The hackers governments need to look out for don't announce the fact that they've got into the network. They stealthily go in, grab what they want, and leaves.
Hacker claims breach of Chinese defense contractor
- Thread starter AssassinsMace
- Start date
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I think it's all a lot of bull. Not that hackers aren't attempting to do whatever to China. Chinese hackers are joining with their Western counterparts? That's probably bull. Since Chinese hacker have a reputation of being good by the West's own alarmist media, the egotistical motivation notorious of Western hackers wouldn't allow them to cooperate. Look at Wikileak's Julian Assange. He had to plea to Chinese hackers, when the Western media reported they were creating their own version of Wikileaks against the Chinese government, not to create they own Wikileaks and give all the information they hack to him because he's the only one responsible enough to vet such information. What an ego! And Julian Assange probably believed that propaganda from the media. It reminds me of several Olympics ago, a book came out exposing the world of US women's gymnastics as a brutal environment and was getting publicity on the news. Then when the Olympics came around during that time, the media was using things described verbatim from the book and saying that's how the Chinese treat their gymnastics team like that was foreign and it doesn't happen in the US. Where's this Chinese Wikileaks? Maybe the Chinese secret police stopped it? But a Western hacker can hack at will in China? It's just the typical MO to make it sound there's discontent in China's own population and they follow the West. Just like with the attempt to start a Jasmine revolution in China to which if it doesn't happen they can claim it was stifled by the efficient Chinese secret police. Which in turn Western hackers can boast they're skilled enough to evade the mighty Chinese Cyber Army and hack into Chinese secret files. Which in turn the media can advertise it as a win for the West. Again, I'm not saying Western hackers aren't trying to break into China. They've always been doing that but like the Western intelligence agenices, they can't get past the language to read and know if they have anything significant.
Last edited:
escobar
Brigadier
Joseph Nye has an interesting article in the Winter 2011 issue of Strategic Studies Quarterly that applies some of the lessons of the nuclear age to cybersecurity. It’s well worth the read, and I thought I might try the same, using what we know about the study of Chinese technology policy to shed some light on China and cyber.
Linking cyber and technology policy is a form of techno nationalism that’s widely and deeply held by Chinese policymakers. The objectives are clear: China doesn’t want to depend on other countries for critical technologies, the United States and Japan in particular. The 2006 Medium to Long Term Plan on Science and Technology (MLP) puts it plainly: “Facts have proved that, in areas critical to the national economy and security, core technologies cannot be purchased.” The Chinese tend to see the current system as, if not unfair, then stacked against them, and so commentaries often focus on competitors’ unfair advantages (U.S. firms dominate hardware and software sectors, 10 of the 13 root servers in U.S.) and China’s victimization (China is the biggest victim of cybercrime).
With both cyber and technology, outside observers have a tendency to overstate how driven by the center China really is. Yes, the MLP sets the goal of China becoming an “innovative nation” by 2020 and a “global scientific power” by 2050. Not surprising given Chinese history and national security concerns. But the document is of two minds about how to move up the value chain, including both a top-down, big-science and technology policy, as well as a bottom-up, entrepreneurial innovation strategy. In cyber, we tend to see China pursuing a coherent cyber strategy that involves pushing an Information Security Code of Conduct at the United Nations, the use of patriotic hackers, information war, and tight Internet control. Chinese analysts see the opposite, complaining that the U.S. – with the standing up of Cyber Command and promotion of the Internet Freedom agenda – has put China on the defensive and that Beijing is falling behind in cyberspace.
There’s also a question of how strategically China can implement. The world of technology policy is one of sectoral and regional differentiation, with industries and provinces interpreting national regulations to serve their own interests. Ministries, universities, and government research institutes behave similarly, and Chinese firms often identify more with their Western competitors than with their local bureaucratic partners. It’s hard to imagine that the Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, PLA, and Ministry of Industry and Information Technology play any nicer together in the sand box of cyber policy.
The prolific rate of cyber espionage – what Cyber Command head General Alexander called “the greatest transfer of wealth in history” – raises questions of China’s absorptive capacity. With technology imports, Chinese firms historically spent much less than Japanese and Korean companies did for diffusion and absorption. What is China doing with all of the IPR it’s allegedly stealing, and shouldn’t we start to see it paying off in more competitive Chinese firms? Not much public evidence exists that it’s helping Chinese companies move up the value chain (most evidence in the public domain is old-fashioned theft, see DuPont, Motorola, and American Semiconductor).
Finally, technology policy may tell us something about what might work for cyber, although progress, especially in protecting intellectual property rights, has been glacially slow and uneven. The issue must be raised at the highest level, including by the President and Vice President, something that it’s not clear has happened yet. Multilateral pressure should also be applied. China backed down from the compulsory introduction of WAPI, an alternative to WiFi, after the U.S. government, supported by Japan and the EU, threatened to take a case to the WTO.
Given the current state of the U.S.-China relationship in cyber, glacially slow and uneven might be an improvement.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Interesting how a lot this publicized anger towards China about cyber warfare comes out during this period of cyber wargames.
US and China engage in cyber war games
Exclusive: US and Chinese officials take part in war games in bid to prevent military escalation from cyber attacks
Nick Hopkins
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 April 2012 08.00 EDT
The Air Force Space Command Network Operations and Security Centre in Colorado. Photograph: Rick Wilking/Reuters
The US and China have been discreetly engaging in "war games" amid rising anger in Washington over the scale and audacity of Beijing-co-ordinated cyber attacks on western governments and big business, the Guardian has learned.
State department and Pentagon officials, along with their Chinese counterparts, were involved in two war games last year that were designed to help prevent a sudden military escalation between the sides if either felt they were being targeted. Another session is planned for May.
Though the exercises have given the US a chance to vent its frustration at what appears to be state-sponsored espionage and theft on an industrial scale, China has been belligerent.
"China has come to the conclusion that the power relationship has changed, and it has changed in a way that favours them," said Jim Lewis, a senior fellow and director at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) thinktank in Washington.
"The PLA [People's Liberation Army] is very hostile. They see the US as a target. They feel they have justification for their actions. They think the US is in decline."
The war games have been organised through the CSIS and a Beijing thinktank, the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations. This has allowed government officials, and those from the US intelligence agencies, to have contact in a less formal environment.
Known as "Track 1.5" diplomacy, it is the closest governments can get in conflict management without full-blown talks.
"We co-ordinate the war games with the state department and department of defence," said Lewis, who brokered the meetings, which took place in Beijing last June, and in Washington in December.
"The officials start out as observers and become participants … it is very much the same on the Chinese side. Because it is organised between two thinktanks they can speak more freely."
During the first exercise, both sides had to describe what they would do if they were attacked by a sophisticated computer virus, such as Stuxnet, which disabled centrifuges in Iran's nuclear programme. In the second, they had to describe their reaction if the attack was known to have been launched from the other side.
"The two war games have been quite amazing," said Lewis. "The first one went well, the second one not so well.
"The Chinese are very astute. They send knowledgeable people. We want to find ways to change their behaviour … [but] they can justify what they are doing. Their attitude is, they have experienced imperialism and they had a century of humiliation."
Lewis said the Chinese have a "sense that they have been treated unfairly".
"The Chinese have a deep distrust of the US. They are concerned about US military capabilities. They tend to think we have a grand strategy to preserve US hegemony and they see a direct challenge.
"The [Chinese officials] who favour co-operation are not as strong as the people who favour conflict."
The need for the meetings has been underlined in recent months as the US and the UK have tried to increase pressure on China, which they regard as chiefly responsible for the theft of billions of dollars of plans and intellectual property from defence manufacturers, government departments, and private companies at the heart of America's national infrastructure.
Analysts say this amounts to "preparation of the battlefield", and both the UK and the US have warned Beijing to expect retaliation if it continues.
In recent months, the US has made clear it is turning its military focus away from Europe towards the Pacific to protect American interests in the region.
"Of the countries actively involved in cyber espionage, China is the only one likely to be a military competitor to the US," Lewis said.
"US and Chinese forces are in close proximity and there are hostile incidents … The odds of miscalculation are high, so we are trying to get a clear understanding of each side's position."
Lewis believes the US is preparing to become more aggressive towards China, saying President Barack Obama has already tasked internal working groups in the White House to consider tougher sanctions.
Without naming China, a senior executive in the FBI told the Guardian the threats posed from cyber attacks were alarming.
"We know that the capabilities of foreign states are substantial and we know the type of information that they are targeting," said Shawn Henry, executive assistant director of the FBI's cyber unit.
"We have seen adversaries that have been in networks for many months or even years in some cases, undetected. They have essentially had free rein over those networks … They have complete ability to disrupt that network entirely."
Frank Cilluffo, who was George Bush's special assistant on homeland security, said the time had come to confront China.
"We need to talk about offensive capabilities to deter bad actors. You cannot expect companies to defend against foreign intelligence services. There are certain things we should do if someone is doing the cyber equivalent of intelligence preparation of the battlefield of our energy infrastructure.
"To me that's off grounds. That demands a response. What other incentive could there be to map our infrastructure in the event of a crisis?
"We have a stronger hand in conventional military and diplomatic means. We need to show them our cards. All instruments on the table. I think we do have to start talking active defence."
He said the US had to be proactive or, in time, people would start losing confidence in the integrity of the internet and computer systems.
"If I don't invest because I am afraid, if I don't use the web because I am afraid, if you lose trust and confidence in those systems, the bad guys have won. Checkmate."
The state department refused to speak about the war games, or say which officials took part.
A spokesman said: "The United States is committed to engaging countries to build a global environment in which all states recognise and adhere to norms of acceptable behaviour in cyberspace. We are engaging broadly with the Chinese government on cyber issues so that we can find common ground on these issues which have increasing importance in our bilateral relationship."
The Pentagon declined to comment or say which of its officials took part in the war games.
China has consistently denied being responsible for cyber attacks on the US and other western countries. It says it is also the victim of this kind of espionage.
The Chinese defence minister, Liang Guanglie, has said Beijing "stands firmly against all kinds of cyber crimes".
"It is hard to attribute the real source of attacks and we need to work together to make sure that this security problem won't be a problem," he said.
"Actually in China we also suffered quite a wide range [of], and frequent, cyber attacks. The Chinese government attaches importance also on cyber security and stands firmly against all kinds of cyber crimes. It is important for everyone to obey or follow laws and regulations in terms of cyber security."
The People's Daily, the Chinese newspaper that most reflects the views of China's ruling Communist party, said last year that linking China to internet hacking attacks was irresponsible.
"As the number of hacking attacks on prominent international businesses and organisations has grown this year, some western media have repeatedly depicted China as the villain behind the scenes."
US and China engage in cyber war games
Exclusive: US and Chinese officials take part in war games in bid to prevent military escalation from cyber attacks
Nick Hopkins
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 April 2012 08.00 EDT
The Air Force Space Command Network Operations and Security Centre in Colorado. Photograph: Rick Wilking/Reuters
The US and China have been discreetly engaging in "war games" amid rising anger in Washington over the scale and audacity of Beijing-co-ordinated cyber attacks on western governments and big business, the Guardian has learned.
State department and Pentagon officials, along with their Chinese counterparts, were involved in two war games last year that were designed to help prevent a sudden military escalation between the sides if either felt they were being targeted. Another session is planned for May.
Though the exercises have given the US a chance to vent its frustration at what appears to be state-sponsored espionage and theft on an industrial scale, China has been belligerent.
"China has come to the conclusion that the power relationship has changed, and it has changed in a way that favours them," said Jim Lewis, a senior fellow and director at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) thinktank in Washington.
"The PLA [People's Liberation Army] is very hostile. They see the US as a target. They feel they have justification for their actions. They think the US is in decline."
The war games have been organised through the CSIS and a Beijing thinktank, the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations. This has allowed government officials, and those from the US intelligence agencies, to have contact in a less formal environment.
Known as "Track 1.5" diplomacy, it is the closest governments can get in conflict management without full-blown talks.
"We co-ordinate the war games with the state department and department of defence," said Lewis, who brokered the meetings, which took place in Beijing last June, and in Washington in December.
"The officials start out as observers and become participants … it is very much the same on the Chinese side. Because it is organised between two thinktanks they can speak more freely."
During the first exercise, both sides had to describe what they would do if they were attacked by a sophisticated computer virus, such as Stuxnet, which disabled centrifuges in Iran's nuclear programme. In the second, they had to describe their reaction if the attack was known to have been launched from the other side.
"The two war games have been quite amazing," said Lewis. "The first one went well, the second one not so well.
"The Chinese are very astute. They send knowledgeable people. We want to find ways to change their behaviour … [but] they can justify what they are doing. Their attitude is, they have experienced imperialism and they had a century of humiliation."
Lewis said the Chinese have a "sense that they have been treated unfairly".
"The Chinese have a deep distrust of the US. They are concerned about US military capabilities. They tend to think we have a grand strategy to preserve US hegemony and they see a direct challenge.
"The [Chinese officials] who favour co-operation are not as strong as the people who favour conflict."
The need for the meetings has been underlined in recent months as the US and the UK have tried to increase pressure on China, which they regard as chiefly responsible for the theft of billions of dollars of plans and intellectual property from defence manufacturers, government departments, and private companies at the heart of America's national infrastructure.
Analysts say this amounts to "preparation of the battlefield", and both the UK and the US have warned Beijing to expect retaliation if it continues.
In recent months, the US has made clear it is turning its military focus away from Europe towards the Pacific to protect American interests in the region.
"Of the countries actively involved in cyber espionage, China is the only one likely to be a military competitor to the US," Lewis said.
"US and Chinese forces are in close proximity and there are hostile incidents … The odds of miscalculation are high, so we are trying to get a clear understanding of each side's position."
Lewis believes the US is preparing to become more aggressive towards China, saying President Barack Obama has already tasked internal working groups in the White House to consider tougher sanctions.
Without naming China, a senior executive in the FBI told the Guardian the threats posed from cyber attacks were alarming.
"We know that the capabilities of foreign states are substantial and we know the type of information that they are targeting," said Shawn Henry, executive assistant director of the FBI's cyber unit.
"We have seen adversaries that have been in networks for many months or even years in some cases, undetected. They have essentially had free rein over those networks … They have complete ability to disrupt that network entirely."
Frank Cilluffo, who was George Bush's special assistant on homeland security, said the time had come to confront China.
"We need to talk about offensive capabilities to deter bad actors. You cannot expect companies to defend against foreign intelligence services. There are certain things we should do if someone is doing the cyber equivalent of intelligence preparation of the battlefield of our energy infrastructure.
"To me that's off grounds. That demands a response. What other incentive could there be to map our infrastructure in the event of a crisis?
"We have a stronger hand in conventional military and diplomatic means. We need to show them our cards. All instruments on the table. I think we do have to start talking active defence."
He said the US had to be proactive or, in time, people would start losing confidence in the integrity of the internet and computer systems.
"If I don't invest because I am afraid, if I don't use the web because I am afraid, if you lose trust and confidence in those systems, the bad guys have won. Checkmate."
The state department refused to speak about the war games, or say which officials took part.
A spokesman said: "The United States is committed to engaging countries to build a global environment in which all states recognise and adhere to norms of acceptable behaviour in cyberspace. We are engaging broadly with the Chinese government on cyber issues so that we can find common ground on these issues which have increasing importance in our bilateral relationship."
The Pentagon declined to comment or say which of its officials took part in the war games.
China has consistently denied being responsible for cyber attacks on the US and other western countries. It says it is also the victim of this kind of espionage.
The Chinese defence minister, Liang Guanglie, has said Beijing "stands firmly against all kinds of cyber crimes".
"It is hard to attribute the real source of attacks and we need to work together to make sure that this security problem won't be a problem," he said.
"Actually in China we also suffered quite a wide range [of], and frequent, cyber attacks. The Chinese government attaches importance also on cyber security and stands firmly against all kinds of cyber crimes. It is important for everyone to obey or follow laws and regulations in terms of cyber security."
The People's Daily, the Chinese newspaper that most reflects the views of China's ruling Communist party, said last year that linking China to internet hacking attacks was irresponsible.
"As the number of hacking attacks on prominent international businesses and organisations has grown this year, some western media have repeatedly depicted China as the villain behind the scenes."