Academic Paper in China Sets Off Alarms in U.S. - NY Times

veritas_libertas

Chinese Academics? Paper on Cyberwar Sets Off Alarms in U.S. - NYTimes.com

Larry M. Wortzel, a military strategist and China specialist, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 10 that it should be concerned because “Chinese researchers at the Institute of Systems Engineering of Dalian University of Technology published a paper on how to attack a small U.S. power grid sub-network in a way that would cause a cascading failure of the entire U.S.”

Hyper-Me

Interesting.

This isnt the first time something like this has come out of China though.

Not too long ago one of their Admirals (i think) published a "hypothetical" paper on how a Chinese invasion of the US would happen and how they would win.

earweed

It is scary that our power grid would be susceptible to such an attack. As with any network, it is our job to find the vulnerabilities in a system and protect the system. We should prob thank the guy for pointing this out and fix the problem instead of labeling him some kind of terrorist.
If a pen tester were to come to you before doing thetesting and point out your vulnerabilities would you label him a hacker?

earweed

Hyper-Me wrote: »

Interesting.

This isnt the first time something like this has come out of China though.

Not too long ago one of their Admirals (i think) published a "hypothetical" paper on how a Chinese invasion of the US would happen and how they would win.

If it were conventional warfare they would win. I'm surprised the Chinese gov't let him even publish the paper.

apena7

earweed wrote: »

If it were conventional warfare they would win. I'm surprised the Chinese gov't let him even publish the paper.

It was probably given the OK to publish because it makes the US lose face.

JockVSJock

Interesting Article.

On that note, some generals in the PLA wrote a doc called Unrestricted Warefare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

(See if you can Google around for the book in .pdf format.

Basically they were inspired by the USA's first Gulf War and realized that they needed to modernize their military. This is probably the basis for their increase in cyber attacks.

JDMurray

apena7 wrote: »

It was probably given the OK to publish because it makes the US lose face.

Loose face to whom? To loose face in world opinion, you need to suffer defeat in either a physical or political conflict.

How about that publishing the paper was secretly sponsored by several US agencies to force other US agencies to spend the money needed to better secure the management interfaces of the North American power grids (e.g., take them off the Internet).

It seems the paper was actually released over a year ago: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF9-4VVGGTJ-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1252142788&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=664349e104504ca1cdbb79772a790eb2

apena7

JDMurray wrote: »

Loose face to whom? To loose face in world opinion, you need to suffer defeat in either a physical or political conflict.

True, but you aren't looking at this from a Chinese perspective. earweed was wondering how the paper was allowed to be published under the Chinese government, and I replied that one reason could be that it makes the US lose face. You see, the Chinese take the concept of face very seriously. Simply pointing out someone's failures in public (whether you mean harm or not) causes that person to lose face. In this case, the Chinese government would be more than happy to allow someone to publish errors of the US (causing the US to lose face), and at the same time, take the opportunity to make itself look superior and strong to its people.

As another example, Toyota recently lost face over their accelerator/brake issues, while other car manufacturer's were quick to produce ads emphasizing their safety records and whatnot. It's a cultural thing. Over here, we say "Big deal. Everyone makes mistakes. Live and Learn", but I can guarantee you that huge mistakes in most Asian cultures are taken much more seriously and are not easily forgotten.

JDMurray

apena7 wrote: »

Simply pointing out someone's failures in public (whether you mean harm or not) causes that person to lose face.

The Chinese government understands the difference between a person and a nation. What causes one to loose face does not necessarily affect the other.

apena7 wrote: »

In this case, the Chinese government would be more than happy to allow someone to publish errors of the US (causing the US to lose face), and at the same time, take the opportunity to make itself look superior and strong to its people.

The Chinese government also understand what is considered to be provocative, and what might cause its competitors to take defensive action and fix their vulnerabilities. The people running the government of China aren't nearly as simple, backward, and naive as you think them to be.

apena7 wrote: »

As another example, Toyota recently lost face over their accelerator/brake issues,

That's Japan, not China. Japan is a very different culture and society from China.

slinuxuzer

earweed wrote: »

If it were conventional warfare they would win. I'm surprised the Chinese gov't let him even publish the paper.

Yea, and they want to take our guns away, one thing I don't think anyone counts on is that this country, especially the part I am from, is heavily armed. And yes I am proud of that.

apena7

JDMurray wrote: »

The Chinese government understands the difference between a person and a nation. What causes one to loose face does not necessarily affect the other.

Yes, they do understand the differences between a person and a nation, but the concept of face still applies.

The Chinese government also understand what is considered to be provocative, and what might cause its competitors to take defensive action and fix their vulnerabilities. The people running the government of China aren't nearly as simple, backward, and naive as you think them to be.

Your words, not mine. I never implied they were simple, backward, or naive. Just because they utilize different strategies doesn't make them any of the sort.

That's Japan, not China. Japan is a very different culture and society from China.

I didn't say Toyota was Chinese. It was another example of the concept of face. And yes, the concept of face also applies to Japan since their culture has deep Chinese roots!

Zartanasaurus

earweed wrote: »

If it were conventional warfare they would win.

What?

This China fear is way overblown. Remember the 80s when the Japanese were going to take over the world and had already bought the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument?

earweed

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

What?

This China fear is way overblown. Remember the 80s when the Japanese were going to take over the world and had already bought the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument?

I was refrring to just by their number of people. In a conventional war we wouldn't have the numbers. Given that they will probably have technological advantage before long, if not already, they have that much more strength.
By referring to being surprised the government would allow the paper to be published: Why publish anothers weakness and allow them to fix it. Guess they did us a favor..actually since the US is so in debt to the chinese they'd hate for someone else to be able to exploit this weakness.

chrisone

Iraq held the top 3 most powerful military technological and boots in 1992. USA defeated them within weeks. 2003 total destruction of a military , country, government within 2 to 3 weeks. The war in Bosnia and Afghan was won mainly by air. Any war with China would involve Japan and South Korea as our allies. You can count many others would love to join and get a piece of China as well.....Just a thought..

Military technology we are far advanced, the only things i hear about in China are about hackers and google lol , laptops, and 1 trillion people dont win wars. Strategy, weaponry , intelligence, sabotage, psychological warfare win wars IMO. I do not know much about Chinas Navy, but ours would start any such war and would crush theirs IMO, the tech in our Naval fortresses are far superior. Navy and Airforce would diminish half of theirs IMO.

heres a cool link http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-22635.aspx

GAngel

You americans sure do love to brag .

chrisone

Hey we love our Canadian and UK brothers! you should feel assured that if both of your countries were to be attacked , our huge military will be there to back you up

here is another link http://www.globalfirepower.com/index.asp

Hyper-Me

GAngel wrote: »

You americans sure do love to brag .

It ain't easy being on top.

GAngel

chrisone wrote: »

Hey we love our Canadian and UK brothers! you should feel assured that if both of your countries were to be attacked , our huge military will be there to back you up

here is another link World Military Strength Ranking

We love you guys too just stop dragging us into your never ending fights. The rest of nato needs to pull there own weight

chrisone

lol look at these huge lopsided numbers.

USA
NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 1,559
Merchant Marine Strength: 422 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 10
Aircraft Carriers: 11 [2008]
Destroyers: 50 [2008]
Submarines: 75 [2008]
Frigates: 92 [2008]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 100 [2008]
Mine Warfare Craft: 28 [2008]
Amphibious Craft: 38 [2008]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 18,169 [2003]
Helicopters: 4,593 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 14,947 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $515,400,000,000 [2009]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $70,570,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $13,780,000,000,000 [2007]

CHINA
NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 760
Merchant Marine Strength: 1,822 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 8
Aircraft Carriers: 1 [2010]
Destroyers: 21 [2004]
Submarines: 68 [2004]
Frigates: 42 [2004]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 368 [2004]
Mine Warfare Craft: 39 [2004]
Amphibious Craft: 121 [2004]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 1,900 [2004]
Helicopters: 491 [2004]
Serviceable Airports: 467 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $59,000,000,000 [2008]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $1,534,000,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $7,099,000,000,000 [2007]

Key points, our funding is superior, NAVY far superior, AIR force far Superior. China only has 1 air craft carrier? look at the aircraft ratio, 18k to 2k lol! Land troops wont do much in this era, if your Navy and Airforce go down, you pretty much lost the war...

Thats like building a network with hubs instead of intelligent switches....CHINA can keep their 1 gazillion troops, laptops and hackers lol

Turgon

chrisone wrote: »

lol look at these huge lopsided numbers.

USA
NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 1,559
Merchant Marine Strength: 422 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 10
Aircraft Carriers: 11 [2008]
Destroyers: 50 [2008]
Submarines: 75 [2008]
Frigates: 92 [2008]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 100 [2008]
Mine Warfare Craft: 28 [2008]
Amphibious Craft: 38 [2008]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 18,169 [2003]
Helicopters: 4,593 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 14,947 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $515,400,000,000 [2009]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $70,570,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $13,780,000,000,000 [2007]

CHINA
NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 760
Merchant Marine Strength: 1,822 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 8
Aircraft Carriers: 1 [2010]
Destroyers: 21 [2004]
Submarines: 68 [2004]
Frigates: 42 [2004]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 368 [2004]
Mine Warfare Craft: 39 [2004]
Amphibious Craft: 121 [2004]

AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 1,900 [2004]
Helicopters: 491 [2004]
Serviceable Airports: 467 [2007]

FINANCES (USD)
Defense Budget: $59,000,000,000 [2008]
Foreign Exch. & Gold: $1,534,000,000,000 [2007]
Purchasing Power: $7,099,000,000,000 [2007]

Key points, our funding is superior, NAVY far superior, AIR force far Superior. China only has 1 air craft carrier? look at the aircraft ratio, 18k to 2k lol! Land troops wont do much in this era, if your Navy and Airforce go down, you pretty much lost the war...

Thats like building a network with hubs instead of intelligent switches....CHINA can keep their 1 gazillion troops, laptops and hackers lol

Last time I checked US military spending was more than the rest of the entire world put together. So there's certainly lots of capacity there! Then again I think the US had more or less air superiority and naval superiority in Vietnam. In an attritional land based war many factors have to be considered and a lot of people determined to kill you at any cost might be a factor there.

What's more interesting to me is the assumption that China might be ready for an invasion. The *new* Chinese economy was brokered and bankrolled by Western Venture capitalists looking for a return in the 80's and 90's, and they got it. Recently I pulled a board from a 4000 series router and it said 'Made in the USA'. Not anymore it's not. It's a healthy business climate the Chinese want not war.

Kaminsky

Seeing this was first published over a yerar ago, I think releasing it now is just posturing in the current climate.

With the U.S's contant and mammoth investment in protection of all kinds, I doubt very much there isn't very well researched and rehearsed cyber protection protocols in place for "Key infrastructure and Services". I would also believe that the U.S has been investing very heavily in training teams of "Cyber Warriors" for such eventuallities for at least a decade. <Now that would be a cool job title>

Maybe, encouraged by recent, well publicesed successes, someone might be interpreting the quietness and lack of response from the U.S. as a sign of weakness... and end up waking up the sleeping giant all over again. We all remember the last time that happened.

JDMurray

apena7 wrote: »

And yes, the concept of face also applies to Japan since their culture has deep Chinese roots!

Then the concept of Neo-Nazism must also apply to the US government because of the American people's deep German roots.

Sounds silly, doesn't it?

apena7

JDMurray wrote: »

Then the concept of Neo-Nazism must also apply to the US government because of the American people's deep German roots.

Sounds silly, doesn't it?

That's exactly how it works

msteinhilber

JDMurray wrote: »

Then the concept of Neo-Nazism must also apply to the US government because of the American people's deep German roots.

Sounds silly, doesn't it?

The only unfortunate thing my deep German roots provide me with is a name that 9 out of 10 people butcher the heck out of spelling and pronunciation

mikedisd2

apena7 wrote: »

And yes, the concept of face also applies to Japan since their culture has deep Chinese roots!

Have you been to Japan? You need to do some travelling if you're making statements like this.

apena7

mikedisd2 wrote: »

Have you been to Japan? You need to do some travelling if you're making statements like this.

Yes, I have, and I loved every minute of it.

Did I say that Japan was a carbon-copy of China? No. Of course it's its own distinct country with its own distinct history. Nevertheless, you can trace nearly anything found in Japan -- from architecture (pagodas), clothing (kimono), written characters (Kanji), and cultural values -- back to China. Is it really that difficult to come to the conclusion that certain countries were influenced and adopted certain cultural aspects from others? In what way is this offensive and merit snarky remarks?

Paul Boz

I love how people are quick to worry about hackers taking down our power grids but forget that there are countries throughout the world pointing human race ending nuclear weapons at each other. Have we become so forgetful of our imminent doom that we just write it off as a fact of life? The paradigm of assured mutual destruction is something that newer generations ( < 30) have lived with forever. I was born in 1985 and the cold war was over when I was watching Ninja Turtles on Saturday morning cartoons. Its not a threat we even think about any more, which is somewhat scary.

Besides, let them take down the power grid. I live in Louisiana and am used to not having power for prolonged periods of time (much like my friends in gulf coast texas, MS, Alabama, florida, etc).

Turgon

Paul Boz wrote: »

I love how people are quick to worry about hackers taking down our power grids but forget that there are countries throughout the world pointing human race ending nuclear weapons at each other. Have we become so forgetful of our imminent doom that we just write it off as a fact of life? The paradigm of assured mutual destruction is something that newer generations ( < 30) have lived with forever. I was born in 1985 and the cold war was over when I was watching Ninja Turtles on Saturday morning cartoons. Its not a threat we even think about any more, which is somewhat scary.

Besides, let them take down the power grid. I live in Louisiana and am used to not having power for prolonged periods of time (much like my friends in gulf coast texas, MS, Alabama, florida, etc).

There are a lot of bombs in the world, but I believe the US and Russia are talking to one another. That relationship for all its *problems* and *misunderstandings* works quite well. Its the countries with little atomic sticks we need to be careful of.

Paul Boz

Turgon wrote: »

Its the countries with little atomic sticks we need to be careful of.

That's what I'm talking about. "Little atomic sticks?"

Even the rudimentary devices out there can level a city and make what we did to Japan look like child's play.

Hyper-Me

Paul Boz wrote: »

That's what I'm talking about. "Little atomic sticks?"

Even the rudimentary devices out there can level a city and make what we did to Japan look like child's play.

I think what he means, is country's that are just devleoping the technology (typically lower yield, less sophisticated stuff than what we would have).

They are less likely to know exactly what they have, what they are doing, and would be much less inclined to keep from using it.

Wasn't it sometime around the first gulf war that Israel had scrambled jets loaded with nuclear warheds headed for Iraq, but the US convinced them to back down? I think I read that somewhere.