4 ms·

This tracks with other nation state sponsored attack patterns. I've had that same reaction before. Most APTs are like this but some Chinese,US and Russian APTs

by _8j50 3y ago

This tracks with other nation state sponsored attack patterns. I've had that same reaction before. Most APTs are like this but some Chinese,US and Russian APTs are so well funded, every aspect of their attacks is impressive. Many hackers who work for nation states also have side gigs as crimeware/ransomgang members or actual pentesting jobs. Reminds me of apt3/boyusec: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/chinese-government-contractor-identified-as-cyber-espionage-group-apt3/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/chinese-gover... It still boggles my mind that americans are against banning companies like huawei and bytedance. The MSS and PLA don't mess around.

cycomanic 3y ago
> It still boggles my mind that americans are against banning companies like huawei and bytedance. The MSS and PLA don't mess around. The problem is that many others would have as much reason to bann US companies. I mean the US has a much more extensive history of using their security apparatus both for intelligence and economic means even against their allies. Now if everyone bans everyone else we will let the world economy grind to a halt pretty quickly.
- _8j50 3y ago
  China already bans US companies and this is an active malicious threat not a vague possibility of harm. You can jail mark zukerberg but you can't jail xi jiping
afiori 3y ago
For bytedance/TikTok the question is not really "should the US ban this company" but rather "should the government be able to ban any companies it wants (and also make it illegal for VPNs to allow US users to access relevant services/websites) without having to provide any substantial evidence? Which is a very different question in practice
- _8j50 3y ago
  US companies? I'm with you, no! Foreign companies, absolutley. Even the suspicion of malicious abuse should be enough to ban a foreign company. Foreign persons and entities have no rights in the US and our government owes them as much explanation as they give us when they ban US companies on a whim.
  - timschmidt 3y ago
    > Foreign persons and entities have no rights in the US "Yes, immigrants are protected by the U.S. Constitution. The brief answer is “Yes.” When it comes to key constitutional provisions like due process and equal treatment under the law, the U.S. Constitution applies to all persons – which includes both documented and undocumented immigrants – and not just U.S. citizens. Outside the context of immigration policy, the Constitution limits government power over individuals but this does not mean that constitutional rights are absolute." https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Are%20Immigrants%20Covered%20By%20the%20US%20Const%20PPT%201-12-2017.pptx https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Are%20Immig...
    - _8j50 3y ago
      We are not talking about immigrants, we are talking about foreign entities, as in not immigrated to the US. The Chinese communist party and the owners of bytedance have not immigrated to the US. I don't get the point if the mental gymnastics here. We both know of an active threat to americans by a foreign entity. Companies are not people and being able to create and operate a company is not a protected right. Matter of fact, regulating interstate commerce is an explicit right of the government. For example, you can't transport alcohol across state lines. The government doesn't need a good reason for that regulation, it's their constitutional right. In this case, simply reciprocating china's bans on US companies would have done the trick. Honestly, the US government should move to ban all trade with China within a decade or so. As for bytedance, the government is not claiming chinese immigrants can't own it, they are claiming that the China based owners of bytedance have to sell their stake in the company since any company in China is under the influence of the MSS as evidenced by many examples, the boyusec/apt3 example I mentioned being one.

by _8j50 3y ago

cycomanic 3y ago

> It still boggles my mind that americans are against banning companies like huawei and bytedance. The MSS and PLA don't mess around. The problem is that many others would have as much reason to bann US companies. I mean the US has a much more extensive history of using their security apparatus both for intelligence and economic means even against their allies. Now if everyone bans everyone else we will let the world economy grind to a halt pretty quickly.

_8j50 3y ago
China already bans US companies and this is an active malicious threat not a vague possibility of harm. You can jail mark zukerberg but you can't jail xi jiping

afiori 3y ago

For bytedance/TikTok the question is not really "should the US ban this company" but rather "should the government be able to ban any companies it wants (and also make it illegal for VPNs to allow US users to access relevant services/websites) without having to provide any substantial evidence? Which is a very different question in practice

_8j50 3y ago
US companies? I'm with you, no! Foreign companies, absolutley. Even the suspicion of malicious abuse should be enough to ban a foreign company. Foreign persons and entities have no rights in the US and our government owes them as much explanation as they give us when they ban US companies on a whim.
- timschmidt 3y ago
  > Foreign persons and entities have no rights in the US "Yes, immigrants are protected by the U.S. Constitution. The brief answer is “Yes.” When it comes to key constitutional provisions like due process and equal treatment under the law, the U.S. Constitution applies to all persons – which includes both documented and undocumented immigrants – and not just U.S. citizens. Outside the context of immigration policy, the Constitution limits government power over individuals but this does not mean that constitutional rights are absolute." https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Are%20Immigrants%20Covered%20By%20the%20US%20Const%20PPT%201-12-2017.pptx https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Are%20Immig...
  - _8j50 3y ago
    We are not talking about immigrants, we are talking about foreign entities, as in not immigrated to the US. The Chinese communist party and the owners of bytedance have not immigrated to the US. I don't get the point if the mental gymnastics here. We both know of an active threat to americans by a foreign entity. Companies are not people and being able to create and operate a company is not a protected right. Matter of fact, regulating interstate commerce is an explicit right of the government. For example, you can't transport alcohol across state lines. The government doesn't need a good reason for that regulation, it's their constitutional right. In this case, simply reciprocating china's bans on US companies would have done the trick. Honestly, the US government should move to ban all trade with China within a decade or so. As for bytedance, the government is not claiming chinese immigrants can't own it, they are claiming that the China based owners of bytedance have to sell their stake in the company since any company in China is under the influence of the MSS as evidenced by many examples, the boyusec/apt3 example I mentioned being one.