backtop


Print 63 comment(s) - last by borismkv.. on May 30 at 4:58 PM

F-35, Aegis, PATRIOT Missile, Littoral vessel, Blackhawk chopper, and THAAD are among the compromised programs

The Defense Science Board (DSB) in a new report suggests that Chinese military hackers have compromised one of America's most costly weapons projects -- the nearly $1.4T USD F-35 Joint Strike fighter weapons system.  

I. Why Research When You Can Steal?

In its confidential report for the Pentagon and industry officials -- first revealed by The Washington Post -- the DSB claims that blueprints and data pertaining to two dozen weapons systems -- including U.S. missile defenses and combat aircraft and ships -- were accessed by Chinese hackers.  The report, by the mixed civilian/government board, which advises government and corporate policy makers, does not suggest necessarily the Chinese have stolen complete designs.

The U.S. federal government recently expressed the desire to force "help" onto private sector utilities.  However, the report basically indicated that at this point the federal government is incompetent when it comes to cybersecurity when it comes to foreign threats, unable to sufficiently block attacks on itself, let alone others.

Among the other weapons systems accessed by Chinese hackers include:

The nation's most expensive weapon in history -- the F-35 -- has been compromised by Chinese intrusions and may be effectively useless in combat as a result.
[Image Source: Lockheed Martin]

 
Compromised contractors include:
  • Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)
  • Raytheon Comp. (RTN)
  • Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC)
Mark Stokes, executive director of the Project 2049 Institute -- an Asian-centric D.C. think-tank, comments, "[The intrusions are] staggering.  These are all very critical weapons systems, critical to our national security. When I hear this in totality, it’s breathtaking."

II.  Experts Astounded by China's Weapons Progress

China has expressed frustration that its military trails the U.S.'s technologically.  But recently the Asian nation has been shocking observers with its weapons development.  While "experts" expressed skepticism that China would be able to field a stealth fighter, it shocked the world in Jan. 2011 showing off a fully functional design.

Much of the design of the "J-20" stealth fighter is thought to have been stolen from the U.S., though it's unclear whether that was the result of offline subterfuge (analysis of crashed U.S. fighters) or online intrusions.

China's strategy to update its military in the most cost effective manner possible appears to be two-fold.  Some technologies it buys at budget rates from U.S. Cold War-era rivals like Russia -- such as its first aircraft carrier that deployed last year (a retrofitted Russian craft).  Other technologies it simply steals from the U.S. and builds itself.

The hodge-podge approach isn't pretty, but it may prove modestly effective given the size of the nation's military.

China cyberattacks
China's cost-saving approach to defense appears to be partially to steal U.S. technology.
[Image Source: DMM News]

James A. Lewis, a cyber-policy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), remarks, "You’ve seen significant improvements in Chinese military capabilities through their willingness to spend, their acquisitions of advanced Russian weapons, and from their cyber-espionage campaign.  Ten years ago, I used to call the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] the world’s largest open-air military museum. I can’t say that now."

A frustrated unnamed senior military official told The Washington Post that the Chinese strategy of stealing U.S. technology has allowed it to save billions.  The source comments, "In many cases, they don’t know they’ve been hacked until the FBI comes knocking on their door.  This is billions of dollars of combat advantage for China. They’ve just saved themselves 25 years of research and development. It’s nuts."

According to the report, the stolen information could be used not only to make weapons, but also to counter U.S. designs by pinpointing and compromising their digital or physical weaknesses.  Winslow T. Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), comments, "If they got into the combat systems, it enables them to understand it to be able to jam it or otherwise disable it.  If they’ve got into the basic algorithms for the missile and how they behave, somebody better get out a clean piece of paper and start to design all over again."

III. Obama Administration's "Tough Talk" Approach Fails

According to The Washington Post report, sources indicate that a year ago U.S. officials met with top Chinese officials in a closed door meeting to present evidence that they had "caught" China in cyberspying.  The Chinese, unperturbed responded with their usual denials.

Unable to defend itself with cyber-might, the Obama administration has since largely turned its focus to defense via rhetoric.  Following the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD) May 2011 declaration that cyberattacks could be construed as acts of warU.S. National Security Agency director Gen. Keith Alexander delivered testimony on Chinese hacking to the Senate Armed Services Committee.  In his testimony, held March 2012, he claimed that the Chinese were destroying the U.S. economy with hacks.

Obama
President Obama bows to the President of China. [Image Source: Reuters]

U.S. President Barack Obama was mostly silent until this year, when a series of Chinese-sourced attacks struck The New York TimesBloombergThe WSJ, and the U.S. Federal Reserve.  Around that same time security officials with the research firm Mandiat finally pinned the attacks on an elite group of PLA hackers -- dubbed Unit 61398 -- which were based out of a government-guarded 12-story white high-rise in Shanghai.  That report was confirmed by government officials earlier this month, which led to China responding that the U.S. was "the real 'hacking empire.'"

Amid the confirmations that the PLA was behind the victimization of the U.S., President Obama responded to these developments with his toughest rhetoric yet, which led to counter-accusations from China.  The tough rhetoric from the Commander-in-chief seemed to work, though; Unit 61398 fell silent for nearly three months from February into May, but recently returned to action.

China's President Xi Jinping and President Obama are expected to meet next month in California; the issue of hacking is expected to be high on the agenda.

IV. Plans for Australian Spy Headquarters Stolen by Chinese

In related news, Chinese hackers have reportedly stolen plans to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization's new $630M AU ($608M USD) headquarters.  The plans were stolen from a contractor and include locations/details of communications cabling, servers, and security systems.

First reported by the Australian Broadcasting Company, Des Ball, an Australian National University cybersecurity expert, suggests that the hack could allow Chinese spies to effectively bug the building.

ASIO Building
The ASIO building [Image Source: AFP]

The spy agency's chief dodged the reports calling them "unsubstantiated", while refusing to definitively confirm or deny if data loss had occurred.  He commented, "This building is a very secure, state-of-the-art facility.  I'm not going to comment on operational matters involving the Australian Security Intelligence Organization or any security matters."

The lakeside glass-and-concrete structure has been plagued with budget overruns and delays.  The structure is located in Canberra, a city in southeastern Australia.

Source: The Washington Post





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why is it connected?
By Mitch101 on 5/28/2013 12:50:29 PM , Rating: 5
Why is any of this information connected to a network that is connected to the internet? For all the billions of dollars spent why arent these facilities not on its own private encrypted network that doesnt connect with the consumer internet?




RE: Why is it connected?
By BRB29 on 5/28/2013 1:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Everything is interconnected these days. Internet today was made mainly for military use. Research and development is spread throughout the country and by different large corporations(contractors). Unless we build a new and completely separate infrastructure for communication, we are going to use the internet for communications.

Our other apparent problems are equal opportunity hiring. We hire a lot of Chinese IT specialists. They are using that against us. The vast majority of Chinese hired is probably honest and clean. You only need less than a handful to know how things work and discover exploits to send overseas.


RE: Why is it connected?
By othercents on 5/28/2013 1:24:36 PM , Rating: 4
All IT Specialists should still be required to complete the appropriate security level for what they are working on. Privileged information like this should be only accessible from a secure system and secure network either from the manufacturer's system or the government systems. Security could be tight enough to be on it's own private network not accessible to the internet while still allowing Government and Manufacturer to access the same information.

It is possible that the hack came from a portable system that was compromised by a virus that gave remote access to the system. Hence the reason why these systems must be locked down and possibly desktop only. As we continue to bleed information we might find ourselves behind other countries when it comes to producing the technology we engineer.

Other


RE: Why is it connected?
By BRB29 on 5/28/2013 1:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
All IT specialists do have security clearances. That still doesn't mean anything on someone without a criminal record or tied with a terrorist organization.
I have my clearances and I know how the process works since I've been through it 3 times. It's hard to tell if anyone is working for another country. We only ask people to give up their foreign citizenship to get clearances.

Also, only contractors directly working for the government needs clearances. There are IT people that works for the company but isn't involved in the projects with the federal government. Those people don't need clearances.

For example, my friend is a information security specialist for a big government contractor. He has no clearances. He has to make sure the database is secured. He has to work with NSA, NCIS, CIA, etc... all the time because the database is tied with military projects.

I know it seems stupid and retarded but there's still serious security flaws in both the systems and access. Hence why you see/hear advertisements offering high pay for any information security specialists straight out of college. The federal government is seriously going to hire ~50k people just for IT security.

I've asked many questions for many years when I was in the military and DoD. It's frustrating that the problems are recognized but we are so slow to react because of sheer scale and costs. On top of that, we can't even hire enough IT tech because Information Security Program didn't even exist before in school.


RE: Why is it connected?
By idiot77 on 5/29/2013 12:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
Here is what I hear when the term "IT Specialist" is used.

Someone that couldn't compete anywhere else except in a high growth area industries. In generations past most of them would be digging ditches.

Meaning, they aren't that bright. You can't fix stupid. I believe that's where your problem lies... thinking that "IT Specialists" are smart enough to be good at security when they've already exceeded their maximum level of competence.


RE: Why is it connected?
By BRB29 on 5/29/2013 12:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think your name is a good fitting for you.


RE: Why is it connected?
By kattanna on 5/28/2013 1:15:43 PM , Rating: 5
because someone in management wanted convenient access to the data remotely from home.. just like the rest of corporate america.

;>)


RE: Why is it connected?
By GulWestfale on 5/28/2013 2:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
well, they couldn't surf for porn anymore if their work computers weren't hooked up to the internet, and that would be a national tragedy, right?


RE: Why is it connected?
By BRB29 on 5/30/2013 11:27:07 AM , Rating: 2
no, just youtube cat videos apparently


RE: Why is it connected?
By FITCamaro on 5/28/2013 2:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Company computers are connected to the intranet at the office. But that intranet is connected to the internet. You can't do work without having access to the internet anymore.


RE: Why is it connected?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2013 4:43:16 PM , Rating: 4
And remember, these are the people who criticize the private sector's security, and want to introduce legislation to regulate corporate e-security...

*shudders*


RE: Why is it connected?
By mcnabney on 5/28/2013 6:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm, the breeches were all in the private sector.


RE: Why is it connected?
By name99 on 5/28/2013 7:35:48 PM , Rating: 4
Uhh, that's his point.

This is one inevitable consequence of a political world-view that insists on "slashing red-tape" and "removing irrelevant regulation"...

It's ABSOLUTELY no different from telling banks they can value their assets at whatever they want --- that's sure to work out just fine. Or allowing oil companies to invent their own safety standards when drilling in the Gulf --- they're sure to be responsible about blowout preventers, aren't they?


RE: Why is it connected?
By borismkv on 5/30/2013 4:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
Because our government is so good at enforcing regulations. Oh wait, no it isn't. That's why companies bypass regulations with bribes and things like what happened in the gulf happen anyway, despite being against the regulations that already exist.


RE: Why is it connected?
By borismkv on 5/30/2013 4:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it connected to the internet? Because government IT people are morons, mostly because the only people who can get the clearances required get them by joining the military and have no IT experience whatsoever.

There *is* a separate network for classified data. Several of them, actually, one for each classification level. However, as I found out doing Security Audits for the DoD (something I never ever want to do again), the people who work on and manage those systems haven't got a clue and try very hard to make things work without knowing how to make them work. As a result, you get to hear crap like, "What do you mean I can't have a wireless AP on the secret network?" or, "What do you mean I can't bridge the network connections between NIPRNet and SIPRNet?"


China needs a hands on demonstration.
By half_duplex on 5/28/2013 12:47:45 PM , Rating: 1
We're going to need to do something about this, and soon.

Too bad they already hit the jackpot, not much else we have to offer them in the way of free R & D.

Sad.




RE: China needs a hands on demonstration.
By Ammohunt on 5/28/2013 2:22:08 PM , Rating: 1
Technology isn't that much of an advantage look at WWII we were completely outmatched technically by the Germans tanks,airplanes, submarines yet we still prevailed. Our failure is in Government leadership we need to pick better leaders.


RE: China needs a hands on demonstration.
By FITCamaro on 5/28/2013 2:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
We prevailed because Hitler was stupid and tried to fight a two front war between the US/Britain and the Russians. If he had finished the war in Europe first, he would have won and then been able to attack Russia with full force.


RE: China needs a hands on demonstration.
By bitterman0 on 5/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: China needs a hands on demonstration.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2013 4:58:25 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry but your opinion is historically false.

It's a well known fact Hitler made key blunders that cost Germany the war. Sure, we might have still prevailed eventually, but it would have taken much longer if he had conquered Europe first.

quote:
Germany's Navy and Air Force were outmatched by Great Britain's Navy and Air Force


Huh?? Where are you getting that from?

The Bismark sank the HMS Hood in a matter of minutes, Britain's biggest and most capable warship. But again, Hitler stupidly used this awesome tool.

On top of Germany's superior surface fleet, they had the dreaded U-Boats which nobody even had an answer too. However, wait for it, Hitler decided to use them stupidly. Notice a theme?

Hitler and the Nazi leadership were stupid stupid people. They basically ran the war on ideology and ignored what their own Generals and commanders on the field, the ones actually fighting the war, were saying and asking for. Later in the war the failure of their leadership was so complete, these officers were too scared to even speak up and offer the game-changing ideas that would have made the difference.


RE: China needs a hands on demonstration.
By bitterman0 on 5/28/2013 6:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
Key blunders? That's one way of putting it. Lack of focus, strategy and insufficient preparation is how I would put it. On some level, it followed from Hitler's insanity and utter lack of leadership at the top of the chain of command. The particular mix of allies did not help, either.

In war numerical and technological superiority is not a guarantee of a quick and decisive victory. For example, the USSR has amassed vastly superior numbers of infantry, artillery, tanks and airplanes on the western border in 1941. Some of the tanks, artillery and airplanes were greatly superior to what the Germany (or any country in the world) had at the time (it's enough to mention T-34 and KV, but there is a lot more to it). And yet, Germans have managed to get to the walls of Moscow.

Don't discount the fact that Great Britain is on an island. To conquer it would take a successful invasion that involves transporting massive amounts of troops, tanks and artillery across the channel. Surely, Germans have entered the war having some great ships (and built some more during the opening stages), but without naval and aerial superiority it would be a folly to attempt any sort of transport - it would surely result in excessive (if not total) loss of transported troops and equipment. Hitler understood that, and chose to leave Great Britain alone simply because there was no winning there.

WW2 U-Boats, while an excellent tool in harassing the enemy's Navy and preying on merchant ships, are not particularly suited for troop transport operations, either. And as you've brought up Bismarck - incidentally, its demise marked the end of German surface ships operations.

I put this question to you: do you seriously believe that it was possible for Nazi Germany to successfully deploy enough troops, artillery, tanks, provisions and ammo across the channel at any time during the war?

If not, then how do you suppose they could make Great Britain to capitulate? Just bomb them to oblivion, eh? That has a familiar ring to it... wait for it... that was the plan for the Soviet industrial complex at Ural mountains after the fall of Moscow!


By drycrust3 on 5/29/2013 1:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I put this question to you: do you seriously believe that it was possible for Nazi Germany to successfully deploy enough troops, artillery, tanks, provisions and ammo across the channel at any time during the war?

Yes. Britain was nearly bankrupted by the U boats, it was only American money that saved them. Without that Germany would have just been able to walk into the UK and take it all.
The importance of breaking the Enigma codes was critical to Britain's survival. Without that it is almost certain Britain would have been conquered.


RE: China needs a hands on demonstration.
By A11 on 5/29/2013 3:27:20 AM , Rating: 2
Bismarck was a brand new battleship. Hood was a 20 year old battlecruiser and far from Britains latest or greatest. It was, however, probably the most prestigious ship in the royal navy due to its fabulous looks.

Battlecruisers were never meant to go toe to toe with battleships and as such it was pure idiocy to send it to fight Bismarck, the very kind of ship it was designed to outrun and flee from.

The kriegsmarine was no match for the royal navy as the latter had something like 15x more ships than the former and even a super ship like Bismarck did little to tip the balance.

The Luftwaffe otoh was much stronger than the RAF and its generally accepted that had the germans stuck to bombing the british airfields in 1940, rather than blitzing london because Hitler got a fit, then the RAF would have crumbled.


By bitterman0 on 5/29/2013 1:11:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/rafhistorytimeline19...
24/25 Aug 1940 - German bombs fall on central London for the first time. The following night, 43 aircraft from Bomber Command retaliate by bombing Berlin.

Call it German Superiority, because I don't.

Even if we are to assume for a minute that somehow Germans would get an upper hand in the air and completely destroy RAF, would it mean that it opens a door for an invasion?

Not by a long shot.

Although paratroopers could have been used to quickly achieve specific (and limited) objectives, without support of general infantry, tanks and artillery these missions would become useless sacrifices very quickly. Iron Crosses all around! (posthumously)

Besides, it was all an interlude. The real actual things were set in motion by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which gave Hitler enough peace of mind that the USSR is "peaceful" to go ahead with Poland, Holland, France, etc.

The USSR, among other things, has instituted the draft (August 1939 - before the war began), occupied half of Poland in September 1939, swallowed Baltic states in June 1940 and even attempted to beat Finland into submission. All that while remaining "peaceful".

Had Hitler continued focusing on Great Britain (with or without success), 1941 and thereon after would have been very different not only for Germany, but for the whole world. The Soviet Union would have carried out its "surprise" attack sometime around July 1941 on Nazi Germany with simply devastating consequences.


RE: China needs a hands on demonstration.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/29/2013 3:52:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The kriegsmarine was no match for the royal navy as the latter had something like 15x more ships than the former and even a super ship like Bismarck did little to tip the balance.


Exactly my point! The German naval commanders knew you could build 300 U-Boats for what it cost to build and crew uber battlewagons like the Bismark. They were begging Berlin for more U-Boats! But the stupid Nazi leadership and Hitler liked gigantic shiny powerful symbols, and poorly utilized the superior tactical nature of the submarines.

Not that they utilized the Krigsmire any better. "Hey lets take the most advanced and powerful warship ever built, barely give it any escorts, give it NO air cover, NO U-boats scouting for it and/or shadowing it, and just send it off to do whatever alone!"

WHAT THE FU$K

Like I said, stupid stupid stupid!


By bitterman0 on 5/29/2013 4:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The German naval commanders knew you could build 300 U-Boats for what it cost to build and crew uber battlewagons like the Bismark

... or more than 750 Pz IV tanks.


RE: China needs a hands on demonstration.
By embedded_bill on 5/28/2013 5:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting observation.

Germany was winning the Battle of Britain until they made a strategic change from focusing on British industrial complex and airfields to carpet bombing British cities when they didn't have fighters with long enough range to support the bombers.

German tanks had close to a 5:1 kill ratio, but were outnumbered by in the range of 10:1, still that kill ratio must have made them either impressive machines or impressively operated - at least compared to their counterparts.

German surface ships were greatly outnumbered, but the best of the German ships bested the best of the British.

Germany's failings were strategic, fighting Britain alone they likely would held their own, and fortunately it didn't turn out that way.


RE: China needs a hands on demonstration.
By Jaybus on 5/29/2013 12:34:41 PM , Rating: 4
No, they were not strategic decisions at all. They were the insane reactionary decisions of a megalomaniac. And it was very calculated by the British command, or at least Prime Minister Churchill.

In August 1940 the British bombed Berlin, which at the time was at the far extreme range of their aircraft and caused little damage, but killed civilians and brought the war home to Berliners. Churchill gambled that the insane Hitler could not help but throw a fit and retaliate. Of course, he did, and in spite of the objections of his military commanders, the bombing of London began less than 2 weeks later.

As always, the best weapon is the mind, and he who can keep his head when all about him are losing theirs.


By BRB29 on 5/29/2013 12:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
So in short, Hitler was not a good strategist and have no self control.

Thank you for confirming agree with what embedded_bill said.


By Strunf on 5/29/2013 7:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that even if he conquered Europe he would still need to maintain a large number of troops spread around it just to keep any pockets of resistance in check, regardless of how he played it out Europe was just too big for Germany.


Ahhh, so that is what the grand plan is....
By Amiga500 on 5/28/2013 12:46:21 PM , Rating: 5
Make China waste billions building their own version of the JSF.

Lockheed Martin, I applaud your ingenuity.




RE: Ahhh, so that is what the grand plan is....
By Jeffk464 on 5/28/2013 1:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't cost billions to build coppies, China already did this with su37's. The main problem I heard is that China is not good at building jet engines.


RE: Ahhh, so that is what the grand plan is....
By Ammohunt on 5/28/2013 2:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
Just like the russians they still can't match the pratt & Whitney engines that went into the SR-71 blackbird. China will need to steal the know how.


By embedded_bill on 5/28/2013 4:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
What a beautiful design those engines were, that design was based largely off of the iroquois which was planned for the Avro Arrow.


By Shadowself on 5/28/2013 6:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the Russians (Soviets in those days) could build great engines. The MiG 25's engines were very good. In fact, they were the best part of that craft. The rest was from the 60s or before. (They still built radars with tubes and airframes out of stainless steel plating! The biggest thing that kept that craft from ever coming close to catching the SR-71 was that it weighed so damn much.)


By Jaybus on 5/29/2013 11:55:21 AM , Rating: 2
Not if they got a completed design. But come on... it's the F-35. :) Who knows? Maybe the PLA will complete it and then the US can steal it back.


RE: Ahhh, so that is what the grand plan is....
By half_duplex on 5/28/2013 1:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, if they got enough of the programs data, there really isn't much they will need to develop.


By Amiga500 on 5/29/2013 2:17:14 AM , Rating: 2
Apart from all the fixes ;-)


funny stuff
By russki on 5/28/2013 5:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
So China steals some "plans" or "blueprints" from raytheon, northrup and whoever. There are literally dozens of subcontractors making components for those billion dollar corporations. They are merely integrators, they hardly actually build anything and when they do its just assembly. China would have to hack absolutely everyone in order for any of those blueprints to be worth a damn. I worked on several DoD programs and used to laugh how useless the info would be even if stolen. Oh and you still have to build the stuff.. and use quality materials. Anything the chinese would build would just fall apart.. I mean they also fall apart being build by the DoD contractors.. lol.




RE: funny stuff
By ja1410 on 5/28/2013 9:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely those subcontractors actually produce the components in China.


RE: funny stuff
By Jaybus on 5/29/2013 12:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely those subcontractors SOLD the plans to the PLA. I have my doubts about the "hacking". Too Hollywood. The old fashioned way of doing espionage is still far superior....you pay insiders for the information.


RE: funny stuff
By BRB29 on 5/29/2013 12:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you realize how outdated some of our systems are.


Is it really stealing?
By AEvangel on 5/28/2013 12:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
When we used their money to pay for it, so is it really theft ?




RE: Is it really stealing?
By aharris02 on 5/28/2013 4:15:10 PM , Rating: 3
Absolutely.

That is, unless they're going to cancel our debts in an equivalent amount to the value of what they stole.


RE: Is it really stealing?
By AEvangel on 5/29/2013 1:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps they will...plus it is only Defense weapons so what is the worry, they are an ally right??


A Grand Plan
By ssobol on 5/28/2013 1:51:28 PM , Rating: 5
This is all a grand plan by the administration.

"Sir, the Chinese stole the plans for the F-35!"

"Yeah, so?"

"But sir, aren't you going to do anything?"

"I have a cunning plan."

"You do, sir?"

"Yes. We let the Chinese steal the F-35 plans on purpose. One of two things will happen, either they'll work all the bugs out or they'll go bankrupt trying. If they succeed, we'll just steal the new plans back. The taxpayers will save a fortune."




RE: A Grand Plan
By ati666 on 5/29/2013 9:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
thats so cunning....


Unbelieveable amount of BS
By pugster on 5/29/2013 7:51:34 AM , Rating: 1
I don't believe in what the US govt says one bit. The article doesn't explain in detail how the Chinese government had actually had 'stolen' it. I mean that information for all these weapon systems are stored is not exactly located in one location and I am sure that the Defense companies have good safeguards to make sure that people won't access it. Most likely that probably some employee or subcontractor who have access to this information is in debt and needs to sell it off to the Chinese. However, the narrative of 'Chinese Hacking' better suits the story as an excuse that they had stolen it the traditional way.




RE: Unbelieveable amount of BS
By BRB29 on 5/29/2013 8:21:53 AM , Rating: 2
What are you basing this on? The truth is neither these private companies or the federal government have the IT security at a level they need to have. It's been addressed for years and it's obvious they've been trying to do a massive push for it in the past 3 years. You don't see/hear all these Universities offering Information Security IT Programs? They practically tell you "hey come take our classes, get this degree and we guarantee you a job starting at 65k and over 100k in 5 years."


RE: Unbelieveable amount of BS
By pugster on 5/29/2013 6:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
Gees, then you have never worked or know someone who work for the Defense Industry.


Er
By Belard on 5/28/2013 2:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
The bulk of the problem is the contractors and subcontractors. For example, lockheed builds the plane, but doesn't actually machine the O rings for a part. Some little piss ass company with 13 employees in Oklahoma builds them.

It's lame... But also, we need not fool ourselves. The USA also spy's on others... Always have. Also there is disinformation. Who knows.




China not alone!
By bobny1 on 5/29/2013 6:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure China is not the only one behind this mess. Russia, north korea, afganistan, etc. They are all interconnected, helping each other for money and power with the purpose of bringing capitalism down. There is no cold war anymore but there is a more powerful and more destructive economic war that is hitting capitalism in the soft spot. What the US needs to do is weak up and forget about tomorrow and take action today before is too late. China is a dangerous regime with unscrupulous dictators that needs to be stop cut and dry. even if it takes nasty measures. Is either now or never.




Just how dumb are USA IT depts??
By TheJian on 5/30/2013 7:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
Are we so stupid that we just can't take all military OFF LINE? It would seem to me if you're worried about stuff like this, no military file should be available to ANY internet based connections. At least for the contractors. Also they should tell all contractors if you are caught letting data escape you can no longer get a contract for govt. work and will be SEVERELY FINED for data loss.

How hard is it to pull the plug? If you're too stupid to protect our stuff GTF off the net! If you're IT people can't protect the data, then either train them or fire them. But get the data off the web. You can't hack what isn't connected. It's as simple as that.

How hard is it to FORCE encryption of the data to begin with? By the time they sorted that out it should be worthless data. I'm guessing all these plane plans etc were just sitting on some drive/servers unprotected and unencrypted. I base that on previous experience with IT managers (they should know better right?) who had NO encrypted files on their drives when I had to repair them.




a city somewhere
By IranTech on 5/30/2013 8:55:30 AM , Rating: 2
"... Canberra, a city in southeastern Australia"

Where did you steal that from?




Nice whitewalls...
By Spookster on 5/30/2013 1:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
on your woodland camouflaged mobile rocket launchers.

Recon Unit: Recon1 to HQ, we've spotted large white lifesaver buoys in a patch of trees in the target zone, over.

HQ: HQ to Recon1, nothing to see here, move along and continue with your mission. HQ out.




!!!
By PatriciaBau52 on 5/29/2013 8:15:22 PM , Rating: 1
Dominic. I can see what your saying... Karen`s blurb is good... yesterday I got a brand new Lotus Elise after bringing in $5524 this last 4 weeks and-over, ten k this past munth. with-out a doubt this is the best work I have ever had. I started this three months/ago and pretty much immediately started bringing in more than $83, per hour. I follow the details on this straightforward website, Exit35.comTAKE A LOOK




important
By amelia321 on 5/29/13, Rating: 0
Is it really stolen ?
By jmarchel on 5/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: Is it really stolen ?
By BRB29 on 5/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: Is it really stolen ?
By vXv on 5/28/2013 3:48:13 PM , Rating: 1
Done, not because of the content (didn't read it) but because it is a huge unreadable wall of text.


RE: Is it really stolen ?
By aharris02 on 5/28/2013 4:21:30 PM , Rating: 4
Guys, this "Enter" key thing doesn't make any sense.

I press it, and it doesn't let me enter anything.

Does it help me enter the door to a hidden theives' cave? Nope. Does using it replace the codeword needed to join the fun at my favorite speakeasy? Negative. Do I get to pass a bridge-troll without paying the toll? Certainly not.

It's useless, and I'm never going to use it again.


RE: Is it really stolen ?
By embedded_bill on 5/28/2013 4:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry about the enter key, the bridge-troll is a much bigger problem.


RE: Is it really stolen ?
By embedded_bill on 5/28/2013 4:39:45 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for your request, I was motivated to read it and while it is over the top there is more than a thread of truth to it.
Go ahead and ignore it or get all bent out of shape over it.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki