4 ms·

This is a very recent report. Your comment is more than a year old. Are you asserting that nothing has changed? Edit: From the report in the article "Our res

This is a very recent report. Your comment is more than a year old. Are you asserting that nothing has changed? Edit: From the report in the article "Our research and observations indicate that the Communist Party of China (CPC,中国共产党) is tasking the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA,中国人民解放军) to commit systematic cyber espionage and data theft against organizations around the world " They have a whole section devoted to backing this up.

contingencies 14y ago
commit systematic cyber espionage and data theft Most nations have something like this these days (eg. Australia, France, Germany, Korea, UK, US.) The US military terms this move toward constant low-level conflict with a focus on information warfare the RMA or Revolution in Military Affairs. Also note that quoting five words of mandarin (五个汉字) may function may make a commercially produced report appear more authoritative, but in practice it probably demonstrates the opposite.
- cscurmudgeon 14y ago
  > Most nations have something like this these days (eg. Australia, France, Germany, Korea, UK, US.) Are you asserting that these nations have broken into non military infrastructure of some other nation they are at peace with? You are also asserting that these countries are stealing corporate data. Can you back that up? Do they compare with what China is doing? > Also note that quoting five words of mandarin (五个汉字) may function may make a commercially produced report appear more authoritative, but in practice it probably demonstrates the opposite. That doesn't hold for everyone. I agree with you that, in general, Mandarin is sort of fad-ish.
  - contingencies 14y ago
    Are you asserting that these nations have broken into non military infrastructure of some other nation they are at peace with? Certainly, they do it all the time. It's considered par for the course these days. It's not always breaking in to the infrastructure, sometimes it's providing it. For just two well known examples, look at Israel's Mossad-affiliated AMDOCS company's widespread global telecommunications data theft with "hosted billing solutions" for major mobile and fixed-line telecommunications carriers worldwide (certainly US and EU-wide). Or, look at the European Union's exposure of how the US has been constantly abusing surveillance capabilities for global geostrategic business purposes in their original report on Echelon; IIRC they had a very well documented case of Airbus vs. Boeing. These things don't stand still, and the above examples are continuing but originated 10+ years ago. IMHO it is now ignorant to believe that we live in anything less than a world of constant conflict where corporate-government mutual assistance and backscratching are the order of the day and citizens rights are nothing more than a quaint, antiquated notion you can easily put down in court given enough lawyers, legal entities, deniability, media gag orders (UK tops the world for these), assassinations (Singapore is up there), imprisonment (US after Wikileaks) or the odd, extreme, resignation.
    - cscurmudgeon 14y ago
      Thanks for indirectly calling me ignorant. Don't see much of that on HN. Googling what you gave did not give me any reputable sources of nations doing both these two things 1. Attacking critical civilian infrastructure 2. Outright corporate theft Once again, any reputable reports will be appreciated. (For any crazy statement X, one can always find a forum or website backing X. Thats why the insistence on reputable sources.)
      - contingencies 14y ago
        Read http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm in particular section "10.6. Is ECHELON suitable for industrial espionage?" and the following "10.7. Published cases", then remember that's 10+ years ago. If you truly consider an in-depth report commissioned by the European Parliament combining the intelligence agency resources of multiple European governments untrustworthy, then perhaps our perspectives differ too far to communicate on this issue. (Edit 1: Changed link from Cryptome's still-hosted draft-form to the final-form report.) (Edit 2: Added section reference.)
        cscurmudgeon 14y ago
        You are just throwing accusations right and left without comprehending the material that you linked to. I have pasted the whole section here. Tell me which clause leads you to believe ECHELON actively breaks into corporate networks. It seems that what ECHELON has access to is something that anybody can lay their hands on. If you conduct your business by broadcasting messages over a public, then not only ECHELON, but the whole world can listen to it. This is much different than the ugly spearfishing and active breaking in by the Chinese. Did you just keyword search and paste without understanding what the clauses meant? "10.6. Is ECHELON suitable for industrial espionage suitable for industrial espionage? The strategic monitoring of international telecommunications, can produce useful information for industrial espionage purposes, but only by chance. In fact, sensitive industrial information is primarily to be found in the firms themselves, which means that industrial espionage is carried out primarily by attempting to obtain the information via employees or infiltrators or by breaking into internal computer networks. Only where sensitive data is sent outside via cable or radio (satellite) can a communications surveillance system be used for industrial espionage. This occurs systematically in the following three cases: - in connection with firms which operate in three times zones, so that interim results are sent from Europe to America and then on to Asia; - in the case of videoconferences in multinational companies conducted by VSAT or cable; - when important contracts have to be negotiated locally (construction of facilities, telecommunications infrastructure, rebuilding of transport systems, etc.), and the firm's representatives have to consult their head office. If firms fail to protect their communications in such cases, interception can provide competitors with valuable data"
  - diminoten 14y ago
    > Are you asserting that these nations have broken into non military infrastructure of some other nation they are at peace with? I'm not sure people understand how huge of a deal that is to a) accuse and b) be guilty of.
  - belorn 14y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy and http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm Economic espionage by state agents is not new, and NSA is not innocent here. I might even dare to say its common practice when dealing with large airplane or car manufacturers.
xfs 14y ago
The central point of that comment is that cyber espionage may not be strategically organized by the central government. China is a large country with complex power structures, while Chinese cyberspace is also underregulated and chaotic. Evidence of Chinese hackers being related to CPC or PLA doesn't imply the decision bodies in CPC and PLA all have such political or economic motives. Edit: Here is the conclusion of the report: In a State that rigorously monitors Internet use, it is highly unlikely that the Chinese Government is unaware of an attack group that operates from the Pudong New Area of Shanghai. This is likely false and demonstrating the authors do not understand what the Chinese government is monitoring. The Chinese government monitors Internet speech and content. It doesn't care about how many viruses or hackers are there.
- muglug 14y ago
  "Monitoring" is an unspeakably mild term for the mass censorship of the web that the Chinese government undertakes. The Chinese military is an appendage of the Chinese government, and acts according to the government's demands. As with StuxNet, it's highly likely that these attacks had officials calling the shots (if not writing the code).
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  > The Chinese government monitors Internet speech and content. It doesn't care about how many viruses or hackers are there. This is counter to the public position of the Chinese government, which is that they consider cyber attacks to be crimes that they aggressively pursue and prevent. It's also a meaningless distinction, as most viruses and cyber attacks originating from Chinese IP space use content as a vector.

contingencies 14y ago

commit systematic cyber espionage and data theft Most nations have something like this these days (eg. Australia, France, Germany, Korea, UK, US.) The US military terms this move toward constant low-level conflict with a focus on information warfare the RMA or Revolution in Military Affairs. Also note that quoting five words of mandarin (五个汉字) may function may make a commercially produced report appear more authoritative, but in practice it probably demonstrates the opposite.

cscurmudgeon 14y ago
> Most nations have something like this these days (eg. Australia, France, Germany, Korea, UK, US.) Are you asserting that these nations have broken into non military infrastructure of some other nation they are at peace with? You are also asserting that these countries are stealing corporate data. Can you back that up? Do they compare with what China is doing? > Also note that quoting five words of mandarin (五个汉字) may function may make a commercially produced report appear more authoritative, but in practice it probably demonstrates the opposite. That doesn't hold for everyone. I agree with you that, in general, Mandarin is sort of fad-ish.
- contingencies 14y ago
  Are you asserting that these nations have broken into non military infrastructure of some other nation they are at peace with? Certainly, they do it all the time. It's considered par for the course these days. It's not always breaking in to the infrastructure, sometimes it's providing it. For just two well known examples, look at Israel's Mossad-affiliated AMDOCS company's widespread global telecommunications data theft with "hosted billing solutions" for major mobile and fixed-line telecommunications carriers worldwide (certainly US and EU-wide). Or, look at the European Union's exposure of how the US has been constantly abusing surveillance capabilities for global geostrategic business purposes in their original report on Echelon; IIRC they had a very well documented case of Airbus vs. Boeing. These things don't stand still, and the above examples are continuing but originated 10+ years ago. IMHO it is now ignorant to believe that we live in anything less than a world of constant conflict where corporate-government mutual assistance and backscratching are the order of the day and citizens rights are nothing more than a quaint, antiquated notion you can easily put down in court given enough lawyers, legal entities, deniability, media gag orders (UK tops the world for these), assassinations (Singapore is up there), imprisonment (US after Wikileaks) or the odd, extreme, resignation.
  - cscurmudgeon 14y ago
    Thanks for indirectly calling me ignorant. Don't see much of that on HN. Googling what you gave did not give me any reputable sources of nations doing both these two things 1. Attacking critical civilian infrastructure 2. Outright corporate theft Once again, any reputable reports will be appreciated. (For any crazy statement X, one can always find a forum or website backing X. Thats why the insistence on reputable sources.)
    - contingencies 14y ago
      Read http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm in particular section "10.6. Is ECHELON suitable for industrial espionage?" and the following "10.7. Published cases", then remember that's 10+ years ago. If you truly consider an in-depth report commissioned by the European Parliament combining the intelligence agency resources of multiple European governments untrustworthy, then perhaps our perspectives differ too far to communicate on this issue. (Edit 1: Changed link from Cryptome's still-hosted draft-form to the final-form report.) (Edit 2: Added section reference.)
      - cscurmudgeon 14y ago
        You are just throwing accusations right and left without comprehending the material that you linked to. I have pasted the whole section here. Tell me which clause leads you to believe ECHELON actively breaks into corporate networks. It seems that what ECHELON has access to is something that anybody can lay their hands on. If you conduct your business by broadcasting messages over a public, then not only ECHELON, but the whole world can listen to it. This is much different than the ugly spearfishing and active breaking in by the Chinese. Did you just keyword search and paste without understanding what the clauses meant? "10.6. Is ECHELON suitable for industrial espionage suitable for industrial espionage? The strategic monitoring of international telecommunications, can produce useful information for industrial espionage purposes, but only by chance. In fact, sensitive industrial information is primarily to be found in the firms themselves, which means that industrial espionage is carried out primarily by attempting to obtain the information via employees or infiltrators or by breaking into internal computer networks. Only where sensitive data is sent outside via cable or radio (satellite) can a communications surveillance system be used for industrial espionage. This occurs systematically in the following three cases: - in connection with firms which operate in three times zones, so that interim results are sent from Europe to America and then on to Asia; - in the case of videoconferences in multinational companies conducted by VSAT or cable; - when important contracts have to be negotiated locally (construction of facilities, telecommunications infrastructure, rebuilding of transport systems, etc.), and the firm's representatives have to consult their head office. If firms fail to protect their communications in such cases, interception can provide competitors with valuable data"
- diminoten 14y ago
  > Are you asserting that these nations have broken into non military infrastructure of some other nation they are at peace with? I'm not sure people understand how huge of a deal that is to a) accuse and b) be guilty of.
- belorn 14y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy and http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm Economic espionage by state agents is not new, and NSA is not innocent here. I might even dare to say its common practice when dealing with large airplane or car manufacturers.

xfs 14y ago

The central point of that comment is that cyber espionage may not be strategically organized by the central government. China is a large country with complex power structures, while Chinese cyberspace is also underregulated and chaotic. Evidence of Chinese hackers being related to CPC or PLA doesn't imply the decision bodies in CPC and PLA all have such political or economic motives. Edit: Here is the conclusion of the report: In a State that rigorously monitors Internet use, it is highly unlikely that the Chinese Government is unaware of an attack group that operates from the Pudong New Area of Shanghai. This is likely false and demonstrating the authors do not understand what the Chinese government is monitoring. The Chinese government monitors Internet speech and content. It doesn't care about how many viruses or hackers are there.

muglug 14y ago
"Monitoring" is an unspeakably mild term for the mass censorship of the web that the Chinese government undertakes. The Chinese military is an appendage of the Chinese government, and acts according to the government's demands. As with StuxNet, it's highly likely that these attacks had officials calling the shots (if not writing the code).
snowwrestler 14y ago
> The Chinese government monitors Internet speech and content. It doesn't care about how many viruses or hackers are there. This is counter to the public position of the Chinese government, which is that they consider cyber attacks to be crimes that they aggressively pursue and prevent. It's also a meaningless distinction, as most viruses and cyber attacks originating from Chinese IP space use content as a vector.