Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Suspected of Hacking Organizations Involved in South China Sea Dispute (japantimes.co.jp)

Posted by msmash on from the security-blues dept.

Jesse Johnson, writing for The Japan Times: The ongoing dispute over the South China Sea has apparently spilled over into cyberspace recently, as hackers believed to be from China have attacked government and private-sector organizations linked to the row over the key waterway, a new analysis has found. Using malicious software, hackers have tried to swipe sensitive information from the Philippines and other targets, according to a report released last week by Finnish cybersecurity firm F-Secure. Notable targets included the Philippines Department of Justice, the organizers of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit and an unidentified major international law firm involved in last month's landmark South China Sea arbitration decision at The Hague, the report said. The Department of Justice played a key role in the case and reports ahead of a November 2015 APEC event in the Philippines had said leaders attending the summit would discuss the South China Sea issue.

57 comments

  1. China by npslider · · Score: 0

    China does not mess around. Its leaders know what they want to do and have the long-term vision and fortitude to see it through.

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

      I'm guessing you're in the "Trump should be dictator for life" camp?

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

      Just start the war already. It's been planned for a long time now. Look up AirSea War.

    3. Re:China by npslider · · Score: 1

      I'm in the recognizing a good long term stratagem when I see one camp.

      Where are you?

    4. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the exact opposite of that: The USA :P

    5. Re:China by npslider · · Score: 1

      Me too! Are you my neighbor?

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

      That is what would be expected from a nationalistic hardliner in charge there. China is losing its international respect and becomes a bad actor and unreliable partner very fast. Everybody loves the leader of NK in NK so why wouldn't China be like that also? There is a good, long term vision the Party surely have now.

    7. Re:China by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you're in the "Trump should be dictator for life" camp?

      I'm guessing you're in the "I want a royal appointment from the Clinton Dynasty" camp? Thought so.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re: China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are always scapegoats and purges that can be removed to satisfy the international community. Turkey will be the shinning example of how to appease the West while ruling in whichever manner is desired by those in power.

    9. Re:China by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Just start the war already. It's been planned for a long time now. Look up AirSea War.

      America is not going to war with a nuclear power over some semi-submerged rocks in the South China Sea. The other countries cannot stand up to China without American support. So if China really wants the islands, they will get them, but they will pay a heavy price. Their belligerence has pushed Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. into closer military cooperation with America. In the entire world, China only has one reliable ally: Cambodia, one of the world's poorest countries.

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

      I don't even get to answer in the negative before you psychotically infer a "yes"?

      Do the world a favor and don't vote again, ever.

    11. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Mr Rogers or Stephen Hawking sense, yes, but in the camp of believing rule-of-law to be subordinate to somebody's half-baked idea of what the future should be like, well, no.

      However on a tangent: I don't think headlines like this should be protected speech, because they are unverifiable, guaranteed always to be half-true, and do nothing but scare people into making stupid decisions.

    12. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why hasn't this rhetorically ignorant shameless anti-Clinton plug been upvoted yet?

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

      I for one am against both the giant douche and the turd sandwich. I don't buy into either of their BS. It's been stinky for years.

    14. Re:China by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Sigh. You're allowed to dislike both of these choices.

    15. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing that you are just an asshole that willfully ignores the threats to Western Civilization.
      I'm also guessing that you are a future victim of those same threats, but are too fucking stupid to realize or admit it.

    16. Re: China by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I just made a how cool is it that China is building islands post in the consumed resources day summary. They are also making forays into engineering the weather. My brother married a Chinese woman, but that's beside the point and more of a full disclosure issue. But anyways, I believe along with Jefferson that the Constitution is largely a bad thing and we all need to have a time out and sit down and discuss what form of governance in the world will best serve all our purposes. We may end up with a class of citizens above the Amish but below the technocrats and protected in their ignorance the way Chinese farmers are.

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

      China's inability to keep NK in line is one of the root causes of tension in that region. It's not that China hasn't tried to keep NK in check it's that NK has given China the finger and then proceeded to do whatever they want. NK actions have resulted in China being surrounded by anti-missile batteries that may be aimed at NK but China's nuclear missile deterrent has been weakened, especially with the THADD system being deployed in SK. US west coast and Alaskan missile defense bases have been upgraded. Land based batteries in SK, Japan, Guam, and Australia have been upgraded. The US Navy has shifted more assets into the region. The Philippines has given the US basing rights once again. Vietnam has expressed interest in buying US weapon systems and the advisors that usually come along with the weapon systems. Vietnam is still pissed about China invading them back in 1979. There are enough Aegis guided missile cruisers in the area that every insect in the sky has been tagged by the over lapping radar arrays. And all this is the result of China not being strong enough to handle NK while building little corral islands that have no real purpose other than helping the Chinese government fan the nationalist fever in it's citizens. People complain about US nationalism but that is tame compared to the Chinese once the government starts whipping folks into a lather usually starting with Japans actions back in WW2 and ending with conspiracy theories about the US getting ready to invade their territory. And hiding beneath the surface is the fact that China is not as strong as people think and the US is not as weak as people seem to think. But there are plenty of evidence that the rhetoric is really distorting the true US-Chinese relationship. China participates in US Naval exercises and both countries host each others military vessels in various US and Chinese ports. The US and Chinese naval personnel exchange friendly communications when operating in the same area. The US has even provided training to Chinese sailors on carrier operations. NASA has hosted Chinese astronauts in Houston for both scientific and training exercises. The US-China trade relationship is important to both countries although it is more important to China than the US because China exports nothing to the US that cannot be obtained elsewhere. The biggest US export to China is food. Between China and the US Russia is nothing. Russia has a GDP less than the state of California and their only military strength is their nuclear arsenal which is the only card they have to play which means they really have no cards since the Russians may be belligerent but they are not suicidal. The Russians also look tougher than they are because the Europeans are such a bunch of pussies who would gladly hand back all of Russia's eastern European client states for a promise of peace in our time.

    18. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the whole point of protected speech is to allow such ideas to be debated and verified. If they are not discussed that doesn't happen. Whole idea is not to go off half cocked while that process happens. LOL Trump!

  2. And they don't care what the West has to say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they are or they aren't, they could give a crap what Western Media / Government has to say ... my question is, why bother say it? What does complaining about it achieve?

  3. Dear Leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wish USA's Dear Leader had the balls to do something about it.

    Being an independent who voted for Obama twice, his foreign policy is simply the worst. Most of the world's problems with everyone running us over in some cases, literally, is the worst. This is another clear example of such a terrible policy.

    1. Re:Dear Leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Team America when you need them?

    2. Re:Dear Leader by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This is not a joke -- other countries is one thing, but the high seas must remain free and open to trade according to international treaty and convention and laws of the sea.

      And that means sailing inside the 12 mile military limits on these artificial islands, which are expressly not recognized as granting economic or military exclusion.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Dear Leader by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      " literally, is the worst"

      No it isn't. It may not be ideal, but it isn't the worst. It's been a bit of a trade off. Obama has been in power for 8 years and managed to not get us into any major wars in that time. On the downside, a few of our rivals have been able to bully us and our bungling of Iraq has led to establishment of ISIS.

      Sure, we've done some bombing runs here and there but no major wars of too big of a threat to us. Libby has probably been Obama's "biggest war"- which is pretty impressive for almost a decade in power. There has been a few terror attacks around the world, but as tragic as Boston and the gay night club shootings were- on the grand scale they were fairly small attacks. (and the night club shootings is probably better attributed to hate crime than terrorism).

      So all in all- it's been 8 years of relative peace. Which is good. The flip side to this administration is that we've let Russia bully us and essentially been out-manovered by them and are overwhelmed by them on NATO's eastern border. Half of Eastern Europe could be in Russia's hands before we were able to have enough troops positioned to significantly slow them. China has sensed our weakness and started bullying everyone in SE Asia with an 18th Century imperialistic attitude. They know we're not going to do much to stop them. They've quickly erected islands in disputed territory to establish bases whilst we have a pacifist in office.

      All in all, I suspect Republicans will call Obama weak and spineless and Democrats will call him a peaceful and idyllic. Truth be told it is subjective. One thing it definitely isn't though is "the worst".

      There have been far worse presidential foreign policies (both Republican and Democrat).

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Dear Leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean, like his Nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Russia that allows the Russians to build as many as they like, while requiring the USA to unilaterally decrease their stockpile?

      Or signing the agreement with Iran that allows them to do whatever the hell they wish while requiring the USA to no longer have so many sanctions against them?

      Yeah. Basically his foreign policy appears to be to kiss ass with everyone and hope they behave nicely.

    5. Re:Dear Leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way does sailing close to some rocks keep trade open. (assuming for 1 second that your idiocy about trade being blocked has any basis in reality).

    6. Re:Dear Leader by npslider · · Score: 1

      Swimming laps in Rio.

    7. Re:Dear Leader by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Russia that allows the Russians to build as many as they like, while requiring the USA to unilaterally decrease their stockpile?

      Citation needed.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    8. Re:Dear Leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " literally, is the worst"

      No it isn't. It may not be ideal, but it isn't the worst. It's been a bit of a trade off.

      IOW, life in a complex and difficult world.

      Obama has been in power for 8 years and managed to not get us into any major wars in that time. On the downside, a few of our rivals have been able to bully us and our bungling of Iraq has led to establishment of ISIS.

      ISIS is actually pretty heavily in Syria, and that is because we rejected letting the Syrian dictatorship continued unchallenged. It's not a surprise to anyone that they're not pleasant folks, but as problems go, they're more overblown. If anything, it was because Obama let the Iraqis do what they wanted without US occupation, and the US doesn't want to occupy anywhere, that's paying a price Americans reject.

      There has been a few terror attacks around the world, but as tragic as Boston and the gay night club shootings were- on the grand scale they were fairly small attacks. (and the night club shootings is probably better attributed to hate crime than terrorism).

      And both are attributed to random guys without real organized effort behind them. No sustained campaigns in the US, just frenetic attacks. And the only difference between them and say, Roger Doggett, was that the latter got caught.

      So all in all- it's been 8 years of relative peace. Which is good. The flip side to this administration is that we've let Russia bully us and essentially been out-manovered by them and are overwhelmed by them on NATO's eastern border. Half of Eastern Europe could be in Russia's hands before we were able to have enough troops positioned to significantly slow them.

      That has always been the US strategic intent, the only difference is that instead of being the Fulda Gap, there's now somewhere in Poland. Nobody in America wants to put forces into Europe, the Europeans don't want to build them up themselves.

      China has sensed our weakness and started bullying everyone in SE Asia with an 18th Century imperialistic attitude. They know we're not going to do much to stop them. They've quickly erected islands in disputed territory to establish bases whilst we have a pacifist in office.

      China has decided to engage in the only avenue of belligerence they have that wouldn't get them squashed down, even if it's for nothing they want, it gives them something to do.

      p>All in all, I suspect Republicans will call Obama weak and spineless and Democrats will call him a peaceful and idyllic.

      Republicans will scream at Obama, regardless of what he does or doesn't do, and Democrats will remain silent, for reasons that remain unfathomable to me.

      Seriously, it's never made much sense to me, Democrats just seem to go along and let Republicans lie, no matter what. It's one of those abusive relationships that are clearly bogus from the outside.

    9. Re:Dear Leader by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      Our 'Dear Leader' is projecting Naval power in that area even as we speak and working with diplomatic partners in the area.

      That's what you would expect a rational nation to do.

      Don't worry, just vote for Trump and you'll see what the irrational actors do, which is start a trade war (or a real one). Have fun!

    10. Re:Dear Leader by swb · · Score: 1

      Would you buy degraded status quo?

      Maybe to his favor, Obama hasn't gotten into any new conflicts, but it seems kind of funny to judge what he hasn't done as an affirmative accomplishment. By that standard, you could judge him by other things he hasn't done, too, and many of them could be negative, failure-to-accomplish-anything kinds of changes. I didn't commit mass murder at lunch, but nobody's giving me a peace prize for what i didn't do.

      Maybe I underestimate the power of doing nothing (although God knows I've managed to make a career out of it), but it seems to me when doing nothing is used as a standard of a positive accomplishment it usually feels like an excuse for not doing anything.

      I can't tell if Libya is a gross failure. Maybe we've just gotten lucky, and the proximity of kinda-stable Algeria and Egypt and the fucking Sahara desert have kept what is a an objective disaster from being an active, horrible nightly news disaster, or whether there's some way to spin it into on the cusp of stabilizing, although I think I recently read we're doing a little close air support there lately.

      Syria is a train wreck which Obama's do-nothing work ethic seems to have done nothing positive to improve. Obviously not an easy place to make positive contributions, but something tells me we might not be any worse off had we managed to displace Assad. I don't think ISIS has the mettle to take and hold the entire country and it might be argued that had Assad been pushed out early on, the stalemate its turned into might not have developed, leaving them with less free space to maneuver in.

      And you can go on and on about lots of places where the do-nothing work ethic maybe hasn't positively contributed to making things worse, but where they sure seem like nearly anything would have been better.

    11. Re:Dear Leader by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      This is not a joke -- other countries is one thing, but the high seas must remain free and open to trade according to international treaty and convention and laws of the sea.

      And that means sailing inside the 12 mile military limits on these artificial islands, which are expressly not recognized as granting economic or military exclusion.

      You are assuming they will respect international law. Bad assumption.

    12. Re:Dear Leader by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You're both a coward AND bad at pretending you don't understand.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    13. Re:Dear Leader by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      you'll see what the irrational actors do, which is start a trade war

      We're in, and losing, a trade war right now. How are you not clear on this?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re: Dear Leader by orlanz · · Score: 1

      How are we in and losing a trade war?

    15. Re:Dear Leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're bad at making a sound and cogent argument.

    16. Re:Dear Leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you buy degraded status quo?

      Meh, it's hard to say, the game is still ongoing.

      Maybe to his favor, Obama hasn't gotten into any new conflicts, but it seems kind of funny to judge what he hasn't done as an affirmative accomplishment.

      "Janus Quirinus, which our ancestors wished to be closed whenever peace had been secured by victories throughout the Roman empire by land and sea, was recorded to have been closed, before I was born, twice altogether since the foundation of the city, but the senate decreed that it should be closed on three occasions while I was princeps."

      By that standard, you could judge him by other things he hasn't done, too, and many of them could be negative, failure-to-accomplish-anything kinds of changes. I didn't commit mass murder at lunch, but nobody's giving me a peace prize for what i didn't do.

      Your predecessor, as far as I know, didn't piss off the world so much that the Norwegians decided to award you it as an act of spite.

      And you can go on and on about lots of places where the do-nothing work ethic maybe hasn't positively contributed to making things worse, but where they sure seem like nearly anything would have been better.

      I think you may have it a bit wrong, it's not that Obama wants to do nothing, it's that he knows America won't tolerate paying for doing anything. Well, maybe a little. We'll put up with the drone strikes and special ops missions, as long as they go well, and no mistakes are made. But otherwise? It'll go sour, and quickly. Even after 9/11, most Americans were quick to reject operations overseas. Yeah, we bitch and moan about how things are, but we don't want to foot the butcher's bill.

      (And that isn't getting into the political reality, Obama could suggest putting out a fire, and the Republicans would stomp around about how Obama wants them to freeze to death AND pay for a massively expensive bucket of water.)

      Hell if I know what John McCain or Mitt Romney would have done though, possibly worse, possibly not.

    17. Re: Dear Leader by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      When those rocks are loaded with military and are between you and important ports? You mean those rocks?

    18. Re: Dear Leader by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      How are we in and losing a trade war?

      We are honoring our end of international trade agreements that other signatory countries disregard, and we are trading with countries that are doing some significantly damaging currency manipulation. Which you know, so that can't be a surprise. Was that a rhetorical question?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    19. Re: Dear Leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You mean those same rocks that aren't moving and are easy targets?

      Or are you so delusional that you think China couldn't just sink a few cargo ships with subs or missiles or jets without needing those rocks anyway?

      America must remove all it's aircraft carriers from the worlds oceans, because they are loaded with military and between me and important ports. See how stupid your 'argument' is.

    20. Re: Dear Leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes those Japs and Euro's manipulating their currency by having negative interest rates.

      At least here in the US we didn't push our interest rates to negative to lower our currency, ours was only at zero for a decade instead. Take that. Maybe if we print another Trillion and give it to the banks our currency will fall some more.

      But seriously, how can you not know everyone accepts now that the Chinese Yuan is basically fair value already. Willful ignorance? Fox "News" maybe?

    21. Re: Dear Leader by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself so to address other two replies. The US also does their fair share of market protection, ones that have been found to be in the wrong by the international trade bodies. We also do a lot of currency manipulation (quantitative easing, low interest rates, various insurance schemes, etc) but not to the extent of others nor the types that impact the global confidence in our currency.

      China/India/Japan/etc devaluing their currency is in effect stealing from their people's labor value and giving it to the buyer as a discount. They also continue to give us loans at extremely low interest rates that essentially amount to giving us free money at the cost to their people's earned labor. Additionally, most global commodities are actually traded in dollars which essentially gives the US a discount no one else has and solidifies the buying power of the dollar.

      We aren't anywhere near a trade war with anyone. Most of the world still fights each other to access the US and EU markets. And unlike the US, the EU is also in competition with itself and still lacks a fair amount of fiscal discipline within their member states.

      We certainly are not on the losing side. Every other player essentially bends over backwards to stay in the "sell to the US" game. Sure, our companies maybe having a little bit of a hard time, but it has never been better for the US consumer.

      Normally, yes this can't be maintained and eventually the others' buying power exceeds ours and we net produce rather than consume. But the other players are relatively worse off than us and it will be decades before they get the discipline (that's what's really lacking) to really match the US economic engine.

    22. Re:Dear Leader by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      If you actually think this is a trade war now you've lost all sense of reality. I mean that's literally the only way to frame the 'arm chair' presidents in this country.

      It's akin to somebody who served stateside during Vietnam saying they've 'seen the horrors of war'. It's that level of asinine.

    23. Re: Dear Leader by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Ships are more mobile than the bases on those rocks, so they are easier to remove from a given area. The recent utilization of those rocks in a military fashion by the Chinese communicate a different intent and make doing belligerent things more efficient and can be used as leverage. Until you have more fully explored the ramifications of the argument no one will see how potentially stupid the argument might be, so come back once you've actually given the subject some serious thought.

    24. Re:Dear Leader by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. After you vote for Hillary, her foreign policy will be twice as effective.

  4. Charades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically, who else is waiting for "Let's end this charade"?

  5. Dear Leader likes his china phone and non us h-1b' by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Dear Leader likes his china phone and non us h-1b's workers at apple.

  6. Read the 36 Stratagems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be no surprise at all to anyone. Not seeing it would be a surprise. Of course China is going to do exactly as they please without any regard for any international agreements they signed, unless and until those agreements benefit them in some way.

  7. They say never start a land war in Asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what about a sea war?

    1. Re:They say never start a land war in Asia by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      The USA has a pretty good track record with naval warfare in the East Asia/Pacific region in the past century or so - 2W-0L (Spanish-American War, WW2). Land wars, not so much (0W-0L-2T).

    2. Re:They say never start a land war in Asia by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      Um, the Spanish-American war was 118 years ago. It wasn't even in the 1900's. I think the "or so" is a stretch.

      I know the dates since my grandfather fought in the Spanish-American war. I guess I'm showing my age.

  8. A lot of deleted comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On slashdot main page, it says 8 comments but here there are only 5 comments. I am starting to wonder what comments were deleted exactly? Perhaps this one too?

    1. Re:A lot of deleted comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody deleted any comments. Learn how the site works or go play in traffic somewhere.

  9. Isn't Everyone? by ranton · · Score: 2

    When are we going to stop pretending any technologically capable countries aren't actively spying on governments and companies whenever it suits their interests?

    The answers to the following two questions should always be assumed to be the same:
    1) Can the country benefit from hacking [insert organization]?
    2) Is the country hacking [insert organization]?

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Isn't Everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was visiting south china, I did a trek: 3 days in the jungle with a guy from a minority and that free speech. And you know what? He was convinced that censoring speech was done in every country... When you live in country censoring speech heavily, you lose perspective.

      Countries behaving badly tend to justify themselves saying: "Others are doing the same!", "Everybody acts like that!". Did your mom or dad never said to you: "If All Your Friends Jumped Off A Bridge, ..."?

      No, no, no, some very capable countries are not behaving like assholes. And even if all countries where doing that, it is still wrong.

  10. Surprised? by dunkindave · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I would have been a lot more surprised if they weren't discovered trying to hack their perceived opposition. Based on history, it is the first thing I expect them to do after they make their veiled public threats.

  11. Beligrent like sailing too close to someones rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You clearly haven't thought about what you are saying.

    You think it's easier to find and remove a sub that is threatening your cargo ship than it is to find and stop a rock...

    How is a ship easier to remove than a rock? An aircraft carrier just sitting there like a rock, is the enemy supposed to try towing it away? A really big fan maybe? Looks like you are assuming if you're loud enough like a typical American, the enemy will just turn tail and run. Your only choice if it doesn't want to move is to engage it and escalate things to the next level, same as you would the rock.