Print 62 comment(s) - last by jack daniels e.. on Feb 12 at 11:31 AM

  (Source: Reuters)
Hack on The New York Times is latest incident to illustrate China's dominance in the new era of warfare, and the U.S.'s inaction

In the campy remake of the 1980s classic Red Dawn, MGM last year recast the titular enemy as not the Soviet-era Russians, but the Chinese.  The movie may have been panned, but it did have one thing going for it -- it was uncomfortably close to reality.

I. A New War

China is unlikely to ever raise its guns or tank barrels on the U.S.  It does not need to.   The ultimate goal of all conquest is money, power, and influence.  Today we stand on the brink of a new age, an age in which warfare has moved from trodden soil into the buried tracts of internet cable beneath it.

Today any country still has to deal with the far more familiar face of physical threats, be it "terrorists" or domestic dissidents.  These threats will surely persist for a time, as much of the world -- for example, large tracts of the Middle East -- still exists in a pre-industrialized state.  Even in regions with some digital capabilities like Iran, access is stifled under crippling walls of censorship and poverty, leading citizens to take up traditional, terrible blood-filled methods of conflict.

But if we listen careful, we hear the sound of change.  The time of physical battles is coming to an end.  Because in every way digital war is far superior to the wars of yore.
Gibson Neuromancer
The era of digital war has dawned. [Image Source: Interplay (cover art for Neuromancer game)]

In digital war, a wily adversary can cover their tracks.  They can attack silently behind a wall of official denials, while tasting the sweet spoils of conquest.  They don't have to face the public relations backlash that bombs and missiles evoke.  

In traditional war, even the victor is left with a terrible legacy.  To borrow a crude analogy, they may eat cake, but they must pay dearly for the cake.  In digital war, the cake is free.  The cake is on the house.

II. Not a Gentleman's War

We are in the early stage of the era of cyberwarfare, an era that overlaps with the closing of the era of traditional warfare. And the dawn of the new epoch marks the end of a cherished comfort of the last several decades -- the "gentleman's war".

Certainly, in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the countries on the receiving end of aggression by the U.S. or Russia were in some ways as bloody as the scores of decades before.  But there was a small comfort in that the people running these wars were refined, educated sorts.  They might harbor as much malice as their brutish predecessors, but they masked it under layers of refinement, and to some extent even if the idea of the gentleman's war was a mere charade the actors did begin to believe their art to be reality.  Officers did become more respectful and atrocities by the "civilized" powers proved fewer and more far between.

Congress Buillding wide
Washington D.C. is still stuck behind the outdated ideal of a gentleman's war in the digital era.
[Image Source: U.S. Congress]

But the dawn of cyberwar invites the dark characters in society back to the party.  The ideal warrior in ancient times was obedient to his master to a degree, but had a powerful body, good instincts, and a ruthless, malicious bloodlust.  

Similarly, cyberwar in its early stages won't be dominated by the "gentlemen" of our time; it will be fought and won by the darkest of digital barbarians, the blackest of black hats.  In the U.S. we tend to perceive black hat hackers as a force working against the government interest.  In reality, this situation exists simply because the U.S. does not make great efforts to court its most malicious, destructive black hat hackers.

The U.S. falsely believes that the era of digital warfare will be polite and civil.  Its digital legion is largely filled with book-educated upstanding young men and women, many of which never broke through a firewall or cracked a password they hadn't been permitted to in their lives.  These people will be ill prepared to face what is to come.

But a greater problem is that the controlling powers of the U.S. government -- Congress and the White House -- refuse to acknowledge that we're at war and that our enemy also happens to be our second largest trading partner, a rather awkward arrangement.

III. The New York Times is the Latest Victim of Chinese Cyberwarfare Unit

Across the Pacific Ocean, about 2,500 years ago, a brilliant strategist named Sun Tzu was born in the empire than would one day be known as China.  Today, it is perhaps unsurprising that the land that gave rise to one of the world's most brightest military minds of all time today is the master strategist of cyberwar.

This week The New York Times announced that it had been attack by hackers, which its security contractor Mandiat traced with high likelihood to an elite Chinese cyberwarfare unit, likely housed with in People's Liberation Army.  The attack was precipitated by a piece chronicling how the family of Chinese prime minister Wen Jiabao had accumulated a fortune worth $2.7B in U.S. dollars, a fortune which they are hiding behind friends and shadowy partnerships.

The New York Times
The New York Times is China's latest victim. [Image Source: AllThingsD]

The honesty and detail of The Times' response was unusual and refreshing.  Most corporations have sought to deny such reports to save face.  The Times was blunt -- they were attacked in their own headline's words by "hackers in China".  But as unusual as that proclamation was, the attack itself was not really that unusual.

I have covered cybersecurity for five years.  And while my vision pales in comparison to the likes of author William Gibson, who first speculated cyberwar in his science fiction masterpiece The Neuromancer, I can see some things clearly.  And I have seen that we are at war.

IV. Trail of Casualties Grows Long, as U.S. Refuses to Fight Back Decisively

The Times intrusion was not the first attack on U.S. journalism, and it will not be the last. The Times report cited sources as saying a similar attack occurred against Bloomberg last summer, following a similar exposé.  

In 2008, CNN reported repelling a major attack from Chinese IPs in the wake of a story about Tibet.  In 2011, Chinese hackers struck at online petition site after a petition was launched to free an imprisoned Chinese artist.  That same year Chinese hackers struck Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Gmail service, looking to scoop the accounts of Tibetan dissidents.  China's state-run newspaper mouthpiece then proceeded to threaten Google for stating the obvious -- that the attacks originated from Chinese IPs.

U.S. financial institutions and research firms have been targeted.  Secrets have been stolen, which could richly reward the Chinese financially.

China hackers
State-sponsored Chinese hackers have allegedly attacked a deluge of U.S. targets.
[Image Source: Asia Society]

Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)  -- a top defense contractor -- was reportedly infiltrated by Chinese hackers in 2011.  Lockheed never officially acknowledged the much-publicized incident, but in 2012 it did warn that its subcontractors were being targeted by similar efforts.  Mandiat suggests that "several" top defense contractors have had intrusions in recent years.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was hacked with Chinese IPs communicating with infected thermostats and internet printers.  The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration has been hacked multiple times.  U.S. Embassies have been attacked. The U.S. Department of Defense has been targeted by persistent attacks by the Chinese.  The White House's own networks have been attacked.

V. Who's Lying? The U.S. or China?

Reportedly, China embraces those ill elements of its society, as outline above -- the most ruthless black hats -- delicately courting them and funneling their destructive expertise against their economic and ideological rival, the U.S.

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) amusingly asserted as recently as 2011 that China was "20 years behind" the U.S. in military technology.  Perhaps that is an honest assessment if one considers the official face of China's military -- traditional weaponry.

But China's most deadly weapon to American freedom and to the American economy is one it refuses to acknowledge -- its elite team of hackers.  In a response to The Times piece, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told AFP reporters in Beijing, "The competent Chinese authorities have already issued a clear response to the groundless accusations made by the New York Times.  To arbitrarily assert and to conclude without hard evidence that China participated in such hacking attacks is totally irresponsible. China is also a victim of hacking attacks. Chinese laws clearly forbid hacking attacks, and we hope relevant parties takes a responsible attitude on this issue."

Clearly, someone is lying.

Or more aptly put, either the Chinese government is lying, or a whole bunch of prestigious U.S. institutions have formed some bizarre league of deceit.  The Times is the most read metropolitan newspaper in the U.S. and has won more Pulitzer Prizes (108) for journalism than any other newspaper.

VI. U.S. Security Witnesses a Rape

But if you don't trust them, what about the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA)?  U.S. Cyber Command leader and NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander made the information public on Tuesday in a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, in which he testified, "I can't go into the specifics here, but we do see [thefts] from defense industrial base companies.  There are some very public [attacks], though. The most recent one was the RSA exploits."

"We need to make it more difficult for the Chinese to do what they're doing.  Intellectual property isn't well protected, and we can do a better job at protecting it."

DOD Hacker
The U.S. Cyber Command has been unable to effectively counterattack China. [Image Source: Reuters]

A VP at a top security firm Intel Corp. (INTC) subsidiary McAfee likens one such digital campaign, which sources trace to China, as digital "rape".  Yet, the U.S. government sits largely idle as it and its people are attacked.

To be fair, the White House and Congress have both expressed some interest in development defensive capabilities and word is offense is also on the table.  But currently the number of staffers is telling -- the U.S. Cyber Command only employs around 500 brave souls.  That number will rise to 4,500 in the next few years, but that is simply not enough.

VII. Constitution Demands Self-Defense

The U.S. is at war.  And fumbling in responsive defense measures is not acceptable.  Digital dragonfire must be met with fire.  

The U.S. is perfectly capable of unleashing a powerful and unaccountable digital counterattack on China.  Simply allocate money to some ambiguous defense fund.  Hire black hats.  Route your attacks through multiple domestic and then local foreign IPs.  Attack relentlessly. (That's what China does.)

It might cost $50B USD, it might cost $500B USD, but when you're at war, if you worry too much about costs you find yourself under the boot.  And the U.S. is treading dangerously to meeting that fate.

The Constitution is unequivocal in what the government's duty is.  Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the foundation of the U.S. government, clearly grants Congress the power:

U.S. Constitution
[Image Source: EL Civics]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

The U.S. Congress has been ineffectual in legislating funding and creating proposals outlining a sensible digital "common Defense" of the nation -- i.e. a "militia" (say, competent contracted security officials) or a digital age army (such as China has built).

In other words, when it comes to their Constitutional responsibility to protect the U.S. against invasions -- including cyberinvasions -- both parties in Congress have failed.  The White House and Congressional Republicans and Democrats have largely failed (thus far) their oath to uphold one of the most important principals of the Constitution -- national defense.

But the blame rests partially on the American people and media.

Either The Times, countless security firms, and many brave voices in the government itself are liars.  Or we're at war.  It is a new kind of war, but don't be mistaken -- it is a war still.

The media and the American people must demand a response.  The days of bowing to China must end.  China may be our second largest trade partner and intimately tied to the U.S. economy, but we are just as crucial to China and yet they have no problem silently attacking.  So why should we?

Is it somewhat immoral for the government to attack China and then lie about it, if asked?  Maybe by some absolute judgment.  But until the world finds a higher moral ground, the U.S. must defend itself in whatever way necessary.  War, after all, is an ugly thing, and will be in the digital era.

Sources: The NYT, AFP on Google News

Comments     Threshold

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

Let the battle begin
By mike66 on 1/31/2013 7:39:53 PM , Rating: 5
If you told hackers in the USA that they will not be prosecuted for hacking Chinese servers but arrested for hacking allies then you would find that the west would do better in this so called war. Real top notch hackers do what they do for reasons other than money. Are we learning yet?

RE: Let the battle begin
By inperfectdarkness on 2/1/2013 1:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm inclined to agree. Making a group like anonymous an ally would greatly benefit the US government. Furthermore, civilian hackers give rise to plausible deniability--somewhat similar to how China denies any wrongdoing. I would desire for DOD cyberwarfare specialists to be the "cyber-ninjas" of the digital age; whose presence is undetected--or even falsely implicates another enemy (Iran) as the culprit.

Welcoming civilian hackers into the fold would allow for a broader-breadth of focus than what could be afforded by requiring all hackers to be primarily employed by the government. Better yet, if you make the outcome incentive based ("$$$" for information siphoned from "xxx" system), then we can directly tie monies spent to a desirable outcome. Treason is still in effect though, so hackers who want to play both sides would be risking a LOT (amnesty in China, anyone?)

There's some types of combat that require specialized fighting skills that are best taught and maintained by a cadre of military skill & tradition (fighter jets, tank combat, CSAR, etc). Cybercombat isn't like that; you can become an expert just by studying the right places on the internet for long enough. I say it's high time we make use of the USA's "cyber-militia".

RE: Let the battle begin
By slunkius on 2/1/2013 5:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
but what information can you steal from China? It is not inventions or research data, which is usually held by western how can you make this a symmetrical attack?

RE: Let the battle begin
By BladeVenom on 2/1/2013 8:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
You steal embarrassing details, crimes, and corruption committed by it's leaders. Then Chinese leaders will cooperate or be exposed.

RE: Let the battle begin
By Master Kenobi on 2/1/2013 10:22:12 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think you quite grasp how China's government works. None of that will cause even a dent in their system.

RE: Let the battle begin
By JDHammer on 2/1/2013 12:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
Then... what will cause a dent in their system?

RE: Let the battle begin
By Ringold on 2/2/13, Rating: -1
RE: Let the battle begin
By nafhan on 2/1/2013 12:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
Just disrupting the criminals that are disrupting our infrastructure would be an improvement over what we're currently doing.

Some combination of damaging their systems and outing the individuals engaged in these types of activities would be good. Make that info available to the world at large.

RE: Let the battle begin
By msheredy on 2/1/2013 11:47:25 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, any information we found would be our own :/

By inperfectdarkness on 2/3/2013 7:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
You can steal information regarding the breadth of knowledge they have on the USA--and that's a good start.

RE: Let the battle begin
By Ammohunt on 2/1/13, Rating: -1
RE: Let the battle begin
By Argon18 on 2/1/2013 11:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
Well said. They are vigilantes who answer to no one, and are loyal to no one. You can't channel that sort of deviant anarchist attitude into anything positive. The best thing that could happen to anonymous, is they all end up spending 20 to life in federal ass-rape prison.

RE: Let the battle begin
By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2013 5:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
they have been on the wrong side of the fight for freedom every time.

That's subjective

RE: Let the battle begin
By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2013 5:56:21 PM , Rating: 3
We don't have a backbone when it comes to any issue with China, why start now? Bill Clinton pretty much summed it up, we are totally dependent on borrowed money from china. They hold all the cards.

RE: Let the battle begin
By lyeoh on 2/4/2013 6:48:57 AM , Rating: 1
we are totally dependent on borrowed money from china. They hold all the cards.

That's an ignorant and clueless remark. 26% of the Gov debts is owed to China, AND the USA owes China trillions in US DOLLARS, not renminbi, not gold, not euros. Think about it - the US Gov can create as much US dollars as it wants. Most oil and other goods are still traded in US dollars. So guess who holds all the cards in this game?

If you think they can't create trillions you should pay more attention to the real world. The US Federal Reserve has created trillions of US dollars in loans before (2008 etc). Loaning money from "thin air" is practically the same as creating money. Go check where those loaned trillions came from- the trillions didn't exist before. For bonus points go check where the trillions went to - clue a fair bit of it went to foreign banks. Strange that they'd devalue your money to bail out foreigners.

But hey go on, keep being scared of the evil Chinese, they are your #1 enemy, your US Gov will keep you safe... And it should start a cyberwar with China. blahblahblah.

RE: Let the battle begin
By chripuck on 2/4/2013 11:13:17 AM , Rating: 2
It's actually even more ridiculous, China owns ~9.9% of our total debt. The 26% number is the percentage of foreign debt that is owned by China. Foreign debt only makes up ~48% of our total debt. Additionally, Japan owns as much as China does and nobody seems to care about that.

China is far from "owning" us.

RE: Let the battle begin
By Skywalker123 on 2/4/2013 7:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
You are the one totally ignorant and clueless. If the USA creates trillions more dollars to pay off the debts the dollar will become even more worthless than it already is.

RE: Let the battle begin
By jack daniels esq on 2/12/2013 11:31:16 AM , Rating: 2
Our forefathers were concerned that the Constitution didnt contain an escape-clause in case the people elected a moron

By Swobby on 1/31/2013 6:35:26 PM , Rating: 3
Not sure I see the point of this article since the US government is already employing hackers.

Or did you forget Stuxnet?

RE: Stuxnet?
By Mitch101 on 1/31/2013 9:24:12 PM , Rating: 5
The best hackers are the ones get in and out without a trace. Maybe China is already hacked they just dont know it. The US Govt would never admit to doing it anyhow.

RE: Stuxnet?
By slunkius on 2/1/2013 4:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
Hack by China = media reports it because it is good headline. Hack by US = state controled China media have no reason to report it unless for propaganda reasons

RE: Stuxnet?
By TSS on 2/1/2013 6:07:33 AM , Rating: 2
well ofcourse, there's a few, but china has the advantage in numbers and skill.

Simply because they'll tell every hacker they arrest to either work for them, or dissapear. Most of em tend to behave after that.

You have to look at it differently then traditional methods of defence. In cyberspace, china is actually a very small country. It has few secrets of it's own worth protecting, as it's behind the rest of the world when it comes to innovation and technology. Because there are alot of chinese however, there are alot more chinese hackers and thus alot more citizens in cyberspace China, making it one of the most "densly populated" countries in cyberspace. Iran would be another one (though they are mostly on the defence for now).

The US, however, as a leader in technology, innovation and certainly secrets, is a very very large country in cyberspace, almost 40% of the entirety of cyberspace is occupied just by the US alone (remember, cyberspace consists of information and data, not matter). Yet it's citizens, due to the culture towards hackers AKA rather punish then have them work for you because they have a hard time obeying rules and bureaucracy can't handle that, are actually very few in number, and the skill of those involved aside from a solid core of skilled hackers (which the chinese also have by now mind you), is quite low, as jason mentioned they have to have permission to operate or otherwise they won't be allowed to operate.

So it's easy to see why the chinese are hacking the US as much as they can, because the US can't stop them. The US has a heck of alot more targets to defend, with alot less personell to do it.

All in all a pretty good editorial, i agree the US needs to get off it's ass (been saying that for years myself) except for the part about traditional wars near the top. Just take one look at syria in 2013, and don't fool yourself; the age of traditional war is far from over, and it's very far from "gentleman" like. Might seem that way because vietnam was the only war the media was allowed free reign in and every war since then has been heavily propagandanized. Blackwater anyone?

RE: Stuxnet?
By Flunk on 2/1/2013 1:06:57 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly, this post totally misses the mark. China would never admit the US hacked their systems and the US would never admit they're behind it.

I think the author's assumption is that the governement is rampantly incompetent. Something that has not been conculsively proven in this matter.

RE: Stuxnet?
By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2013 6:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
We could have some very good hackers working for us in cyber warfare units and still suck at cybersecurity in other government agencies.

RE: Stuxnet?
By chripuck on 2/4/2013 11:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well the government in whole is largely incompetent. Our military and intelligence communities are not however...

RE: Stuxnet?
By Jeffk464 on 2/1/2013 6:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
Or did you forget Stuxnet

That was most likely Israel.

RE: Stuxnet?
By chripuck on 2/4/2013 11:15:28 AM , Rating: 2
No, it's been widely reported that the US was behind the original payload and Israel modified it to be more aggressive.

How hard could it have been?
By rvertrees on 1/31/2013 7:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, you can get past their payment wall by deleting a little bit of the url address. How heavy duty could their network security have been?

Payment wall Blocked article url: ?hp&_r=0&gwh=E843136F7B3AD34BA914F2106FF8F793

Delete the bolded part and it lets you right in.

RE: How hard could it have been?
By dsx724 on 1/31/2013 8:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
You should be prosecuted beyond the full extent of the law like Aaron Swartz.

RE: How hard could it have been?
By maugrimtr on 2/1/2013 8:34:07 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe we should invest in educating and training better programmers? That way fewer sites and applications will have mind blowing stupid flaws like the above.

In military terms, we need MOAR armour.

RE: How hard could it have been?
By nafhan on 2/1/2013 12:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
In the case of the NY Times article better programmers likely wouldn't help.
1. The "protection" in place is probably good enough. Outside of IT how many people are likely to even try editing the URL?
2. Real DRM has a LOT of downsides for both legitimate customers and the business implementing it.

RE: How hard could it have been?
By chripuck on 2/4/2013 11:18:31 AM , Rating: 2
DRM... for a website... do you know how the internet works?

There are literally HUNDREDS of websites that require a login to view content while similarly providing a preview. The fact that they have a pay service which only trims the URL to allow the end user to access the full article is insulting and complete amateur hour. That's something a 2nd year CS student would do, not a professional web developing shop.

By Treckin on 1/31/2013 11:22:53 PM , Rating: 5
Mick you are a trash web journalist - please do us all a favor and hang up your keyboard before someone gets hurt.

By pugster on 2/1/2013 5:09:32 PM , Rating: 4
Calling Jason a journalist is not correct, more like a propangandist. 'Gentlemens war' is utter bs. Tens of millions were killed cia coops and fake war from vietnam, korea, iraq to afghanistan. How many people died as a result of this cyberwar?

This ny times article is nothing but propaganda. first of all, they could not trace the 'attack' from china at all, rather the source ip's coming from several universities from several states. More importantly, second if china used some kind of malware was used, we would get more details about it and would be discussed more in its technical terms like stuxnet worm.

By Ringold on 2/2/13, Rating: -1
War mongering drivel
By Diablobo on 2/1/2013 3:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
Quit trying to hide behind the sanitary and painless cyberwar you advocate in lieu of shooting. After you lay waste to them digitally, your thirst for blood will not be satisfied, and the bloodletting will begin in earnest. Skip the pretense and openly call for violence. Only a coward would hide behind the idea of a war without killing.

RE: War mongering drivel
By roykahn on 2/1/2013 7:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nice. However, I think the motivation of this article was to make bloggers and tech geeks feel like they can be fighters as well. I can just imagine the late-night ads.

Too fat for the army? No problem! We've got a big comfy chair and all the soda you can drink. Sit behind a PC all day and help Uncle Sam fight them commies using your greatest asset - keystrokes!

Seriously though, I stopped reading the article when it mentioned that BS about "gentleman's war". Torture, bombing peasant villages, bombing civilian infrastructure, using Agent Orange, enforcing trade embargoes which cause hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths - these are acts of gentlemen.

RE: War mongering drivel
By chripuck on 2/4/2013 11:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
I think he was obviously referring to the idea that we try very hard to have our troops "behave" themselves when in enemy territory. 100 years ago if our troops rolled through a village and raped the women it would have been business as usual. Now you get court martialed and dishonorably discharged if not incarcerated for life.

I don't think anyone, even Mick, would try to assert that war isn't hell (to borrow the phrase.) But we DO try to be more precise in our strikes e.g. targeted drones instead of carpet bombing, prolific use of snipers instead of hundreds of troops/tanks etc.

By Proposer88 on 1/31/2013 6:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
2339 words, Jason??? Seriously??? Man, you sure were bored today.
The resident "wall of text-er" does it again.

Past ridiculous into ludicrous speed
By M'n'M on 1/31/2013 11:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
" Because in every way digital war is far superior and far more terrible to the wars of yore. "

Ummm, no. Last I heard the NYT editors and owners still had all their limbs attached and their intestines inside their bodies. Such is not always the case with real warfare. China is guilty of larceny and vandalism but not what I'd call war (yet). At some point they might be stupid enough to cross that boundary (though I doubt it) and then they may face either a cyber attack or something far more destructive, a real attack. Neither is good for both nations and I bet all parties involved know this fact. You may call it MAD but it works.

I sure hope....
By darkpuppet on 2/1/2013 9:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
that nobody in China reads this (somewhat pointless) article

Not a Gentleman's War?
By nafhan on 2/1/2013 12:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not a Gentleman's War you say? I disagree. China is explicitly making it one by claiming they are not supporting those elements attacking US infrastructure.

This (IMO) should give us carte blanche to attack those elements that "don't have the support of the Chinese government". Officially we would not be attacking China, we'd be attacking some criminals. Just a thought.

Don't forget
By Dr of crap on 2/1/2013 1:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
We are too goody goody and don't want to world to think otherwise of use. We have turned soft in ALL aspects of our life here in the free republic. Can't even put a bad criminal to death any longer.

At some point I believe we will have to right this goody goody mentality and do what should be done, but it will take a long while yet.

So don't even think we will go after China in the cyber war, and if we do it will be years until we release info that we have been doing it without telling. Don't want to do underhanded things you know!

By KateHiggs22 on 2/1/2013 3:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
til I looked at the receipt of $5328, I accept that my mom in-law woz like they say actualey taking home money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop.. there uncle haz done this 4 only 23 months and a short time ago cleared the dept on their place and bought a great new Chevrolet Corvette. read more at, Fox76.comCHECK IT OUT

Pointless rant...
By half_duplex on 2/1/2013 4:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree with the article, I'd love to hear headlines of hacks against China... but we simply are not going to hear them.

If you think for a second that the US employees less, or less talented hackers, you are kidding yourself.

The difference is that the Chinese are stealing blue prints of planes that have been around nearly a decade while we are installing a switch that would shut down their ability to create war, among other sinister things.

Keep in mind, when your country can't produce it's own routers, etc... there are other ways in besides HTTP.

Hacking back at China for targeting places like the new York Times gains the US nothing.

And I'm not just speculating, in most software dev circles, we are aware of at least one guy who's taken a high paying job that he doesn't really speak about.

By Rasputin814 on 2/1/2013 4:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't think we're hacking China as well then you have to be stupid. In all likelihood we hack them more than they hack us and we know more about their defense systems then they do about us. This is nothing new. Competing nations gather intelligence and try to influence their image. Heck even friendly nations do as well. See Israel

By toyotabedzrock on 2/2/2013 2:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
Stop with your fear driven nonsense.

By GloriaHiggs22 on 2/2/2013 6:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
before I looked at the bank draft saying $7180, I didnt believe that my mom in-law could actualey bringing in money in their spare time from there pretty old laptop.. there friends cousin had bean doing this for only about 10 months and a short time ago cleared the loans on their home and bourt a brand new volvo. I went here, Fox76.comCHECK IT OUT

By TinaHiggs22 on 2/3/2013 1:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
Claire. although Hazel`s comment is unimaginable... last friday I got a great new Alfa Romeo from making $6405 this - five weeks past and in excess of ten grand lass month. this is certainly the coolest work I've had. I actually started nine months/ago and pretty much immediately started to make over $75 p/h. I use the details here, Great60.comCHECK IT OUT

By BettyGibbs22 on 2/3/2013 8:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
If you think Grace`s story is inconceivable..., in the last-month my daughter in law basically brought home $8989 workin a twenty hour week in their apartment and there neighbor's mom`s neighbour was doing this for four months and actually earnt over $8989 part-time from a computer. applie the tips on this site. Great60.comCHECK IT OUT

true ignorance
By Dumamer1can on 2/7/2013 1:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Dailytech

for being a "tech" site your writer here seems pretty gullible in believing that what is reported on mainstream media is true... who can prove the Chinese government is behind the hacks... just because the servers are from China you don't the keyboard puncher can be from Anonymous or Mid east country or the thousands of other groups of people that hate your ridiculous government.

Use some more thought and objective logic.

A dumb american.

A Big Fat...
By Hammer1024 on 2/1/2013 11:14:34 AM , Rating: 1
A big fat exclimation point needs to be sent here. I propose a B-2 and a few 2000 lb. JDAMS accidently fly through a few windows at their Cyber Command.

Nothing says FU louder than high explosives...

Just say'en.

By Ammohunt on 2/1/13, Rating: 0
Just don't forget guys
By Pirks on 1/31/13, Rating: -1
RE: Just don't forget guys
By kleinma on 1/31/2013 11:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
You classify someone as a liar because they make a prediction on something that doesn't happen? Are you really that stupid or just being more of a troll than you normally are?

RE: Just don't forget guys
By Pirks on 2/1/2013 12:21:15 AM , Rating: 2
Mick was screaming "RIM to be sold this year RIM to be sold this year blah blah blah" for way too long, so I'm just showing people how really stupid he is as a tech journalist. If he's so stupid, why trust his articles?

RE: Just don't forget guys
By BladeVenom on 2/1/2013 8:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
No one gets it right 100% of the time.

You however seem to get it wrong 100% of the time.

RE: Just don't forget guys
By Pirks on 2/1/2013 12:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
I was right when I caught Mick lying about RIM sale before the end of 2012 so buzz off lamo

By HermioneSmithe2 on 1/31/13, Rating: -1
RE: !!
By ShaolinSoccer on 1/31/2013 10:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
If you're making any significant amount of money from what you do, then I can't say I feel sorry for you. If anything, I feel sorry for all the people that fell for your scam.

RE: !!
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/1/2013 9:03:37 AM , Rating: 1
It's a bot...

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

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