Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Operational Security //

Data Leakage

3/13/2019
06:00 AM
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb
50%
50%

Is China as Bad as Russia When It Comes to Trying to Influence America?

The 2016 election brought the concept of information warfare to the American populace for the first time. It was the judgement of the American intelligence community that Russian state actors had attempted to influence the outcome of the election.

The report says, "The Kremlin's campaign aimed at the US election featured disclosures of data obtained through Russian cyber operations; intrusions into US state and local electoral boards; and overt propaganda. Russian intelligence collection both informed and enabled the influence campaign."

Since this was the first general exposure of this kind of political information twisting operation, it was understandable that the public would assume that all nation-states would use information in this manner.

Threat intelligence firm Recorded Future, which supplies advice to many major Fortune 500 companies, wondered what China was doing in this area and if their goals and techniques were the same as the Russians.

So, they did some research. They analyzed data from several Western social media platforms from October 1, 2018 through February 22, 2019 to determine how the Chinese state exploits social media to influence the American public.

The found that the Chinese state utilized techniques different from the Russian state, which were driven by dissimilar foreign policy and strategic goals.

They found the Chinese "employed a plethora of state-run media to exploit the openness of American democratic society in an effort to insert an intentionally distorted and biased narrative portraying a utopian view of the Chinese government and party."

They saw Chinese social media operations as largely positive and coordinated because those techniques support Chinese strategic goals. So, the Chinese seem to have run a campaign to make themselves look better than they are.

RF made a number of key judgements about the Chinese efforts, including that English-language social media influence operations were seeded by state-run media (not military intelligence as was true with Russia), and that they overwhelmingly present a positive, benign and cooperative image of China.

Second, Chinese influence accounts used paid advertisements as their primary vehicle to target American users with political or nationally important messages and distorted general news about China.

While RF felt the Chinese state-run influence accounts did not attempt a large-scale campaign to influence American voters in the run-up to the November 6, 2018, midterm elections, they felt that Chinese accounts did perform small-scale dissemination of breaking news and biased content surrounding President Trump and China-related issues.

But that does not mean things were without problems. Some Chinese posts on Facebook were found not to have a "paid for" disclaimer on them, though that is supposed to happen. The majority of these paid advertisements from state-run accounts appealed to users to like or follow the account for access to global and China-specific news.

China seeks to convince the world that its development and rise is unfailingly positive, beneficial, cooperative, and constructive for the global community. But internally used techniques of censorship, filtering, astroturfing and comment flooding for domestic content are not viable abroad, so they use classic forms of propaganda to present their messages.

It is easy to be complacent when confronting Chinese information manipulation on social media. But, identifying the goals and techniques of these kinds of influence operations -- even though they may not be as self-evident as those of the Russians -- is the first step toward countering their deleterious effects.

— Larry Loeb has written for many of the last century's major "dead tree" computer magazines, having been, among other things, a consulting editor for BYTE magazine and senior editor for the launch of WebWeek.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Enterprise Cybersecurity Plans in a Post-Pandemic World
Download the Enterprise Cybersecurity Plans in a Post-Pandemic World report to understand how security leaders are maintaining pace with pandemic-related challenges, and where there is room for improvement.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-31819
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-22
In Halibut versions prior to 4.4.7 there is a deserialisation vulnerability that could allow remote code execution on systems that already trust each other based on certificate verification.
CVE-2021-38112
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-22
In the Amazon AWS WorkSpaces client before 3.1.9 on Windows, argument injection in the workspaces:// URI handler can lead to remote code execution because of the Chromium Embedded Framework (CEF) --gpu-launcher argument.
CVE-2021-41382
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-22
Plastic SCM before 10.0.16.5622 mishandles the WebAdmin server management interface.
CVE-2020-23266
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-22
An issue was discovered in gpac 0.8.0. The OD_ReadUTF8String function in odf_code.c has a heap-based buffer overflow which can lead to a denial of service (DOS) via a crafted media file.
CVE-2020-23267
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-22
An issue was discovered in gpac 0.8.0. The gf_hinter_track_process function in isom_hinter_track_process.c has a heap-based buffer overflow which can lead to a denial of service (DOS) via a crafted media file