Chinese Websites Used As Launchpads For Cracking 256
An anonymous reader writes "A Washington Post article reports that Chinese networks are being used to breach hundreds of unclassified U.S. government systems. The article goes on to say that some analysts believe the activity to be tied to the Chinese government, although there is also some dissent." From the article: "Whether the attacks constitute a coordinated Chinese government campaign to penetrate U.S. networks and spy on government databanks has divided U.S. analysts. Some in the Pentagon are said to be convinced of official Chinese involvement; others see the electronic probing as the work of other hackers simply using Chinese networks to disguise the origins of the attacks."
Idealism (Score:4, Insightful)
This seems like the work of terrorists to me. They gather unclassified intel from multiple sources and then they can prove/disprove rumours (leaks?) of a secret nature. This puts a strain on the agencies to ensure that solid intel can not be assembled from less potent information, and yet many citizens complain about the slow pace in which free information flows out of the government. Look at what they are up against, today. (I know I'm going to get hammered on that statement) I think we're seeing that delicate balance between freedom of information and security will be tipping in the near future as a direct result of these attacks. It's never been very balanced anyway. I might be a touch left-wing, an idealist -- but to me there needs also to be a careful approach to protecting the homeland, whether it's in Canada, the US or abroad. I have a sneaky feeling that someone we know had something to do with this, and it's likely not the Chinese government -- I think it was the FSM [boingboing.net], or possibly a smaller cell -- the Army of the 12 Monkeys!
Re:Idealism (Score:2, Insightful)
This puts a strain on the agencies to ensure that solid intel can not be assembled from less potent information
It doesn't even need to be solid, if you're a blackmailer or social engineer - just enough to be damning/interesting/scary or enough to let you "talk the talk" when posing as a government official working on some project or other.
How much is spoofed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some are said to be? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Some in the Pentagon are said to be convinced of official Chinese involvement..."
So, other people have said that some people in the Pentagon are convinced. We don't even know who is doing the "saying."
Sounds like weak speculation to me.
Real story (Score:5, Insightful)
Next story : old korean grand-mothers hacking Pentagon's SMTP servers.
websites? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you've done nothing wrong... (Score:1, Insightful)
Why does everyone insist in perpetuating this absurd statement?
Innocence doesn't mean you should embrace everyone having access to everything about you. Nor should it mean you would be willing to give up your privacy and freedoms just because you've "done nothing wrong".
And, as a more direct response to that
Everytime I hear someone say they don't have anything to fear because they've done nothing wrong, all I can think of are sheep who don't know any better.
Maybe a little of both. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Currency of Fear. (Score:4, Insightful)
From here. [newamerica.net]
Chinese Government (Score:2, Insightful)
Nature of "Attacks" (Score:4, Insightful)
Nowhere does TFA describe the attacks themselves. I guess we are to assume they are malicious Attacks to gain control of DOD computers. I try to never assume anything based on vague DOD statements. So I'm going with hits on the serveer Logs. Seems like a cute way to get approval for Classifying these UNClassified Systems. This administration has been overly secretive in a whole slew of areas, add one more to the list.
I give it a week, then quietly changes will be made and this info will dissappear off the web, innaccessible to all but the DOD.
Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many "Attacks" the chinese government receives from the US.
The number of attempted intrusions from all sources identified by the Pentagon last year totaled about 79,000, defense officials said, up from about 54,000 in 2003. Of those, hackers succeeded in gaining access to a Defense Department computer in about 1,300 cases. The vast majority of these instances involved what VanPutte called "low risk" computers.
Gained access, Shit man, Raise Terror Threat Level to chartruse.
This is an ongoing, organized attempt to siphon off information from our unclassified systems."
No kidding, People are using computers to gather publicly available information. Oh.. My.. God.. Raise to level Periwinkle.....Get Dick to an undisclosed location. Get Condi on the horn.
Either you are with us or your with the Chinese Websites.
Of course they're spying (Score:2, Insightful)
I expect they're being more sophisticated. How about sniffing everything that goes over the internet. I bet they're doing that.
I remember describing something as having more antennas than a Russian fishing trawler. Those trawlers were of course not fishing for fish.
Re:unclassified could be espionage as well (Score:2, Insightful)
Rule number one of the internet.
If you don't want the world to see your sensitive documents, don't put them on the webserver.
Re:Some are said to be? (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you seriously think there is a differnece between the two parties besides minor ideological differences?
Re:Idealism (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Real Bigness (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idealism (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, it may very well be that (real) democracy isn't stable in the long run - certainly the US government has moved more and more toward the totalitarian mode over the last couple centuries - but the people who're upset over that aren't confused or misled about a need for secrecy. They're concerned with the fact that a government that nominally represents thier them is actively seeking to hide information and activities from them (again, not a poke at the Bush administration - this has been happing, and gradually increasing, for the entire history of the US).
Historical fact bears this out, too - there's been more than one case of government agencies refusing FOIA requests, or censoring them, not because they contained information critical to national security, but because they were embarressing, or contradicted "official" reports.
In terms of security at all, the *best* kind is the kind that works even when everyone knows what you're doing. Thats not always possible, of course, but your example of vacation time is a great one for exactly that reason. Suppose that some city had some large fraction of it's officers on vacation on the same week of every year. Thats hurtful to security whether it's published or not. Publishing it, in fact, is probably the best way to correct such a short sighted flaw in operating procedures. "Open and transparent" means that the public (remember, the people who're supposedly the important ones) can confirm that people who claim to be acting in thier interest are actually doing so.
And the what matters as well, especially when we're a supposedly moral nation. For example, many people are uncomfortable with the idea of torturing prisoners, or assassinating foreign politicians. Now, those actions may be neccesary to protect the US. Or they may not. But, supposedly, it's the *people* of the US who should determine what the line they will not cross is. Thats why we have laws and such about treatment of prisoners, and regulating our international operations. And history has shown that we need public oversight if our government is to be trusted to abide by those laws. Here I will poke specifically at the Bush administration, because, whether you support torturing prisoners for information or not, the Bush adminstration official policy is to do it via legal loopholing and word games, not via straightforward public policy.
Of course, this is all predicated on the idea that a democratic society is stable or even a good idea. Theres a lot of people who would disagree, even Americans (from the sound of it, even yourself). Humans are social animals and being led is very comforting to many people.
Re:Real Bigness (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really sad that Creationists have cloaked themselves in the stolen garment of antiracism. Especially when so many Creationists are straight-up racists, from long lines of racists. Creationism is the way many racists pass the buck, saying "we love niggers, it's part of god's plan that they're inferior". I've seen it up close, especially when I lived in Louisiana for several years. And I've seen nothing else from these Creationists anywhere else but the same (often unwitting) selfserving, willful ignorance. Ridicule is the fairest treatment they can expect - just as if they blathered on about how textbooks should dignify the theory that the Tooth Fairy created the universe.
Re:Real Bigness (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Real Bigness (Score:3, Insightful)
You can point out dark parts of any race or large religions history pretty much. Should we hold the rape of nanking against the Japanese today?
Of course people who insist on believing in an imaginary spirit that created the universe 7000 years ago, inserting dinosaur bones in the ground to fool us, and who insist children should be taught their myth is as valid as Evolution, are ridiculous.
So you are saying all religion is ridiculous? You can basically point out things in every religion that are ridiculous to believe if you don't have faith. Even if you believe all religion to be ridiculous, does that give you a basis to judge anyone who believes in a particular god as 'stupid' as you do later on? It's their choice to be stupid, and impose their stupidity on us and our descendants. Deciding that some people are worth ignoring based on their behavior, including their senseless beliefs, is not the baseless prejudice of racism. It's mere judgement, which any sensible person exercises to protect ourself from accepting nonsense where the truth is important.
So people do not have the right to teach their children as they see fit? It's one thing to be an athiest, it's another to call people stupid based on their beliefs.
It's really sad that Creationists have cloaked themselves in the stolen garment of antiracism. Especially when so many Creationists are straight-up racists, from long lines of racists.
This is really no better than the Anti-Semitism that hate groups spew about Jews.
Creationism is the way many racists pass the buck, saying "we love niggers, it's part of god's plan that they're inferior". I've seen it up close, especially when I lived in Louisiana for several years.
I'm sad to see that living in Louisiana and your experences have biased yo to the point where you think religious people = stupid racists. You do realize, by judging them the way you do, you are as bad as what you claim they are? You have become no better than what you have so much rage against.
And I've seen nothing else from these Creationists anywhere else but the same (often unwitting) selfserving, willful ignorance. Ridicule is the fairest treatment they can expect - just as if they blathered on about how textbooks should dignify the theory that the Tooth Fairy created the universe.
There are logical, and legal reasons why creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools. You would be better off sticking to those rather than promoting hatred of a group of people based on their religious beliefs.
Re:Web sites (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cut the Chinese off of our internet (Score:2, Insightful)