China’s cyber-warfare capabilities are ‘fairly rudimentary’… What is it with these crazy Australians?
Desmond, Desmond, Desmond… You spend so much time pointing out all of the Honker Union activities, the malware created by China, and all their overall IW/Espionage activities and then you say;
“Well, because there’s no real proof of their actually having done anything, they are unable to do so...”
Crikey! Have you been sipping what Dr. Wright has been drinking or what? Tell me Desmond, what is your classification rating? Because I think you are lacking some pertinent information that might change your hypothesis quite a bit. Either way, your contention is lacking understanding of the playing field I think, so let me enlighten you a bit ok?
Chinese strategists are quite aware of their own deficiencies and vulnerabilities with respect to cyber-warfare. In June 2000, “a series of high- technology combat exercises” being conducted by the PLA “had to be 92 suspended” when they were attacked by “a computer hacker”.
China‟s telecommunications technicians were impotent against the intermittent hijacking of the Sinosat-1 national communications satellite by Falun Gong, practitioners‟ in the early 2000s. China‟s demonstrated offensive cyber- warfare capabilities are fairly rudimentary. Chinese hackers have been able to easily orchestrate sufficient simultaneous „pings‟ to crash selected Web servers (i.e., Denial-of-Service attacks). They have been able to penetrate Web-sites and deface them, erase data from them, and post different information on them (such as propaganda slogans). And they have developed various fairly simple viruses for spreading by e-mails to disable targeted computer systems, as well as Trojan Horse programs insertible by e-mails to steal information from them. However, they have evinced little proficiency with more sophisticated hacking techniques.
The viruses and Trojan Horses they have used have been fairly easy to detect and remove before any damage has been done or data stolen. There is no evidence that China‟s cyber-warriors can penetrate highly secure networks or covertly steal or falsify critical data. They would be unable to systematically cripple selected command and control, air defence and intelligence networks and databases of advanced adversaries, or to conduct deception operations by secretly manipulating the data in these networks. The gap between the sophistication of the anti-virus and network security programs available to China‟s cyber-warriors as compared to those of their counterparts in the more open, advanced IT societies, is immense. China‟s cyber-warfare authorities must despair at the breadth and depth of modern digital information and communications systems and technical expertise available to their adversaries.
China is condemned to inferiority in IW capabilities for probably several decades. At best, it can employ asymmetric strategies designed to exploit the (perhaps relatively greater) dependence on IT by their potential adversaries—both the C ISREW elements of adversary military forces and the vital telecommunications and computer systems in the adversary’s homelands. In particular, attacks on US information systems relating to military command and control, transportation and logistics could “possibly degrade or delay U.S. force mobilisation in a time-dependent scenario”, such as US intervention in a military conflict in the Taiwan Straits.
China‟s cyber-warfare capabilities are very destructive, but could not compete in extended scenarios of sophisticated IW operations. In other words, they function best when used pre-emptively, as the PLA now practices in its exercises.
In sum, the extensive Chinese IW capabilities, and the possibilities for asymmetric strategies, are only potent if employed first.
Desmond Ball: China’s Cyber Warfare Capabilities
I personally have heard of “on the fly” coding of malware to affect pertinent systems within a defense contractor network to not only keep access within said network, but, also to exfiltrate even more interesting data. Now, that sounds rather advanced to me..
How about you?
Sure, the coders could have been just about anyone, but, the data was being exfiltrated to areas that were in the Asia Pacific and more than likely were Chinese in origin so, yeah, it likely was them and not say, Germany. However, once again, we have no real proof of it being “solely” China.
Oddly enough though, when data was caught in the hands of the Chinese we pretty much had to admit it was them doing it. So, no Desmond, they are not wholly unskilled and certainly as unsophisticated as you would paint them. This is just one instance of access and hacking that allowed for the APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) activity that, well Desmond, was coined for their activities against the defense industrial base here in the US.
Simply Desmond, you can cite all the articles from the internet you want.. You still won’t have the whole picture.
PSSST… Guess What?
So, to move this further along the philosophical and technical path for you let me explain it another way for you. The Chinese, as with most of the Asiatic countries, have a different perspective on things than we in the West. Something core to the Chinese mindset on warfare are the following:
- Soft Power: the ability to obtain what one wants through co-option and attraction
- The Thousand Grains of Sand: Using many options to obtain goals
The Chinese do not have a goal of outright cyber warfare with us. In fact, they would use the subterfuge angle you speak of by leaving trap doors in software and hardware, which they have done in the past (and have been caught).
However, more than likely, they would use the supply chain that we have allowed them to become the lions share of via outsourcing of cheap parts/labor to infiltrate our systems with bad chips or said same back doors. Why do you think we spend so much time (the military) checking everything that we get for the government/mil from China?
Soft power, Desmond, would dictate that they use the thousand grains of sand to not only steal our IP but also use the technology and our dependence on their cheap rates to insert bad data/systems/hardware into our own infrastructure for them to call up when needed to fail.
This is not to say that they do not also have operators who have inserted code into other systems remotely to late be used when needed as well. Simply Desmond, you don’t see the whole picture and its rather sad that you go on to make such defined claims.
The simple truth is that the Chinese don’t need to attack us pre-emptively. They have been undermining us (US) for a very long time as we sell out to them for cheap goods and services. THIS is soft power. They now sit in the catbird seat in many ways financially (though yes, they could lose much by us defaulting) however, from the soft power perspective, they hold the upper hand.
A coup de grace would be to take down military systems were we to get uppity about Taiwan.. but really, are we in a position to do so after being wholly owned by them and their capital? Desmond.. It’s not so much Red Dawn as it is “They Live” if you are into movie references.
Alrighty, now that I have gotten that off my chest, Cyberwar is to me, too hard to carry out for ANY of the countries out there now. China being only one country that might want to. The systems are too disparate and to control a single node would take great effort.
So, yes, I can agree with you that they are not in a position to do us major damage from a CYBERWAR booga booga booga perspective. Frankly, no one could in my opinion. However, your conetntion that they could not insert bad data during a time of war is a load of crap.
ANYONE could IF they had the access and the desire. It would not need to be nation state, it could be a private citizen for that matter. What is more interesting Desmond is that you fail to understand the espionage angle here. The Chinese use their expat’s to do their bidding under threat, or, mostly under the “poor poor China” argument. Imagine an insider adding code to systems that could be triggered…
Yeah.. Soft power once again.. It could turn hard though with the right circumstances.
Once again Desmond, you think too one dimension-ally.
The Sad Truth…
Now, with all of that said, lets turn it around a bit. The saddest truth is this;
“Given all of what has happened recently with Lulzsec, it has become clear that it does not take an uber hacker to take down pretty much anyone”
The systems out there have not been protected well enough. Patching, and secure coding have not been at the fore here and thus it is trivial for the most part to hack into systems throughout the internet. So, the Chinese need not be uber haxx0rs to do the damage needed because we collectively have done a bad job at securing our own networks.
Once again, you fail to look at the problem from a more multidimensional angle.
Please go back to the drawing board Desmond because you lack the proper information and perspective to really make the claims you are making.
Cross-posted from Krypt3ia