Evidence Weakens That China Did the Recent Cyberattacks 197
click2005 notes an article in The Register calling into question the one piece of hard evidence that has been put forward to pin the Google cyberattacks on China. It was claimed that a CRC algorithm found in the Aurora attack code was particular to Chinese-language developers. Now evidence emerges that this algorithm has been widely known for years and used in English-language books and websites. Wired has a post introducing the Pentagon's recently initiated effort to identify the "digital DNA" of hackers and/or their tools; this program is part of a wide-ranging effort by the US government to find useful means of deterring cyberattacks. This latter NY Times article notes that Google may have found the best deterrence so far — the threat to withdraw its services from the Chinese market.
Don't Be Foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.
Emphasis mine. Nowhere is he talking about a CRC algorithm or even fingerprinting the attack to a particular country. Instead, the obvious question is simply this: Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China? What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?
I'm not saying hard evidence has been provided one way or the other (I'm not even sure it could be proven one way or the other unless someone claims ownership) but the only evidence the accuser offered up was this. Not that the "algorithm was only known to Chinese" nor anything as simpleton.
Re:Don't Be Foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone who is trying to discredit China?
Re:Don't Be Foolish (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one of those situations like when the feds deal with the mob. You know it has to be them, there is no way there isn't...but without "proof", all you have are unsubstantiated claims.
Sometimes the justice system prevails...and sometimes it gets in its own way.
Re:Don't Be Foolish (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah because people never hide things and lie to push their own agendas.
Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.
If I were the US government, these are the kinds of accounts I would access to test cyber warfare tools.
Like you aren't saying it was China, I'm not saying the US government was behind it but just that the evidence
seems circumstantial and very convenient. The evidence was also circumstantial and very convenient when used
as justification to invade Iraq.
Re:Don't Be Foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Thread over. Nothing else to say.
I certainly didn't think it was the Chinese because the attacks supposedly originated in China. I thought it was the Chinese because it was after the accounts of Chinese Human rights activists.
Unless THAT part can get discredited, I will still point my finger.
weakened evidence... of what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Evidence weakens that Joe Stewart's analysis shows that the CRC algorithm used in the attack was developed by Chinese programmers.
As other folks have pointed out, this is NOT the basis of Google's or others' assessments that the attacks originated from within mainland China, and in no way does it weaken the evidence regarding the origin of the attack.
F-China (Score:2, Insightful)
Why all the pro-China posts lately on Slashdot?
We getting astro-turfed by Red China?
They claimed, of course they didn't do it, and seem to never mention by name the laws that Google must abide by.
Screw them.
How do you say "Propaganda" in Chinese?
Re:Don't Be Foolish (Score:3, Insightful)
Who else would hack one of the most successful companies in the world only to read the e-mails of Human Rights Activists in China? What possible gain could anyone else have from this information? ... ...
Someone who is trying to discredit China?
Someone trying to say that someone is trying to discredit China?
All of the above?
Politics does have a tendency to produce gang-bangs.
This isn't a court of law (Score:5, Insightful)
Google doesn't have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. More to the point they don't have to prove it beyond any and all doubt no matter what, which is the standard many geeks seem to use. Internally, they only have to prove it to their own satisfaction, which it would seem they've done.
Re:Don't Be Foolish (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Digital DNA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, because there's no such thing as proxies.
"Deterring" a whole class for the misdeeds of one (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you recall how unfair you thought it was when your third-grade teacher punished the entire class for the misbehavior of one student because she couldn't identify the perpetrator? That's exactly what Google is doing. It's not "deterrence" at all. At best it's indirect deterrence, since it doesn't affect hackers directly; what it affects is the entire Chinese "class" by withdrawing from its network and e-economy, hurting or diminishing the many in an attempt to change the behavior of just a few.
Re:Xenogooglia Run Amok (Score:3, Insightful)
The 'who else but the Chinese Government would want access to human rights activist accounts' argument is a little thin. So suddenly if anyone's account gets hacked, we can just immediately assume it's a group that opposes them and then pull our business out of an entire market?
Seems pretty dubious to me
BTW, why are there 5 FAs to read. Holy sheit
Re:F-China (Score:2, Insightful)
People around the world should not get caught up in alarmist thinking and remember that the people who are getting screwed are the citizens of China, and that they are getting screwed by their own government, who manipulates the value of their currency in order to keep it artificially low. This is the best argument against allowing Chinese imports, not the (minimal) harm it does here, but the massive harm it does over there.
Re:Don't Be Foolish (Score:3, Insightful)
Google "Tiananmen Square Massacre" or "Tibet". Seems to me that those activists don't have to manufacture any proof.
Re:Don't Be Foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
You think it's more likely that a CEO made a moral choice? Don't make me laugh. If morals had anything to do with it, they would never have gotten into China in the first place. It's not like Tiananmen Square hadn't happened yet....
No, I strongly suspect it's more like "Betraying the trust of other people is okay as long as you don't betray mine." And odds are, in a few months, this will all be forgotten and it will be back to business as usual, censorship, spying, and all. I'd love to be wrong about my cynicism, but it happens so rarely these days....
Re:"Deterring" a whole class for the misdeeds of o (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that the scale of the attacks, the targets of the attacks, and the fact that they went on in a country that is fanatical about monitoring internet use, strongly suggests that the Chinese government either conducted or encouraged the attack. So it is reasonable for Google to hold the Chinese government responsible. Clearly Google's view is, "We try to cooperate with your unreasonable censorship rules, we expect you not to try to crack into our systems. You didn't hold up your end of the bargain, so the deal is off. If you don't like it, we'll take our ball and go home."
Re:Digital DNA? (Score:4, Insightful)
My point was that it's really easy to mask where you're coming from by bouncing through legitimate services provided by companies all over the world (who I'm sure would be quite reluctant to release their logfiles just because you asked for them really nicely). Looking at
It's not the chinese... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't like China, and I think their government is insanely authoritarian. From Green Dam to pulling Avatar out of theaters to having no health standards on the toys they produce is only the beginning. I've heard so many bad things about the Chinese government I wouldn't even know where to begin. But it doesn't take a genius to realize China is NOT behind these attacks.
Let's look at the facts. First Google releases a statement saying they were attacked, and they think it was China, and as a result they are going to remove search restrictions on Google china. Almost immediately following this Hillary Clinton demands that China explain themselves and Obama somehow diverts the issue of the attack into a case against how we all don't like Chinese govt internet policies...which is really a separate issue.
The fact is, if the Chinese gov't were to hack into Google, they wouldn't make it so damn obvious. Secondly, after suspicion is squarely put on China, and China vehemently denies it, there is a DDoS attack against those Chinese human rights organizations...for 16 hours. Ok...denial of service for 16 hours....what does this accomplish? There was no extortion. It accomplished absolutely nothing. That is, absolutely nothing beneficial for China. All it does is make China look even more guilty to the idiots who buy into this little hoax. But China is not so stupid. If they had been responsible, and caught, they would be trying to lay low...not exacerbate the situation! The only purpose that those DDoS attacks served was to further frame China and make people angry at them. It wasn't China.
I don't know who it was, but my gut tells me it was more likely the US looking for an excuse to further degrate US-China relations. Why would the US want to degrate US-China relations? I don't know, but maybe it has something to do with the trillions of dollars we owe China and have no way to pay back. Just saying...
Re:Don't Be Foolish (Score:4, Insightful)
What possible gain could anyone else have from this information?
*shrug* A loyal PRC citizen wanting to do the "right thing" or someone who'd like to sell the information for money to the Chinese government or someone else who might need leverage in negotiation with the Chinese government.
Re:This isn't a court of law (Score:2, Insightful)