China Launching Constant Attacks on Military Networks

[LostInSpace]

I stand on the side of caution posting this here rather than in Science and Technology. It's both Political and Technology.

ZDnet Government: U.S. military computer networks are under constant attack. And the rate of attack is skyrocketing, from 300 in 2003 to more than 75,000 last year. "Our adversaries are able to inflict a substantial amount of harassment and a measurable amount of damage upon DOD communications networks at practically no cost to themselves," says the director of technology for the military group responsible for defending networks.

[Guest Grayfox]

splinter cell anyone?

[Kalshion]

how much you want to bet these attacks are really being done from within the US, but are being done through the China servers?

Reason I say that is because on a board I moderate (SMB, the same board i posted about that one topic) had a service of denial attack and it originated from China's servers, but with no proof or server log's, there's nothing that can be done

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalshion:

how much you want to bet these attacks are really being done from within the US, but are being done through the China servers?

Reason I say that is because on a board I moderate (SMB, the same board i posted about that one topic) had a service of denial attack and it originated from China's servers, but with no proof or server log's, there's nothing that can be done

---

So what makes you think the attacks originate from US? I mean the lead points to China, but where are you getting US from. China servers are a fact, your US statement is based on what?

[Guest $iLk]

Distributed Denial of Service attacks are like... common sense knowledge of technology Soback.

It's a possibility, not saying that's what is happening. But there is no 'proof' without China's server logs as evidence.

[Soback]

I know what a DOS attack is. So my point stands. There's no evidence that they are orinigating from US, however, the evidence so FAR DOES POINT FOR THEM ORIGINATING FROM CHINA.

Read what Kalshion posted, then read my reply to his post.

[Aperson]

Its quite simple. The person or group performing the DoS attack routes the packets, commands whatever through several different computers, often in different countries in order to confuse tracing attempts. So someone (in any country) could choose China as a part of the route. If China gets blamed, all the better.

Of course, someone in China could be doing the DoS attacks, but it'd be rather stupid to not use a path out of the country your in.

China also could be turning a blind eye to anything passing through if they feel it could benifit them.

[Soback]

Like I said, I know what a DOS attack is.

ALSO Like I said, SO FAR THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO CHINA.

If Kalshion is saying "I bet those attacks are originating from US", witho ZERO evidence, it might as well be, Germany, Australia, Mexico, Canada, Britain or ANY OTHER COUNTRY. SO FAR THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO CHINA, and his bet on US is based on WHAT? Why not Canada? or why not French for that matter?

How hard is that to understand?

[Aperson]

Sorry, I mis-understood what you asked.

The attacks probably can't be tranced any further (assuming they arn't coming from China)than China if the Chinese goverment dosn't release the logs. Which could be for a variety of reasons: They don't want to admit the attacks are coming from within their borders; they are hiding them as a form of support for the attacks, they are just paranoid in general or they are still deciding whether or not to yet. And, as has already been pointed out, there isn't any concrete evidence until the server logs are released.

In any case the attacks could very well be coming from any other country.

[LostInSpace]

CNN: FBI probes for Chinese cyber spies

[Guest $iLk]

The only evidence pointing to China is the server that is hitting the U.S. directly.

That's not 'evidence' without server logs of those computers, which we should be asking the Chinese for.

You are correct in stating it might as well be any other country. Because it could be.

Recently a computer hacker was arrested in London for shutting down parts of the U.S. Defense network. We have enemies even in the countries of our allies.

Plain and simple. We don't have enough information.

Screaming for action against China is Newsmax.com journalism... the same kind that tries to establish terrorist ties to Iraq. (Something that should have been done before committing half a trillion dollars)

[Soback]

Still stands. As long as it's Chinese servers, the EVIDENCE, because we KNOW that it's Chinese servers, that IS evidence, it's called a LEAD points to CHINA.

So WE DO have information, we have information that the attacks came from Chinese servers. Yes it can be anyone, anywhere. SO FAR however, the LEAD points to CHINA. COME ON man, how else can I put this. If the lead points to china, that's where you look, you don't go off looking in Australia.

Now here's where you are right, we don't have enough information as far as to say exactly from which computer it was done and where that computer was located, but the EVIDENCE leads to Chinese servers, from there it might go to anywhere in the world, but SO FAR IT IS CHINA that it points to.

Therefore, if you were asked, can Britain be responsible for this? Your answer would be no, because it has no FACTS to it. If you were asked if Canada was responsible, NO - YOU HAVE NO FACTS TO IT, if you were asked IF CHINA COULD BE RESPONSIBLE, THE ANSWER WOULD BE - YES, WE HAVE A LEAD WHICH SAYS THAT IT COULD BE THEM. See how simple, right NOW, China is the ONLY country that COULD be it.

Is it really that hard or am I not saying something right?

[Guest $iLk]

Didn't I just say we should be asking China for the server logs?

You have such a one-track mind that you are unable to comprehend what is being said without knee-jerking and responding to strawman arguments and red herrings that weren't even raised.

Calm down.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

Screaming for action against China is Newsmax.com journalism... the same kind that tries to establish terrorist ties to Iraq. (Something that should have been done before committing half a trillion dollars)

---

First of all, I am not screaming for action against China. I said that SO FAR, it looks like China is responsible.

I guess that's for another thread, but you saying that Iraq had, nor has any ties to terrorists? So Sadam didn't meet with Al Queda? So there were no terrorists in Iraq? Maybe there aren't any terrorists there right now too huh?

[Guest $iLk]

1.) There are terrorists inside the United States, Germany, Great Britain, and France.

Is that cause for an invasion?

2.) There is no evidence that exists that shows that Saddam Hussein met with Al Qaeda.

And to the subject, SO FAR it looks like traffic is coming from Chinese servers. That doesn't come down to China being responsible. If you'll notice the distinction.

[Soback]

Really, you think China, while it monitors EVERY SINGLE TEXT message that their citizens send to each other, and blocks out the ones that they think are "inapropriate", doesn't monitor what passes through their servers? Yeah, I think they DO.

So, since they do monitor their servers, with all the pings going to US security sites, you think they would pull the plug and investigate? Yeah, one would think. No they sit, watch, and let it continue. Even if the attacks didn't originate from China. They are RESPONSIBLE, because any country with good intentions, especially the one who keeps such tight controls over it's information distribution channels, would put an end to that in a second. You do know that they even block the sites that their citizens can access if they think the site is unacceptable. Kinda like AOL will shut down your account in a second when a mass mailer hacks it and starts sendig out e-mails. Hmmm...Yeah, sure, China is completly innocent, even though the attacks skyrocketed from 300 to 75,000, they couldn't stop them. Yet it will block a website, and be knocking on your door next day to haul your butt to jail and ask you why you tried to access that site, all while helping themselfs out to your healthy kidney for a transplant (yeah, I have military friends who were in China, their prisoners are mandatory DONORS)

INNOCENT I TELL YA. ROFL. CHINA - INNOCENT. SADAM - INNOCENT (nevermind the terrorist training camps, nevermind the mass graves, nevermind the mass executions, nevermind the gassings, nevermind the plans for WMD, just like in Stalin Russia, nevermind that too)

[Guest $iLk]

I didn't say they were innocent. I said that we don't have enough information to know who is responsible.

And despite propaganda, China has a much more difficult time of clamping down that you would think.

Would it surprise me if China "let things happen"? No - of course not. But would it surprise me if say Iran were bouncing signals through China? Not at all.

Every computer on the internet is probed several times per minute. Every single one. If someone found out which servers were government servers, they could have stepped up their attacks.

75,000 'attacks' is a small number really compared to attacks that happen daily.

[Soback]

And I guarantee you, the way China monitors EVERYTHING. They KNOW who made the attacks, and they LET the attacks continue. Even if they turn out to be not the originator, does that make them innocent? I think not.

If French (no matter how much I despise them) was attacked through US servers, daily, and US NOT backtracking the signals for OVER A YEAR, reporting that to France, and taking action. I WOULD blame US as much as I blame China right now. Just to show you, that there is RIGHT and there is WRONG, and I don't take the side of WRONG no matter what.

[Guest $iLk]

I prefer to take the side of caution and common-sense. As internet access increases in China, there are bound to be increases in hacker attacks.

These 'attacks' average out to about 205 per day. My home computer gets hit that hard. By itself.

It is patched & up to date. That doesn't stop hackers, worms, etc. from scanning it for weaknesses.

Download a software firewall and connect a computer directly to the internet, and watch how many times it gets scanned. Leave it unpatched and watch how quickly it gets turned into an attacker.

So without more information - I can't tell you the extent of these attacks. I'd be willing to bet that piss-poor government management guarantees that they don't keep their computers up-to-date.

Just because the media says "jump" I'm not going to ask "how high?" - I'd prefer more information before concluding my opinion on the matter.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

Soback:

There are hundreds of places were the US would never get access to logs. Bielorussia, Myanmar, Iran, Zimbabwe or Transdniestr just to cite a few.

You think that hackers working for the Chinese government would simply use a direct connection to screw US interests ? That they would not reroute their stream trough so-called "zombies" acting as proxies ?

The only thing established is that the backtrace ENDS with chinese IP's due to lack of collaboration of the chinese authorities, what prohibits to either continue the trace or irrevocably identify a chinese originator. It's the only assumption you can make at this point.

Then, concerning monitoring, you don't have a clue about what you are speaking. Effective monitoring doesen't only consists in logging data but also requieres to analyse it. Do you have the slighest idea about the limitations of automated recognition systems linked to the terabytes of data who flow each second between countries ? Probably not. Check "steganography" to begin to get a clue...

You obviously did'n realize yet that is better not to pretend things when you have no proof...

---

So you telling me that to write a program that scans ALL (MILLIONS) of text messages a day, and terminates the one with a certain word in it is possible, yet it's impossible to implement a program that terminates a connection when a ping is send to a certain IP address (like a US security site). Yeah, maybe it's also impossible to write a program that instead of terminating that connection, will create a dummy IP and backtrack the pings to a hackers computer.

Oh Nomad, when will you LEARN, when you say ---> "Check "steganography" to begin to get a clue..." <--- who you are talking TO.

[Guest $iLk]

Soback:

Assume it was Chinese Hackers - would the Chinese Government know the terminating IP to block?

And the way the internet works, it's a lot easier to tell all ISP's in China to block the word "Freedom" than it is to block an IP that they might not have themselves.

It doesn't all go through a single computer you know?

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

Soback:

Assume it was Chinese Hackers - would the Chinese Government know the terminating IP to block?

And the way the internet works, it's a lot easier to tell all ISP's in China to block the word "Freedom" than it is to block an IP that they might not have themselves.

It doesn't all go through a single computer you know?

---

No, it doesn't, but that's the interesting part, the program with the US GOVERMENT IP lists can be installed on ALL their servers.

And that's just the SIMPLEST way, through IP addresses. I am not even talking about a script that scans the command line that would be executed and recognizing hacker patterns to identify what is going through their servers.

[Guest $iLk]

205 attacks per day... through all the ISP's in China. How would they know if it was distributed?

Hackers find a way around anything. Even government regulation. Even government blocks.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

205 attacks per day... through all the ISP's in China. How would they know if it was distributed?

Hackers find a way around anything. Even government regulation. Even government blocks.

---

LOL, "Through ALL the ISP's in China".

I can count ALL the ISP's in China on ONE HAND. And the beauty of monitoring software is, you can install it to run on ALL servers.

[Guest $iLk]

What it comes down to is that it is conjecture on your part and mine. There is not enough information.