Slashdot Mirror


China Has Abandoned a Cybersecurity Truce With the US, Report Says (bloomberg.com)

Cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike says China has largely abandoned a hacking truce negotiated by Barack Obama as President Trump embarked on a trade war with Beijing last year. "A slowdown in Chinese hacking following the cybersecurity agreement Obama's administration secured in 2015 appears to have been reversed, the firm said in a report released Tuesday that reviewed cyber activity by U.S. adversaries in 2018," reports Bloomberg. From the report: The report comes as the Trump administration seeks to reach a trade deal with China, including provisions on intellectual property theft, ahead of a March 1 deadline. Trump has said he may extend that deadline and hold off on increasing tariffs on Chinese imports if there's progress in the talks. China's hacking targets in 2018 included telecommunications systems in the U.S. and Asia, according to Crowdstrike. Groups linked to Iran and Russia also appeared to target telecommunications, a sector that yields "the most bang for your buck" for hackers due to the large number of users that can be accessed after breaching a single network, Meyers said.

The findings align with concern in the U.S. about telecommunications security as the country transitions to the next generation of mobile networks and the Trump administration seeks to secure so-called 5G technology from foreign intelligence gathering. The administration has expressed particular concern about the spread of products made by the Chinese firm Huawei Technologies Co.
The report also mentions the increased cyber activity in other parts of the world. "Iran focused much of its cyber activity on Middle Eastern and North African countries while Russia engaged in intelligence collection and information operations worldwide," the report says. "North Korea deployed hackers for financial gain and intelligence collection, while China targeted sectors including technology, manufacturing and hospitality."

46 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Re:TLDR by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    Oh, its also a dupe too of another article posted today but thats to be expected I guess.

  2. As decided by random security firm? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    >> official thing negotiated by POTUS

    So...the standard of whether or not the agreement was violated is decided by a random security firm?

    1. Re:As decided by random security firm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The standard is determined by people who set policy. The report documents the frequency of known attacks, which is increasing. Crowdstrike is hardly random, they've done this for a while. Why phrase things dishonestly?

    2. Re:As decided by random security firm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I think I'd rather trust the DoD, or NSA, or even the FBI to determine if a government is behind the attacks verses some rando, publicity seeking, scare mongering, Alex Jones level of conspiracy spewing "security firm" like Crowdstrike.

    3. Re:As decided by random security firm? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why are we expected to believe anything CrowdStrike says these days?

    4. Re:As decided by random security firm? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So...the standard of whether or not the agreement was violated is decided by a random security firm?

      Occam's Razor: What on earth makes you think that a company is honouring such a minor agreement with an adversary that is actively trying to economically punish them?

      No the standard of whether or not the agreement was violated should be decided by proof that under the current conditions it is still being adhered to.

  3. Let me get this straight by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    We are supposed to be disturbed that China is trying to hack our networks and steal information, and intellectual property from us in response to our trying to hold them culpable for stealing information ,intellectual property and one sided trade practices ?

    Well I guess the next time somebody commits murder their solemn promise not to do it again should be enough for anyone.

    1. Re:Let me get this straight by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I wish more people would see the reality of this.

    2. Re: Let me get this straight by edris90 · · Score: 2

      They Didn't commit any crimes. Because they are the authority any decision makers of how Law is defined within their land. Us businesses chose to give their IP to the Chinese government when they chose to do business with China and transfer that information into the country. Now they're mad because they made a bad decision. everyone knows that the Chinese government has rights to anyting within their borders IP wise. Because that's the law. So call it what it is American businesses stupidly thought American legal definitions applied to other countries and now have to eat their mistake. China's not the unites states. Us law doesn't matter there. Nor should it. Instead weather Blame whoever was in those companies decided to stupidly send their IP to China when they didn't want to lose control of it. That's who fucked up.. Intellectual property has no natural Basis. It's a legal contruct to provide artificially enforced economic value. You leave law system that maintains the existence of IP, and you enter the bigger world where that shit is nonsense.

    3. Re: Let me get this straight by edris90 · · Score: 1

      And that there right as a Sovereign Nation to conduct and Define their own legalities and morality. unless you're saying they're merely a colony that which case to whom is the authority they have to answer to? And then who tells that Authority what to do, eventually all forms of legalitiescome down to might makes right . that's what the law enforcement part is the night Whoever has the bigger gun can control other people. So are there people have value intrinsically and therefore oh nothing to laws they didn't create personally themselves, or they're only valuable relative to how they can be sacrificed for society and so therefore the government named body of that Society defines morality, and a person has no value except relative to what Society deems them to be,

  4. old fashioned fear mongering by SirAstral · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Be nice to us economically or face random hacks... we will also tell your citizens that you would not be nice to us and "negotiate" so they will get mad at you about it too.

    China is terrible country that is far worse than America. I don't have a problem with cutting ties with that disgusting nation until they stop abusing their citizens. It like someone coming to your door and saying... I want you to sell me your house for 20% off or I am going to harass your neighborhood and watching your fellow neighbor getting pissed off at your for refusing to let bad people get their way!

    Sadly, it works too! Just look at this article!

    1. Re:old fashioned fear mongering by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We should cut ties because the NSA hacks the planet,

      Certainly the UK would never do such a thing. And the UK certainly doesn't have a history of torture...oh no.

      If you don't think your country is spying on just about every other country on the planet, you're a simpleton.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:old fashioned fear mongering by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      If you don't think your country is spying on just about every other country on the planet, you're a simpleton.

      Narrator voice: It's AmiMoJo, definitely a simpleton.

    3. Re:old fashioned fear mongering by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with cutting ties with that disgusting nation until they stop abusing their citizens.

      Yeah you do. If you actually wouldn't have a problem cutting ties with them you wouldn't have posted this on Slashdot using your Chinese made computer parts.

    4. Re:old fashioned fear mongering by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      As much as I don't like defending AmiMoJo he's point stands well. You on the flip side committed a Tu Quoque logical Fallacy. Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't invalidate the original argument.

    5. Re:old fashioned fear mongering by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I never meant to imply that the UK was better. My point was that it's the pot calling the kettle black, and none of the involved parties have the moral high ground here.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:old fashioned fear mongering by jostage · · Score: 1

      Can you tell me WHY "China is terrible country that is far worse than America. "???

  5. Re:Orange man? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Dave's not here, man.

  6. Re:Anti China Propoganda by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is anti-China propaganda. Instead of calling these "attacks", they should say "free penetration testing".

  7. Re: Time for a timeout? by edris90 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    no wonder nobody likes United States listen to you guys trying to apply United States influence to a place where their influence can only be taken as an act of War against the sovereign state of that territory. If I came in your house and told you what to do it would be similar. United States and China have a peer to peer relationship, not a hierarchical relationship of parent, child

  8. Re:Anti China Propoganda by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    Internal enemies work best, because then you can demonize your opposition and suppress them. For example "the media" (meaning "the media when they say things I don't want to hear") was one example. Look up "stochastic terrorism".

  9. What this means: by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What this really means is that China's ability to obtain companies' IP through other means (e.g. espionage or via Chinese law) are not as effective as they once were or hoped they would be. The policy of the Chinese government has been "China first and to hell with the rest of you" long before Trump paraded out his "America First" line. China only does things that will benefit China and therefore the truce was part of that calculation. Now that things have changed and/or it's proven to not be as effective as hoped/expected (e.g. beefed up security and/or higher awareness by US companies), the Chinese government has resumed their normal hacking operations to steal IP. Alternatively, they predicted a massive influx of US companies that would be handing over their IP to China which hasn't panned out as expected. Anyway it goes, they were expecting to get more of the IP from US companies and it didn't happen and their response is to take it by hacking into companies.

    Note: I'm not claiming superiority in any regard, I'm just explaining the thought process that dictates their actions. (Take your whataboutism and shove it because this is about China.)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:What this means: by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      So you think the part of the equation that changed is China realized they were not getting legal IP transfer they expected.

      I personally think what changed is Trump 1) threw out global political norms, and 2) started a trade war. So 1) increased cyber warfare wouldn't be noticed as much, and 2) In world opinion (soft power), they have an excuse/defense for the times they're caught.

      I have tons of evidence to back up my opinion. I'd guess you have a lot less, but I'd be interested in seeing it.

    2. Re:What this means: by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      s/legal/espionage or via Chinese law/

      Also note, I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you said, I just wana see evidence, and filling in other reasons. I have no way of really knowing which reasons are more important, but the ones I listed I thought were more obvious.

    3. Re:What this means: by thereddaikon · · Score: 1

      We should;d just quarantine the Chinese from the internet already. Deny all DNS that resolves to a Chinese address. Probably wouldn't effect that much beyond their hacking anyways. The legitimate Chinese traffic rarely gets past their own great firewall and US citizens aren't exactly going to Baidu. Any US corps that have a business reason are clearly outsourcing traitors who need to be punished anyways. (only partially sarcastic there).

    4. Re:What this means: by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      So you think the part of the equation that changed is China realized they were not getting legal IP transfer they expected.

      There is a lot of evidence for China's "China first and to hell with the rest of you" position. The rest is simply a logical extension of that policy. The trade war seems only to be a factor in that it's hurting them. Regardless, they were going to get that IP one way or another for their "Made in China 2025" initiative.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  10. Re: Time for a timeout? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    United States and China have a peer to peer relationship

    I would say it's more accurate to say we have an adversarial relationship that is closer to the USSR and USA in the 1980s. It seems calm and peaceful but both nations are ready to kill each other but don't as they know the consequences of open warfare would be devastating.

    If you don't see things like that then you probably aren't paying close enough attention.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  11. Looking at it from outside .... by AxeTheMax · · Score: 2

    For comparison, what is the historic and current level of US espionage / hacking of China and Chinese targets? Preferably from an independent source.

  12. Truce? by c++horde · · Score: 1

    When was a Truce negotiated? There wasn't one. Crowdstrike is the group that handled the DNC server investigation when the FBI was not allowed to look. The propaganda machine is in full swing. The hits on our servers are still consistently coming from China and there has been no slow down.

  13. Re:Anti China Propoganda by dcw3 · · Score: 2

    It's my new pick up line...Hey baby, want some free penetration testing?

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  14. Ban Them by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    This shouldn't even be a negotiating point, if they're actively hacking us ban them until they get their shit under control (not like they don't control their whole network at the government level anyway, should be simple to stop the state-sponsored hacks from China.) The idea they would even suggest this as an ultimatum for not buying their backdoored hardware shows they need a kick in the balls.

  15. Re: Time for a timeout? by thereddaikon · · Score: 1

    Found the chinese shill. So are you paid to do it or are you one of them working from an office in shenzen?

  16. Re: Time for a timeout? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    If you steal shit from my house and expect me to buy it back then there's a problem. There are international treaties and China has been a member of WIPO since 1980, so your analogy is dog shit.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  17. Re:TLDR by terrycarlino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, because China wouldn't have dared to lie to Barack.

    Please. China has been engaged in cyberwarfare since the invention of the computer network. They're not stepping it up. They're getting caught more, and western countries are starting to replace "unknown foreign actor" with "Chinese" in reports, rather than continuing to give them cover.

    They steal our intellectual property, manipulate currency, and likely install backdoors in networks, chips and other devices manufactured for export. And like Lenin said many U.S. corporations are not only glad to sell them the rope with which to hang us, they'll actually pay them to put the rope around our necks.

  18. Re:Orange man? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    No, I'm Dave! Open the door.

  19. You cannot make treaties with communists by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    And of Obama made it. They will not honor any treaty that stops their march towards dominance.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  20. Abandoned? That's funny! by Chas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They were violating it while it was being signed, and never actually lived up to any part of it.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  21. No mention of ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... designing hardened systems.

    America is not willing or able to design innovative cyber defenses.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  22. Re: Orange man? by zugmeister · · Score: 1

    Hold on, so the "crook" was not prosecuted for his crimes because law enforcement was trying to sit on their incriminating evidence for... what again?
    Have you any idea how silly that sounds?

  23. Re:Orange man? by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

    You mean the person that was a target of the treasonous investigation of a duly elected president ?

    Using illegal FISA warrants, justified by DNC opposition research from Fusion GPS that had illegal access to NSA surveillance systems?

      That person ?

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  24. Re:Orange man bad. by zugmeister · · Score: 1

    How is he good at going to prison?
    Has he done that before?
    I've been hearing about his imminent downfall since he was elected President, but it keeps not happening.

  25. Re: Time for a timeout? by edris90 · · Score: 1

    Intellectual property is not real it's an artificial construct created as an economic prop. And exist only as a product of law. Outside of law, sharing and duplicating and refining existing information is just pragmatic and useful. I don't need to take what you have because with this information I can make my own and now neither of us either depend on each other and can do our own work.

  26. Re: Time for a timeout? by edris90 · · Score: 1

    Or maybe I just don't have blind worship for the random Nation I happen to have been spat into the world, disassociated from such blind loyalties am to see things clearer. I hate to say it but people who live in the u. S. Turn to think like a bunch of fanboys when it comes to contrasting different countries and cultures. The bias is glaring I must be accounted for. Just because it's the country you were born into doesn't mean you should automatically granted any Allegiance. Respect must be earned.

  27. Re:Abandoned? That's funny! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Oh dear!

    An innocent little lamb!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  28. Re: Anti China Propoganda by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the Chinese are worried that President Trump is about to turn North Korea into an American ally?

  29. Re: Orange man? by zugmeister · · Score: 1

    "Billionares" aren't illegal in this country, full stop.
    Wealth makes it easier to avoid or mitigate the negative effects of breaking the law, but only to a degree.
    For example, look at this guy. He's 80 and will be out of prison in 150 years.