Slashdot Mirror


Book Review: The Chinese Information War

benrothke writes "It's said that truth is stranger than fiction, as fiction has to make sense. Had The Chinese Information War: Espionage, Cyberwar, Communications Control and Related Threats to United States Interests been written as a spy thriller, it would have been a fascinating novel of international intrigue. But the book is far from a novel. It's a dense, well-researched overview of China's cold-war like cyberwar tactics against the US to regain its past historical glory and world dominance." Read below for the rest of Ben's review. The Chinese Information War: Espionage, Cyberwar, Communications Control and Related Threats to United States Interests author Dennis Poindexter pages 192 publisher McFarland rating 9/10 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 978-0786472710 summary Fascinating overview on the cyberwar with China Author Dennis Poindexter shows that Chinese espionage isn't made up of lone wolves. Rather it's under the directive and long-term planning of the Chinese government and military.

Many people growing up in the 1940's expressed the sentiment "we were poor, but didn't know it". Poindexter argues that we are in a cyberwar with China; but most people are oblivious to it.

Rather than being a polemic against China, Poindexter backs it up with extensive factual research. By the end of the book, the sheer number of guilty pleas by Chinese nationals alone should be a staggering wake-up call.

In February, Mandiant released their groundbreaking report APT1: Exposing One of Chinas Cyber Espionage Units, which focused on APT1, the most prolific Chinese cyber-espionage group that Mandiant tracked. APT1 has conducted a cyber-espionage campaign against a broad range of victims since at least 2006. The report has evidence linking them to China's 2nd Bureau of the People's Liberation Army.

China is using this cyberwar to their supreme advantage and as Poindexter writes on page 1: until we see ourselves in a war, we can't fight it effectively. Part of the challenge is that cyberwar does not fit the definition of what a war generally is because the Chinese have changed the nature of war to carry it out.

Poindexter makes his case in fewer than 200 pages and provides ample references in his detailed research; including many details, court cases and guilty verdicts of how the Chinese government and military work hand in hand to achieve their goals.

The book should of interest to everyone given the implications of what China is doing. If you are planning to set up shop in China, be it R&D, manufacturing or the like, read this book. If you have intellectual property or confidential data in China, read this book as you need to know the risks before you lose control of your data there.

Huawei Technologies, a Chinese multinational telecommunications equipment and services firm; now the largest telecommunications equipment maker in the world is detailed in the book. Poindexter details a few cases involving Huawei and writes that if Huawei isn't linked to Chinese intelligence, then it's the most persecuted company in the history of international trade.

The book details in chapter 2 the intersection between cyberwar and economic war. He writes that any foreign business in China is required to share detailed design documents with the Chinese government in order to do business there. For many firms, the short-term economic incentives blind them to the long-term risks of losing control of their data. The book notes that in the Cold War with Russia, the US understood what Russia was trying to do. The US therefore cut back trade with Russia, particularly in areas where there might be some military benefit to them. But the US isn't doing that with China.

Chapter 2 closes with a damming indictment where Poindexter writes that the Chinese steal our technology, rack up sales back to us, counterfeit our goods, take our jobs and own a good deal of our debt. The problem he notes is that too many people focus solely on the economic relations between the US and China, and ignore the underpinnings of large-scale cyber-espionage.

Chapter 6 details that the Chinese have developed a long-term approach. They have deployed numerous sleepers who often wait decades and only then work slowly and stealthily. A point Poindexter makes many times is that the Chinese think big, but move slow.

Chapter 7 is appropriately titles The New Cold War. In order to win this war, Poindexter suggest some radical steps to stop it. He notes that the US needs to limit trade with China to items we can't get anywhere else. He says not to supply China with the rope that will be used to hang the US on.

He writes that the Federal Government has to deal with the issue seriously and quickly, to protect its telecommunications interests so that China isn't able to cut it all off one day. He also notes that national security must no longer take a backseat to price and cheap labor.

Poindexter writes that the US Government must take a long-view to the solution and he writes that it will take 10 years to build up the type of forces that that would be needed to counter the business and government spying that the Chinese are doing.

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring is the archetypal wake-up call book. Poindexter has written his version of Silent Spring,but it's unlikely that any action will be taken. As the book notes, the Chinese are so blatantly open about their goals via cyber-espionage, and their denials of it so arrogant, that business as usual simply carries on.

The Chinese portray themselves as benevolent benefactors, much like the Kanamits in To Serve Man. Just as the benevolence of the Kanamits was a façade, so too is what is going on with the cold cyberwar with China.

The book is an eye-opening expose that details the working of the Chinese government and notes that for most of history, China was the world's dominating force. The Chinese have made it their goal to regain that dominance.

The book states what the Chinese are trying to accomplish and lays out the cold facts. Will there be a response to this fascinating book? Will Washington take action? Will they limit Chinese access to strategic US data? Given Washington is operating in a mode of sequestration, the answer should be obvious.

The message detailed in The Chinese Information War: Espionage, Cyberwar, Communications Control and Related Threats to United States Interests should be a wake-up call. But given that it is currently ranked #266,881 on Amazon, it seems as if most of America is sleeping through this threat.

Reviewed by Ben Rothke

You can purchase The Chinese Information War: Espionage, Cyberwar, Communications Control and Related Threats to United States Interests from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

20 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. you could steal secrets back.. and are by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    problem is, what the fuck is that good for if you're not manufacturing anything.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:you could steal secrets back.. and are by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh bullshit. The US is the #1 manufacturing country on the planet, or damn close to it.

      http://shopfloor.org/2011/03/u-s-manufacturing-remains-worlds-largest/18756

      http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2011/January/US-Manufacturing-Remains-No-1-in-World/

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/china-us-manufacturing_n_835470.html

      In terms of worker productivity it isn't close. The average US worker produces almost 10 times as much value as the average Chinese worker.

    2. Re:you could steal secrets back.. and are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of the manufacturing here is highly automated.

      If its not highly automated or skirts the law somehow it is usually done in another country.

      Why? It costs a decent amount of money to ship across the world. If you can build it here and do it cheaper than an army of underpaid workers plus shipping it will be here. Automation almost always wins. Except in 'one off' building. Things such as the iPhone can be automated to a point. But some assembly is required also next year the whole thing will be a different design. Bic pens on the other hand change very little other than color and style.

      Most furniture and clothing is now made third world. They literally picked up the factory and moved them. Why? They could not be automated very well and an army of under paid workers is cheaper there than here. That is the 'giant sucking sound as jobs go south'. If they highly automate it you will see it all come back.

    3. Re:you could steal secrets back.. and are by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In terms of worker productivity it isn't close. The average US worker produces almost 10 times as much value as the average Chinese worker.

      Another way to say that is that we have need for one-tenth as many humans for a given amount of work done. That would be cool if we didn't insist that everyone have a job...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:you could steal secrets back.. and are by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      The US is the #1 manufacturing country on the planet

      And an even bigger consumer of manufactured products, ergo our persistent trade deficit. We have, and will continue to have, a trade deficit in mineral wealth (most especially including oil), our vaunted surplus in services has never taken off as predicted, and we probably won't ever have a much bigger surplus in agriculture. Manufacturing was (believe it or not folks) our main surplus for many years, and it doesn't look like there's anything to replace it, so shipping factories to China doesn't seem like it was such a good idea.

    5. Re:you could steal secrets back.. and are by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      That implies we could all get by working 3 days a month, which is just silly.

      6 out of 10 should be working full time (or more) producing enough that 1, because of who his parents were, can have tons of stuff. In return they get a slice of the pie that's almost enough to be nearly comfortable. Siphon a bit off from those 6 to support the other 3 - just enough that they don't get desperate.

      It's the American way.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. According to the author, publisher, reviewer, by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    It's a dense, well-researched overview of China's cold-war like cyberwar tactics against the US to regain its past historical glory and world dominance.

    How do I know how much of it I should believe? (Other than the fact that I read it on the internet.)

    Yeah, you'd have to be delusional to think that countries play nice with each other, but seriously, how do we know how much of this is fact and how much is fearmongering (or cashing in on existing fears), or politics?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:According to the author, publisher, reviewer, by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      you'd have to be delusional to think that countries play nice with each other, but seriously, how do we know how much of this is fact and how much is fearmongering

      The book sounds over-the-top, but that doesn't mean that everything recommended to fight this is a bad idea. Is there any doubt in your mind that China's industrial espionage is over-the-top, and that joint ventures between US and Chinese companies are something done for the sake of "technology transfer"? In some cases that's quite openly true. For example, GE happily showed China how to build gas turbines (half a step from jet engines) and is now happily showing them how to build the engines (via a joint venture). This is a technology where only three companies in the world are worth talking about. This is the kind of thing that's to the short term advantage of Jeff "American Jobs Czar" Immelt and major GE stockholders, and the long term detriment of most Americans.

      On the military side, I'm the last person to bang the war drum. The whole "pivot to the Pacific" sounds like a way to give the navy its turn after the army and air force were the stars in Afghanistan and Iraq. OTOH, I'd also be very careful to keep China from getting advanced military technology as much as possible (e.g. don't help them learn how to design and build jet engines).

    2. Re:According to the author, publisher, reviewer, by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Fact is that China is defensive in it's positions and pacifism is in China's interest and strategy.

      That explains their belligerence over any worthless island within a few hundred miles of their coast and their refusal to recognize Taiwan as an independent country.

      The kind of transfers of technological knowledge you are talking about are perfectly legal

      They're legal from the US because the US has chosen to make it so. What we're debating is whether that's a good idea, from both a military and a commercial POV.

      necessary so China doesn't have to go the same lengthy pains of industrialization with even worse pollution

      So your rationale is that the purpose of these technology transfers is to keep Chinese pollution down? It's working well. Tell me another one.

      Keeping them as "the third world", exploited and underdeveloped is not an option.

      Not giving them jet engine tech is tantamount to keeping them exploited and underdeveloped? As I mentioned earlier, there are only 3 companies in the world worth talking about for jet engines, and they're located in 2 countries. Interestingly there are many countries in the world that don't manufacture jet engines and are anything but exploited and underdeveloped.

    3. Re:According to the author, publisher, reviewer, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Re: "...belligerence over any worthless island..."

      My understanding is that territorial disputes over islands, particularly uninhabited islands, rarely has much to do with the island itself. The goal is to gain control over large areas of the seabed.

      Once a nation gains international recognition of ownership of an island, they gain control over all the seabed between that island and the continental territory. Furthermore due to international law they gain 12 miles beyond the perimeter of the island. This assumes that a continental shelf connects the two. This is absolute control you understand.

      In addition, there are partial rights and control beyond the 12 mile limit, extending out 200 miles.

      That's why nations will fight for territorial rights to "worthless islands".

  3. Way to go by sentientbeing · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nice book Poindexter

    --

    ------
    beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
  4. World dominance? Historical glory? by mveloso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are we talking about China?

  5. Re:Would love to say that we're up to the task by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    having the largest army has never guaranteed victory

    Alexander almost always fought outnumbered. The Romans have won many battles outnumbered. same with the USA.

    training, discipline, quality of weapons, intelligence and other factors trump raw numbers

  6. Yeah... by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He notes that the US needs to limit trade with China to items we can't get anywhere else. He says not to supply China with the rope that will be used to hang the US on.

    1. Not bloody likely.
    2. Too fucking late.

    China plans for the long term

    Well, duh.

    People who have been looking at China for the past two decades have been screaming this at the top of their lungs, only for this concept to fall on deaf ears. The US has forgotten about the lesson of Samuel Slater, and China has picked it up and they are schooling us.

    Where the manufacturing goes, so does the science and engineering. And that's what the Chinese want. They want what we had and we're giving it to them hand-over-fist for short term profits.

    The "problem" is cultural, and it is entirely self-made.

    And it ain't gonna get fixed until US businesses start looking at the long term, which has about the same chance of happening as a snowball's chance in Hell.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Yeah... by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      The "problem" is cultural, and it is entirely self-made.

      The problem is political, not cultural. Remember all the choices people had in 1992 if they were opposed to NAFTA? Me neither. Sure there was Perot, but no 3rd party candidate has won a presidential election since Lincoln. Both the D and R were for it. Yes I know that wasn't directly related to China, but it was the beginning of the whole so-called free trade scam in the US.

  7. If the Chinese technology is that advanced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    US would have already be fucked. That fact is that Windows dominates in China and the majority of Chinese backbones are bought from US companies such as Cisco. And everybody would assume the backdoors have already been planted.

    Rest assured, only US is capable of building PRISM system or stuxnet virus. As a Chinese I see no difference in two regimes, US and China. They are both controlled by special interest groups. Neither of those countries are mine. As average people we are just given crumbs of the big pie. Only difference is that Americans got enough crumbs, not because the special interest group is more benevolent, just because they can afford less people here.

    Don't give the shit like communist. China is not a communist or socialist country and it never is. Now it is pure capitalist like US, the worst kind of capitalism in the world.

    1. Re:If the Chinese technology is that advanced by jdogalt · · Score: 2

      While the secrecy and surveillance in the US are worthy of criticism, Chinese people like myself can still see some clear differences. For example, where are dissenting CPC members when it comes to censorship, targeting of journalists, jailing of political writers? Where are the Leahys and Pauls of Chinese government? What happens to the Glenn Greenwalds and Noam Chomskys of Chinese journalism and academia?

      Indeed. The recent NSA revelations are quite bad, but there is a long way to go between that, and forbidding journalistic coverage of Tiananmen Square in '89. That Google/Yahoo/Microsoft saw fit to collaborate with that censorship while building their digital financial empire of data and servers on the internet...

  8. Re:Would love to say that we're up to the task by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Funny

    China v US would be like Zerg v Protoss.

  9. Re:Here comes the Chinese Water Army by stewsters · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    The US does similar: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

    And I would imagine at the cost, many countries do it. Its kind of like affiliate marketing, but more honest.

  10. Re:Would love to say that we're up to the task by Jawnn · · Score: 2

    I know that the military, who has a substantial need to be "up to speed" in this arena has, historically, been way behind. To be fair, it's tough to for them to recruit talent from that particular pool.
    I believe that the NSA has an easier time of it (recruiting the necessary talent), but that's conjecture, so let's not bother debating what neither of us can substantiate in the least.
    I know that the federal government, at the policy making level, at least, is seriously clue-challenged when it comes to this arena. I was at one of the few "town hall" meetings. in 2001, where the then "President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board" solicited input from IT and security pros. While there was no shortage of complete tools who stepped up to the mic to give Richard Clarke and his entourage "advice", there were a few serious security types there. I mean major-league talent. There were lots of sidelong glances amongst that cadre and just as many bored expressions on the faces of the government types. Lay the blame where you like, but they didn't communicate well. I have no reason to believe that much has changed since then, and thus no reason to believe that policy is based on anything but the most pedestrian understanding of the issues.