff mentioned in the article will be obsolete in 10-20 years and the prototypes and secret Dreadnoughts are already in orbit.

    55. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully this falls under the department of misinformation.

    56. Re:Internet connection by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      and lock them up if you so much as left your desk to get coffee.

      Wouldn't it be more efficient to just hire someone to walk around and bring coffee and other things to the engineers at their desks? This is standard in India.

    57. Re:Internet connection by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The use of thumb drives (or other removable storage) should be severely restricted. Only get them from IT (who should scrub them) and not allowed in or out of the building except literally under guard. Same with laptops.

      If the government were smart, they'd use Linux instead of Windows, and in addition, they'd make their own custom version of Linux. With that, they could enforce all kinds of things: only using specially-formatted and encrypted thumb drives, for instance. With access to the source code, you can make all kinds of crazy customizations to increase security.

    58. Re:Internet connection by some+old+guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      As former Navy man who spent many a fine night with the ladies of Olongapo / Subic Bay, representing our great nation with honor and dignity, I deeply resent being compared to the F-35.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    59. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on my knowledge of a mostly civil-tech corporation of very high technological sophistication (they invented something you probably use daily and pay LOTS of money for), I would assume they have the ENTIRE F35 source code already.
      That's because this corporation is commonly thought of being extremely technologically competent, but their network security is simply extremely shitty. For example, they don't have very basic network security compartmentalization. Brain-fucked IT decisions are made almost every day. So are brain-fucked IT security decisions.

      Based on that experience in said corpo, I would assume the situation at Lockheed Martin is only moderately better. For example, they will obfuscate hard-coded passwords in executables instead of having them literally in the blob as civil corporation does.

    60. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still supposed to be that way. Problem is, people are, by and large, morons. They either don't feel that the rules apply to them, or they're just plain sloppy. I see it every day, and it's infuriating. We're having to go through furloughs to keep imbeciles like the guy who improperly handled this data employed.

    61. Re:Internet connection by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Thing is... a lot of this is about performance. If they create, say, a fighter with the performance of the F-35, then it's a real problem.

      Why? The last time I checked, we still have ~5,000 nuclear weapons, which is more than enough to deter any rational nation-state from attacking us. It's only "a real problem" if we think that empire is an imperative – that the U.S. must endlessly intervene in conflicts around the globe for no reason, conflicts which are apparently important enough to kill soldiers and civilians but not important enough to fight a nuclear war over. Maybe we should stop doing that. We didn't do it for most of American history and the rest of the world carried on as normal.

    62. Re:Internet connection by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      If the government were smart, they'd use Linux instead of Windows, and in addition, they'd make their own custom version of Linux.

      They already did that: SE Linux. Obviously, in this case, it didn't help. Very few security procedures work if they aren't followed. Besides, even if everyone in the government was doing this, how can we be sure what the contractors were doing?

    63. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my question, and has been my question for a long time. This kind of crap has been happening for a long time. Every time it happens, we ask the same question: "What damn fool put this on the internet?", and every time we get no answer. "They are poisoning our water supply from 6000 miles away", "They are crashing all our airplanes", "They are shutting down our power grid" "They are melting down our nuclear reactors" "They are making our missles blow up in their silos" and so on. Command and control should not be on the internet, and likewise anything that you don't want everyone on the web to see.

    64. Re: Internet connection by gmclapp · · Score: 1

      Ouch. Too soon. ;)

      --
      Common Sense (+1)
    65. Re:Internet connection by SoldierII · · Score: 1

      Why is information like this on computers that are connected to the internet?

      So that it can be leaked, justifying the costly production of a whole new generation of warmachines.

      Or to have a reason to bring democracy to China...

    66. Re:Internet connection by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      While true, Chinese domestic fighter development has been spinning up for years and it looks like the J-31 and J-20 will enter service this decade.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    67. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do we see the conservative republicans complaining about it. Nope."

      Then you aren't paying attention. It's not my fault you are an idiot.

    68. Re:Internet connection by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

      Perhaps an assumption is that they obtained this data via the internet. Seems more plausible that they are using agents in defense contractor agencies to sneakernet the data out.

    69. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to look up the Russian word for "sarcasm" and appy it to that post. The entire post is sarcastic.

    70. Re:Internet connection by steelfood · · Score: 1

      [The F-35] is a heaping pile of shith that we didn't need, and don't need, and may never get, and is sucking taxpayer money down like a drunk sailor in Subic bay.

      That's decades of pain that China won't have to go through to get something comparable to the F-35.

      It's like them buying furniture from Ikea instead of shown a forest. Some assembly is required, but most of the work has already been done.

      On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, Chinese ingenuity will come up with a way to keep the Osprey from falling out of the sky and killing people (something we can't seem to be able to do).

      Or they'll just take their losses with the tech.

      Life isn't as valuable in places like China and India as it is in first world countries, from both a government point of view, and an individual point of view.

      It's changing, but not so much that they'll be on par with the first world anytime soon.

      More likely though, China will probably just turn around and sell the info to the highest bidder. Russia, Iran, India even, are all looking to assert their place in the world. And in some cases, China's probably still got a leg up even after they sell off the tech due to the sheer amount of skilled labor (in this case, fighter pilots) they have there.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    71. Re:Internet connection by dywolf · · Score: 3

      Dont need?

      Harriers are approaching end of life.
      F18s are getting old.
      A10s are going away.
      These aircraft no longer have new made parts, any replacements we use in the squadrons come from the boneyards, from aircraft set into storage specifically so they could be parts sources to keep planes flying while techs, young sailors and airmen, try to fix the defective parts themselves (the training program for the military aircraft maintenence squadrons is phenomenal, and puts any civilian tech school to shame).

      Your articles are bullspit and your post is ignorant.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    72. Re:Internet connection by dywolf · · Score: 1

      You forgot your /sarcasm tags.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    73. Re: Internet connection by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      The Chinese stole it off one of the classified networks (like SIPRNet), which the DoD has known to be compromised for quite some time.

      At least according to Wikipedia, SIPRnet is used for classifications up to the level of secret, which is high enough to cause damage. It also has 4.2M users, which is far too many. I don't care how good your firewalls or whatever are, that's just too many eggs in one basket. While you can go overboard with it, a certain amount of compartmentalization is needed for security.

    74. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " people make mistakes..."

      Mistakes? If you promised one of our Sales' guys that you might think about possibly buying something from us in the future, he'd zip the whole thing up and send it to you by email this afternoon.

    75. Re:Internet connection by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      I'm very skeptical of this "blame the hackers" excuse. Good way to cover up sloppy security in general. Not to mention compromised executives, politicians, and contractors.

    76. Re: Internet connection by steelfood · · Score: 1

      He did most certainly did. Pretty sure he responded too.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    77. Re:Internet connection by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      ...or compromise someone with access to such information

      Bingo. And there is basically nothing that you can do about that.

    78. Re:Internet connection by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Exactly.
      Blame those hackers! It's all their fault!

    79. Re:Internet connection by lgw · · Score: 1

      Is it "empire imperative" to not want China to invade Taiwan, or Japan for that matter, or anyone else they might take a liking to if their government goes off the rails? Remember, pre-1950, "the world carrying on as normal" meant massive world wars, with more casualties in single battles than the entire Iraq conflict. Yes, being the world's policeman is expensive and makes us unliked, but it's still cheap at the price, IMO. Even if you place no value on the lives of non-Americans, the economic benefits of the Pax Americana have been huge for us.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    80. Re:Internet connection by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Thing is... a lot of this is about performance. If they create, say, a fighter with the performance of the F-35, then it's a real problem.

      Why? The last time I checked, we still have ~5,000 nuclear weapons, which is more than enough to deter any rational nation-state from attacking us.

      The half-life of Pu-241 is 14 years. When were those 5,000 weapons built again?

    81. Re:Internet connection by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You would still have to get rid of the coffee.

    82. Re:Internet connection by lgw · · Score: 2

      America banks entierly on better intel, computers and electronics.

      That's what wins air combat today - if there is some range where you can get missile lock and he can't, you win.

      More importantly, as everything moves to drones and electronic warfare moves to the forefront, airframe performance is barely going to matter. I'm far more worried about this leak (if real) because of what is says about the US vs China in terms of "intel, computers and electronics" than because of some potential F35 clone.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    83. Re:Internet connection by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      how can we be sure what the contractors were doing?

      DoD security audits. They at least used to be required for any contractor or sub-contractor doing classified work.

    84. Re:Internet connection by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      What you say is true, but Russia can easily become an enemy of China. Even when they were both fraternal Communist states, they had border disputes. The Chinese are probably well aware that while the US is the Great Enemy, Russia is the Enemy Next-Door.

      The Chinese, as a world power, will likely want their own high tech arms industry anyway. They will rip off as much technology from anyone they can.

      Needless to say, there is nothing particularly different about China's espionage, as opposed to any other government's. The US would do the same thing if they were behind. As it is, US intelligence is much more focused on either threats like terrorism, but will frequently carry out economic espionage as well with a goal of keeping markets open for US products. There have been times where the CIA was likely involved in exposing certain bribery scandals where deals would go against the US company, and US intelligence would show that the competitor had been bribing the customer, causing the deal to go south.

    85. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of their weapons designers ever had an original idea, or were the first ones to make a concept actually work in a weapon

      That is a fairly ignorant statement. That is exactly how to get into hot water by assuming such idiocy.

    86. Re:Internet connection by cusco · · Score: 1

      Actually this is a cunning plan to bankrupt the Chinese. If they start building this crap they may destroy their economy. There is a long history of operations like this, where ridiculous military spending bankrupted a country, like the British did occupying Afghanistan, or the Soviets did occupying Afghanistan, or the Americans are doing occupying Afghanistan. Hey, I've got a better idea, how about we convince the Chinese to invade Afghanistan!

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    87. Re:Internet connection by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, but SE Linux is not a distribution, it's a set of features (as the article says, a set of kernel mods and user-space tools) that distros can choose to adopt or not. It doesn't do anything such as handle how USB drives are used or other policies. What I'm proposing goes farther than that: instead of using any ol' distro, take a distro (probably using SE Linux), and add in lots of restrictions to make it more secure. Any typical distro will allow USB drives, for instance. Don't do that: make your custom distro disallow thumb drives, unless perhaps they're some sort of specially-formatted and encrypted thumb drive that's pre-approved. You could even make it so that only certain thumb drives are allowed to be used: since USB devices show up in enumeration with a particular vendorID and productID, you could make it so that only a few certain drives are allowed, such as a Patriot model X or whatever, and all others are disallowed. Then you could make it so that the drive uses a special partition type (and those without the partition type are disallowed), and uses an encrypted filesystem, with the key provided on the (internal) network from a secure source.

      When you have access to the source, all kinds of things are possible. As for contractors, they can be required to use government-provided computers, and audited by the DoD.

    88. Re:Internet connection by dragon-file · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thurs-vectored. a conjunction of Thursday Vectoring. Example: Using Thursday vectoring to make sure you approach your Fridays at the correct velocity and angle.

      --
      Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
    89. Re:Internet connection by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      You supposed an Equation where none existed. This is a false equality. You can have both sides of that AND contributed to by the fear factor and leak coefficient (note here as well, AND is used to mean combination, not dichotomy).

    90. Re:Internet connection by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Think about all of the people that have access to these drawings in electronic form.

      It would be like Princess Leia being able to snatch the Death Star plans off of any poorly secured 3rd party contractor's droid.

      You don't need the entire set of blueprints to build a single part of the machine -- That's why it cost more than one life to secure the Death Star's plans.

      The sad thing is that they essentially dropped a droid right down our exhaust port, which then walked over to the terminal, accessed, then transmitted the plans. No lives lost at all.
      The Chinese could teach the Rebel Alliance a thing or two about droid spys...

    91. Re:Internet connection by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I wonder when we will realize that a 6 million drone is as effective as a 120 million dollar airplane-- and you can fly 20 of them for the same price- and lose half of them and still be ahead.

      Perhaps we already have.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    92. Re:Internet connection by cusco · · Score: 1

      They didn't 'grab as many German rocket scientists as it could", VonBraun and his crew deliberately searched out American forces to surrender to. Either side would have been happy to receive them, the Soviets just ended up with the techs and some of the scrap hardware.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    93. Re:Internet connection by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

      Limited hangout.

      "Keep low-intensity hostility with Eastasia. We'll flip this any way we find useful."

      "In five minutes, or so, we'll push the same button on an Iran story. Keep the rubes - I mean "Citizens" - under the impression that we are a threatened society, in a precarious situation."

      "Funny, really. Because there is no single place on earth where we have not established a projection of intimidating power, or created economic subversion. 'We' are the threat to life and liberty, worldwide."

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    94. Re:Internet connection by cusco · · Score: 1

      Boeing buys a big chunk of the 777's wing from China. The wife of one of the design engineers was appalled that her husband's group was instructed to send plans for the ENTIRE aircraft to the manufacturer, supposedly to ensure that there wouldn't be any misunderstandings that would cause things not to fit. I'm sure since then Boeing has been complaining about IP theft in the Chinese aircraft industry.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    95. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the problem is the expense that comes with classified computing. The more granular you want the protection, the greater that effort and cost becomes. For example, to keep a specific program or programs separate, a contractor needs to maintain a separate disconnected system (from one computer to an entire network) that is manually audited weekly, patched monthly, backed up manually, and maintained in strict compliance. (Being brief here) Suffice it to say that it is very costly, and contractors in a lowest bidder wins environment will do all they can to maintain their data at an unclassified level. Part of that effort involves separating data in such a way that key information is missing or coded in order to prevent the arrival at the final product or component that needs to be protected. While it is relatively easy to logically separate this coded information from compliant end users so that no end user has all the information at the same time, very little has been done to address the problem at the administrator level, which also happens to be the level that these types of information leaks happen at. One system may contain disparate unclassified data for many programs, but when this data is reassembled by the attacker from multiple contractors, multiple systems, or even multiple unclassified access levels on the same system, it is possible to arrive at classified, or at least highly sensitive data.

      I'm not justifying it by any means, and this isn't the entire problem, I'm just providing part of an explanation. The full solution requires multiple parallel efforts, but one of those is to make it easier and cheaper to protect data in a separate system. The DoD needs to stop making it so difficult to store classified data and work with industry to come up with a standard solution that can be easily and simply deployed, audited and patched. It would only take a few smart people on the inside to develop such a system and push it out, but there seems to be a lack of desire on anyone's part to make this happen. The current standards and processes are embarrassingly out of date. Countless labor hours are wasted on auditing efforts that would miss even the most basic of leaks. It's sad really.

    96. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      piss poor admin/oversight. I work for a navy branch and ALL our design work stations and the network they touch is totally isolated. yes having different computers to do work and email/internet is a PIA but it is well worth the security it offers.

    97. Re: Internet connection by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I'm a British nobody and I knew that. It was all over the news a couple of months ago. Here we are.

      Which demonstrates further that almost all classification is about hiding secrets from ones own citizens.

      Dude, it says nothing about weapons plans or any other particular sorts of data being extracted. In fact, simply having a virus of foreign origin on the network would qualify for "penetrated" as used in that testimony.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    98. Re:Internet connection by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was a bit of an oversight. On the other hand it is rather revealing to see how different people are reacting to it.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    99. Re:Internet connection by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You supposed an Equation where none existed.

      No, I used English instead of mathematical notation, and the definition of "equate" includes "to treat, represent, or regard as ... comparable".

      Beyond the pedantry (another word with multiple definitions) of debating the exact wording of a Slashdot post (what, no typos?), I don't see how the two have anything substantial to do with each other. If tenuously they do, it's like listing complaints against your neighbor as a) throwing grenades through your window and, b) not returning the garden hose you lent him.

    100. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came for the first post complaining about why this information was networked.
      Wasn't disappointed.

      Come on people, be more creative.

    101. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that the rest of the world can gain access to weapon tech to defend against the Goa'uld.

      Yeah, I am watching Stargate SG-1 on Netflix right now, why?

    102. Re: Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese are not now buying Russian fighters. They are copying, and very much doing it without paying any license fee... Which has made the Russians rather reluctant to sell more!

      But despite a deserved reputation for intellectual piracy, I wonder how much of the threat of the legions of Chinese hackers is real, and how is just a novel version of the "Yellow Peril" scares from which the West has suffered since the Opium Wars...

    103. Re:Internet connection by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Anyone stupid enough to store critical information on an internet accessible device deserves to be ripped off. How many individuals leave their wallets lying on the sidewalk when they go to bed? Even the richest bastard in the world doesn't launder his cash, then hang the bills out on the picket fence to dry.

      It's like Fort Knox having roads and walkways through it's vaults, to encourage travel to the local mall. It's so retarded, even idiots won't do it.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    104. Re:Internet connection by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, if they create a fighter with the performance of the F-35, it wouldn't be a problem at all... as the F-35 is massively expensive

      When a fighter jet costs $150M/plane it usually means that the plane takes $10M in materials and labor to build, and $140M goes towards paying off the costs of designing the thing in the first place. It is really a $10M plane with a $1T design phase (or whatever the figure is).

      Somebody copying the plane only needs to pay the $10M/plane - they don't have to redesign the whole thing from scratch. I'm sure it won't cost them nothing to start from the US blueprints, but overall it will be WAY cheaper.

      taking years longer to develop

      Not an issue for China. They'll just wait until we're done, and then roll out the copies after a year or two of reverse-engineering. In the meantime nobody is flying the thing.

      and still can barely get off the ground.

      Also not an issue for China. They'll just wait until we figure out all the problems and then copy the design that actually works.

      Copying is WAY cheaper than inventing. Even if all they had as a photo of the thing it would be much cheaper. How many overall designs were tossed because using thrust vectoring vs a lift fan was an unclear design decision? The US has to spend hundreds of millions on prototypes and testing to figure out which design is better. The Chinese just have to see what we picked. If the whole VTOL design turns out to be impractical and gets canceled then they get the same data point that we get but for zero cost.

      Today it is easy to point out what the design of the space shuttle was bad, even without the blueprints. Anybody who is interested in submarines knows that a 7-blade propeller is much quieter than a 4-blade one, but for many years this was a closely guarded secret that just a glance at a propeller would have leaked.

      When you're doing something that has never been done before most of the cost is only incurred by the first person to have to figure it out. That's the price of innovation. Followers can always do it much cheaper.

    105. Re: Internet connection by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      It also has 4.2M users, which is far too many.

      Seriously! That's just over 1% of the entire population. Chances are that if you live in the US one of your neighbors has VPN access to the thing at that rate.

    106. Re: Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first rule of SIPRNet is not to talk about SIPRNet...

    107. Re:Internet connection by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Not in India!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    108. Re:Internet connection by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you read the article, it isn't the Pentagon that's the problem. The problem is the defense contractors, those paradigms of free enterprise the conservative republicans are always honking on about. It seems they've been caught with their pants down.

      Now, one might argue they just managed to cost the American taxpayers billions. Do we see the conservative republicans complaining about it. Nope.

      Just to be fair, the liberal democrats wouldn't recognize a defense industry secret if it danced naked in front of them and they wouldn't be caught dead caring...unless that secret was from a defense contractor in their district. Somehow national defense is at stake when that happens to a company in their district but can be ignored when it is in some other congress critter's district.

      Seriously? You don't think Fox News, Boehner, or McConnel will be all over this?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    109. Re:Internet connection by Shompol · · Score: 1

      Remember, pre-1950..

      So, what global event changed that? Oh, everybody and their dog got nuclear arms? What does US have to do with this?

      being the world's policeman

      A very corrupt policeman. "Takes from the rich and gives to himself" kind. More of a highwayman if you please.

    110. Re:Internet connection by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      I'm quite certain this already happened. If jamming/spoofing tech gets good enough (hi Iran!) we may still need manned planes on combat missions but actual combat will be drone swarm A vs drone swarm B and will not involve Chuck Yeager barrel rolls.

    111. Re:Internet connection by Mutatis+Mutandis · · Score: 1

      Probably for the simple reason that aircraft are not built or kept in a basement. Suppliers of parts, engineering staff working on upgrades, and maintenance people are spread not just over the whole USA but over several countries and continents. Sooner or later, a subcontractor or a military engineer in Spain or Australia is going to need information on how to integrate their local piece of kit with the F/A-18. Deck crews on an aircraft carrier somewhere in the Indian ocean will have questions that need to be resolved by referring to the technical documentation and by conferring with engineers in the US. And because modern military aircraft are continuously upgraded, the distribution of technical documentation in paper form would be enormously burdensome. Sometimes I feel that IT people get so obsessed over security that they forget that the internet is a great enabler as well, especially for international collaborations... Managed sensitive data is ALWAYS a trade-off between security and the ability to use the information productively. And commercial factors play a role as well, because access to design documentation will often be part of the negotiation in a foreign sales deal, valued because it enables the buyer to integrate the products of the local defense industry. In some ways sharing information on the internet, for access on a need-to-have basis, may be a more secure option than just handing over a complete copy. Presumably not all the technical information is stored with the same level of security. I would assume that information relating e.g. the software of electronic warfare systems, radar and IFF is very highly classified, but information on external features or on basic weapon interfaces is more widely shared and easier to access. Some information will be "US eyes only" while other information would be shared not only with foreign users of the hardware but also with potential buyers. What the Chinese have -- if this is not a baseless scare story -- will be much harder to determine.

    112. Re:Internet connection by Shompol · · Score: 1

      Russian for sarcasm is sarcasm, but with heavy Russian accent.

    113. Re:Internet connection by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      They searched out the Americans because they didn't want the Hugo Schmeisser treatment. Except given the nature of their knowledge they probably wouldn't have seen the light of day ever again.

    114. Re:Internet connection by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Russia can easily become an enemy of China. Even when they were both fraternal Communist states, they had border disputes.

      They were "fraternal Communist states" for only about 15 years. The relationship fell apart in the 60's. Back during the bad old days of the Cold War in the 80's, NATO was always worried about the Soviet bloc forces facing the rest of Europe, but the USSR actually had more forces devoted to the Chinese border.

    115. Re: Internet connection by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      You might be thinking of Airbus. And that had to do with differing software. And the fact that the French and Germans work about as well together as the Quebecois and anybody else.

    116. Re: Internet connection by AvitarX · · Score: 1
      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    117. Re: Internet connection by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Isolating the rotor design reminded me of what is described here.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    118. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming that they would build it if they have the plans. They might just be curious of the capabilities. They don't need that capability for their corner of the world.

      The stealing part is a lot cheaper than trying to build it. It is like people pirating expensive software that they won't use. Their costs are time, ISP quotas and storage.

    119. Re:Internet connection by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they happened to leave some systems connected to the internet that had designs with some, umm, "flaws" built into them. Like the bogus chips that failed catastrophically on the USSR Siberian gas pipeline. A honey pot for the Chinese.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    120. Re:Internet connection by gutnor · · Score: 1

      You have a enormous amount of contractors from all nationalities interacting on those projects. My bet is that "hacker" in this context, means "background check hacker" or in other word you vanilla spy with a PR spin to justify some budget reallocation somewhere.

    121. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because not having the information on commuters made it so hard for the Rosenbergs to leak our nuclear secrets to the Soviets.

    122. Re:Internet connection by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      VonBraun and his crew deliberately searched out American forces to surrender to

      Yes, but so did many others (it sure beat surrendering to the Soviets or getting shot by the SS). However he and his crew were brought to the US as part of Operation Paperclip

    123. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS my friend, complete BS. There are more ways than you can think of that would allow the Chinese to obtain secret information. Did you know that it's possible to read a computer monitor over some distance without use of wires? What about phone taps? What about rubbish bins? You would be amazed at the ways that are used. It's discussed, but apathy is most probably the BIGGEST threat to security there is.
      Your BS response about NSA Type 1 crypto only serves to increase apathy and ignorance.

    124. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the mighty Tor would find great uses for vectoring his Mjölnir for mid-air Loki ass hammering. Freyja surely appreciates that right angle as well, as a goddess of nice things. That sounded quite .. never mind.

    125. Re:Internet connection by cusco · · Score: 1

      Yes, the posting of of translator Lt. Henry Kissinger, whose association with the halls of power began with smuggling war criminals and their wealth through (among other routes) fake passports from the Vatican and Argentina. Von Braun's team is one of the few legitimate uses of that process that occurred.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    126. Re:Internet connection by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      The F35 was the losing plane in the bidding. Hope the chinese don't steal the competing design :P

    127. Re: Internet connection by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 1

      it's like listing complaints against your neighbor as a) throwing grenades through your window and, b) not returning the garden hose you lent him.

      Both can result in me pursuing legal action of some sort, so I guess those do equate too.

    128. Re: Internet connection by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      Not much. It is quite easy to beef up the security if you want to and the hypes are obviously bargaining chips especially the presidents are meeting soon.

    129. Re:Internet connection by ohho · · Score: 1

      because: 1. it's easier for the Chinese steal it 2. it's a lot cheaper to built stuff in China 3. after the Chinese build the weapons and use them in war, following the design 4. the US mil can remote control the weapons

    130. Re:Internet connection by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      ... If they create, say, a fighter with the performance of the F-35, then it's a real problem.

      I'd think that the ability to find weak points and develop countermeasures would be more pertinent than the ability to copy the design.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    131. Re:Internet connection by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      What you say is true, but Russia can easily become an enemy of China.

      Not as easy as you think. Russia needs money and China needs resource and has a lot of labor. China's strategy definitely is to transfer as much Russian technology as possible when Russia either has to abandon it or sell while it still can. Meanwhile American weapon makers are just hyping things up for whatever reason.

    132. Re: Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for LM and I assure your our network teams are probably among the best in the world.

    133. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except the fissile material in bombs is Pu-239, with a half-life of 24,100 years.

    134. Re: Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he got a bit more than a citation.

    135. Re:Internet connection by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Copying is WAY cheaper than inventing.

      The problem is that China isn't very good at copying high-end things. They invariably use crappy materials and the high-end things fall apart.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    136. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our 'Pearl Harbor' already happened: the 9/11 attacks. Which was in a way worse as the Japanese went after a military target whereas al Qaeda went after both military and civillian.

    137. Re:Internet connection by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      No argument there. Even if the plane only costs $10M to build, it STILL costs $10M to build and trying to build it for $8M will probably not end well.

    138. Re:Internet connection by pupsocket · · Score: 1

      So the Chinese can find the phony files and feel smug when the United States of America pretends to be worried.

    139. Re: Internet connection by ShadowFoxx · · Score: 1

      Osprey doesn't have a glitch. Its crashes were due to a flight phenomena common in helicopter flight, but the pilots were fixed wing converted. Now the training issue has been addressed and the v-22 hasn't crashed in a while. It in fact is one of my favorite to be transported on in theater because compared to the UH-60/CH-46/7 it's much faster thereby decreasing my "attack surface" during flight.

    140. Re:Internet connection by lgw · · Score: 1

      The Air Force is definitely paying attention to this. Given the power of fighter jocks in the culture of the air force, they've changed amazingly fast towards making fighter jocks obsolete.

      Still, no new weapon system is really credible until it has proved itself in battle, and drones are far more vulnerable to EW than manned planes. I'm sure that aspect is being worked on as well - there's a lot that can be done to prevent targeted jamming/hijacking of drones, but I doubt much has actually been done. We've seen that important feeds from some drones aren't even encrypted (though the control channel seems stronger), so clearly this stuff is still maturing. It would suck if it turned out there was a $600k solution to jamming a $6M drone to the point where it can't engage.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    141. Re:Internet connection by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Russia maintains a million foot soldiers on its Chinese border.
      To anyone who isn't Chinese, that sounds like a big army.

    142. Re:Internet connection by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      We had all those nukes during the Korean war and they didn't help (they weren't used).
      We had all those nukes during the Viet Nam war and they didn't help (they weren't used).
      We had all those nukes during Desert Storm and they didn't help (they weren't used). We won that one tho.
      We had all those nukes during the Afghanistan war and they didn't help (they weren't used). Russia had nukes when they fought there also.
      We had all those nukes during the most recent Iraq war and they didn't help (they weren't used).

      Having nuclear weapons you refuse to use, or cannot use because 'winning' is something different than not losing, is like having books on a shelf that you cannot read. The look marvelous.

    143. Re:Internet connection by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Boeing buys a big chunk of the 777's wing from China. The wife of one of the design engineers was appalled that her husband's group was instructed to send plans for the ENTIRE aircraft to the manufacturer, supposedly to ensure that there wouldn't be any misunderstandings that would cause things not to fit. I'm sure since then Boeing has been complaining about IP theft in the Chinese aircraft industry.

      Perhaps it was for IP theft.
      Or maybe it was to prevent a big Airbus disaster where the wiring harnesses built off-site did not fit. Ever.

    144. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama probably sold the plans through some back door bull**** to cut down the amount of money we owe China. Hes fucked everything else up why not the rest of our national security.

    145. Re:Internet connection by lefin1 · · Score: 1

      I hope it was a honey pot of bad information.

    146. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, rather than fabricate spare parts, it's somehow better to develop an entirely new aircraft? By that reasoning, we wouldn't still be using the B-52.

    147. Re:Internet connection by Dextrously · · Score: 1

      Government officials seem to imply that the leak was on behalf of defense contractors (and in some cases sub-contractors), and not specifically themselves. It just goes to show that if you want something done right, you really have to do it yourself.

      From TFA:

      Privately, U.S. officials say that senior Pentagon officials are frustrated by the scale of cybertheft from defense contractors, who routinely handle sensitive classified data. The officials said concerns have been expressed by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., the vice chairman, as well as Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency.

      In an attempt to combat the problem, the Pentagon launched a pilot program two years ago to help the defense industry shore up its computer defenses, allowing the companies to use classified threat data from the National Security Agency to screen their networks for malware. The Chinese began to focus on subcontractors, and now the government is in the process of expanding the sharing of threat data to more defense contractors and other industries.

    148. Re:Internet connection by whipnet · · Score: 1

      Of course its the U.S.' fault for China breaking in and stealing something that wasn't theirs. What isn't the U.S.' fault in your eyes? (0)

    149. Re:Internet connection by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      AFAIK the major problem is actually tritium decay rather than the heavy elements in a bomb.

    150. Re:Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are all imbeciles, Africans are aFRICANS ARE always remain Africans and will sell preferently to the Chinese frog boys without resentment.

    151. Re:Internet connection by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

      Can you say; Honeypot? Could be all this boo-hooing is to disguise the fact that certain critical design facts are fake. Just like we did with the Soviets, so too, we are doing to the Chinese.

      --
      My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
    152. Re: Internet connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the government still running XP???

    153. Re: Internet connection by jxander · · Score: 1

      The fact that this is +5 Funny, instead of +5 Insightful is +5 Depressing.

      --
      This signature is false.
    154. Re:Internet connection by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Why is information like this on computers that are connected to the internet?

      It wasn't.

      Unclassified information resides on computers directly connected to the internet. There was no Secret or Top Secret information compromised by hacking internet connected computers. If you think that is what the article is saying, then either the "journalist" is using too much hyperbole or you are misunderstanding the words.

      Let me restate that so it is perfectly clear: There are not large hordes of government classified information on computers connected to the public facing internet.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    155. Re:Internet connection by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't have a fucking clue about how classified data is protected, since none of those attacks are valid unless someone royally screws up. (And such screwups have harsh penalties for someone's career.) Again leading to "compromise someone with access to such information" as the primary attack method.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  2. Or so they think... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2

    heh. heh.

    1. Re:Or so they think... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe it was a honeypot attack by the US. V-22 Osprey? Flying those could thin out the Chinese ranks pretty quick. And the Chinese military could bleed itself dry trying to build F-35s.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Or so they think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Osprey in its current incarnation is one of the safest and most versatile aircraft in service. Don't believe every bit of propaganda you hear.

  3. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they put all the weapon designs in the same basket? Didn't their grandma teach them *anything*?

  4. allies? by dontfearthereaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope this opens people's eyes... The Chinese are NOT our allies, and it has been this way for years. Goes to show that the large corporations have more power in this country than the gubbmint and sheeple combined.

    1. Re:allies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      so individuals of a country stand for all of those in that country.

      so americans are their own worst enemy since statistically we kill our own more than anyone else? it's them sneaky ones on the inside killing each other for show to let us get our guards down, and once they've killed themselves, they'll turn on us all!

    2. Re:allies? by dontfearthereaper · · Score: 2

      Whether or not they try to make cheap knock-offs is one thing. The Chinese government learning the designs and having their military's R&D use whatever weaknesses they find in our systems to 1, circumvent our defenses, 2, figure out how to take control of these weapons systems and either shut them down or turn them on us, and 3 - sell the information to our enemies. Our country has enough problems without having the blueprint to our defenses on the black market. People fail to remember that the absurd strength of our military is meant to be a deterrent in itself. We've just been duped into being the world police as of late....

    3. Re:allies? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Now you just give the designs away to your true allies so we can build the gear before the chinese.

    4. Re:allies? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Um, who ever said they were? They most definitely are not.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    5. Re:allies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What country? You allowed the large companies to dismantle that years ago. All in the name of capitalism.

    6. Re:allies? by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wut? The Chinese are just trying to make a living. Most are minnow farmers moving to city factory jobs. They're developing a middle class and as whole are going through a lot of changes very quickly. We've been through that rodeo before and we can foresee some of the stresses and strain they're going to go through, but by and far populations like that can

      China, the country, and more specifically the government running the show, is an ally. But they're not an altruistic beacon of good. They're really just in the game to help themselves. Just like all of our other allies. Great Britian, France, Japan, the Saudi family, Iraq, they are our allies, but don't give the term too much weight. Once it suits their intrests to stab us in the back they will. And, sadly, we would do the same. Because this isn't some utopian fantasy land where everyone plays nice. It's a competative game where we can increase our score by working together, so we do, for now. They're allies the same way that Wall Street, Hollywood, Monsanto, Texas, and Silicon Valley are our "allies". Sure, they're ostensibly working on our side, under our rules (mostly), and we get goods and taxes out of them (sometimes). But they're not in it for our own well being. They want cash and power. They have their own agenda and plans. We all do. And those fuckers on Wall Street have taken the whole economy hostage and demanded free money to clean up their shit.

      But yeah, some of our allies would suffer more if we got pissed at them. Those are closer allies than others. China isn't that close of an ally.

    7. Re:allies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Espionage and distrust goes both ways. Do you remember how the Chinese discovered that the brand new 767 they bought for their government was full of eavesdropping equipment?

    8. Re:allies? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      They are your 'allies' in the sense that if either of you has a bad time (economically speaking), the other will have a bad time, too.

    9. Re:allies? by Krojack · · Score: 1

      so individuals of a country stand for all of those in that country.

      I'll believe they are our allies when they storm the little punks house with our FBI agents to arrest them and get our plans back. Until then, they are just as involved in my book.

    10. Re:allies? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping the Chinese will actually build the F35 and iron out the numerous kinks. We can then steal back a working design for that aircraft.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    11. Re:allies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, give it a rest. If that's the standard for an ally the US has none. Zero, zip, zilch. This sort of thing is minuscule compared to what you yanks have been doing in every fucking country for the past half century or so. And not just espionage - you fucks have a propensity for overthrowing governments you don't like and supporting extremists you do.

      In other words - shut the fuck up you whiny yankee baby.

    12. Re:allies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope this opens people's eyes... The Chinese are NOT our allies, and it has been this way for years. Goes to show that the large corporations have more power in this country than the gubbmint and sheeple combined.

      Of course they are not. But they do have money, and the West is a capitalistic society.

      To reference Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

    13. Re:allies? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      so individuals of a country stand for all of those in that country

      Stop being sanctimonious. The OP didn't say or imply that. Yes, saying the "Chinese" is not strictly accurate, but is often used the way the OP did in these discussions. I prefer to say "China" but even that's not strictly accurate. "Chinese government" would be the best phrase, but the shorthand is well understood. Even during the bad old days of the Cold War, when Reagan talked about the evil empire, it was well understood that most Americans, including Reagan, had nothing against the Russian people and the various other peoples in the USSR. Animosity toward a people is usually reserved for actual shooting wars, and even then is optional.

      so americans are their own worst enemy

      Of course, has there ever been a people that wasn't true of?

      Pogo: We have met the enemy and he is us.

    14. Re:allies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If their copy of the F-22 is any indication, I think we should skip that "steal it back" step. Has the thing even managed to leave the ground without blowing an engine, yet?

    15. Re:allies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why steal it back when we can buy it cheaply! If we would steal it back Lockheed would screw it up again and charge a bazillion dollars for it!

    16. Re:allies? by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      First, this is not suffice to discard them as allies (even though they are not). The USA was and is spying in Europe for various reasons including industry espionage, but they are still counted as allies by, let say France or Germany. Second, the USA is spying all around the world. Not only to murder suspects and protect its international position as overlords ehm I means, last remaining super-power and worlds policemen, but also for industrial purposes, like stealing technology or stealing trade secrets. Third, it has been reported that other nations do so as well.

      I think this furor is totally overstated.

    17. Re:allies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel has been caught spying on us too. Yet we go on and on how good an ally they are.

    18. Re:allies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like all of our other allies. Great Britian, France, Japan, the Saudi family, Iraq, they are our allies, but don't give the term too much weight.

      I've noticed you've suspiciously left Canada out of that equation...

    19. Re:allies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to use a weird definition of the word "ally".

    20. Re:allies? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a realistic one. It's pretty uncommon these days.

  5. Sooo . . . by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

    Now the Chinese government too can sink untold amounts of money on ultra-expensive gear? :P

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    1. Re:Sooo . . . by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now the Chinese government too can sink untold amounts of money on ultra-expensive gear? :P

      Not only that, but the plans call for Made In America(TM) parts, so this will boost the US economy.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Sooo . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd like to believe that the Osprey was just a long con to screw up R&D in enemy nations too. Alas, no.

    3. Re: Sooo . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The expense in America is nearly all labor costs. The Chinese approach the cost of labor much different from that of any western culture. What might be a $30 million aircraft could be as cheap as a $5-6 million aircraft when you don't honor the craftsmanship.

    4. Re:Sooo . . . by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Now the Chinese government too can sink untold amounts of money on ultra-expensive gear? :P

      Nope, Chinese are better known for making cheap knock offs.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    5. Re:Sooo . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is they can afford it properly.

    6. Re: Sooo . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the American Equipment can handle 15,000 flight hours (number yanked from ether), given the average ratio of (Chinese Build Quality):(American Build Quality) on consumer goods, that means the Chinese built equivalents should maybe get about 150 minutes, right?

    7. Re: Sooo . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The expense in America is nearly all labor costs. The Chinese approach the cost of labor much different from that of any western culture. What might be a $30 million aircraft could be as cheap as a $5-6 million aircraft when you don't honor the craftsmanship.

      million --> billion FTFY.

    8. Re:Sooo . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also they're missing the materials science, quality control, and likely the 20 or so mods and revisions that makes the vehicles and equipment safe and reliable enough for use during combat. (Having plans is only one aspect of weapons manufacturing, and there's still a lot more to it.) Cheap out or cut corners in production, and copying these plans are just as likely to put you further behind.

    9. Re:Sooo . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also they're missing the materials science, quality control, and likely the 20 or so mods and revisions that makes the vehicles and equipment safe and reliable enough for use during combat. (Having plans is only one aspect of weapons manufacturing, and there's still a lot more to it.) Cheap out or cut corners in production, and copying these plans are just as likely to put you further behind.

      Exactly. Hence the reason they were "leaked"

  6. Okay, who's the moron? by patchouly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What moron thought to himself that having sensitive blue prints to highly classified military equipment was best stored on a computer with Internet access?

    1. Re: Okay, who's the moron? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

      It wasn't otherwise the whole internet would have become classified. The Chinese stole it off one of the classified networks (like SIPRNet), which the DoD has known to be compromised for quite some time. Because of this, really sensitive things aren't kept on it.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:Okay, who's the moron? by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Who says they were on the internet? Maybe someone left their laptop at their local Lucky Dragon restaurant.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Okay, who's the moron? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      What moron thought to himself that having sensitive blue prints to highly classified military equipment was best stored on a computer with Internet access?

      Someone who previously sold the same data to the Chinese and now cannot be traced as the only source of the leak.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    4. Re:Okay, who's the moron? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      We can only assume they wanted it stolen. Either that, or the Pentagon has had a serious markdown in quality recently.

      If it's connected to a network, people will find a way to tap into it. They will then spend all their time trying to find the usernames / password for various accounts, because chances are, auditing is not turned on for those accounts, and no one ever checks the logs.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:Okay, who's the moron? by schlachter · · Score: 1

      These designs are created and maintained by thousands of engineers across the United States and our allies. Especially true for something like the internationally developed F-35. Kind of hard to collaborate when you've got to use a sneaker net.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    6. Re:Okay, who's the moron? by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      Be careful ask who's the moron. China still has problems building its own generators and has to buy Russian fighters. Perhaps the Americans leaked a few early versions on purpose and hope the Chinese would consider buying theirs instead.

    7. Re: Okay, who's the moron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " SIPRNet), which the DoD has known to be compromised for quite some time."
      [Citation Required]

      You pulled this out of your rectum. In fact, defense contractors have been compromised, that is what transpires. You know, greedy corporate drone who know all about politics, schemeing, applied nasty-psychology, money but nothing about actual technology. "I used five letters, three numbers and a special character for the cipher key, that covers my a$$ !"

      The western world deeply believes in the God Of Money. Let's worship this god and ignore anything else, including stupid details about computers, software, ciphers and the like. Let's ignore the stupid advice of the computer fiddlers and Follow The Advice Of Money's Priests at $$Bank$$. In Money There Is Salvation, Money We Hail To !

      Can you Quantify The Monetary Damage from a cyber attack ? You can't, so we don't need any security ! If you only converted to the Religion Of Money And Be Obedient To It's Priests from M.B.A. school ! Your soul is not yet lost ! Bow to money and you will be saved !!

    8. Re: Okay, who's the moron? by Reason58 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't otherwise the whole internet would have become classified.

      It doesn't work that way. Classified documents are leaked onto the public internet all the time. Just look at the Manning case. Wikileaks is hosting classified documents on the internet right now.

  7. cancel the systems by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Well now that the secret's out, maybe Congress will cancel these programs.
    Maybe not.

    1. Re:cancel the systems by gtall · · Score: 1

      If any plans being leaked were the fault of a defense contractor, they should get slammed financially by the Pentagon since they would have cost the American taxpayers billions.

  8. Pwned by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    So how was the Washington Post able to get a copy of the Confidential report from the Defense Science Board? Probably leaked by a Chinese hacker ...

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:Pwned by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      So how was the Washington Post able to get a copy of the Confidential report from the Defense Science Board?

      . . . the Justice Department will obtain all the phone records and emails from Washington Post employees to find out . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  9. Joke's on them. by seven+of+five · · Score: 5, Funny

    The designs are in English.

    1. Re:Joke's on them. by Sez+Zero · · Score: 4, Funny

      The designs are in English.

      Not only that, but I hear the designs don't even use metric measurements. Good luck figuring them out!

    2. Re:Joke's on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in Imperial measurements no less!

    3. Re:Joke's on them. by clark0r · · Score: 1
      FTFY

      The designs are in American.

    4. Re:Joke's on them. by c0lo · · Score: 1

      The designs are in English.

      No, the joke is on US jobs... the Chinese didn't steal them, they were leaked... it was the first step in outsourcing in the military industrial complex. You see, since sequester, the US govt doesn't pay enough for them to maintain the same level of profit, thus they need to cut the costs.

      (grin)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:Joke's on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the average American is approximately the size of two and a half Chinese everything might work out just fine.

    6. Re:Joke's on them. by lightknight · · Score: 1

      "Lao Tzu, these plans say to make the ultra-secret RADAR out of cardboard! Are you sure the CIA didn't modify them?"

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    7. Re:Joke's on them. by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I thought it was the first step in colonizing China. They do have WMDs, and now they have plans for uber-weapons...sounds like a good reason to go over and say "Hello" (in Mr. Popo's voice). Then we can engage in a nation-(re)building exercise, while making Russia feel really uncomfortable.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    8. Re:Joke's on them. by Guppy · · Score: 0

      The designs are in English.

      Even worse -- the designs are in American!

    9. Re:Joke's on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with that, you can barely oust stone age governments...

    10. Re:Joke's on them. by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      Actually that's true, it's hidden outsourcing. The cost overruns were getting too much for our budget, so now we wait for the Chinese to fix the designs and buy them back via Walmart.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    11. Re:Joke's on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The designs are in English.

      Using English for the designs is the code they use to keep the information from being understood by most Americans.

    12. Re:Joke's on them. by fisted · · Score: 1

      > The designs are in Engrish.
      FTFY

    13. Re:Joke's on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stonehenge!

    14. Re:Joke's on them. by cusco · · Score: 1

      So losing for ten years in Afghanistan against guys armed with Kalashnikovs and a few RPGs doesn't give you even a hint that attempting to invade a country made up of 1/4 of the world's population is a really, really bad idea? Wow, that's impressive.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    15. Re:Joke's on them. by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's actually been a factor before. The Soviets copied the B-29 to make the Tu-4. One of the enormous engineering difficulties they faced was that the specs were all in imperial units. They couldn't just substitute the closest metric equivalent. They had to test each and every part to see if a slightly smaller metric piece would be strong enough, or if they needed to use a slightly bigger metric part to achieve the necessary strength.

    16. Re:Joke's on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The designs are in Engrish

      FTFY

    17. Re:Joke's on them. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's okay, they are written in a southern dialect as a form of encryption:

      "Three possum heads worth of blue-grass toe jam hankering for a five-handed whippin' from Uncle Walter's wigglin' fish-tailin' hog drink, placed smack in duh midder of yur daisy mushin' young bumpkin', like a well-oiled weasel in a hot summer flapper trap wired with Homer's pond-yarn from a hunkerin' dizzer pole."

    18. Re:Joke's on them. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It's a fourth right now......

  10. All part of our diabolical plan... by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

    now let them build what's in those plans, and go into perpetual national debt, crippling their economy, too!

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      perpetual national debt

      - Financed by... who?

    2. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Defense isn't what put the country into debt, it was mainly a combination of years of social programs, Congress having no balls to ask Americans to pay for what they passed, and the sainted American people falling, eyes wide and cluelessly open, into the housing crisis.

    3. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >crippling the Chinese economy

      If they need money, they can always just ask for

    4. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Defense isn't what put the country into debt, it was mainly a combination of years of social programs,

      Citation needed.

      Defense is a huge part of our USA total budget, including many items that are conveniently "off budget". I've told my friends in England for years that they should pay for more of their own defense and see how they like the tax hit.

      Anyway, one of these days the Chinese will start to listen to Willy Dixon, "It don't make sense if you can't make peace."

    5. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by msauve · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, not defense spending. US military spending, which despite the Orwellian terminology used to describe it, has been predominately offensive in the past decade. The US spends about 4.8% of GDP on military spending, more than double the next largest (China), with about 2%.

      The US spends about 20% GDP on social programs (from here) - below the OECD member average.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It *really was* defence that bled the US of its treasure. If the US scaled its defence budget back by 25%, then they would still be funding more money into the military than the next 5 largest militaries in the world combined, and would be able to fund all of the social programs to their limits, and have money left over to start paying down the national debt. But that will never happen.

    7. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      now let them build what's in those plans, and go into perpetual national debt, crippling their economy, too!

      Maybe you aren't taking into account the relative cost of manufacturing in China, or that they have enormous (3.4 trillion USD) foreign reserves.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    8. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about that housing crisis. it happened because the banks were making loans they didn't actually expect to be paid back, and then selling the revenue from them as if they expected them to be paid back.

      The reason the banks were making those loans is leftists demanded that the banks make more loans to minorities. The banks don't need to be told to make loans that will be paid back, their profit motive tells them to do that. If a bank was so racist as to not loan to a qualified Black, they would be leaving money on the table for one of their competitors.

      The reason they were mislabeling and selling the revenue is rightists wanted to let them do whatever. Well, turns out 'whatever' was 'mislabeling and selling stuff for some quick profits and damn the stability of the system'.

      Race is the unspeakable third rail of United States politics. We may think we can ignore it, but it's not going to ignore us.

    9. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Chart the Pentagon budget against the US deficit for the last three decades. You'll be surprised at how closely they correlate most years. Then keep in mind that this isn't counting the Black Budget (larger than AFDC since that program's inception), the alphabet soup of intel agencies, Fatherland Security, or the mercenaries that State Department (Blackwater now guards our embassies and diplomats) and AID employ. Most of the supposed spending on "social programs" is actually Social Security, which is not an actual budget item but withdrawals from the trust fund (which was stable and fully funded until Obama got playing with it). If Congress were to lop off the military spending the budget would be very close to balanced tomorrow. Not going to happen, of course, since the Pentagon has unlimited access to snipers and the home address of all the Congresscritters, but it's a nice thought.

      Want an example of how cowardly the right-wing is in this country? Forty+ percent of all the military spending on the planet is done in the US. The Pentagram budget could be reduced 80 percent and we'd still be the largest military budget in the world. Reduce it by 70 percent and we would still be spending more than China and Russia (#2 and #3) combined. And they're still terrified that we're going to be invaded by Burma or something. Fucking cowards.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    10. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the banks were making those loans is leftists demanded that the banks make more loans to minorities.

      Totally debunked as having any significant or measurable effect on the crisis long ago but, as is usual in their counter-factual world, still repeated as fact by teabaggers and their ilk.

    11. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that you just provided information that supported msauve's argument, right? Unless 20 is somehow less than 4.8.

    12. Re:All part of our diabolical plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you say

  11. Geez by Korruptionen · · Score: 1

    Our government is terrible everything. They could have at least pulled a torrent fakeout type move and had the file labelled "F18 best plane ever", but the designs be for a sweet dirigible.

    1. Re:Geez by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      I'd say that a sweet dirigible would benefit us more than another variant of F18. Even with hydrogen, they're safer and more economical than planes, it's just that loads of money went into optimizing planes while no one seriously pursued dirigibles since the '30s.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Geez by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Our government is terrible everything. They could have at least pulled a torrent [deleted], had the file labelled "F35 best plane ever", and leak the actual design.

      FTFY. This move will certainly cripple any enemy.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  12. That's Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure they were going to end up making them for us anyway. Isn't that pretty much how we do things nowadays?

  13. False Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    How else will they get all new warships and a new state of the art cyber terrorist unit?

  14. Design != manufacture capability by intermodal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    China can steal all the designs they want, but without successfully implementing the designs, I'm honestly not that concerned. In the 1970s, China managed to kludge together a weak clone of Boeing's 20+-year-old 707, powered by what are believed to have been spare 707 engines. If you think China can manage to cobble together some F-35s that will be worth the effort, or some F/A-18s that can match US spec, you need to understand that it's easier and probably more cost-effective to place orders with Sukhoi Design Bureau for something that actually works than it is to duplicate the processes needed to actually create the American aircraft mentioned above.

    China doesn't have the best track record in building designs stolen aerospace designs from other countries, and has found better success in getting people to willingly hand them the capabilities and processes. China's MD-80 license production and the assistance they got from McDonnell-Douglas is the biggest factor in their current aerospace pushes being at least semi-feasible.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Design != manufacture capability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing with nuclear weapons: They got them when they did because the URSS gave the know-how to them. Otherwise, they would still be experimenting.

    2. Re:Design != manufacture capability by alphatel · · Score: 1

      China can steal all the designs they want, but without successfully implementing the designs, I'm honestly not that concerned.

      North Korea buys from China. Are you scared now?

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    3. Re:Design != manufacture capability by kbonin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but manufacturing processes are often also obtainable documents. Any company who has set up good process control around their manufacturing lines has probably documented almost if not everything needed to recreate their subset of the secret sauce. Due to subcontracting these constitute a more distributed set of targets, and probably have local IT staff better capable of locking down their small networks than a megacorp oursourcing model would, but its probably all still there...

    4. Re:Design != manufacture capability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither do the US defense contractor manufacturer know how to make the F35 in volume cost effectively...

    5. Re:Design != manufacture capability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China in 1970 and china in 2013 are worlds apart. By the way, if Design != manufacture capability, it only means the designs are crap and don't contain all the required manufacturing data(they should, per definition). It often happens, real details to manufacturing are kept as workshop lore. For example if you wanted to manufacture a Saturn V today, you couldn't, even if you found all the drawings and designs from some archive. Because half the stuff is undocumented, some Joe helped things along with a file here and there, and bent some things this or that way so it all ended up working. But that is not design quality.

    6. Re:Design != manufacture capability by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

      North Korea buys from China. Are you scared now?

      Because North Korea so totally has the ability to build F-35 clones...

    7. Re:Design != manufacture capability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because there's no one smart enough in a rising superpower to implement these designs? Certainly none of those masters students who studied hard sciences and other disciplines before returning home. If a command economy with more than a billion people wants something done, it gets done.

    8. Re:Design != manufacture capability by intermodal · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right on all points, but it's not just Joe with a file and Jim bending some things. Metallurgy and materials availability are a big factor in aerospace, particularly bleeding-edge military aerospace.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    9. Re:Design != manufacture capability by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Cost effectiveness wasn't in the design spec. This is government contracts we're talking about here!

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    10. Re:Design != manufacture capability by intermodal · · Score: 1

      China can steal all the designs they want, but without successfully implementing the designs, I'm honestly not that concerned.

      North Korea buys from China. Are you scared now?

      If North Korea buys shoddy F-35 knockoffs from China, no. In fact, at that point I may be less scared than I was before.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    11. Re:Design != manufacture capability by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your perspective is stuck a few decades in the past. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the Chinese are in space now, regularly and reliably. Analysts are already looking at the Chinese produced Shenyang J-31 as a possible contender with the F-35C for the export market. It may be functionally a generation behind, but I'm sure it will be less expensive and easier to order especially for nations that aren't in the NATO core.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    12. Re:Design != manufacture capability by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      In the 1970s, China managed to kludge together a weak clone of Boeing's 20+-year-old 707

      Ancient history. China has changed a lot since then.

      China ... has found better success in getting people to willingly hand them the capabilities and processes. China's MD-80 license production and the assistance they got from McDonnell-Douglas is the biggest factor in their current aerospace pushes being at least semi-feasible.

      There I agree with you. The spy stuff seems pointless compared to what we just hand over. Don't forget GE, which first gave China know-how in building gas turbines (less than a half-step from jet engines) and IIRC is now developing a "partnership" to make jet engines in China. Applied Materials set up a big research lab there, so maybe in the future they can skip the intermediary step of importing it from America and just have "American" companies develop it over there.

    13. Re:Design != manufacture capability by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      North Korea buys from China. Are you scared now?

      China doesn't share or sell any genuinely sensitive information to North Korea. They tolerate the Kim Dynasty since they don't like instability (they think the fall of North Korea might lead to something worse, which they can't control) and they don't want a U.S. ally on their border. But they don't actually like or trust the North Korean leadership and aren't stupid enough to give them A-list weapons.

    14. Re:Design != manufacture capability by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point, even in bringing up the 1970s 707 knockoff. The end result was that China decided the project wasn't worth developing further when they could just buy a much more refined and reliable product from Boeing, and even moreso when MD basically handed them the ability to build DC-9 series airframes. It is no small stretch of imagination to envision China doing what India has in partnership with Russia on the PAK FA. Much more effective than trying to modify an F-35 blueprint to suit their manufacturing capacity at present.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    15. Re:Design != manufacture capability by 9jack9 · · Score: 1

      China can steal all the designs they want, but without successfully implementing the designs, I'm honestly not that concerned.

      That's a viewpoint, sure. My guess is that you don't work in the defense industry. Just a guess.

    16. Re:Design != manufacture capability by intermodal · · Score: 1

      My point is more about trying to clone designs from stolen information than about what China is capable of. China isn't stupid. They know it's more effective to partner with someone than to steal information and hope for the best. It worked with McDonnell Douglas, and it can work with Russia. You know, the nation supplying the J-31's engines at present.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    17. Re:Design != manufacture capability by Hentes · · Score: 1

      They don't need to make an exact replica, just learn the technology behind from the documents.

    18. Re:Design != manufacture capability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China can steal all the designs they want

      member intermodal knows of what he speaks.
      Why are we Americans worried about a race of unimaginative copycats?
      Just give them free rein of all our secrets, believe me these Chinese will not be able to do anything with these highly technical data.

      I'm really disappointed at the editors of slashdot for letting over-hyped threats from China to even make it onto the main page.
      The editors need to give their heads a shake and consult experts like intermodal before acting like chicken little.

    19. Re:Design != manufacture capability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, the nation supplying the J-31's engines at present

      whoa, the Freudian slip is unmistakable here.
      The fact that you unconsciously qualified your assessment with a hedge proviso, divulges your deep down belief that the Chinese are more than capable of manufacturing modern jet engines.
      Haven't their turbine tech already exceeded the Russians in terms of duration between major overhauls? At least that's the frequent buzz of late.

    20. Re:Design != manufacture capability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 1970s, China managed to kludge together a weak clone of Boeing's 20+-year-old 707, powered by what are believed to have been spare 707 engines.

      They have come a long way since then, or have you noticed how much high-tech they now manufacture for foreign companies on a regular basis? True, cloning an advanced aircraft from scratch isn't trivial, but don't count modern day China out of the game.

  15. Cheap F-35s! by splutty · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is all a conspiracy by the US government. They *say* they got hacked and the designs got stolen, but we all know that sneakilly they've just given them all to the Chinese.

    The reason for this is of course obvious: The Chinese can make these things much cheaper! So it's all about savings!

    (If you think this might be something with tongues and cheeks, you might possibly be somewhat right)

    --
    Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    1. Re:Cheap F-35s! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      The reason for this is of course obvious: The Chinese can make these things much cheaper!

      Yeah, but it would just be cheap knockoff crap that does weird things like flip upside down when it crosses the international date line.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Cheap F-35s! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like so: http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/11/1110mars-climate-observer-report/

    3. Re:Cheap F-35s! by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Oh wait...

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    4. Re:Cheap F-35s! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kind of agree with you on conspiracy thing. You would expected mass firing of generals and arrest of companies officers if this is real. This is a conspiracy to get more money for pentagon and defense contractors.

  16. What's the chance that this was intentional? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    So here's a question: What if the leaking of these designs was intentional? There could be several motivations for doing this. One, maybe these aren't the actual designs and they are flawed in some subtle yet crucial way or perhaps multiple ways. Two, they aren't the actual designs but the goal was to lure the hackers in to determine their methods. Or three, that some peacenik thought that it was unfair that the US has all the cool toys and are attempting to achieve whirled peas by way of leveling the playing field.

  17. What happened to... by bambewn · · Score: 1

    the AirForce being so bad ass at cyber-security (or cyber-surety, wtf/e)
    Can't even keep a nigga's plans safe...
    Maybe we aren't giving them enough money -_-

  18. For some lulz by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2

    Now, put some new plans on the cracked network titled 'Top Secret: Strategic F17A Propulsion Update.doc' in which the engines are installed backwards, right in line with the fuel tanks. Wait for youtube vids.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  19. So plant flawed plans by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    Say, with tolerances off just enough so that it looks good on paper and when it's built, but when you actually try to fly the thing...and the Chinese spend the next five years working out the bugs.

    .

    1. Re:So plant flawed plans by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      that's not the way Chinese manufacturing works. They will build 'em for 59 cents each, but copy the existing bugs and also add in their own.

  20. Are those plans complete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean...could it be that the designs are actually collapsible? For example, just because you find something on the internet that technically works means that it is free from artificially introduced bugs. Imagine that the systems have bugs which allow for remote control of the Patriot system, or a JSF that can be controlled by remote control. It's much easier to build from specifications that have been tested and are working, but yet another thing with specifications that have been tested to work the "way" they were supposed to work.

  21. F-18 and Black Hawk are advanced? by alen · · Score: 1

    the F-18 was a competitor to the F-16 design back in the 70's
    we had black hawk's in the mid 1990's when i went to air assault school and they were at least 10 years old by that time as well

  22. smart phones are faster than aegis cruisers by alen · · Score: 1

    these were first designed in the 70's and even with some upgrades i bet smartphones have a lot more computing power than the aegis cruise

    1. Re:smart phones are faster than aegis cruisers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you program your smartphone in assembler instead of Java+15 layers of abstraction and indirection, then, Yes.

    2. Re:smart phones are faster than aegis cruisers by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      these were first designed in the 70's and even with some upgrades i bet smartphones have a lot more computing power than the aegis cruise

      Irrelevant. Straight computing power is cheap, but things like tracking and guidance algorithms aren't. Also, apparently unknown to many Slashdotters, there are technologies other than computers. Many are supposed to be classified (at least the details) and not available commercially.

    3. Re:smart phones are faster than aegis cruisers by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      If you program your smartphone in assembler instead of Java+15 layers of abstraction and indirection, then, Yes.

      Quiet, you're giving away the secrets of the ancients (I'm one of them). Many people these days are unaware of the fact that 8-bit micros even exist, and that computers can be made to run without an operating system! Strange but true.

  23. Most advanced? by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Patriot Missile: In service since 1981

    Aegis: In development since the 1980s, first test 1999

    F/A-18: Introduced in service in 1983

    V-22:First flew in 1989, entered service 2007, was unreliable for several years after that. It took us over 20 years to fully develop it

    Black Hawk: Introduced 1979

    F-35: An expensive piece of crap that can do a lot of different things not so well (a couple gems from a 2011 Pentagon study: The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard, The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan, The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations, There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.) Would be a waste of money to try and reproduce.

    I am 26 years old, and most of these systems were in development or introduced before I was born. The 2 most recent technologies have been fraught with problems in development, production, and deployment. Maybe they should just go ahead and give the Chinese the F-22 plans as well, so half of their pilots will asphyxiate. I'm not worried about the Chinese gaining access to equipment that has been in use for decades: once something is out in the open and being used in combat/training operations, their capabilities are easily discerned and easy to copy. I would be more concerned if they got access to anything in development that we don't know about, the stuff the government is working on that they haven't revealed.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Most advanced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      once something is out in the open and being used in combat/training operations, their capabilities are easily discerned and easy to copy.

      This is true if by easy to copy you mean fabricate a plastic model. As to your argument via age, the F-16 was designed in 1974. Fighters have a long shelf-life. Furthermore, those designs go through years of iterative development and improvement. Stealing the current Aegis designs doesn't mean you got 20 year old crap technology, it means you just saved yourself 20 years of R&D and refinement to obtain a fully functional cutting edge a weapons system. If you think the Aegis is outdated your insane.

    2. Re:Most advanced? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I'm 31 years old. I recently bought a military surplus vehicle which was designed before I was born and manufactured before you were born. It is still in limited use in some National Guard applications but, for the most part, it has been decommissioned.

      All of the manuals and, to large degree, parts and construction are fully known. The same can be said for the humvee, except it hasn't been decomissioned and is still in broad use.

      Granted, the Chinese have blueprints for the humvee, and have been making their own for about 15 years now. But there is still an opsec danger to having information on your war machines publicly and easily available to the enemy. In the case of the humvee (or my cucv), there's a danger due to IEDs and other munitions being able to be specifically constructed to disable or destroy the up-armored variants.

      With a war plane or missile, which is largely successful in today's world on the basis of secrecy, this is all the more significant. It doesn't matter that it's "old"; a country's ability to keep the specifics of its operational capabilities (flight time, flight speed, total engineered payload capacity, etc.) is largely the basis for its ability to wage warfare. If you own the secrets to your enemy's weapons of war, you diminish the weapons' usefulness. For instance: if the enemy knows a specific plane has a structural problem at a specific G, you design a missile which hits that G or greater, for a prolonged period. (Bad example, but you get my point, I hope.)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:Most advanced? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I am 26 years old, and most of these systems were in development or introduced before I was born.

      And you also seem to be unaware that weapons systems generally aren't fixed points in time - it's a very rare system where development halts when the system enters service. Upgrades and modernization are pretty much routine for anything much more complex than a rifle or a pistol.
       

      The 2 most recent technologies have been fraught with problems in development, production, and deployment.

      Something you're not old enough to appreciate is that such things are pretty common in the development of complex systems of any stripe.
       

      I'm not worried about the Chinese gaining access to equipment that has been in use for decades: once something is out in the open and being used in combat/training operations, their capabilities are easily discerned and easy to copy.

      You really do live in a bubble... If it were so easy, why does it not actually happen all the much in the real world? The answer of course, is that it is not.

    4. Re:Most advanced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so maybe it's more "Greatest Hits" than "newest album"...

    5. Re:Most advanced? by schlachter · · Score: 1

      Ok, BUT all these systems are constantly being upgrade and redesigned. The Patriot Missile sys of today is nothing like what was used in 1981. Same for Aegis and the F/A 18, etc.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    6. Re:Most advanced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am 26 years old, and most of these systems were in development or introduced before I was born.

      And you also seem to be unaware that weapons systems generally aren't fixed points in time - it's a very rare system where development halts when the system enters service. Upgrades and modernization are pretty much routine for anything much more complex than a rifle or a pistol.

      Agreed. The B52 was flying before any of the current generation was even born. Today's pilots may be flying the same s/n airplane their dad flew but it is not the same airplane.

    7. Re:Most advanced? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Everything that you say is true. However which would you rather be going into war inside? A cold war era MIG or an F-35?

      Just because these systems have issues doesn't mean you aren't going be able to smoke anything else that you come up against on the battlefield.

      This is aptly shown every time forces armed with these SOTA weapons go into battle. They rip whatever they go against to shreds in minutes.

      China needs to be thought about in another way. It's more like Zerg vs Protoss.

    8. Re:Most advanced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As has already been pointed out, you're wrong on pretty much all counts. I just wanted to add that the problems you point out about the F-35 are minor issues that a simple refit can take care of, and the problems with the F-22 are virtually non-existent: the issue ended up being jumpsuit related; there is no issue with the plane itself. These are hands-down two of the most advanced warplanes on this planet, and any classified data spillage regarding their designs is no laughing matter.

    9. Re:Most advanced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like "if you know the electronic methods of opposing systems, you can quickly and cheaply develop countermeasures". When the Americans found out about the command link of the early russian SAMs in Vietnam, they simply jammed that command link. That was much easier than jamming the powerful radars, as the command link would be relatively low-power and relay targeting vectors to the missile. After they could do that, the vietnamese SAMs ceased to be an issue, as the weapon could not be directed to the target when in the air.

      Electronics is what matters these days and it is interesting that these kinds of things are still very much "out of the public view". The F35 is indeed a really, really shitty aircraft in terms of aerodynamics (high wing loading) and it will probably never make an arrested landing on a carrier (as the geometry of main landing gear and tailhook is against some very sensible DoD regulation that traces itself to the natural laws of this universe), BUT: The F35 might compensate for all that shite by means of some ultra-sophisticated electronics and software. I am not "in the know" here, but there is no doubt America leads in all kinds of areas from spread-spectrum Radars, multi-function stuff (ground mapping, sea surveillance and air-to-air combined), automated signals collection systems and so on.

      If someone can now move all these electronic/software systems into an F16, the F35 program might be called "excellent". Just don't think of the F35 as an excellent airframe. It's pure shit mixed with the latest sensors, software, mission planning, chaff, flares, threat detectors and maybe even chemical sensors to sniff out Diesel submarines even after they have submerged again. Again, I don't know the details, I just know America is strong on electronics and often quite weak on mechanics/aerodynamics.

    10. Re:Most advanced? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The B52 was flying before any of the current generation was even born. Today's pilots may be flying the same s/n airplane their dad flew but it is not the same airplane.

      A few years ago I worked on a (non-classified) avionics upgrade for B-52's. If you'd told me when I was a kid that someday I'd be doing that, I'd have laughed at the idea.

    11. Re:Most advanced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a youtube video named like "secret history of silicon valley" (or the something to this effect, do the googleing yourself) and it will open your eyes to the massive electronic warfare efforts already done during WW2. America and Britain won to a large degree because their jammers were quickly adapted to any German radar fielded and because German electronics was less agile (for example in changing frequencies to evade jamming).

      At least the British bombers would have been annihilated during the night, if it weren't for excellent performance of their jammers. The funny thing is that electronic warfare is mostly ignored in WW2 histories....

    12. Re:Most advanced? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      You don't quite understand the military or aviation in general. Most planes flying out there today were designed in the 50's and 60's, maybe first manufacturered in the 70's, with minor cosmetic upgrades over the years since. In fact, most of planes use technology that date from the dawn of aviation (propellers, for example).

      It's the same with the military. If you think they're all using James Bond-type stuff, then you're sorely mistaken. A split second is the difference between life and death. That's about the amount of time it takes for you to slide to unlock your phone. The M-16 was designed in the 50's. The AK-47 was designed in the 40's(!) and is arguably a cheaper, more reliable, and overall better gun than the M-16.

      Both aviation and the military industries are about what works the best and continues to work under as many conditions as possible. Neither industries are about the latest, greatest gadget.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    13. Re:Most advanced? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      V-22:First flew in 1989, entered service 2007, was unreliable for several years after that. It took us over 20 years to fully develop it

      You seem to think that the plans are somehow the first drafts created in 1989, as opposed to the versions created in 2007. If that's the case, not only did they get the plans for a warplane, but also the end result of an 18-year R&D project. The worst-case isn't that they can build the V-22. It's that the plans illustrate some principle/solution they haven't discovered that's preventing them from building their latest-and-greatest weapons system. And what they started in 2008 skips the 18-years of R&D and jumps straight into production.

      . I'm not worried about the Chinese gaining access to equipment that has been in use for decades: once something is out in the open and being used in combat/training operations, their capabilities are easily discerned and easy to copy.

      It's not like the military doesn't take great pains to ensure that they don't use systems to the absolute limit, so that it's hard to observe their characteristics. And it certainly isn't like knowing what the practical limits are doesn't give you a blueprint for reproducing it. Look, a lot of things are easy to describe and hard to do. For instance, a hyper-sonic jet (Mach 5+). Is the hard part the specification: must go Mach 5+? No, it's actually building the damn thing, and dealing with all the little issues.

      I am 26 years old

      Let me offer an analogy from something you have experienced: Iron Man (the first movie). Observing the specs is what Obadiah does. It works pretty well. But if he had the blueprints, he would have seen the change commented "icing solution", and would have known a) that he had to fix that, and b) one solution

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    14. Re:Most advanced? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Patriot Missile: In service since 1981
      Aegis: In development since the 1980s, first test 1999
      F/A-18: Introduced in service in 1983
      V-22:First flew in 1989, entered service 2007, was unreliable for several years after that. It took us over 20 years to fully develop it
      Black Hawk: Introduced 1979

      I am 26 years old, and most of these systems were in development or introduced before I was born. The 2 most recent technologies have been fraught with problems in development, production, and deployment. Maybe they should just go ahead and give the Chinese the F-22 plans as well

      I'm 44 years old. I worked on a project for Lockheed my senior year of undergrad. That also happened to be the year Lockheed's YF-22 beat out Northrop-McDonnell Douglass' YF-23 and was selected by the DoD as the next generation fighter to replace the F-15. This was 1990-1991. So the F-22 is based on 1980s technology, and was also developed before you were born.

      The aerospace industry is very slow to adopt new technologies. They do not grab the latest offerings from Intel or IBM and stick it aboard. Everything needs to be tested and vetted for years if not decades before it's deemed reliable enough to put aboard a plane or spacecraft. Consequently, on the early Space Shuttle missions, the most powerful computer aboard was an HP-41c calculator, because the built-in computers were from the 1960s or early 1970s.

    15. Re:Most advanced? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I'd rather go to war in a PAK-Fa or an SU-34.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  24. V-22 Osprey by methano · · Score: 1

    The best thing that could happen to the defense of the USA is for China to start building the V-22 Osprey. Better yet, maybe we could sell some to them. At cost even.

    1. Re:V-22 Osprey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because after twenty years of painstaking development, over 100,000 hours of in-theater flight time, and having been rated by Marine Commandant General James Amos as recently as 2011 as "the safest airplane" in the Marine Corps inventory, we might as well throw our arms up and give them away?

      Senators are morons. Don't believe a word they say, good or bad, about our military capabilities; they always have ulterior motives. The truth is that, while it was a long and painful process earning its wings, the Osprey is one of the most successful and versatile platforms we have in the air right now. Having all of the blood, sweat, and tears that went into the final product stolen from us, and potentially distributed to our enemies, is a serious concern.

    2. Re:V-22 Osprey by methano · · Score: 1

      Who said "give them away"?

  25. This explains the constant delays of such projects by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you keep on losing the design drawings, then no wonder they're running into delays! They really should be keeping copies of them, so in case someone steals the originals, they don't have to draw them all over again.

  26. Modern Cold War by sinij · · Score: 1

    These hacks show that traditional military is losing effectiveness. Just like during the Cold War with Soviets you couldn't fight Nukes with tanks and aircraft carriers, you now can't fight militarized hackers with tanks and aircraft carriers.

    Sure, these tanks and carriers still have value, but they are not sufficient on their own. They can't protect us from our infrastructure, financial system, chunks of manufacturing and education all getting remotely wiped/disabled/overloaded from under us.

    Only now we can't count on MAD - China has much greater governmental control over Internet and would have much easier time fighting off US cyber attack. The only way I see US getting ahead is if BG approach is implemented - absolutely no networking of mission-critical systems.

  27. Consequence of outsourcing IT and development... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Big companies tend to misclassify IT as a cost center, and apply brilliant programs like Six Sigma and Virtual Workforces to cut expenses. I've seen plenty of dangerously unqualified people assigned to set firewall and router rules on networks that contain corporate crown jewels, or open NAT paths to offshore contracting houses brought in to help make a schedule after attrition and 'rightsizing' have made it impossible to stick to the schedule handed down from above.

    In the old days this stuff would be kept on airgapped networks. Today we have 'globalized workforces' and companies are run by MBAs who don't really understand or care about things the military does. Patriotism? Doesn't appear in my mission statement...

    Posted as AC as I work for a figurehead of this problem, and waste time keeping networks I'm responsible for clear of the APTs I see continually from other parts of the companies network that NOBODY wants to talk about. You can get fired for pointing out they've cut the budgets too far. So frustrating...

  28. who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you govt wants to put spyare on me let the chinese have all the tech

    YUP WO THE FUCK CARES
    no me in fact HEY BOYS lets help the chinese teach these yankies a lesson WHO THE FUCK OWNS THE NET
    LET ME KNOW WHEN YOUR NATION has had enough ...till then fucking suffer you scum sucking creeps
    DONT IT feel good to know the chinese are watching everything you do...hahahahahahahaha

    1. Re: who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      English man. . . Do you speak it ?

    2. Re:who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coherence not much this one has...

  29. But it was by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 2

    These plans are littered all over the world. Every supplier of even a single part has lots of specifications and details of parts they have to interact with on their systems. If you hack just a few of those, you essentially get all the plans you need to build your own, or to find the weak spots in the design and adapt your own weapons on that. DOD may not have these plans on computers that are connected to the internet, but most suppliers do. It's a public secret these are the companies that get hacked and that is the way the plans get leaked or stolen.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:But it was by 9jack9 · · Score: 1

      These plans are littered all over the world. Every supplier of even a single part has lots of specifications and details of parts they have to interact with on their systems. If you hack just a few of those, you essentially get all the plans you need to build your own, or to find the weak spots in the design and adapt your own weapons on that. DOD may not have these plans on computers that are connected to the internet, but most suppliers do. It's a public secret these are the companies that get hacked and that is the way the plans get leaked or stolen.

      Citation needed. Contractors to classified projects keep their materials classified. If ABC Corp. supplies, say, a classified navigation system to a classified weapons project, it is certainly a requirement that ABC Corp treats everything related to the nav system as classified.

      Sure. Procedures are occasionally broken, within and without govt. But you make it sound like suppliers don't have, and are not required to have, safeguards.

  30. Don't underestimate the Chinese by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    Most high tech stuff you buy in the stores today is made in china. Just like the Japanese got mocked in the seventies, you're doing the same to the Chinese right now. The Japanese are in the world top when it comes to high tech, research and manufacturing capabilities these days. They have been there since the eighties. The Chinese may not be up to the level of the Japanese just yet, at least not on a big scale, but they are more than capable of producing high tech planes, rockets, computer equipment and what's required to make these plans interesting to them.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:Don't underestimate the Chinese by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I'm not underestimating China. I'm overestimating the usefulness of what information they have stolen when compared to the cost of buying proven fighters from Russia.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  31. Outsourcing by biodata · · Score: 1

    Perhaps someone thought it was a good idea to let China build the things and then buy the finished goods back off them, thus saving all that inconvenience of paying US labour prices.

    --
    Korma: Good
  32. this all smacks of politics. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    while other agencies are struggling to react to the sequester, the pentagon has clearly seen the benefit of using sensationalism, fear, uncertainty, and doubt to secure its funding.

    the DoD keeps the red-menace ready to repackage and sell at a moments notice for good reason. Recently the president vocally and publically criticized the 'war on terror' and his intent to close guantanamo bay. for whatever thats worth to us its apparently enough to get the DoD to shuffle aside its 'terrorist' brand for a 'communist' model in the congressional windowsill. add a dash of "cyber" and a pinch of "hacker" and bobs your uncle, bills start to de-emphasize defence cuts a little more each week.

    to dial back the crazy just a bit on this article its worth putting our interation with the chinese into perspective. we've schitzophrenically insisted china is both a major international trade partner as well as some sort of enemy communist nation. we're more than willing to buy practically every major modern convenience from toothpaste to cellphones without a concern for safety or security, however strangely enough we're also willing to denigrate and lambast the country on everything from civil rights, to working conditions. We are a walking contradiction of 80's cold war rhetoric and modern day milton friedman hand-over-fist greed that somehow has managed for thirty years to avoid the uncomfortable truth that china is in actuality a capitalist dictatorship.

    what the DoD doesnt exactly recommend is the precise thing that would secure us from this manufactured menace: reduce the amount of off-shored and outsourced manufacturing to China.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:this all smacks of politics. by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      what the DoD doesnt exactly recommend is the precise thing that would secure us from this manufactured menace: reduce the amount of off-shored and outsourced manufacturing to China.

      The DoD has nothing more powerful than nuclear weapons, but the outsourcers are listed on the stock exchanges.

  33. Good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. is the world's largest military power by far and has attacked numerous countries in the past decades. In the interest of a healthy balance, it might be for the better if countries like China that don't tend to start wars as much, caught up technologically.

    1. Re:Good thing? by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I would trust the world to be better in Russian or Chinese hands, than American. It has been clear for the last 50 years that the US government is bent on rigging world economy and politics in their favor. The American image of balance is with the scale tipped in favor.

      --
      Signature intentionally left blank.
  34. build my own in garage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that data i want to see show up on pirate bay, even if it results in TPB servers getting an strategic airstrike. Bet you anything some of these designs will have really low quality.

    1. Re:build my own in garage by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      From personal experience, anything by Northrop Grumman is complete shit.

  35. England v. Washington by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

    I can't help but get an image of the English soldiers in the American Revolution, standing out in the field in ranks, getting shot by George Washingtons troops, thinking, "WTF, man, you're not allowed to hide behind stuff!" Washington thinking, "Well, yeah, but... we're winning."

    American diplomats in China saying, "Like, what the fuck, guys? We're not at war, why are you stealing our stuff?" Chinese guy just completely baffled thinking, "Ummm, because we're trying to win? You fuckers have been twisting our nuts in a global economic vise for half a century because you can't get over your own propaganda from the 1950s, and you don't get what we're doing? Idiots."

    Strip away the right/wrong of it and just look at the realpolitik, it's kind of funny.

    1. Re:England v. Washington by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      "WTF, man, you're not allowed to hide behind stuff!" Washington thinking, "Well, yeah, but... we're winning."

      ain't it a bitch when someone doesn't "fight fair." I believe a similar complaint was made during Vietnam War when VC didn't wear uniforms.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    2. Re:England v. Washington by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

      Actually, the belief that the American Revolutionary War was won with guerrilla war tactics is a popularly-held misconception. The colonists did use guerrilla tactics, but they did not start to win battles until they started fighting like the British. See, e.g. http://www.unpopulartruth.com/2009/04/american-revolutionary-war-was-not-won.html

    3. Re:England v. Washington by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Actually, both geurilla and conventional warfare were used by American forces in The Revolution. I didn't didn't say geurilla tactics won the war, I said they were used by one side and not the other, and implied that the willingness to adapt to the battlefield reality unrestrained by traditional propriety -- including the use of unconventional tactics -- was an important element in winning the war. You can point to a dozen other factors from supply lines to Lafayette, as well. So I could just as easily take the piss out of your post by saying, "Actually, the belief that conventional tactics by the American forces won the war is a popularly held misconception. If it were not for long supply lines and war-weariness at home, England would have stayed in the fight longer and broken the American forces."

      Also, a tip: The phrase "popularly held misconception" almost always suggests you are calling the other person a member of the unwashed masses. That tends to invite a stern retort, so make sure you have your research down cold when you tread such ground.

    4. Re:England v. Washington by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be too much of a heckler; but your facts on how the revolutionary war were fought are pretty much 100% wrong. It wasn't until Washington put his men into ranks similar to the British that we started seeing real victories.

  36. Act of war. by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Sounds like an act of war. Why are we not fighting the Chinese yet? Oh ya. They're not a small impoverished country with limited ability to fight.

    1. Re:Act of war. by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Because the world would be one big radioactive crater if each and every act of espionage was treated as an "ok then war it is" moment.

    2. Re:Act of war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Plus its pretty hard to fight your financial backer and sole-source manufacturer.

    3. Re:Act of war. by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      Sounds like an act of war. Why are we not fighting the Chinese yet?

      All countries spy on each other, all the time. If this were considered a valid reason to start a shooting war, the entire planet would be a glowing, smoking crater.

  37. Under Obama heads will roll. by fredrated · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The heads of the people that let this leak be known. Not the hackers, not the people that made this information available on the internet, but the people that let America know that it was hacked. They will do jail time, and they will be the only people that do jail time.

  38. Propaganda by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

    American propaganda, psyched up rhetoric for forming public negative opinion on rival super power China, forwarded by Slashdot cooperator as expected.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Propaganda by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      American propaganda

      Please cite your evidence for that assertion.

    2. Re:Propaganda by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

      Let me answer that with a question: where's the evidence to the original assertion, that the Chinese have stolen weapon designs? There is nothing conclusive, and so it is propaganda and beating on the war-drums. As usual.

      --
      Signature intentionally left blank.
    3. Re:Propaganda by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Let me answer that with a question: where's the evidence to the original assertion, that the Chinese have stolen weapon designs? There is nothing conclusive, and so it is propaganda and beating on the war-drums. As usual.

      Since you like answering questions with questions, I'll play too. What would qualify as "conclusive" in a case like this? Is it your contention that newspapers should only report things that are "conclusive" as opposed to credible? A lot of the news would be delayed by a decade. Where is your argument or evidence that it isn't true? Finally, while reports from government sources as cited by the WSJ are far from my idea of proven, should I find them less credible than the pseudonymously posted assertion (without citation or even argument) of a random person on the Internet?

  39. Re:It wasn't hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton probably gave them the password

    FTFY

  40. Chinese Hackers are everywhere by PsyMan · · Score: 0

    Australia are also on the band wagon too http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22685332 Seems like every hacker the world over now spoofs "inside China" as their point of origin. VM rental in Chinese datacentres must be big business in International espionage.

  41. Not intentional by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    My mistake, sorry. I was actually wanting to make ultra-detailed model kits and to achieve this only with the original plants. And after I got the plans, I sent them to the Trumpeter and the Academy

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    1. Re:Not intentional by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah, and they'll make the kits for about 1/4th the price including the molds than we could do them here in the states (true story).

    2. Re:Not intentional by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Oh no, another modeler here? :-)

      *whispering* Hey, you get the design of the F22 too? I missed this one

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    3. Re:Not intentional by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      From way back but this particular story comes from a friend who is a retired mold-maker. One of is many accomplishments is that he design the plastic molds for the original IBM PC. That story goes that IBM came to him to get the molds made and he asked them how many parts they planned to pull off the mold. Their totally serious answer was 150,000. Ten copies of the mold later, IBM had to farm out production to ten different parts of the country to keep up with demand.

      But I digress. His most recent consulting job was to do some variations of a commemorative NASCAR race car. Not an original model but a copy with a few team-specific details. The client was planning to make 3000 kits. His estimate came in over $20k. So the client asked what the cost would be if they did 6000 kits. He decided to check with a friend in China. He showed me the quote letter that said they could do 6000 kits including all the molds delivered to the US for $8000 and the guy in China had written "Let me know if that's too much and I'll sharpen my pencil.

  42. Me Chinese, me play joke, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me steal secret plans for Coke.

    1. Re:Me Chinese, me play joke, by wei2912 · · Score: 1

      Tea.

  43. Disinformation by Zamphatta · · Score: 2

    I can't help but wonder if this is all just disinformation. See, it would be to the U.S's great advantage to let the Chinese steal stuff & make them think that what they're stealing is genuine. Why else would they actually go public about something like this? Why would they want to admit publicly that this was real, when they redact so many less sensitive things in FOIA requests? This is either warmongering or an attempt to convince the spies that something extremely valuable was really stolen, and I highly doubt the U.S. military is interested in going to war against China.

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

      I can't help but wonder if this is all just disinformation. See, it would be to the U.S's great advantage to let the Chinese steal stuff & make them think that what they're stealing is genuine. Why else would they actually go public about something like this? Why would they want to admit publicly that this was real, when they redact so many less sensitive things in FOIA requests? This is either warmongering or an attempt to convince the spies that something extremely valuable was really stolen, and I highly doubt the U.S. military is interested in going to war against China.

      The ability to underestimate other people seems to be one of the marked traits of Americans. "Let's invade Vietnam, those guys fight with sticks when we have helicopters"." Let's invade Iraq, it will be over in a week and we will have all the oil." Do you really think the Chinese aren't capable of of inventing their own military gear? Even if that were true, do you really think they won't vet the plans before production starts? Most US scientific institutions are populated by Chinese anyway and with the incentive that Beijing puts out, a lot are returning to China.

  44. Re:No big deal by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Is not so hard to make a nuclear sub when you already know how to build a nuclear reactor, a conventional submarine, have enough smart people to work and much money to spend in research. Having the "secret plans" from someone can cut much research time, but are not required to succeed sooner or later.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  45. When will Wal Mart sell me a Blackhawk copy ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's be serious, this is what really matters.

  46. in master of orion 2 china are the darlocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    superspies w/ no research capability of their own

    funny thing is darklocks tend to win a lot

  47. Please stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know whats worse stealing plans to ripoff weapons systems or the administration asking the Chinese to "please stop". When your security has any dependancies on asking others to behave themselves then you have already lost and are dead man walking publically admitting defeat.

    Let me guess the attackers had chinese "IP addresses" didn't they? Goddamn fucking idiots.

  48. China!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China! Fuck Yeah!
    What you gonna do when they stole from you!!

    LOL

  49. It's a brilliant plan... by unfortunateson · · Score: 1

    ... to bankrupt the Chinese government by convincing them they need to build aircraft of matching capabilities.

    Hey, that's how we won the cold war against the Soviet Union, but with missles

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
    1. Re:It's a brilliant plan... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      No it's not. They've got the massive economic advantage based on our pro-international corporation, anti-US market economic policies. Our economies are intertwined and they're still dependent on us, but we've helped them build a foundation to beat us at that game.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  50. Deception by macinit · · Score: 0

    I don't buy it, I believe this is part of a sneaky program by the US Military to "leak" tainted designs to our military adversaries. "Give them what they want, but not the way they wanted it."

  51. Chinese Hackers Steal Top US Weapons Designs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I kept reading this as "Chinese Hackers Steal Top US Website Designs"

    I was all, umm, soo??

  52. Is there a historical precedence for this? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    US foreign policy in the last 15 years has effectively constructed our own nemesis capable of usurping our position in the world. We've moved our manufacturing base there and devastated the working class here, we're locked into multilateral trade agreements that allow the Chinese to undercut our own industries, nevermind espionage when all the Chinese need to do for intel is look at the assembly line next door or drop a backdoor into the routers they're producing for our military, and our arrogant, abusive relationships with other countries as created huge gaps for Chinese vendors.

    In twenty years, some people are going to be scratching their heads wondering how it happened.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  53. I deal with this everyday by EW87 · · Score: 2

    I have several clients that are architectural firms, and weekly there is a new chinese rootkit trying to get into the system. They bury themselves into AutoCAD files and steal all drawing and design data and send it back to China. It's such a headache.

  54. Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..the Russkies might have a need for sensors, but they were certainly ahead of everybody else in thrust vectoring. Watch those S300 movies on youtube and have your eyes opened.

  55. steps to stop sucking by fazey · · Score: 1

    step 1. Lower your employment standards. We all have a past... and smoke pot.
    step 2. Raise your pay. Why would we work for you if we can make 2-3x in the private sector?
    step 3. Start looking in the private sector for people who are well known for being badasses
    step 4. After hiring them, actually implement their ideas.

    If they got it from a subcontractor.
    1. no longer use that subcontractor.
    2. Investigate the subcontractor for putting the nation in danger and wasting billions in mil-tech
    3. stop giving the entire plans to a subcontractor. They only need bits and pieces to create the shit you need. There is no reason they should know what its going into.

    If they compromised our systems and stole it.
    1. fire whoever designed that network/system architecture.
    2. That system should not be running ANY daemons.
    3. No one should be browsing from said computer.
    4. Said system should also be firewalled off from EVERYONE.
    5. the only way those documents get out is in pieces, and who has each of those pieces should be logged, and flagged if they receive too many pieces.

    Thats where I would start at least.

  56. Sounds like a great reason to stop by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a great reason to stop all payments to China. IF it was really them. Our country has been systematically torn to pieces from protecting its own shores. There are non real manufacturing in the US anymore. The steel Industry is a pimple of its former self. Ironically Bethlehem Steel was the site of China city in the movie Transformers. A casino has the most massive overhead rail crane ive even seen. All our electronics TMK and are made abrode. Our war making ability has been farmed to what will turn out our enemies. Mostly Corporate America and our very own Voted in Government. This is MO take it with a grain of salt but its still MO.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  57. Re:Consequence of outsourcing IT and development.. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    In the old days this stuff would be kept on airgapped networks. Today we have 'globalized workforces' and companies are run by MBAs who don't really understand or care about things the military does.

    Unbelievable. In the old days defense contractors had to pass security audits. What happened to them?

  58. Re:Consequence of outsourcing IT and development.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comes out of the desire to not pay people what their work is worth or even close to it so that powerpoint fiends can keep a bigger share of the profits.
    ITAR regulations are meant to keep sensitive data protected from corporate psychosis but obviously they don't work or are too loosely enforced.

  59. So what? by coldsalmon · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows the Death Star plans are not in the main computer.

  60. It's not about copying by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    It's more about finding the weak points of even established systems by mining the progression of change histories - some of which might be embarassingly non-durable band-aids that can really be exploited during a shooting war.

  61. So about that 1.2 trillion dollars we owe you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    guess how much that cyber-theft you.

  62. Only the dead have seen the end of war by XcepticZP · · Score: 2

    Can't we just have peace? I'm really really tired of having this constant looming cloud of impending war. Is peace really too much to ask for? I understand most countries have political problems, I understand we have economic ones.

    But moving into my prime years, and thinking about the long term well being of myself and the ones I love is really causing me to look passed all the details. I couldn't care less if the Chinese have some fancy toys, i couldn't care less if some ass hole across the world beats his chest and threatens the rest of us, I couldn't care less if some ass-backward country doesn't have ALL the human rights the rest of us enjoy. Just leave it alone, and don't involve yourselves with them; to hell with globalization. Quit being patriotic, quit thinking you have to police the world, quit meddling with all of our lives.

    You all do realize that if any sort of conflict between two super-powers erupts, the entire world will be severely involved and/or affected? If such a thing happens, we're all royally screwed. There would be no hiding from it, no economic shelter, nothing. Please, think about that the next time you want to "support the troops", or complain about other governments' actions like a lot of people are on this thread. Nip this war-talk in the bud. That applies to the other side as well; it applies to all sides.

    </incoherent_rant>

    "Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato

    1. Re:Only the dead have seen the end of war by wei2912 · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you if I could, but I can't :/

    2. Re:Only the dead have seen the end of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently we can not have peace, and we can not be too afraid, and the dead are not dead, they are just the most lost and the most dumb of us all. Oblivion is where the losers go.

  63. Now I get it.. by XaXXon · · Score: 1

    Turns out the F-35 program is a red herring to the chinese!

    Now THEY can spend billions trying to get it to work!

  64. It did not happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's just an excuse to approve new cybersecurity bills... oh look, we got hacked because we don't have those cybersecurity bills approved yet. Let's hurry up and add some!

  65. I have only one thing to say about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

  66. ixnay by denbesten · · Score: 1

    ixnay ethay isinformationday iscussionday

  67. Call it a sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Obama is visiting China soon, he should just tell the leaders there, "Since you've taken these items we'll just cancel our debt to you and call it even".

  68. Re:Consequence of outsourcing IT and development.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can tell you that when I worked as sysadmin responsible for about 20% of the network operations of one of the biggest names in the defense industry, they were more concerned with passing their ISO 9001 audit than they were their government security audit -- and the latter was where they were in the worse shape, by far. Take away from that what you will, but I know it made me sick at my stomach, and is one of the reasons I got out of there.

  69. Time to start kicking the Chinese out by rconaway · · Score: 1

    We need to make a huge statement and start putting people in jail. China has more intelligence resources here than we do. Start by kicking students, scientists, and diplomats out of the country.

  70. Heh. I had the same thought.... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    ...about the Osprey.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  71. There IS an upside to all this... by Polo · · Score: 1

    Harbor Freight shopping list:

    [_] Air Compressor, 5 Hp, 60 gallon
    [_] Shop Press, 20 Ton
    [_] HF-35A Joint Strike Fighter, 25 ton

  72. And to think.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that I was knocking Australia yesterday for having allowed so much to leak to China. And here is America showing that our nation is up for sale. We had W/neo-cons push America towards buying Chinese goods as well as pushing the USN and other military to be on MS windows, and now, we pay the price for that.

    Windbourne( hanging head in shame ).

  73. Stupidity all around... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    1. This stuff should be on air gaped networks, nuff said.
    2. The US should punish china with ugly tariffs over this. Make it not in their national interest to do this. Cut china off from our scrap market for 6 months, etc.

    China needs us way more than we need them. I think it's time we make this obvious to them.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Stupidity all around... by akozakie · · Score: 1

      Really? Remember the last time the US voiced that opinion? Let me remind you - it was Condoleezza Rice, the U-2 fiasco. A few words too much. Threatening with sanctions.

      Nothing materialized. Nothing.

      I don't know how it was covered up in the US, but that's how it looked from the outside.

      China knows what you are obviously missing. The USA is incredibly dependent on cheap chinese stuff. Hell, most of the western world is.You simply do not have the manufacturing capacity to produce all those simple cheap things in sufficient numbers to at least cover the internal market demand. Try sanctions. Just TRY IT.

      This is the reason the threats were so empty. The Chinese did what they wanted with the U-2 and nothing happened. Because real sanctions against China might result in riots within days. China has more than enough reserves to survive that, but you WILL lose the next election - Joe Sixpack will remember you as the one that made the shelves empty. The price of globalization. Really, I cannot comprehend how anyone in power could allow this to happen. The blinding power of money? The governments should be doing everything they could to obstruct globalization to stay in power. The private sector WILL move to wherever work is cheapest, thats obvious. A truly open global market closes the gates for classic economic war tactics like sanctions, since after a few years you are simply not nearly self-sufficient in some areas.

    2. Re:Stupidity all around... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      You forget the jingoistic nature of Joe Sixpack... I think spun the right way you could convince a large chunk of the populace that we need to punish China. Throw out all the arguments about how they're stealing our {jobs,secrets,money,babies,clowns}

      Don't even go the tariff route, just convince enough Americans to boycott all Chinese goods. Have the government kick start some domestic production. Using automation and better production techniques we have great examples of domestic production that destroys the Chinese labor model.

      Then just as a kicker let the interest rate go up a quarter point. That would basically obliterate billions of dollars of T-notes that the Chinese are holding in reserve.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    3. Re:Stupidity all around... by akozakie · · Score: 1

      Yup, sounds good. But escalation of an economic war could turn ugly very quickly. Just imagine the consequences of the Chinese just dumping their dollar reserves on the market in response to the interest rate change. These are not billions of dollars. Trillions (short scale, 10^12, T$ if you like). With that sort of arsenal several tactics are possible:

      • dump most of them and watch the fireworks as the dollar-based global economy goes through an unprecedented crash,
      • drive the value down over a long period, dumping billions each month, creating a stable oversupply,
      • possibly the worst - unpredictable destabilization through random movements - sell a lot, do nothing, buy some, sell more...

      None of this makes sense in a more-or-less stable global economy, China would lose a lot in every scenario - but a war is a war, even if no guns are fired. They could make the dollar a very, very risky currency, not suitable for long term reserves. The consequences of the dollar losing that role in the global economy would be far greater than any direct consequences of the attack.

      Their reserves are an order of magnitude greater than those of the US central bank. If they go all the way, there's no practical defense - at least nothing without far-reaching negative consequences.

      So, I stand by my point - any conflict between the USA and China would have to go through all the possible phases, including actual military action, before anyone would think of sanctions. The effects of an economic war would be perhaps worse than even those of a (limited scale) nuclear shootout.

      It's definitely time to prepare long-term plans to reduce this entanglement if conflicts seem to rise. Or just treat this like the nuclear MAD principle and remove sanctions from your vocabulary. Might be a more realistic choice.

    4. Re:Stupidity all around... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      You forget the jingoistic nature of Joe Sixpack...
      [...]
      Don't even go the tariff route, just convince enough Americans to boycott all Chinese goods.

      The jingoistic nature of Joe Sixpack (an insult, by the way ; in case your version of "English" has started to use this insult as a commendation) extends all the way to the impact on his wallet.

      Last night I was having a clear-out, and found a 20-year-old copy of Analog (SF magazine ; may be extinct now) ; browsing it, there was a row in the letters page which itself was at least 20 years old (judging from the citations in the letters), amounting to "slitty-eyed yellow-skinned sub-humans sell more to America humans than Americans do to the slitty-eyed yellow-skinned hordes ... because American goods cost more and are of poorer quality-price ratio. And that's a ["good" or "bad" ; depending on which contestant you agreed with] thing!" Citations suggested that similar exhortations had been a staple of American domestic politics for approaching two generations now. (If not longer ; I suspect much longer ; I just happened to have this example in my mind from last night.)
      It was almost refreshing to see the argument made in openly racist terms. (I've abbreviated, without changing the tone of the exchange.) It seems that the creeping tide of political correctness had tainted my thought processes too.

      Well, that's capitalism for you. Enjoy!

      PS : congratulations to the Chinese hackers for doing their jobs successfully, and condemnations to the American (presumed) military (presumed) "computer security specialists" for fucking up royally. This contrast may have some bearing on the decisions of any future Joe Sixpack looking to buy computer security expertise. That's capitalism for you. Enjoy!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  74. Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, is it available to the rest of us yet?

  75. SIPRNet problems by codegen · · Score: 1

    Part of the problem is the fact that the US classifies anything that even looks like it might be sensitive. While there are some arguments that this might be prudent, the problem is that everyone involved with those projects has to have a clearance. I rember a report from the Bradly Manning media circus that there were multiple millions of people in the US with a security clearance. And that is part of what is being discussed in the BBC article you linked to. You can try and compartmentalize, but once compartments are not nearly as secure as the airgapped ouside fence. Ironically, a more secure approach is to classify fewer projects, and as a result have signficantly fewer people with access to the real secrets.

    --
    Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
  76. Re:Consequence of outsourcing IT and development.. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    I can tell you that when I worked as sysadmin responsible for about 20% of the network operations of one of the biggest names in the defense industry, they were more concerned with passing their ISO 9001 audit than they were their government security audit -- and the latter was where they were in the worse shape, by far. Take away from that what you will, but I know it made me sick at my stomach, and is one of the reasons I got out of there.

    That's plain old scary. I don't know whether they don't understand network security (a little hard to believe) or are just lax. The DoD used to be serious about security audits, and I know that post-9/11 it became much harder to get a security clearance. It makes no sense, but then again it is a government operation.

  77. Like any decent american product :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, it is the following on from the american way *tongue firmly in cheek*

    Look at any apple product - "Designed in Californa, Assembled in China"

    1. Re:Like any decent american product :) by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Designed in California, Parts manufactured in South Korea and Taiwan. Assembled in China would be even more accurate.

  78. Re:Consequence of outsourcing IT and development.. by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

    Security audits cost money. They can be cut from the budget, they're just useless cruft.

    --
    Not a sentence!
  79. Is it the Chinese or... by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    ...The Cylon bootstrap process ?

  80. Pot: meet kettle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since you're both black, I though you might know each other...

  81. F-22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I designed a SCIF (Secure Information Facility) as part of the F-22 program back in the 90's. Then the requirements were simple no networking between the inside and the outside at all. Makes sense. Having said that

    F-35 can shoot down F-22
    F-22 can shoot down F-16
    F-16 can shoot down F-15
    F-15 can shoot down F-4 which the North Vietnamese never could shoot down

    Can't shoot the F-14 down for two reasons 1) no longer flies and 2) when it did it could shoot you down with the Phoenix missile from 125 miles away.

    As a Phantom jock I must say "Better a sister in the whorehouse than a brother in an F-14"

    Beside all of the above planes have killed more of their own pilots than enemy fire. F-14 A/B flat out unstable.

    1. Re:F-22 by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Most issues with the F-14 were due to the engine which was shared with the F-111. Once those engines were swapped for F-15 engines (F-14D) that stopped being a problem.

  82. And we make them stronger every day by colonel+spalding · · Score: 1

    Everytime we think we're getting a great deal at Walmart buying cheap chinese crap we only make them richer and more powerful. Buy American (admittedly when possible) s about security, not just consumer greed.

  83. As long as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't find Capt America juice and Iron Man schematics we'll be fine.

  84. what a gone show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have the same questions, why are these things in reach from the net, no one knows what security is?
    Maybe us gov should get some competent security experts.

  85. Bad Decision or Incompetence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder who weighed the value of having that info on-line vs the risk that it would be stolen. My bet is no one - That they just did it [i.e. incompetence].