Chinese Hackers Had Unfettered Access To Nortel Networks For a Decade 178
An anonymous reader sends this quote from CBC News:
"Hackers based in China enjoyed widespread access to Nortel's computer network for nearly a decade, according to ... Brian Shields, a former Nortel employee who launched an internal investigation of the attacks, the Wall Street Journal reports [from behind a paywall]. ... Over the years, the hackers downloaded business plans, research and development reports, employee emails and other documents. According to the internal report, Nortel 'did nothing from a security standpoint' about the attacks."
Maybe there was a reason? (Score:3)
Sometimes security sacrifices are made in exchange for learning about the attackers. Could this possibly have been an example of this? I know that Nortel is common tech in business and local government, but would this penetration be dangerous to military or defense development?
Re:Maybe there was a reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey Jim it looks like someones broken in, should we do something about it?"
"Nah just wait a bit, i want to see what they are doing and fine the source
10 years later "Aha!!!, I narrowed it down to someone in china.
Like a honey pot / honey net? (Score:2)
Possibly. But if that was the case, that guy should either have known it was a trap for them or not have been able to see it at all.
In my experience, the problem with network security is getting management to understand anything about it other than "I don't want to have to remember a password".
Re: (Score:2)
Laaaaaaaaaaaah!
I doubt it (Score:5, Interesting)
One has to wonder why Huawei rose to prominence so drastically... Where else have they been "researching" their technology?
Re:I doubt it (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone on Slashdot once mentioned that they worked at Cisco I believe, and had a friend who worked at another networking company. They said that every time Cisco and this other company put up a new office, Huawei put one up within a few kilometers. This could be a fabrication, but it would be an interesting thing to look into.
Re:Maybe there was a reason? (Score:5, Interesting)
nortel built a plant over there with the promise of getting some of the chinese telecom market share. the chinese sold them a plot of land in a flood plain so they could not use the first floor for about half the year. shortly after the plant went live i started hearing stories of chinese companies making exact duplicates of our equipment and selling it to their customers. i think we got no more then 1-3% market share even though we originally had the best equipment.
what gets me are all the companies standing inline to get in there. haven't they read all the stories about the corporate espionage that occurs once you let them into your systems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the tricky parts to data security in China is that the culture is completely different. In the states people for the most part respect the idea that they are responsible to their employer and even after leaving employment should respect things like NDAs.
In the USA if you do basic background checks and treat your employees fairly you can expect them to keep your trade secrets. In China it does not matter, family and nation come first. That is your employees brother in law works for a Chinese firm t
Re:Maybe there was a reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because unlike China and Mexico its possible to run a secure plant in the USA.
I think it would be possible to run a secure plant in China, Mexico, and even Canada. However, since the reason you're over there is to have access to dirt cheap labour, minimal overhead, and access to a billion+ potential consumers, operating a secure plant is considered an unnecessary expense.
Re:Maybe there was a reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
the chinese sold them a plot of land in a flood plain so they could not use the first floor for about half the year.
Sorry, but those guys sound like idiots.
Whether you're in the US, or in China, there is such a thing called due diligence. Either they made the trade-off decision to knowingly buy heavily discounted land in a flood plain, and accepted the risk commensurate with that choice, or they were just sheer incompetent lazy idiots and the project was doomed from the very beginning.
And yes, I've been involved in purchasing land abroad (not in Asia thought), and I've been shown land in flood plains before (after all, local sellers and local real estate agents see foreigners as easy marks for not knowing the lay of the land, and not knowing the lay of the local legal landscape either).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
the chinese sold them a plot of land in a flood plain so they could not use the first floor for about half the year.
Sorry, but those guys sound like idiots.
Hey I worked at Nortel!
Well... Honestly, there's a reason it's out of business. I won't say there weren't good people there. There were lots of very smart hard working people. But I have never worked at a place, before or since, where there was so much funny business going on. I quit because I couldn't stand it any more. On my exit interview I wrote, "Nortel suffers from a culture of corruption. If these issues aren't dealt with promptly, I fear the company will go under." And that was when the compan
Re:Maybe there was a reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just outright incompetence.
Re:Maybe there was a reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
... there is always somebody who will suggest it's some kind of reverse psychology and still an example of superior Western sophistication.
I believe you're overreacting a bit. Perhaps they will, and they'll be wrong. I don't think I've heard anyone around here lately suggesting "Western sophistication" has existed for quite some time, certainly not of the "superior" variety. Western based business (well, North American based, anyway) is dominated by nanosecond long attention span imbeciles these days.
Cf. the story we're commenting on. Doofuses, or an inside/collusion job?
I believe Nortel execs are still in court trying to save their butts
'Chinese hackers' (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise known as, 'Huawei employees'.
With [not-]Friends like these... (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing the US (and other First World nations) should be doing is getting tougher on China instead of being any bit friendly to them in commerce.
Re:With [not-]Friends like these... (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing the US (and other First World nations) should be doing is getting tougher on China instead of being any bit friendly to them in commerce.
The only evidence these guys were in China were the sources of the IP addresses they were using. They never went any further than doing a whois. So they know the hackers were using systems in China, but it's a very large assumption that's where the attacks actually originated.
Chinese hackers (Score:3)
The only evidence these guys were in China were the sources of the IP addresses they were using. They never went any further than doing a whois. So they know the hackers were using systems in China, but it's a very large assumption that's where the attacks actually originated.
Yeah, I love all these stories about 'China' hacking everything under the sun. If I were a black hat interested in breaking into a computer, the very first thing I would do is compromise a server in china to work through so if my hack were discovered it would be written off as 'more Chinese hackers'. I believe this is referred to as a false flag operation in spy trade craft. I find it hard to believe that all these governments and corporations are constantly being attacked by nothing but Chinese hackers.
Re:With [not-]Friends like these... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When dragons belch and hippos flee
My thoughts, Ankh-Morpork, are of thee
Let others boast of martial dash
For we have boldly fought with cash
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes.
We own all your generals - touch us and you'll lose.
Morporkia! Morporkia!
Morporkia owns the day!
We can rule you wholesale
Touch us and you'll pay.
We bankrupt all invaders,
We sell them souvenirs,
We ner ner ner ner ner ner by the ears,
Er ner ner ner ner ner ner ner ner ner,
Ner ner ner ner ner ner, ner ner ner ner ner,
Ner your g
Re: (Score:2)
The second verse of every national anthem ends up being reduced to "ner ner ner ner ner..." because no one knows the words.
Re:With [not-]Friends like these... (Score:5, Funny)
And what is the US going to take? The stolen documents back?
That would be a somewhat amusing cycle though. They steal from us; we destroy all of their hard drives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Sony rootkit was software that you ran from the CD, hence his joke about 1:1 copies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Woooosh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Citizens of the USA own more US debt than China does by far.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually Social Security (which runs surpluses currently) own most of our federal debt, and China only owns 6~9% (I can't remember the exact low %).
Perhaps you should look into the facts not just repeat talking points.
Inscrutable Chinese. (Score:2)
Should China use this position against the US
How? That's the part no one ever gets around to. How exactly does China "use" debt "against the US"?
They can either buy, hold or sell.
Which of those hurts the US?
selling all at once (Score:2)
Suppose the US needs (like, *really* needs) some additional money, so they decide to float some new bonds.
China could dump all their investments, driving down the price, and making it difficult for the gov't to get any new money since everyone will just buy the stuff that China is selling.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the US buys the debt (basically repays the debt at a very low price), and afterwards borrows properly again. China would be stupid to reduce the price of US dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
China could dump all their investments, driving down the price, and making it difficult for the gov't to get any new money since everyone will just buy the stuff that China is selling.
a) That doesn't make any sense. If they did that, it would be a short term market shake-up, predators would jump in to pick up essentially free bonds, and it would use up China's entire "arsenal" in a one-time event, and burn T-T-Trillions in its own capital in the process.
The conspiracy theory is that somehow, because of "Chinese loans", China now has some long term "leverage" over the US. But it doesn't work like that. China can't "call in its loans", it can't make threats. All it can do is sell on the op
Re: (Score:2)
"because it's in a "foreign" currency, the EU.
That's how a spastic spells Euro.
Re: (Score:2)
If they wanted to get rid of it, they could do it quietly over a period of time and proba
Re: (Score:2)
If China did dump all their investments without any regard for financial losses, very few would consider them "free bonds", and more like "a risky product", as they'd be suspicious the chinese investors knew something they didn't. The markets aren't driven by logic, but by risk assessment and rumors.
Panics are hard to maintain. The US govt would begin buying up the highest-interest bonds (as they do anyway). Eventually the more aggressive bond traders would say, "Fuck this, I want in", and start buying up the cheapest high-interest bonds left. Within a couple of days the markets would be racing to absorb the whole tranche before the party stops, and prices would be climbing again. Within weeks, the market will be back where it started as if the whole thing never happened.
Remember, although the markets
Re: (Score:2)
Panics are hard to maintain. The US govt would begin buying up the highest-interest bonds (as they do anyway). Eventually the more aggressive bond traders would say, "Fuck this, I want in", and start buying up the cheapest high-interest bonds left. Within a couple of days the markets would be racing to absorb the whole tranche before the party stops, and prices would be climbing again. Within weeks, the market will be back where it started as if the whole thing never happened. (...) You massively over-estimate the size of China's holdings. US domestic buyers alone could absorb dumped Chinese-owned bonds. Hell, the Social Security Trust Fund alone could absorb dumped Chinese-owned bonds, and if the price was right they would.
Panics don't need to be maintained for much time. On the last decade, several apparently solid financial firms collapsed from night to day. From the top of my head, I think China holds around 1.3 trillion in US bonds. If they flooded the market, the dollar value would drop... a lot. And interest rates would go trough the roof. So, even assuming the SS trust fund could cash out 1.3T from night to day (which I sincerely doubt, as usually the money is scattered across a portfolio of stable investments), it wo
Re: (Score:2)
Tired of hearing this. What are the Chinese going to do, sell their US debt? Then they will put their money where? How much will Chinese currency suddenly appreciate?
Re: (Score:2)
Right if the debt held by China is an issue at all its a tiny one. The bigger problem is all the American business that have huge parts of their supply chain made of product sourced from China, or from subsidiaries and divisions in China.
20/20 hind sight and all but we should have slammed the door on China shortly after Nixon opened it. It was possibly a good opportunity to dump farm products and surplus industrial production like most of Africa and South American remain. The time to get out was the mom
The myth of the Chinese "calling in" their debts. (Score:5, Informative)
Foreigners own less than 30% of US Treasury bonds. China owns 30% of those foreign owned bonds. About 8% of US bonds in total. The bonds are for a fixed term. They are paid in US dollars, at a fixed interest. And the US Treasury must register and approve all buyers.
China cannot "call in their debt" early. That's not how bonds work. The only way for them to do... anything... with the bonds is to dump them on the open market. However, that would crash the price, and the US could simply buy back the bonds at less than their face value, saving money in the long term. Since the interest rate paid on bonds is about a low as it can get, it means demand is high and so the US is not in any way dependent on China buying new debt. In fact, China seems to be gradually selling out of US Treasuries, and the interest hasn't gone up. If China tried to dump its bonds, the market would scoop them up.
Since each bond is individually registered with the US Treasury, and is paid by the US Treasury, if China somehow tried to... do something... somehow... to blackmail the US over its debt, the US government could selectively default on Chinese owned bonds. This wouldn't spook the bond market much because of the narrow targeted US response, and the obvious dickishness of the Chinese in bring it on themselves. (In fact, under such circumstances it would probably settle the markets.)
Put simply, you cannot fuck with another country by buying their debt in a form they have absolute control over.
Anyone who says you can is lying to you in order to sell you something.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm - I've seen a lot of numbers thrown around here about how much US debt China "owns", which tells me mostly that no one really knows, and secondarily that all the numbers are probably wrong. Anyway, as a thought excersise, what would happen if China simply decided to "cash out"? Not all at once - dumping $1T worth of bonds on the open market would render them valueless. How about just not trading in US bonds anymore? As their bonds mature, take the cash, but do not buy anymore. That would decrease t
Re: (Score:2)
That would decrease the demand quite significantly
China has been reducing their net treasury position for a couple of years and yet yields on a 10 year note have fallen to record lows (less than 2%). Besides, if international demand were to fall off completely, the Federal Reserve could simply purchase the bonds at whatever rate it wanted to.
There is really no mechanism to prevent the Federal reserve from buying every Treasury bond in existence, really. There are reasons that might not be good idea under
Re: (Score:2)
How does this work though? It seems to me that if the only people buying the underpinnings of the dollar is the country that uses the dollar internally (the Federal Reserve), then the rest of the world has effectively moved away from the dollar and it is worthless.
My understanding is that the rest of the world buys T-bonds because they conduct their trade in dollars, and definitely buy oil in dollars. Therefore the T-bond is a decent safe haven investment because it can be cashed in for dollars, even if t
Re: (Score:2)
The only way for them to do... anything... with the bonds is to dump them on the open market. However, that would crash the price, and the US could simply buy back the bonds at less than their face value, saving money in the long term.
That would be a disaster. Far more than just China relies on the US Bond price not crashing. The fallout for such a thing would be amazing, just the tiniest slippage of the rating from one of the bond agencies through the markets into turmoil for a month.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the interest rate paid on bonds is about a low as it can get, it means demand is high
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that the Federal Reserve keeps buying all surplus debt, which is a lot. "The market" hasn't bought (net) new debt in quite a while. This price manipulation is one of the reasons cited by China for their changing investment strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you can image how quickly they'd scoop up Chinese-owned bonds if China was stupid enough to dump them all at give-away prices.
I don't know why this "China has leverage over the US", "China owns the US", "China can foreclose on the US" crap is so pervasive. Why do people so want to believe it?
Re: (Score:2)
Which we can default on. That leverage goes both ways.
Hmm... is it? It is not like US can default only to China, how would you like US 'es credit rating to go to C-?
Re: (Score:2)
Does not matter what the credit rating of the USA is, its the reserve currency. Either lenders will lend to the US when asked, or will have their holdings confiscated through the use of the printing press. The US is unique in this given its accidental geographic location, and the outcomes of WWI and II, not that they were really separate wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Either lenders will lend to the US when asked, or will have their holdings confiscated through the use of the printing press
Fail to see how this would solve the problem. You know?... the first to cry foul loudly will be the biggest corps of US, having their assets diluted, not to speak of the voters.
After this, it is not like China will (economically) stay with its hands crossed, I think the next move would be to make remimbi the currency of the world trade - many others nations already prefer [southasiantribune.com] now a more stable currency (or at least the countries in BRICS) - can you imagine their reaction if USD suddenly becomes garbage by a def
Re: (Score:2)
That is when the US flexes its military muscle, resulting in the countries making a hasty retreat back to the dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
That is when the US flexes its military muscle, resulting in the countries making a hasty retreat back to the dollar.
Mate, you're delusional. Letting aside the prospect, in a WWIII, of US taking the place of Germany in WWII (would it have many allies from this position? I doubt Europe will consent to lend a "hand" in this madness)... consider
US had 10 years of war in two countries that brought the economy to its knees (running a high deficit and such). If the countries in BRICS decide they want no more to trade in USD and US triggers a war to coerce them back, US will have to fight one-third of the world's total populati [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The US is unique in this given its accidental geographic location [...]
Will you please elaborate on this? What specific geographic/locational properties are you referring to, and how do they affect the USD's role as reserve currency?
Re: (Score:3)
It is not like US can default only to China,
Each bond is unique. The US Treasury registers and approves the owners of all Treasury issued bonds. If China acted to damage the US using Treasury bonds, they would suddenly find themselves the owners of worthless paper. The same would happen if the US and China went to war (even by proxy, like Korea.)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not like US can default only to China,
Each bond is unique. The US Treasury registers and approves the owners of all Treasury issued bonds. If China acted to damage the US using Treasury bonds, they would suddenly find themselves the owners of worthless paper.
I see... and all the other nations (especially those in BRICS) will be happy to hear US started to default on bonds issued to China and will do nothing, right?
The same would happen if the US and China went to war (even by proxy, like Korea.)
I hope you don't suggest this as an outcome that would be preferable to not getting inflammated over minor squabbles (like Nortel - a Canadian company under liquidation, if I'm not mistaken - got hacked for 10 years and did nothing).
Or are you on the view that cyber-war is not another "yellowcake fairy story" but a sound concept?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm addressing the incessant refrain that China somehow can "Call in" US debt, as if they were regular loans. There's no mechanism by which China can use US Treasury issued bonds to harm the US. There's no mechanism by which they can even threaten it. There is no leverage. People need to stop uncritically regurgitating this hysterical nonsense.
I see... and all the other nations (especially those in BRICS) will be happy to hear US started to default on bonds issued to China and will do nothing, right?
"If China acted to damage the US using Treasury bonds"
Exactly the same as freezing the assets of a dictator who threatens the US, which has happened any number of tim
Re: (Score:2)
I'm addressing the incessant refrain that China somehow can "Call in" US debt, as if they were regular loans. There's no mechanism by which China can use US Treasury issued bonds to harm the US. There's no mechanism by which they can even threaten it. There is no leverage. People need to stop uncritically regurgitating this hysterical nonsense.
Is there a leverage for US (and other First World nations) to get tougher on China as the OP suggested? Or is it also a hysterical nonsense?
I see... and all the other nations (especially those in BRICS) will be happy to hear US started to default on bonds issued to China and will do nothing, right?
"If China acted to damage the US using Treasury bonds"
Exactly the same as freezing the assets of a dictator who threatens the US, which has happened any number of times without destroying the financial system. And why would Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa get between the US and China in a dispute? Why would they avenge China if China did something stupid and came off worse for it?
Avenge? I don't think vengeance is the proper term. I'd rather think they'll get around, rally and lower the level of trading with US; I mean: how comfortable would you be with a partner that sucks you dry, how long would you still stay in the partnership?
In case it escaped you: while US (and other First World nations) use Africa as a garbage dump [slashdot.org], China invests [huffingtonpost.ca] heavi
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a leverage for US (and other First World nations) to get tougher on China as the OP suggested? Or is it also a hysterical nonsense?
Well, it's hysterical, but not nonsense. There's the normal diplomatic pressure, threats to preferred trade status, etc. Not the sort of thing the OP meant, of course.
Re: Response of the other BRICS.
I'd rather think they'll get around, rally and lower the level of trading with US;
Again, why? If China tried to use its ownership of US Treasuries to somehow threaten the US, and the US responded by cancelling or freezing those assets, why would the other BRICS nations feel threatened? "BRICS" is just a traders acronym for five high growth nations, it is not a trade alliance. The five have ab
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's hysterical, but not nonsense. There's the normal diplomatic pressure, threats to preferred trade status, etc. Not the sort of thing the OP meant, of course.
Maybe not nonsense, but US (and other First World nations) would have to be very careful; the population in BRICS (1/3 of the whole world population) would not feel the same impact on their living standard if the BRICS trade with US will lower down.
I don't mean anything sudden, but 3-5 years of gradual reduction in the trade level would be just enough for the US population to feel quite down (after such a long period, a high unemployment won't be solved that quickly [wikipedia.org] and a lower availability of cheap product
Re: (Score:2)
Re: BRICS as an organisation not a casual grouping.
I stand corrected. I didn't realise they had formalised their relationships to that degree.
Nonetheless, it's hard to see India, for example, siding with China in a dispute with the US. Or Brazil.
and a lower availability of cheap products from China won't make their life easier).
Hmmm, I'm not sure that would hurt the US as much as it would hurt China. After all, most "cheap Chinese imports" that matter are US designed and owned or are easily substituted with US owned products. Moving that manufacturing to the next lowest market on the list,
Re: (Score:2)
Replied at the wrong spot. Sorry.
Here [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: BRICS as an organisation not a casual grouping.
I stand corrected. I didn't realise they had formalised their relationships to that degree.
Nonetheless, it's hard to see India, for example, siding with China in a dispute with the US. Or Brazil.
Lower the risk of exposure to a volatile borrower (US start playing nasty with China would be seen as volatile)?
Let see
* India buying IMF gold [reuters.com] - among the reasons - diversifying India's reserves (under the milder term of "foreign exchange reserve management") and a larger voting share in the IMF;
* Brazil - even if at a record high reserve [imf.org] level, probably quite f**ked [imf.org] in this respect - the exposure to US securities seems quite high. Anyway, here's something interesting [seekingalpha.com]: Brazil prepared to lend reserves fro
Re: (Score:2)
I'm addressing the incessant refrain that China somehow can "Call in" US debt, as if they were regular loans. There's no mechanism by which China can use US Treasury issued bonds to harm the US. There's no mechanism by which they can even threaten it. There is no leverage. People need to stop uncritically regurgitating this hysterical nonsense.
There are several hypothetical ways to make that happen. If China stopped buying US bonds, not only that would have an effect on short-term liquidity, but probably would have a cascading effect, and very few countries have China's buying power. Given the valorization of the yuan relative to the dollar, and considering the effort China is making to free themselves from the US dependency, I'd guess they will shift from usd to another international currency sometime in the next years, and that will not only af
Re: (Score:2)
If China stopped buying US bonds, not only that would have an effect on short-term liquidity, but probably would have a cascading effect
Okay. China has stopped buying US bonds. What now?
No, I don't mean hypothetically, China has stopped buying US bonds. It's allowing its holdings to decline as they mature. Yet the resale price is still high, the interest rates are still low. The market would love China to dump some US bonds at fire-sale prices.
and very few countries have China's buying power
China holds about 8% of US Treasury bonds.
Japan holds about 6%, the UK has increased its US holdings to about 4%. There's nothing special about China's ownership of US debt. There's nothing that gives
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't mean hypothetically, China has stopped buying US bonds. It's allowing its holdings to decline as they mature. Yet the resale price is still high, the interest rates are still low. The market would love China to dump some US bonds at fire-sale prices.
Some, probably yes. All of them, I seriously doubt. And everyone's been looking distracted with Europe, so no one (outside of the US) is really paying attention to what's going on.
Japan holds about 6%, the UK has increased its US holdings to about 4%. There's nothing special about China's ownership of US debt. There's nothing that gives them leverage. And, of course, US institutions, including the Social Security Trust, own about 70% of US Federal debt.
Do you think the Social Security Trust are gold bars stored in some banks? The trust is probably scattered along long-term stable investments, and probably some of them outside the US. How do you think those investments would turn out when faced with a significant depeciation of the currency? And all the private sector, how would
Re: (Score:2)
The trust is probably scattered along long-term stable investments, and probably some of them outside the US. How do you think those investments would turn out when faced with a significant depeciation of the currency?
The international ones would suddenly become much more valuable. If they traded out of them, back into US dollars to buy Chinese-owned bonds that are suddenly trading below face value, they would make a killing.
Do you understand how currency works? If you hold, say, UK bonds, which are paid and traded in pounds-sterling, and the US dollar drops in value against the pound (and every other currency), then your UK bonds are worth more to you.
Why do you think China is trying to keep the yuán as low as poss
Re: (Score:2)
Because China has a very conservative investment strategy. US debt is still the safest investment available.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think they 'loaned' us trillions of dollars because... ?
They wanted you to get your asses kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan, not theirs. They're not that smart. Bad gamblers, and they don't understand that the US uses wars to test out its new weaponry.
Re: (Score:2)
That simply is not true. China's economy would come utterly unglued in the West did not provide an consumptive outlet for all that production.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Finally, someone speaking some sense in this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they try then China will simply foreclose on the USA's debt.
How?
Treasuries aren't "loans". They are investment products. They have a fixed expiry date, fixed interest, and are paid in US dollars. Buying US debt gives China no power over the US, instead it exposes China to any crisis in the US.
The cheapness' cost is something you overlook (Score:2)
The US would most certainly survive. China would find itself back in familiar territory, courtesy of a government collapse.
We're not harming ourselves, but you sure like to think that way. This event is one more reason to send them into internal turmoil, such that it causes their government to be toppled. You underestimate the US and overestimate China in very treasonous ways.
China not India? (Score:2)
I thought Nortel was outsourcing everything to India, not China. I suppose this is an important story if you live in China or India, but pretty much "eh" for everyone else.
If a company is intentionally outsourcing everything, does it really matter fundamentally matter if their stuff gets "involuntarily outsourced" or diverted to yet another foreign country?
I can't feel any sympathy for Nortel at all. A traitor to their own country got screwed. boo hoo.
Re:China not India? (Score:5, Interesting)
One tiny detail this summary neglected to mention is Nortel went bankrupt 3 years ago.
They had no interest in pursuing the investigation because there was pretty much no way it was going to make their assets look any *more* valuable to buyers...
Two points: (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I no longer care what "Wall Street Journal reports [from behind a paywall]". Quoting largely unavailable sources is wasting my time.
2) Nortel wasn't so good at security in their products. Not much of a surprise.
Oh, and 3) discounting 'cyberwar' as a solution justifying a problem is a little like dismissing a accidental wound as not in and of itself fatal. You've been injured. Claiming it's 'not that bad' doesn't change the nature of the injury. China has been attacking the rest of the world for a while now. The evidence cannot be excused.
Re: (Score:2)
one can now begin making the inference that those who persist in reading it are suspect, as they lack the critical thinking faculties required to discern reality from fantasy, truth from lies, and argument from propaganda
So, you're saying that this brings the WSJ into parity with the rest of the main-stream media...
analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
link around the paywall (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Oooh... (Score:4, Insightful)
That could get rather uncomfortable for anybody involved in their asset sale. I'd imagine that some of the buyers are sniffing around for blood as we speak.
"Shake the West awake" by Landscape (Score:2)
This story reminds me of the song "Shake the West awake" by Landscape from their album "From the album, "From The Tea-rooms Of Mars .... To The Hell-holes Of Uranus".
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDi1dskKZQw [youtube.com]
Fantastically, this was made in 1981, more than thirty years ago. Maybe Nortel (and others) should have listened to them.
Doing it to themselves... (Score:2)
So we have one article suggesting that cyberwar is an exaggeration, and now we have another article which seems to demonstrate that it is indeed a problem. I suppose we could debate whether or not this constitutes cyberwarfare but clearly American businesses and the government are not taking these threats seriously enough.
My impression has always been that the Chinese, both on a corporate and governmental level, realize they're too dependent on the developed world. The fact is that the US has even offloaded
Re: (Score:2)
You've heard people respond to "Illegal downloading is stealing!" by pointing out that it's copyright violation, not "stealing"? People call it "stealing" to try to sell a solution more harmful than the problem.
In the same way, "Cyber-warfare" just means espionage, mostly corporate espionage, not "war". People call it "war" in order to sell a solution more harmful than the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
"So we have one article suggesting that cyberwar is an exaggeration"
This is espionage, of the good old fashioned industrial variety. It used to be done by actual people, on site, and now it's done through computers. It's not warfare, of any kind.
Anyone caught in China for hacking? (Score:2)
According to TFA, the excuse used by the Chinese government amounts to "wasn't government sponsored, show us some proof".
Have there been any cases where a hack was actually traced to an individual in China? Has the Chinese government followed up in those instances to arrest and try the individuals? I would think that if someone in US were to hack into a Chinese company network they would be arrested and tried.
Amazing a company that dumb can stay in biz... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, wait. I see. That explains alot. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Diebold?
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother when their government can buy them?
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me you aren't conflating the actions of a government with the desires of the governed.
Shows that detection intrusion is critical (Score:2)
Preventing attackers from getting in it only the first line of defense. Detecting then once they are in, and having the logs that show what they did is critical for an adequate response. Unfortunately, as many recently published events show, this seems to be largely unknown or not done due to cost reasons. At the same time, most corporate systems are relatively easy to break in for high-competence attachers. Something needs to change here, and the only thing I can think of is personal criminal liability of
Re: (Score:2)
Something needs to change here, and the only thing I can think of is personal criminal liability of those that fail to put reasonable security on their IT installations.
I am sorry but that would be insanely unjust. Should you be held 'criminally' responsible if you house is burgled because you did not have deadbolt lock on all your doors? Obviously no. At the same time if all you have is light weight little knob locks you are not doing much to protect your own assets.
If you really want to see change the insurance industry needs to spine up. Just like your homeowners rates are higher if you don't do basic security like have deadbolts corporate insurance rates need to g
More common then you think (Score:2)
I worked for a company once that finally noticed anonymous access to an internal unprotected FTP site where the IP's were originating from China. Been going on for months.
Not sure what you can do when it doesn't really require a "hack" to gain access to corporate files. I don't work for them anymore BTW.
Amateurs ... (Score:2)
With the current state of patent law it would've been even funnier if the Chinese had taken stuff from current research projects and patented it before Nortel could.
Re:10 years! WOW! (Score:5, Funny)
Where were all thier network security experts at?
Cisco and Juniper, mostly.
Re: (Score:2)