Risk
11/29/2010
02:43 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

Confirmation? Chinese Government May Have Been Behind Operation Aurora Hacks

We suspected there would be some interesting cyber security related news to come out of the thousands of cables released by WikiLeaks over the weekend. We were not disappointed.

We suspected there would be some interesting cyber security related news to come out of the thousands of cables released by WikiLeaks over the weekend. We were not disappointed.As you're most likely aware, earlier this year Google came public with what was then rather astonishing news: it was under attack from systems that appeared to have come from China. While Google went to lengths to make it certain that they were not accusing the Chinese government of being part of the attacks, the security industry certainly believed, but had little evidence, to support the notion that the attacks were government backed and sponsored.

InformationWeek's Thomas Claburn wrote a great take on the incident back when it happened in his story, China Denies Attacking Google, where Chinese officials were quoted as saying the accusations that the Chinese government were behind the attacks in any way were groundless.

Turns out those claims are not so groundless after all, from Claburn's story today, China Directed Google Attack, Leaked Cable Says:

The cables also reveal that China's Politburo "directed the intrusion into Google's computer systems," according to the New York Times, which was provided with copies of the documents.

A Chinese contact reportedly confirmed to U.S. embassy officials in Beijing the involvement of China's government in the cyber attack on Google's network that occurred late last year and was disclosed in January, 2010. The officially sanctioned cyber attack involved government operatives, private security contractors, and Internet criminals recruited by the Chinese government, the New York Times said.

We know now that companies initially included in the so called "Operation Aurora" attacks included Adobe Systems, Juniper Networks, and Rackspace. Intel may have also been targeted. And various media reports have claimed that Yahoo, Symantec, Northrop Grumman and Dow Chemical were also targeted.

The question now is how much evidence is enough to respond, and what type of response should the U.S. take? Our Mathew J. Schwartz offers a discussion here about potential U.S. response to cyber incidents.

What do you think? How should the U.S. respond, if it should at all above bolstering IT security to a more acceptable level?

For my security and technology observations throughout the day, find me on Twitter.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: It's A Dog's Life: Caption Contest Winners Announced
Current Issue
Understanding & Managing the Mobile Security Threat
Mobile devices are increasing IT security risk. Is your enterprise ready?
Flash Poll
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-7445
Published: 2015-10-15
The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) subsystem in the Linux kernel through 4.x mishandles requests for Graphics Execution Manager (GEM) objects, which allows context-dependent attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via an application that processes graphics data, as demonstrated b...

CVE-2015-4948
Published: 2015-10-15
netstat in IBM AIX 5.3, 6.1, and 7.1 and VIOS 2.2.x, when a fibre channel adapter is used, allows local users to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2015-5660
Published: 2015-10-15
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in eXtplorer before 2.1.8 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that execute PHP code.

CVE-2015-6003
Published: 2015-10-15
Directory traversal vulnerability in QNAP QTS before 4.1.4 build 0910 and 4.2.x before 4.2.0 RC2 build 0910, when AFP is enabled, allows remote attackers to read or write to arbitrary files by leveraging access to an OS X (1) user or (2) guest account.

CVE-2015-6333
Published: 2015-10-15
Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) 1.1j allows local users to gain privileges via vectors involving addition of an SSH key, aka Bug ID CSCuw46076.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Join us as Dark Reading editors speak with IT security hiring experts about improving IT career prospects.