Print 34 comment(s) - last by IranTech.. on Mar 2 at 10:46 AM

  (Source: AP)
U.S. is number two in world attack traffic (China is number one)

They're hacking the government.  The government is powerless to stop them in many cases.  They're hacking domestic firms.  Again, the government stands helpless.  Think we're talking about China hacking the U.S.?  Nope.

In an interesting twist, this week China -- the nation that U.S. security firms claim is the number one cyberaggressor -- claimed it is really the victim of a relentless and brutal cyberassault from the U.S.

In response to tough rhetoric by President Obama that continued Chinese hacking would bring "consequences" including, potentially, trade penalties, China's Defense Ministry hit back.  Geng Yansheng, Ministry spokesman commented in an online post (translated by Reuters).

The Defense Ministry and China Military Online websites have faced a serious threat from hacking attacks since they were established, and the number of hacks has risen steadily in recent years.

According to the IP addresses, the Defense Ministry and China Military Online websites were, in 2012, hacked on average from overseas 144,000 times a month, of which attacks from the U.S. accounted for 62.9 percent.

In addition to accusing the U.S. of victimizing his nation online, he also says that U.S. government officials were uncooperative in increasing "international cooperation" to stop hacking.  He implies the U.S. may be engaging in hypocrisy by openly expanding its own cyberwarfare capabilities, while leveling accusations against his nation, commenting, "We hope that the U.S. side can explain and clarify this."

China hackers
China claims the U.S. is the real cyberaggressor. [Image Source: Asia Society]

So is there any truth in his claims?  Well, according to security experts "kinda".  In a recent report by Akama Technologies, Inc. (AKAM), the U.S. was second in global attack traffic.  Approximately 13 percent of attacks come from the U.S.

In other words, China's claims are certainly feasible.  However, it is thought that much, if not all of the U.S. attack traffic originates from the private sector in the U.S.

China, by contrast, is number one in attack traffic.  33 percent of global attack traffic appears to come from China.  And what's more, while the Chinese government denies playing any role in hacking, a large part of that traffic is thought to come from a secret unit in the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

Source: Chinese Defense Ministry via Reuters

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: duh...
By MechanicalTechie on 2/28/2013 7:26:11 PM , Rating: 5
America needs an enemy.. its called the 'Permanent war economy'. The MIC(military-industrial complex) employs a vast number of Americans who in turn pressure their elected representatives to keep the 'business' open.

The US spends 41%of the world total on defence(China 8.2%) so in order to justify it you need an enemy.. oh and you have to keep the population in fear with highly cordinated propaganda.

And to prove my point watch all the 'Team America' comments to follow.. but what they fail to see if how the rest of the world seems them... but not like care.

RE: duh...
By jarman on 2/28/2013 7:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another misinterpretation of the Eisenhower "military-industrial complex" reference...

RE: duh...
By MechanicalTechie on 2/28/2013 7:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
Are you implying that the MIC is a figment of imagination?

RE: duh...
By Schadenfroh on 2/28/2013 11:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
Government defense spending is beloved Keynesian economic stimulus at work.

Many of the jobs require US citizenship, so they cannot be outsourced. Other countries understand the need to keep military R&D and arms production in house, so you do not have to worry about nasty trade wars by favoring domestic arms companies / manufacturing like if say, one passed a "Buy American" provision in infrastructure economic stimulus package.

The Common Defense Clause grants a constitutional justification for using defense spending to stimulate the economy, similar to how the General Welfare clause can justify many social programs.

Take it, I agree stocking up like we are going to fight a major conventional war is not the best use of such economic stimulus (e.g. buying tanks, heavy bombers, attack submarines, heavy cruisers, etc) since the only countries that could last more than a few months (or weeks) against a fraction of the US armed forces in a conventional war (counter-insurgency / counter-terror are different beasts) have nuclear weapons or are our allies.

It would be much better to hand the bulk of the $$$ being spent on the Army's / Navy's heavy weapons over to DARPA, which IMO, is every bit the equal to NASA at innovating. Heck, divert the bulk of the Air Force's heavy weapons budget over to NASA too. Rocket ships make for better PR than pure military equipment (and tech that goes into them can be recycled into military equipment). Spend the rest of the budget on non-conventional warfare (e.g. special forces, electronic / cyber-warfare, propaganda tools).

RE: duh...
By MechanicalTechie on 2/28/2013 11:43:31 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with you.. I dont have a problem with a strong miltary research and development program. I just find it hard to accept the princple of starting/instigating conflict in order to fill the books with orders.

RE: duh...
By Solandri on 3/1/2013 12:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
Were those conflicts really started to fill the books with orders? Panama was so short it couldn't have expended much equipment. Bosnia was a NATO action after lot of public protest that we couldn't just stand by and do nothing while genocide was going on. Libya was similar. And Afghanistan was a reaction to 9/11 (though Al Qaeda would probably argue that was a reaction to U.S. involvement in the Middle East).

The first Gulf War, whether you believe it was justified or not, was started by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. (And yes I'm aware of the conspiracy theory that the U.S. led on Saddam and "tricked" him into invading. The hard fact remains that it was Saddam's call to make, and if Bush Sr. had really wanted to he could've continued the war into Iraq.)

That leaves just the second war in Iraq, which from Bush's actions seems like he thought it would be over within a year or two, if not months. The geopolitical goals behind the wars seem to have been much more important than filling orders for military equipment.

RE: duh...
By MechanicalTechie on 3/1/13, Rating: 0
RE: duh...
By M'n'M on 3/1/2013 1:38:53 AM , Rating: 3
Any kind of war is a bonanza for defence contractors/suppliers.

It might be nice, just for once, to see someone who actually understands the US defense industry speak out. Alas this has not been the case so far.

War is economically good for some small players in that realm but not for the big boys. War diverts funds from the projects that make the big profit margins into lesser margin products. Ask Boeing if they want war or the $$ spent on that war to oversee GBMD. Ask Lock-mart the same thing. You parroting the same tired crap that most no-nothings spew. The threat of "war" (or something bad) gets $$s spent (see Homeland's budget spent for saving us from various obtuse threats), not the actual warmaking itself. Bullets, missiles, etc are cheap $$ compared to the real projects.

RE: duh...
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2013 5:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
So it's really the Saber-Rattling Industrial Complex? Kind of an All Bark And No Bite policy?

I can see it; consider Dubya's infamous "Axis Of Evil"... two-thirds of which we've yet to engage with on anywhere near the same level as we did Iraq.

RE: duh...
By roykahn on 2/28/2013 8:19:50 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, there's always a threat from somewhere. Nasty communists are so bad that they should be attacked with military force and kept under sanctions for decades like Cuba or sprayed with Agent Orange like Vietnam. Nasty democratically elected governments that don't follow Western imperialist economics should be overthrown. Nasty African nations that don't allow their natural resources to be plundered are attacked. Nasty countries like Iran who don't bend to the will of America and Israel are economically strangled and its scientists assassinated.

Now them nasty Chinese are challenging the American world dominance via their growing economy and they need to be put in their place somehow. They will be kept under a short leash and allowed to provide cheap labor for American corporations but won't be allowed to become too ambitious. I also wonder how much this has to do with competition between US and China over African resources. China deals with African nations mostly via economic trade while America does so with arms sales and drone attacks.

RE: duh...
By MechanicalTechie on 2/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: duh...
By Cluebat on 3/1/2013 9:16:24 AM , Rating: 1
Get a room.

RE: duh...
By NA1NSXR on 2/28/2013 9:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
I am an American living and working in China. This is the most naive comment I have read in a long time. It is extremely peculiar that you care what anyone else thinks about us. If enough people in the US do not want the fading unipolar world we live in, then we will lose it in our lifetimes. Trust me, you do not want the US to "only" be a roughly equal power broker in this world. It is absurd how so many Americans take the relative world peace we have enjoyed since WW2 totally for granted. Our defense expenditures are justified because our alliance maintains that status quo in the world, and we are the biggest component of that alliance.

RE: duh...
By MechanicalTechie on 2/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: duh...
By Solandri on 3/1/2013 12:35:49 AM , Rating: 3
My native country is in a somewhat unique position on this. We've seen both the best and the worst from the U.S. They liberated us from the Japanese (who raped and killed my grandmother's sister and niece in front of her, among other things). After the war, rather than give us freedom they instituted a government modeled after the U.S., but made sure whoever was in power was supportive of the U.S. In my hometown of Kwangju, hundreds of people were killed by the military for having the audacity to protest the president/dictator, and the U.S. raised nary a finger in protest because he was "their" man.

And yet, when I ask myself if we would've been better off without the U.S., I have merely to look at North Korea. The answer is a resounding no.

The choice is almost never between good and evil. The choice is frequently between a bad option and an even worse option. When appraising the consequences of a country's actions, you cannot simply tally all the bad things that happened and say they wouldn't have happened if that country hadn't interfered. You have to compare to what other bad things would've happened if that country hadn't interfered.

The same thing is true in domestic politics. Two of the political leaders of the Korean opposition when the country was under military dictatorship spent years under house arrest. They went on to win election as president (one after the other) after military control was overthrown. Their terms as president were meh - different in tenor but not much different in terms of results. And in a sign that things have come full circle, the daughter of dictator (who was assassinated) was just inaugurated as the newest president.

I think you see the same thing in the U.S. at present - not much has really changed with Obama at the helm as compared to Bush. It's easy to criticize, but once the reins of power are in your hands you find out things are not quite so simple, nor problems as easy to solve as you thought they would be. It's a lot easier to blame someone else for problems than it is to actually fix them.

If there was an opposite and equal to US armed forces do you think the US would be jumping from one war to the next all the time?

There was an opposite during the Cold War. From 1945-1987 we had the Korean war, the Vietnam war, an almost-war over Cuba, an invasion of the Dominican Republic, an invasion of Greneda, as well as covert support for guerrillas in Honduras, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and probably several more places I'm forgetting.

From 1988 to present we've had the invasion of the Panama Canal Zone, the Bosnian conflict, the first Gulf War, the second Gulf War, the invasion of Afghanistan, and air support for rebels in Libya. I don't think much has changed with or without a military equal and opposite.

RE: duh...
By MechanicalTechie on 3/1/2013 12:56:02 AM , Rating: 1
who raped and killed my grandmother's sister and niece in front of her, among other things

Gave me goose bumps and thank you for an intelligent reply..

I can see the point that most choices are between bad and worse and the luxury of hindsight is unfair because you can just say you would of done things differently.

There is no right or wrong answer is all about perspective, young brave GI's risking their lives to counterbalance a opposing political ideology(communism). I dare say if North Korea wasn't being influenced by the Russians and to some part the Chinese the US would of stood by and watched the blood bath... until of course there was something in their interest to intervene.

War needs polictical support and it always come down to.. well what do we get out of it. The reasons for conflict have changed these days... from confronting opposing political ideology to resource and economic domination.

RE: duh...
By M'n'M on 3/1/2013 2:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
The choice is almost never between good and evil. The choice is frequently between a bad option and an even worse option.

In US politics, that's almost always been the choice in the last 30 years. I can't speak for SK politics. I can say that SK no longer needs the US to protect it. SK has the economy to decide to defend itself. It's spent the $$s (I think) to do so. If the DPRK ever made the stupid mistake to initiate wholesale war on SK ... well ... Kim wouldn't be watching parades anymore. That the US is there on the border is a politcal manifestation, frankly no longer needed. It's doesn't exist because it's worth $$s to the US companies. Quite the opposite. The US could cut SK free to defend itself and save $$s doing so for other military expenditures. Frankly I hope that happens ... but it's the political ties that are hard to cut.

RE: duh...
By Strunf on 3/1/2013 7:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
There was an opposite during the Cold War. From 1945-1987 we had the Korean war, the Vietnam war, an almost-war over Cuba, an invasion of the Dominican Republic, an invasion of Greneda, as well as covert support for guerrillas in Honduras, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and probably several more places I'm forgetting.

You miss the point... the US went to war with countries the USSR didn't care about, the fact the US didn't went into Cuba only support guerrilla on some other locations proves the point, the US would NEVER go to war if there was a chance the USSR would pull the gun.
The fact remains that today due to global communication it's much harder to start a war, take for example Europe (and I'm here) why the hell does every country need a army when honestly who is going to attack us with an army? the fact is that the world is today safer than ever and as such why the military spending doesn't drop?... maybe cause arms dealing is one of the greatest market and companies with big pockets know where to put their money.

RE: duh...
By NellyFromMA on 3/1/2013 1:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
The world is truely a beautiful and ugly place all at once. Thanks for sharing your family's experiences.

I am from Puerto Rico which was taken from Spain by the US. Was it for the better or worse of the Puerto Rican people is largely based on how you look at it.

On the one hand, they have turned many Puerto Rican's into dependants that have no path to betterment if they fell for the original trap. Many face an uphill battle at firs tjust being born into those situations.

On the other hand, I came from nothing and have plenty to show for it, and not any of it was gifted to me. That was only possible by living in America and taking advantage not of entitlement, to which I feel I am entitled nothing as no one else is either IMO, but rather opportunities DID exist, I just needed to try hard, discover them, and ultimately leverage them.

So, I can relate in some broad ways.

RE: duh...
By Cluebat on 3/1/2013 9:18:12 AM , Rating: 1
You are clearly deluded.

Seek help.

RE: duh...
By Paj on 3/1/2013 8:25:15 AM , Rating: 2
Peace in Europe has held largely due to the closer economic union of the EU, and the collapse of the Iron Curtain. You could argue that the US played a role in the latter during the Cold War.

"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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