4 ms·

Any idea how frequent the US hacks Chinese corporates?

tedunangst 15y ago
Zero. I've never read allegations to the contrary. Commercial, as opposed to strategic, hacking is both outside the scope of the US govt and of limited value. Everybody (as in the people who count) knows that US corps have the best R&D, so why take the risk to steal something you don't need? [I should add something about the degree of separation of govt and corps being a factor.]
- Irishsteve 15y ago
  Ah I'm sure its pretty common place for the Chinese to be hacked by many other countries (US Included). They are the up and coming economy. Lots going on there worth knowing about... oh and also if they have stolen R&D electronically then country X would probably snoop around Chinese machines to get hold of the information.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- runjake 15y ago
  I'll simply say that you have no clue what you're talking about and leave it at that. It's pretty preposterous to assume that because it's not in the US media, it doesn't happen. If you want a declassified historical account, look back at the US IC programs to furnish sabotaged/backdoored electronics during the later years of the Cold War.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    Can you provide a link to non-US media? I am assuming IC == integrated circuit? Was that program targeting the USSR govt or private industry, such as may have existed? Was the backdoor designed to steal state secrets or economic secrets?
- wmf 15y ago
  I'll just leave this: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/17/213623.shtml http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/17/2136...
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    Thank you. It's funny, because the last thing I read specifically mentioned the example of Boeing and Airbus, except to say the US govt would never help Boeing like that. oops. But your link is a little undersourced? And I'm really having a hard time with the part about Motorola. "The 1995 Motorola letter is proof positive that Bill Clinton is directly responsible for the present-day U.S. intelligence disaster." Giving Motorola an encryption export waiver (which is something crypto geeks had been fighting for for years) is proof that Clinton turned the NSA into a cash cow? Really, I am interested in the topic, but your link is more of a hit piece than anything. [The link noibl posted is exactly the interview I was thinking of wrt Boeing and Airbus.]
    - specialist 15y ago
      > but your link is more of a hit piece than anything NewsMax. I'd sooner watch Fox News or read the gaggle of NYT's neocon pundits.
noibl 15y ago
Richard Clarke's take: “The U.S. government is involved in espionage against other governments,” he says flatly. “There’s a big difference, however, between the kind of cyberespionage the United States government does and China. The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing [many believe that Chinese hackers gave Boeing secrets to Airbus]. We don’t hack our way into a Chinese computer company like Huawei and provide the secrets of Huawei technology to their American competitor Cisco. [He believes Microsoft, too, was a victim of a Chinese cyber con game.] We don’t do that.” “What do we do then?” “We hack our way into foreign governments and collect the information off their networks. The same kind of information a CIA agent in the old days would try to buy from a spy.” “So you’re talking about diplomatic stuff?” “Diplomatic, military stuff but not commercial competitor stuff.” -- http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Richard-Clarke-on-Who-Was-Behind-the-Stuxnet-Attack.html http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Richard-Cl... (Note: He's talking about the US government, not about any other US-based entities.)
- ajays 15y ago
  Other countries have been using government resources for commercial espionage for decades. It's disingenuous for Clarke to feign outrage over this. I remember in the early 90s it was revealed that the French Intelligence had bugged Business-Class seats in Air France, and were passing commercial secrets to French companies: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1992_1089133/intelligence-officials-say-french-spies-pose-threa.html http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1992_1089133/i...
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    The interview was focused on just the US and China. I'm not sure you can conclude that Clarke wasn't pissed about the French spying as well.

Zero. I've never read allegations to the contrary. Commercial, as opposed to strategic, hacking is both outside the scope of the US govt and of limited value. Everybody (as in the people who count) knows that US corps have the best R&D, so why take the risk to steal something you don't need? [I should add something about the degree of separation of govt and corps being a factor.]

Irishsteve 15y ago
Ah I'm sure its pretty common place for the Chinese to be hacked by many other countries (US Included). They are the up and coming economy. Lots going on there worth knowing about... oh and also if they have stolen R&D electronically then country X would probably snoop around Chinese machines to get hold of the information.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
runjake 15y ago
I'll simply say that you have no clue what you're talking about and leave it at that. It's pretty preposterous to assume that because it's not in the US media, it doesn't happen. If you want a declassified historical account, look back at the US IC programs to furnish sabotaged/backdoored electronics during the later years of the Cold War.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  Can you provide a link to non-US media? I am assuming IC == integrated circuit? Was that program targeting the USSR govt or private industry, such as may have existed? Was the backdoor designed to steal state secrets or economic secrets?
wmf 15y ago
I'll just leave this: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/17/213623.shtml http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/17/2136...
- tedunangst 15y ago
  Thank you. It's funny, because the last thing I read specifically mentioned the example of Boeing and Airbus, except to say the US govt would never help Boeing like that. oops. But your link is a little undersourced? And I'm really having a hard time with the part about Motorola. "The 1995 Motorola letter is proof positive that Bill Clinton is directly responsible for the present-day U.S. intelligence disaster." Giving Motorola an encryption export waiver (which is something crypto geeks had been fighting for for years) is proof that Clinton turned the NSA into a cash cow? Really, I am interested in the topic, but your link is more of a hit piece than anything. [The link noibl posted is exactly the interview I was thinking of wrt Boeing and Airbus.]
  - specialist 15y ago
    > but your link is more of a hit piece than anything NewsMax. I'd sooner watch Fox News or read the gaggle of NYT's neocon pundits.

noibl 15y ago

Richard Clarke's take: “The U.S. government is involved in espionage against other governments,” he says flatly. “There’s a big difference, however, between the kind of cyberespionage the United States government does and China. The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing [many believe that Chinese hackers gave Boeing secrets to Airbus]. We don’t hack our way into a Chinese computer company like Huawei and provide the secrets of Huawei technology to their American competitor Cisco. [He believes Microsoft, too, was a victim of a Chinese cyber con game.] We don’t do that.” “What do we do then?” “We hack our way into foreign governments and collect the information off their networks. The same kind of information a CIA agent in the old days would try to buy from a spy.” “So you’re talking about diplomatic stuff?” “Diplomatic, military stuff but not commercial competitor stuff.” -- http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Richard-Clarke-on-Who-Was-Behind-the-Stuxnet-Attack.html http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Richard-Cl... (Note: He's talking about the US government, not about any other US-based entities.)

ajays 15y ago
Other countries have been using government resources for commercial espionage for decades. It's disingenuous for Clarke to feign outrage over this. I remember in the early 90s it was revealed that the French Intelligence had bugged Business-Class seats in Air France, and were passing commercial secrets to French companies: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1992_1089133/intelligence-officials-say-french-spies-pose-threa.html http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1992_1089133/i...
- tedunangst 15y ago
  The interview was focused on just the US and China. I'm not sure you can conclude that Clarke wasn't pissed about the French spying as well.