8 ms·
From the article: >The nine-count indictment alleges that Wu Zhiyong (吴志勇), Wang Qian (王乾), Xu Ke(许可) and Liu Lei (刘磊) were members of the PLA’s 54th Research
by Jerry2 7y ago
From the article:
>The nine-count indictment alleges that Wu Zhiyong (吴志勇), Wang Qian (王乾), Xu Ke(许可) and Liu Lei (刘磊) were members of the PLA’s 54th Research Institute, a component of the Chinese military.
How were they identified exactly? I'm always fascinated with these DOJ indictments of foreign state actors but I'm always left wondering how they managed to narrow it down to a small group of people. I'm guessing that "PLA’s 54th Research Institute" employs thousands of people so how does the FBI/DOJ identify the culprits so precisely? Is it through CIA/NSA spying and moles inside the PLA?
You don't see foreign governments identifying individual NSA employees when the NSA hacks into something... so how does the DOJ do it?
- reaperducer 7y agoHow were they identified exactly? If they made it public, they could never do it again. You don't see foreign governments identifying individual NSA employees when the NSA hacks into something... I suspect that it does happen, but most people don't know about it because that requires knowing another language, and then regularly keeping up with the media of another country in that language.
- xxpor 7y agoI'm guessing part of the reason they're willing to ID them is because the DOJ knows this will never actually get to court where they'd have to explain how they found them.
- dx87 7y agoSeems likely. I wouldn't be suprised if it was done as a way to get them put on watchlists in all western countries without having to officially reveal any sources or methods.
- chvid 7y agoThey are guessing. The case will never go to court. The DOJ knows it so they don't have to have actual evidence. The indicment is being publicised for political reasons.
- 99052882514569 7y agoYou are guessing that they are guessing, and don't in fact know that. Your opinion has the right to exist, but I'll choose to believe that they identified actual military intelligence officers using methods they're not going to tell us about, to send a strong message to China (whether these specific officers are guilty of these specific offences is immaterial, the outing itself is the message).
- sivtwo 7y agoOther than potentially exposing sources and methods what do they gain exactly? They aren't going to Beijing to arrest them, and only legal indictments aren't(and haven't) going to scare off China.
- chvid 7y agoI am pretty sure this one is for domestic consumption. The Chinese are a bogeyman comparable to the Russians. Being tough on them and have the other party being in bed with them is something that is surely useful in a coming election campaign. As for the ability to trace back traffic sent through 30+ computers placed around the world including China; just think of what surveillance and logging that would entail. It is not really possible.
- flyGuyOnTheSly 7y agoMy first thought was that American spies must have infiltrated the PLA's 54th Research Institute, or infiltrated some branch of the chinese government that was privy to that information at least.
- kirykl 7y agoIts an allegation not a conviction. It’s not like anyone from China’s going to appear in US court to make a defense.
- paulftw 7y agoWhat if China says “we’re sending you a plane with the four individuals you are after. We insist on their innocence and want to see a fair and public trial” Then DOJ would have to reveal their sources, wouldn’t they?
- vkou 7y agoIf Iran made such an accusation against 4 NSA employees, that were actually innocent, do you think that those 4 people would ever be handcuffed, and put on a flight to Iran? Of course not, that would be idiotic, and horrible for morale. You don't give your own people up, regardless of whether or not they are innocent or guilty. As such, this is a spherical cow thought experiment. To address it - it's quite likely that the sources would not be revealed in an open trial, due to the catch-all of national security. For a helping of double irony, the sources are likely the product of... Espionage (Digital or otherwise).
- microdrum 7y agoSure, but the US can actually try foreign military officers somewhat fairly. Almost no country in the world can accomplish that, other than perhaps the UK and Canada.
- pinkfoot 7y agoGiven that almost none have ever tried, what would you base your opinion on. As in, what facts?
- dependenttypes 7y agoHow about Germany, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, etc?
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y agoWhen Russia hacks us, trust the government they know what they are doing, we definitely know they did it. When China hacks us, how can we possibly know they did it!?!? > The defendants took steps to evade detection throughout the intrusion, as alleged in the indictment. They routed traffic through approximately 34 servers located in nearly 20 countries to obfuscate their true location. Looks like they followed the trail back. Not sure why I'm being downvoted, what's with all the CPC sympathizing?
- president 7y agoI imagine the process is similar to how these guys [1] exposed Chinese APT hackers but with access to better tools and intelligence. [1] https://twitter.com/intrusion_truth https://twitter.com/intrusion_truth
- mzs 7y agoWe rarely get to learn about sources and methods but here is a recent case where cameras in buildings were hacked. https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-first-to-alert-u-s-about-russian-hack-of-democratic-party.html https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-...
- ryanlol 7y ago>You don't see foreign governments identifying individual NSA employees when the NSA hacks into something... See my mysteriously flagged comment demonstrating exactly this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22290767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22290767 Of course, we don’t know who TSB were. But it’s not like individual NSA hackers have gone unidentified.
- LeifCarrotson 7y agoYour flagged comment can't be read by anyone but you and the moderators: https://i.imgur.com/L7tL23M.png https://i.imgur.com/L7tL23M.png
- ryanlol 7y agoGo to your profile, set “showdead” to yes.
- rrhyne 7y agoForensics. Attackers use and sometime re-use domains, ips and code to recon, attack and exfil data. Those items may have been used before. All the attributes related to each of those items are cross referenced. You might find a server in this breach was associated with an email address that was used to register a domain in the current breach. That email now loosely ties the two breaches and actors together.
- Seenso 7y ago> How were they identified exactly? I'm always fascinated with these DOJ indictments of foreign state actors but I'm always left wondering how they managed to narrow it down to a small group of people. My guess is they counter-hacked the PLA’s 54th Research Institute to identify the culprits, then used parallel construction for the indictment. IIRC, the public intelligence report on the Russian 2016 election influence campaign revealed that the US had counter-hacked some of the Russian groups involved, and used the information gained from that as evidence to attribute the overall campaign to the Russians.
- jessaustin 7y agoThey've just named some names. These people might be associated with that "institute", but they're just as likely to be custodians or secretaries as hackers.
- seppin 7y agoYou didn't read the previous GRU indictments very closely. They got actual surveillance footage of individuals in the building.
- jessaustin 7y agoOn the "surveillance footage", were they mopping and sweeping? I wonder whether such "footage" constitutes prima facie evidence for an indictment going the opposite direction...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- seppin 7y agoI remember your user name, you popped up in another thread about US/China, talked baseless anti-US conspiracies then left. Is there a reason you spend time out of your day to do this?