Pentagon blames China
- Thread starter satcom
- Start date
You think China now heading to some kind of legalism? No , I don t think so. The legalism are never the main stream of chinese philosophy while Confucianism Daoism and Buddaism together form the foundational stone of Chinese spiritual life. Legalism is short life for its personality of utterly strict and mechanical ,which is on the contrary to Chinese general character who embracing harmony, benvolence and compromise in sometime.You're illustrating my point perfectly. Legalism seem to be built into Chinese culture.
Personally, I don't get excited about the issue of personal freedoms in China. But in the medium to long term, the lack of them will be one of the great inhibitors of the Chinese economy. And such relationships I find interesting to study and observe.
Moreover legalism along repulse other believe and break one of most primary principle of Chinese belief shared by other Way of Thinking -----tolerance and adoption. Therefore legalism has only prevailed in less than a hundred year in the midest of China s 5000 years of history .
Consider the earlier CCP is somewhat based on the philosophy of legalism combined with war-time-communism , it s no wonder that they repel other thoughts resolutely by launching Culture revolution. ( samn happens 2000 years ago when the first emperor who adapt legalism orderd the burning of books of the other thoughs and execution of their scholars)
However, after the CCP enter the new century, they seem to begin to be awared of the weakness of legalism. And all new propaganda and legislation pointed to a revive of traditional troika of Chinese thoughts-----Confucianism ,Daoism, Buddasim. By the by , Chineses current leader HuJinTao is a steady follower of the renewd Confucianism .
Confucianism help many dynasty in China prosperous for it sign a contract of right and obligation between the ruler and his subject enforced by tradition moral and religion insteading of law ( It s not weak than law by any standard in china). So the national belief of confucianism play a role of Great Charter for thousands years and the whenever the ruler break it substantially , his dynasty is doom to end with a short revolution and a quick shift of loyalty .
Therefore if CCP wants to last more than a century , they cannot hold legalism prolongedly for the essence of legalism makes it a good whip to use in turning time of history but not so good a halter in long term development. And of course CCP s behavior has already begin to shift towards confucianism conbined with some element of western democracy in Hu s era.
Last edited:
Just curious, if you're still in China, is it easy to find anything about "Lead in Chinese Exports," (going through the more obvious channels, i.e. searching in english as opposed to "Yiddish"
or the likes), can you get detailed info? Also, is there info (written domestically) on the health ramifications to the Chinese workers/people?I know it's not a problem to get info in Taiwan (where the majority of factory owners live), nor is it as much of an issue in HK. [Thanks Waylander]
-IMO, with a truly international market, China is sort of caught between a "rock and a hard place." If those in China cannot readily get the information that is available in the West, a domestic Market problem in China is created (e.g. "Why is this stock going down")?
Last edited:
I think this is only natural, especially for a country like the US. "We're not supposed to get attacked on US soil" (This is simply an inherent part of the minds of Americans-- Pearl Harbor is the "Default Reaction/Response."
Throughout the CW, the "Patriotism card" was played (with few exceptions) for a half century--and it seems as if someone wants to start the Cold War rhetoric once again.
As a "Nation of Immigrants," IMO, keeping a focus on the "Nation" is extremely important. Instead of "Divide and Conquer," vis-a-vis immigrants, the US has relied on "Divide and Surrender." Meaning, no matter where immigrants comes from, they can go anywhere as long a they are willing to "Surrender" or "Assimilate" into the US way of life. This doesn't mean that one has to forget his/her culture, far from that, as the vast cultures that make up the US population, create a built in universal education. However, every culture obviously has different beliefs, and this is where the US plays the "Patriotic Card." Without it, we'd be importing a "Tribal Society," kind of like the one we're fighting.
I don't think you're implying there's a disinterest in politics on any level. No matter what "class" a person might be "placed" in, he/she does have issues that are very important to them/us. From taxes, to healthcare and every issue one can think of. There is no shortage of information (one side/or the other), but it's definitely true that people must be able to vet through the volumes of information and decide what is valid (to each their own).
It's true that domestic issues are (have been) much more difficult for the nation to agree upon--so many diverse cultures-- as many say, things like Social Security, Affirmative Action (AA), Health Care, etc (domestic issues), are the "3rd rail of politics." "National" Security and "It's the Economy, Stupid (Clinton)" will trump all as they are National issues that the majority of people will "Surrender to." There are "domestic games" the parties can play in the elections to get a larger turnout for one side in certain states (e.g. putting "gay marriage" on the ballot during presidential elections).
I'm not sure if you're pointing at the "Electoral System" as a positive or negative aspect of the US election (or just the answer to complex nature of the electorate--as you point out). Right now, it's really the only way there can be "half-way fair" representation. Otherwise, NY (and friends) and CA, together will win every election (based upon population). Many don't vote in NY and CA because "they know which way it's going anyway." If the Popular vote determined the election, everyone in NY and CA (for example) would vote and you wouldn't see 51M-50M.
Hence the system, as we know it.
100% Agree!
Again, intertwined W/paragraph above, I totally agree.
Primary, is that "any" information is available.
Secondary, is analytical.
I agree that "most people" put a lot of thought into their vote (unless someone is just looking for jury duty
). However, when one votes based upon, "what can you do for me," the structure of the system usually doesn't express the "micro-issues." It's back to the "Divide and Surrender." The Dominant issues which effect everyone (a part of what goes into almost everyone's vote), are usually expressed by the system.
GD- I think you wrote an excellent piece here!:cheers
Jup, I am here in Shanghai till Wednesday and than I am off to HK.Just curious, if you're still in China, is it easy to find anything about "Lead in Chinese Exports," (going through the more obvious channels, i.e. searching in english as opposed to "Yiddish"
I know it's not a problem to get info in Taiwan (where the majority of factory owners live), nor is it as much of an issue in HK. [Thanks Waylander]
-IMO, with a truly international market, China is sort of caught between a "rock and a hard place." If those in China cannot readily get the information that is available in the West, a domestic Market problem in China is created (e.g. "Why is this stock going down")?
There is no problem in getting infos about "Lead in Chinese Exports" as well as about health problems of chinese workers.
In Taiwan (Were I spent some weeks before I went to Shanghai) they were really into this topic and emphasized alot on chinese quality problems...
Schumacher
New Member
More reports of Chinese cyber attacks on US.
Chinese hackers form US military cyber attack plans
Pentagon report says hackers have drawn up plan to disable US battle carrier fleet. -AFP
Sat, Sep 08, 2007
AFP
LONDON, Sept 8, 2007 (AFP) - Chinese military hackers have drawn up a plan to disable the United States' battle carrier fleet through a cyber attack, British newspaper The Times said Saturday, citing a Pentagon report.
The blueprint is part of a plan by Beijing to establish 'electronic dominance' over its global rivals by 2050, particularly the United States, Britain, Russia and South Korea, said the daily.
The newspaper said two hackers working for China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) came up with the plan.
The Pentagon report says China's military regards offensive computer operations as 'critical to seize the initiative' in the early stages of a war, The Times said.
"China's ambitions extend to crippling an enemy's financial, military and communications capabilities early in a conflict," said the newspaper.
According to The Times, Larry M. Wortzel, author of the US Army War College report, said: "The thing that should give us pause is that in many Chinese military manuals they identify the US as the country they are most likely to go to war with. They are moving very rapidly to master this new form of warfare."
The PLA hackers produced a "virtual guidebook for electronic warfare and jamming" after studying NATO and US manuals on military tactics, the report said.
The Times said the Pentagon logged more than 79,000 attempted intrusions in 2005, of which about 1,300 succeeded.
China on Thursday denied that its military had hacked into the the websites of any foreign government, after press reports said Britain was the latest nation to fall victim to Chinese cyber attacks.
http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/AsiaOne+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20070908-24658.html
Chinese hackers form US military cyber attack plans
Pentagon report says hackers have drawn up plan to disable US battle carrier fleet. -AFP
Sat, Sep 08, 2007
AFP
LONDON, Sept 8, 2007 (AFP) - Chinese military hackers have drawn up a plan to disable the United States' battle carrier fleet through a cyber attack, British newspaper The Times said Saturday, citing a Pentagon report.
The blueprint is part of a plan by Beijing to establish 'electronic dominance' over its global rivals by 2050, particularly the United States, Britain, Russia and South Korea, said the daily.
The newspaper said two hackers working for China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) came up with the plan.
The Pentagon report says China's military regards offensive computer operations as 'critical to seize the initiative' in the early stages of a war, The Times said.
"China's ambitions extend to crippling an enemy's financial, military and communications capabilities early in a conflict," said the newspaper.
According to The Times, Larry M. Wortzel, author of the US Army War College report, said: "The thing that should give us pause is that in many Chinese military manuals they identify the US as the country they are most likely to go to war with. They are moving very rapidly to master this new form of warfare."
The PLA hackers produced a "virtual guidebook for electronic warfare and jamming" after studying NATO and US manuals on military tactics, the report said.
The Times said the Pentagon logged more than 79,000 attempted intrusions in 2005, of which about 1,300 succeeded.
China on Thursday denied that its military had hacked into the the websites of any foreign government, after press reports said Britain was the latest nation to fall victim to Chinese cyber attacks.
http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/AsiaOne+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20070908-24658.html
A large minority.
2+2=4 isn't the issue IMO (right now). It's the fact that information, true or false, cannot be contained. As long a language exists. Humans' are curious by nature and China has a "Large Minority" of curious people.
An uninformed Minority of that size can be dangerous. As it goes, "Democracies are venerable from the outside, 'States which restrict informations' must look even more inward than outward."
A "gullible person/people" (especially "hundreds of millions-- or the remaining 60%-70%) is/are equally as big of a potential threat to a nation as believing that population will "stay gullible and peaceful."
The assumption that "millions" are oblivious to the fact that a "feast" is available, can lead to the wrong assumption about who will end up starving and being harmed (JMO).
Nothing is perfect!
I think "investing" in the education of those who are "gullible" is extremely important to the nation. With so many open to manipulation and deception, fact and fiction can become a hard game to play. Does one believe a government that hasn't provided any information, or one willing to provide anything?
I would think this could become a dangerous predicament to be in.
I've been to China several times. (IMO) There is a great cultural divide between the East & West (not in a bad way, just Eastern Philosophy vs. Western--a simple matter of Birthplace). I've mentioned before that doing business is difficult due to many reasons (in one thread I mentioned some practices in China that wouldn't go over well here if people knew. Though I unintentionally upset some Chinese here, the news of the food problems and lead paint problems, etc, started to come out), now it's more difficult.
China is full of beautiful ancient and new places/cities, but from what I've observed, many inland on the mainland, who do much of the factory work, have very little connection to the outside world. Except for areas where "tourist sites" exist, many manufacturing plants and the surrounding areas, are full of people who haven't seen Westerners before. In one area where "ceiling fans" are produced, when we were leaving there were maybe 50 people gathered around a 13" TV with no sound, watching a more "fuzzy" than seeable soccer (football, futball...) game. We left with the owner of the factory in his Benz, while there wasn't any transportation around except for bikes.
Every country has there inequities--there's no doubt about that. IMO, China has an opportunity to provide education and tap in to a huge wealth people who could provide an enormous benefit for the State.
With the need for more technically products i.e. machine made, a lot of equipment is being imported by China from Germany and other EU Countries. This obviously means less labor in the same factories. You can see the problem...
That's why I think knowledge should not be restricted to a chosen group. Those who are hungry will eat until they are full, and then will share (JMHO).
"Defending everywhere allows an attack from anywhere."
Peace
Thanks for the reply.
I'm not surprised about Taiwan as most of the owners of the factories live when not in Shanghai (HK is similar in this way). It sounds like they're trying to learn about damage control quickly
It's an opportunity for you to sell German machinery... a lot easier for us to inspect!
I wonder how far inland the "news" goes?
People here abroad have no clue as what's been mentioned only touches the surface... every "Happy Meal" a kid buys/bought from the Golden Arches and it's competition (toy inside):sick
Peace
Wait...
Censorship of information does not make people stupid or gullible. Just because a Chinese doesn't know some things about the outside world doesn't affect his intelligence, nor his ability to be a useful part of Chinese society.
…
Furthermore, China is not the police state some make it out to be.
Chinese nationals can travel to most parts of the world, those who can afford to have own their own cars and luxurious apartments. And you can install illegal satellite dishes and have the world at your fingertips.
Religious freedom and popularity is soaring. Age old superstitions and practices are making a huge comeback.
On the less positive side, any kid with a computer can still surf porn freely and download all manner of porn material… prostitution and other vices is rife as are drugs and criminal gangs. Police face heavily-armed banditry in the south. (There is actually inadequate policing.)
Are Chinese people crying out for democracy or removing the ban on Wikipedia? Actually... no. There’s always a way round things.
…
Actually, China has hundreds of millions hungry for simply a better life and not some lofty ideals. After disillusionment with communism most Chinese people don't care about ideology whether east or west etc. They just want to make money as that can more or less guarantee a comfortable life under whatever regime.
What China need is a social and educational system that can more or less force people to stay in school instead of leaving early to make money. As in everything else here, the quality of education in China ranges from great to non existent. Overall improvement needed.
Most importantly, China has to concentrate on reducing poverty and narrow the wealth gap. Some people are so rich it is disgusting. Equally disgusting is how wretchedly poor so many people are.
This is more critical than niceties like freedom of speech etc.
…
Freedom of speech can only incite riot among people with empty pockets and idle hands.
If even just 1 percent of China's 1 billion population riot because of some rumours spreading - you got a big war on your hands.
Therefore, control is crucial. And the actual truth is that, China doesn’t have this iron grip on the people the west thinks it has. Things do get dangerously chaotic.
There had already been many widely-publicized mini-riots in the countryside by disgruntled farmers etc.
And like the anti-jap demonstration I mentioned, unrest can spread like wildfire and engulf the whole country.
…
If reducing poverty is CCP's aim, then I say bite the bullet and do what is necessary. If it means controlling information and individual freedom to maintain a peaceful setting to promote economic growth – go for it.
Democracy introduced prematurely can result in a country like the Philippines after Marcos. Lots of freedom – as well as festering poverty and increased armed rebellions.
…
Besides, China has lots of universities to educate its people and Chinese people are capable of very high academic and scientific achievements.
When I say there is a large proportion of people in China that's "potentially volatile and gullible" it is not because they didn't get Newsweek or cannot access Wikipedia.
They are "volatile and gullible" for other reasons. Some people are so because they grew up in conditions making them this way, or left school too early. Or some are simply stupid, crass, selfish, violent, criminally inclined etc. Every country has them but because of China being a "newly" emergent country with a HUGE population, there's simply more of them.
…
Whatever it is, the current system is working better than every other system they have tried before in the last hundred years often with great loss of lives. Chinese people are having better lives than before.
Absolutely. Nothing ever is.
Schumacher
New Member
Of course, censorship does not necessarily have to come from the state. A recent infamous instance of mass manipulation of public opinion can be seen in the Iraq WMD issue.
I read at that time one in US had to rely on foreign sources like BBC to see reports questioning the validity of the 'evidence'. Local sources doing the same were quickly 'shouted down' into silence. Of course, this is said to be self-censorship rather than state direct one, but who knows ? & frankly the results were the same.
A history of 'free press' didn't seem to help the US population develop the independence of thinking to question the 'evidence'
And as we see now, the consequences has been disastrous.
So, don't just assume populations from less developed nations are easier to be manipulated etc, it's actually far more complicated than that.
Being economically well off & formally educated don't necessarily go hand in hand with having the ability to think independently.
I read at that time one in US had to rely on foreign sources like BBC to see reports questioning the validity of the 'evidence'. Local sources doing the same were quickly 'shouted down' into silence. Of course, this is said to be self-censorship rather than state direct one, but who knows ? & frankly the results were the same.
A history of 'free press' didn't seem to help the US population develop the independence of thinking to question the 'evidence'
And as we see now, the consequences has been disastrous.
So, don't just assume populations from less developed nations are easier to be manipulated etc, it's actually far more complicated than that.
Being economically well off & formally educated don't necessarily go hand in hand with having the ability to think independently.
Last edited:
Gripenator
Banned Member
An Interesting Article on Cyberwarfare
Paris; and Oakland, Calif. - When suspected Chinese hackers penetrated the Pentagon this summer, reports downplayed the cyberattack. The hackers hit a secure Pentagon system known as NIPRNet – but it only carries unclassified information and general e-mail, Department of Defense officials said.
Yet a central aim of the Chinese hackers may not have been top secrets, but a probe of the Pentagon network structure itself, some analysts argue. The NIPRNet (Non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network) is crucial in the quick deployment of US forces should China attack Taiwan. By crippling a Pentagon Net used to call US forces, China gains crucial hours and minutes in a lightning attack designed to force a Taiwan surrender, experts say.
China's presumed infiltration underscores an ever bolder and more advanced capability by its cybershock troops. Today, of an estimated 120 countries working on cyberwarfare, China, seeking great power status, has emerged as a leader.
"The Chinese are the first to use cyberattacks for political and military goals," says James Mulvenon, an expert on Chin's military and director of the Center for Intelligence and Research in Washington. "Whether it is battlefield preparation or hacking networks connected to the German chancellor, they are the first state actor to jump feet first into 21st-century cyberwarfare technology. This is clearly becoming a more serious and open problem."
China is hardly the only state conducting cyberespionage. "Everybody is hacking everybody," says Johannes Ullrich, an expert with the SANS Technology Institute, pointing to Israeli hacks against the US, and French hacks against European Union partners. But aspects of the Chinese approach worry him. "The part I am most afraid of is … staging probes inside key industries. It's almost like sleeper cells, having ways to [disrupt] systems when you need to if it ever came to war."
In recent weeks, China stands accused not only of the Pentagon attack, but also of daily striking German federal ministries and British government offices, including Parliament. After an investigation in May, officials at Germany's Office of the Protection of the Constitution told Der Speigel that 60 percent of all cyberattacks on German systems come from China. Most originate in the cities of Lanzhou and Beijing, and in Guangdong Province, centers of high-tech military operations.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel publicly raised the issue with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Beijing last month. Mr. Wen did not deny China's activity, but said it should stop. President George Bush, prior to his meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Sydney, Australia, at the APEC summit last week, stated that respect of computer "systems" is "what we expect from people with whom we trade."
The accusations, hard to prove conclusively, still illumine an emerging theater of low-level attacks among nations. This spring, presumed Russian hackers made headlines with a one-off cyberblitz of Estonia, shutting down one of the most wired countries in Europe for a week – blunt payback for removal of a Soviet war memorial.
But China's cyberstrategy is deemed murkier and more widespread. The tenaciousness of Chinese hackers, whose skills were once derided by US cyberexperts, has begun to sink in to Western states and their intelligence services.
Probes of the Pentagon system that would bring US intervention should China attack Taiwan are part of a program dating to the 1990s that links cyberwarfare to real-world military action by China's People's Liberation Army. The very probe shows success in China's long-term program, experts say.
"The Chinese want to disrupt that unofficial network in a crucial time-frame inside a Taiwan scenario," says Mr. Mulvenon. "It is something they've written about. When you read what Chinese strategists say, it is the unclassified network they will go after … to delay deployment. China is developing tremendous capability."
Much of the hacking prowess in China is attributed to "gray hat" hackers – techie mercenaries, often younger males, geeks proud of the title – who can be mobilized to attack systems if needed, experts say.
In cyberparlance, black hats are hackers whose professional life is spent trying to attack other systems. White hats are those who defend against attacks. But China is regarded as having a substantial number of hackers in the gray middle – cutting-edge technopatriots loosely affiliated with the Chinese government, but who are not formal agents of the state.
This allows many Chinese hackers to exist in a zone of deniability. To be sure, provability and deniability are central in cyberwarfare. The most difficult problem is how to prove who hacks a system.
In recent weeks, Beijing has officially expressed shock, pain, and denial of news reports like those in Der Speigel fingering China, and at a host of official and semi-official accusations. But China's ardent denials, in the face of its own professed desire to be a cyberattack specialist, are not entirely persuasive, analysts say.
"Sometimes [Chinese] will brag about their exploits, and other times they'll disclaim them entirely, blaming unknown rogue individuals," says Bill Woodcock, research director at Packet Clearing House, a nonprofit research institute that focuses on Internet security and stability.
The new focus by other governments on China's capabilities are part of getting to know a country long criticized for a lack of transparency. "China's ambitions are quite extensive. It is a great power that is rising, and so other people want to scrutinize you. That's part of being a great society," says a veteran European China-watcher in Beijing. "When you hack into the private files of other governments, people want to know what you are doing. If you talk about a harmonious world, and a harmonious society, and then you do things that aren't harmonious – you get called out."
Of particular alarm for Washington and other world capitals are so-called "zero-day attacks" – cyberpenetrations that look for software flaws to exploit. This is not an uncommon pastime for hackers. But in China's case, suspicion falls on professional hackers, says Sami Saydjari, a Defense Department computer-security veteran who now heads a firm called Cyber Defense Agency in Wisconsin.
"The Chinese ... [put] very strong controls over … their Internet, and it's highly unlikely there are hacker groups that have any substantial level of capability they don't control," says Mr. Saydjari.
Analysts say China constantly probes US military networks. But attributing this conclusively to the People's Liberation Army, fingered by German officials in Der Speigel, is almost impossible. To trace attacks to their source requires the help of those who control each link, or router.
Proving cyberattacks involves what Mulvenon calls the "Tarzana, California, problem." How does one know an attack "isn't coming from a kid in Tarzana who is bouncing off a Chinese server?" Mulvenon asks. "You don't. You can't predicate a response based on perfect knowledge of the attacker. But we think that correlation is causation. That is, 'Who benefits?' The best-case analysis is to correlate attacks with what Chinese have always said and written their goals are, which makes them by far the most likely suspect."
Cyberpenetration runs the gamut, from simple to sophisticated. There's a simple "Trojan horse attack," for example, said to be used against the German chancellery. Hackers send what appears to be a legitimate e-mail. When opened, it installs malicious software that allows hackers to open files in a private network, or disrupt it. A Trojan horse is not surprising in an unclassified system, says Saydjari. "But some of the attacks attributed to China have been quite sophisticated."
Beijing's control showed in September 2003, when the company that administers .com and .net domain names made unilateral changes to the Internet's functioning. System administrators around the world scrambled to make piecemeal fixes.
"The domain-name system was broken for more than two weeks for the rest of the world, but after a brief interruption, it got mysteriously … unbroken inside China after eight days," says Mr. Woodcock.
PLA doctrine explicitly states that information-technology disruption is part of "asymmetric" warfare. The US is more vulnerable than China to a cyberattack, says Saydjari, because of its greater reliance on high-tech, networked systems.
The PLA's "People's War" doctrine argues that all able-minded People's Republic computer users have a responsibility to fight for China with their laptops, says Woodcock. He argues that Beijing might call on ethnic Chinese hackers in any part of the world, hoping they might help. Even nonhackers might be asked to participate in "denial of service" (DoS) attacks – a weapon to shut down enemy websites that requires massive numbers of computers to accomplish. "The power of numbers is on their side," Woodcock says. China has the largest DoS capability in the world, he says, a concern to private-sector companies as well.
So far, China doesn't seem to be organizing DoS attacks, says Mr. Ullrich. During the EP-3 spy plane spat between the US and China in early 2001, some Chinese youths launched DoS attacks. But the government curtailed the attacks.
For several years, China has focused most of its military research and production on a high-tech air and missile-attack force – to overwhelm Taiwan. Hence, China's probe of the Pentagon NIPRNet. "They want to be able to attack the Net. They don't need a supersexy penetration program," Mulvenon argues. "They just bomb the Net itself. They disrupt the deployment of our military, simultaneously saturate Taiwan, delay the US arrival, and Taiwan capitulates. It's what they talk about."
Apparently French gov. systems have been hit too by these Chinese grey hats (not necessarily PLA) too. Reports indicate a sophisticated Trojan in a powerpoint file led to email and memos being lifted from Foreign Ministry computers. Unfortunately French foreign policy towards the PRC consists mostly of butt kissing so they are keeping their mouth shut for fear of offending a potential arms buyer and economic partner instead of voicing concerns that this kind of unprecedented infiltration and file remittance bout of hacking is entirely unacceptable.
Paris; and Oakland, Calif. - When suspected Chinese hackers penetrated the Pentagon this summer, reports downplayed the cyberattack. The hackers hit a secure Pentagon system known as NIPRNet – but it only carries unclassified information and general e-mail, Department of Defense officials said.
Yet a central aim of the Chinese hackers may not have been top secrets, but a probe of the Pentagon network structure itself, some analysts argue. The NIPRNet (Non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network) is crucial in the quick deployment of US forces should China attack Taiwan. By crippling a Pentagon Net used to call US forces, China gains crucial hours and minutes in a lightning attack designed to force a Taiwan surrender, experts say.
China's presumed infiltration underscores an ever bolder and more advanced capability by its cybershock troops. Today, of an estimated 120 countries working on cyberwarfare, China, seeking great power status, has emerged as a leader.
"The Chinese are the first to use cyberattacks for political and military goals," says James Mulvenon, an expert on Chin's military and director of the Center for Intelligence and Research in Washington. "Whether it is battlefield preparation or hacking networks connected to the German chancellor, they are the first state actor to jump feet first into 21st-century cyberwarfare technology. This is clearly becoming a more serious and open problem."
China is hardly the only state conducting cyberespionage. "Everybody is hacking everybody," says Johannes Ullrich, an expert with the SANS Technology Institute, pointing to Israeli hacks against the US, and French hacks against European Union partners. But aspects of the Chinese approach worry him. "The part I am most afraid of is … staging probes inside key industries. It's almost like sleeper cells, having ways to [disrupt] systems when you need to if it ever came to war."
In recent weeks, China stands accused not only of the Pentagon attack, but also of daily striking German federal ministries and British government offices, including Parliament. After an investigation in May, officials at Germany's Office of the Protection of the Constitution told Der Speigel that 60 percent of all cyberattacks on German systems come from China. Most originate in the cities of Lanzhou and Beijing, and in Guangdong Province, centers of high-tech military operations.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel publicly raised the issue with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Beijing last month. Mr. Wen did not deny China's activity, but said it should stop. President George Bush, prior to his meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Sydney, Australia, at the APEC summit last week, stated that respect of computer "systems" is "what we expect from people with whom we trade."
The accusations, hard to prove conclusively, still illumine an emerging theater of low-level attacks among nations. This spring, presumed Russian hackers made headlines with a one-off cyberblitz of Estonia, shutting down one of the most wired countries in Europe for a week – blunt payback for removal of a Soviet war memorial.
But China's cyberstrategy is deemed murkier and more widespread. The tenaciousness of Chinese hackers, whose skills were once derided by US cyberexperts, has begun to sink in to Western states and their intelligence services.
Probes of the Pentagon system that would bring US intervention should China attack Taiwan are part of a program dating to the 1990s that links cyberwarfare to real-world military action by China's People's Liberation Army. The very probe shows success in China's long-term program, experts say.
"The Chinese want to disrupt that unofficial network in a crucial time-frame inside a Taiwan scenario," says Mr. Mulvenon. "It is something they've written about. When you read what Chinese strategists say, it is the unclassified network they will go after … to delay deployment. China is developing tremendous capability."
Much of the hacking prowess in China is attributed to "gray hat" hackers – techie mercenaries, often younger males, geeks proud of the title – who can be mobilized to attack systems if needed, experts say.
In cyberparlance, black hats are hackers whose professional life is spent trying to attack other systems. White hats are those who defend against attacks. But China is regarded as having a substantial number of hackers in the gray middle – cutting-edge technopatriots loosely affiliated with the Chinese government, but who are not formal agents of the state.
This allows many Chinese hackers to exist in a zone of deniability. To be sure, provability and deniability are central in cyberwarfare. The most difficult problem is how to prove who hacks a system.
In recent weeks, Beijing has officially expressed shock, pain, and denial of news reports like those in Der Speigel fingering China, and at a host of official and semi-official accusations. But China's ardent denials, in the face of its own professed desire to be a cyberattack specialist, are not entirely persuasive, analysts say.
"Sometimes [Chinese] will brag about their exploits, and other times they'll disclaim them entirely, blaming unknown rogue individuals," says Bill Woodcock, research director at Packet Clearing House, a nonprofit research institute that focuses on Internet security and stability.
The new focus by other governments on China's capabilities are part of getting to know a country long criticized for a lack of transparency. "China's ambitions are quite extensive. It is a great power that is rising, and so other people want to scrutinize you. That's part of being a great society," says a veteran European China-watcher in Beijing. "When you hack into the private files of other governments, people want to know what you are doing. If you talk about a harmonious world, and a harmonious society, and then you do things that aren't harmonious – you get called out."
Of particular alarm for Washington and other world capitals are so-called "zero-day attacks" – cyberpenetrations that look for software flaws to exploit. This is not an uncommon pastime for hackers. But in China's case, suspicion falls on professional hackers, says Sami Saydjari, a Defense Department computer-security veteran who now heads a firm called Cyber Defense Agency in Wisconsin.
"The Chinese ... [put] very strong controls over … their Internet, and it's highly unlikely there are hacker groups that have any substantial level of capability they don't control," says Mr. Saydjari.
Analysts say China constantly probes US military networks. But attributing this conclusively to the People's Liberation Army, fingered by German officials in Der Speigel, is almost impossible. To trace attacks to their source requires the help of those who control each link, or router.
Proving cyberattacks involves what Mulvenon calls the "Tarzana, California, problem." How does one know an attack "isn't coming from a kid in Tarzana who is bouncing off a Chinese server?" Mulvenon asks. "You don't. You can't predicate a response based on perfect knowledge of the attacker. But we think that correlation is causation. That is, 'Who benefits?' The best-case analysis is to correlate attacks with what Chinese have always said and written their goals are, which makes them by far the most likely suspect."
Cyberpenetration runs the gamut, from simple to sophisticated. There's a simple "Trojan horse attack," for example, said to be used against the German chancellery. Hackers send what appears to be a legitimate e-mail. When opened, it installs malicious software that allows hackers to open files in a private network, or disrupt it. A Trojan horse is not surprising in an unclassified system, says Saydjari. "But some of the attacks attributed to China have been quite sophisticated."
Beijing's control showed in September 2003, when the company that administers .com and .net domain names made unilateral changes to the Internet's functioning. System administrators around the world scrambled to make piecemeal fixes.
"The domain-name system was broken for more than two weeks for the rest of the world, but after a brief interruption, it got mysteriously … unbroken inside China after eight days," says Mr. Woodcock.
PLA doctrine explicitly states that information-technology disruption is part of "asymmetric" warfare. The US is more vulnerable than China to a cyberattack, says Saydjari, because of its greater reliance on high-tech, networked systems.
The PLA's "People's War" doctrine argues that all able-minded People's Republic computer users have a responsibility to fight for China with their laptops, says Woodcock. He argues that Beijing might call on ethnic Chinese hackers in any part of the world, hoping they might help. Even nonhackers might be asked to participate in "denial of service" (DoS) attacks – a weapon to shut down enemy websites that requires massive numbers of computers to accomplish. "The power of numbers is on their side," Woodcock says. China has the largest DoS capability in the world, he says, a concern to private-sector companies as well.
So far, China doesn't seem to be organizing DoS attacks, says Mr. Ullrich. During the EP-3 spy plane spat between the US and China in early 2001, some Chinese youths launched DoS attacks. But the government curtailed the attacks.
For several years, China has focused most of its military research and production on a high-tech air and missile-attack force – to overwhelm Taiwan. Hence, China's probe of the Pentagon NIPRNet. "They want to be able to attack the Net. They don't need a supersexy penetration program," Mulvenon argues. "They just bomb the Net itself. They disrupt the deployment of our military, simultaneously saturate Taiwan, delay the US arrival, and Taiwan capitulates. It's what they talk about."
Apparently French gov. systems have been hit too by these Chinese grey hats (not necessarily PLA) too. Reports indicate a sophisticated Trojan in a powerpoint file led to email and memos being lifted from Foreign Ministry computers. Unfortunately French foreign policy towards the PRC consists mostly of butt kissing so they are keeping their mouth shut for fear of offending a potential arms buyer and economic partner instead of voicing concerns that this kind of unprecedented infiltration and file remittance bout of hacking is entirely unacceptable.
Should we assume US is not at the same time doing its best to hack China networks?
I actually think it is a game both sides are playing the game in earnest.
The strategies are probably different.
US make loud complaints.
China keep quiet - out of habit - about US hacking success or failures.
I actually think it is a game both sides are playing the game in earnest.
The strategies are probably different.
US make loud complaints.
China keep quiet - out of habit - about US hacking success or failures.
Schumacher
New Member
Quite true, only the naive who've watched too many superheroes cartoons would believe US is not 'hacking' Chinese systems one way or another.
In fact, someone in the US intelligence/military should be sacked if they don't have some kind of such programs against the Chinese.
The reports of Chinese hacking on German & US systems coincided with Merkel's visit to China & Hu's meeting with Bush respectively. That should tell a thing or two abt the motivations of the reports.
In fact the chinese newspapers were fast at pimping out articles about foreign countries (mainly the US) hacking into chinese systems...
Seeing these articles emerging right after the news about hacked US and German systems one knows what to think of them.
Seeing these articles emerging right after the news about hacked US and German systems one knows what to think of them.
Well, what do you think of them?In fact the chinese newspapers were fast at pimping out articles about foreign countries (mainly the US) hacking into chinese systems...
Seeing these articles emerging right after the news about hacked US and German systems one knows what to think of them.
I think that most of these articles are just printed because the articles in western news about hacked western systems emerged.
Otherwise they would have never seen daylight.
They were also very very vague and sounded often enough like "but the others do it too..." without going into any kind of detail.
Honestly I don't think that a big fraction of these articles is true.
Otherwise they would have never seen daylight.
They were also very very vague and sounded often enough like "but the others do it too..." without going into any kind of detail.
Honestly I don't think that a big fraction of these articles is true.
I was wondering, did access to forums such as this one "go down" for a couple days...? IIRC, you were/are in Taiwan, so I'm not sure if you would have noticed.In fact the chinese newspapers were fast at pimping out articles about foreign countries (mainly the US) hacking into chinese systems...
Seeing these articles emerging right after the news about hacked US and German systems one knows what to think of them.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that China was having a large conference and "many" forums were to be closed (I look for the link, just "wondered if you noticed").
Wow, I that was quick, I didn't think I was going to find this one.... Here's a snip:
-China shuts down blogs before Party Congress
China’s Ministry of Public Security, the domestic political police and intelligence service, announced last week that it would monitor and tightly control the Internet and shut down all forums, blogs and message boards, and other interactive web sites prior to the upcoming 17th Communist Party Congress, the Boxun news service reported.
The Ministry issued a notice to all Internet Data Center service providers to halt activities by thousands of servers around the country.
“The Chinese Communist Party is tightening its grip on freedom of information even further in the runup to 17th Party Congress,” the respected New York-based service stated.
China’s control over the Internet has contradicted the claims of President Bill Clinton who said during his administration that the Internet in China would lead to political reform and that controlling the medium is like “trying to glue Jello to a wall.”
EAST-ASIA-INTEL.COM, September 19, 2007
Last edited: