China Suspected Behind Five Year Cyberattack Campaign
Security firm McAfee on Tuesday published the results of "Operation Shady RAT" (where RAT stands for Remote Access Tool), which the company describes as "the most comprehensive analysis ever revealed of victim profiles from a five year operation by one specific actor." McAfee said it traced several cyber shenanigans back to a single server used by the intruders to hack into 72 organizations, including offices of the Associated Press, governments of the United States, the United Nations, and others agencies around the world.
McAfee chose not to go out on a limb and name the "specific actor" it references, though according to a report in The New York Times, those entrenched in the security scene tell the news outlet the Chinese government has in place a cyber battalion of sorts ready to do battle on the Web. And it's not just security gurus chirping to NYT. James Lewis, a senior fellow and director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) tells Australia's The Sydney Morning Herald "the most likely candidate is China" based on his analysis of the targets. Regardless of where the attacks originated from, there's a ton of data changing hands.
"What we have witnessed over the past five to six years has been nothing short of a historically unprecedented transfer of wealth — closely guarded national secrets (including from classified government networks), source code, bug databases, email archives, negotiation plans and exploration details for new oil and gas field auctions, document stores, legal contracts, SCADA configurations, design schematics and much more has 'fallen off the truck' of numerous, mostly Western companies and disappeared in the ever-growing electronic archives of dogged adversaries," McAfee explains.
McAfee isn't exaggerating and says the amount of stolen data adds up to petabytes, though what exactly it's being used for "is still largely an open question." According to McAfee, the culprits could use this data to get the jump on building competing products (or build better ones), or gain the upper hand during business negotiations. Either way, McAfee says "the loss represents a massive economic threat not just to individual companies and industries but to the entire countries that face the prospect of decreased economic growth in a suddenly more competitive landscape and the loss of jobs in industries that lose out to unscrupulous competitors in another part of the world, not to mention the national security impact of the loss of sensitive intelligence or defense information."
You can read the entire detailed report here.
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
szore
August 04, 2011 at 5:39am
You fools are being extremely naive. China is our friend, they wouldn't do something like that to us. They said so.
![]()
rredline
August 03, 2011 at 12:52pm
A typical excuse MOD use to claim more budget from the Senate. They are spending 600+ billions every year, 3-4x compared to China, at a time when there are no major threats and the gov is in debt crisis!
![]()
TerribleToaster
August 04, 2011 at 5:54am
No no no, those are only police actions. Like when the neighbors kids are having a party and are too loud. That's when you call in the air strike.
![]()
SYL808
August 03, 2011 at 10:42am
Ever wonder why these sort of things just sprung out of nowhere around election time? Quick, somebody jump on this one. It'll sure play well with the voters!
![]()
Neufeldt2002
August 03, 2011 at 11:36am
No election here, as we just had ours, and Canada is also saying it was hacked.
![]()
SYL808
August 03, 2011 at 1:02pm
Every Bob Doe that ever surfed the web claimed that they were hacked by none other than your neighborhood-friendly Chinese people. But, hey... we're used to it. A little BS never hurt nobody.
![]()
TerribleToaster
August 04, 2011 at 6:01am
Isn't it werid how how all these major hacks originating from China over the past decade or so are all done by foreigners? And that they still haven't been caught yet even though China has, possibly, one of the most well controled borders in the world.
![]()
LilHammer
August 03, 2011 at 10:16am
Now there is tangible evidence that China is behind these attacks (though there's been speculation for years) and but we've continued to grant them "Most Favoured Nation" status - forget whether there are any real economic or political benfits to being the nation who's granted MFN. It's a political endorsement of sorts, if nothing else. Though it may only be a subset of the Chinese people behind the cyber-attacks, I would be willing to bet it is at least at the indirect instruction of the government.
I've also been speculating for some time that all the lead used in the manufacature of goods bound for the US has been on purpose to poison or kill us, even if it means doing it over a long period of time. Since this has the potential to destroy genes, I'm sure it is just as effective knowing that lead poisoning can cause birth defects and ensure future generations of the hated Western world are brought low. Wonder if we'll ever find eveidence to this effect as well?
![]()
whathuhitwasntme
August 03, 2011 at 9:27am
nice way to remove comments there that you dont like paul
![]()
TerribleToaster
August 03, 2011 at 10:27am
For those who are curious, I had the (dis)pleasure of reading whathuhitwasntme's removed post and can summarize it for you:
"Your writing is crap, I could do it better."
Except with more grammar errors, a few cases of CAPS LOCK, and unnecessary explanation marks.
Also, let me help you with your one line post there:
"Nice way to remove comments [there doesn't add anything to the sentence and is stricken] that you don't like, Paul."
![]()
whathuhitwasntme
August 03, 2011 at 11:20am
YOUR post is a troll
mine made a point
that while you did not like
was at least a point not a
look he said something I DONT LIKE WAAA WAAAA
but like I said, this is just not worth the effort to play spell checker police with you mr grammar teacher
![]()
TerribleToaster
August 03, 2011 at 12:26pm
Proper grammar is something I normally don't harp on online; however, if you are saying you'd make a better writer than someone else, I expect you to have and use the writing skills to back that up.
![]()
blkpanthr
August 03, 2011 at 3:27pm
i had the 2nd post on this story intitially, and it was also taken down
although to be fair it was in response to whathuhitwasme's troll post, and to tell him to zip-it.
so understandable.
lol
![]()
Paul_Lilly
August 03, 2011 at 9:37am
Trolling and SPAM are typically the only comments I send to the Nether Regions, the latter accompanied by a ban, and the former I give the benefit of the doubt someone's just having a bad day.
![]()
szore
August 04, 2011 at 5:43am
Mr. Lilly, speaking for myself, I just want to thank you for your epic contribution to this site, you are awesome! Keep it up! You're a freakin' machine, dude!
![]()
yu119995
August 03, 2011 at 11:07am
That's interesting Paul because I could have sworn that I started the comments with a very harmless, "Great. Here comes WWIII. *sigh*" or something to that effect. You took that down. Please explain.
![]()
yu119995
August 03, 2011 at 12:52pm
Thank you. I appreciate the response. Keep up the good work btw!
![]()
whathuhitwasntme
August 03, 2011 at 10:39am
ya know what never mind is not worth it
you get what you pay for
![]()
TerribleToaster
August 03, 2011 at 12:24pm
If you figure it is truly not worth your time/effort then don't mention it at all in the first place. You don't need to mention to someone that they aren't worth your time, otherwise that means that they, in fact, are; but, you feel the need to make them think they aren't out of some disillusioned belief that somehow your words are of great importance to them. Being perceived as so narcissistic and antagonistic can be damaging to your image.
![]()
whathuhitwasntme
August 03, 2011 at 5:37pm
did you think up all them big words just for me?
and the not worth my time comment was for what I REMOVED and did not post, I had a lengthy reply for you, but I decided to take a different road. As this is only destined for a ban an removal in this thread.
I instead went to the web site in question, messaged the author and pointed him in this direction. If its not plagarism, your good. If it is, well...... they got laws about this stuff. How about we see if this stays up a week, or is quietly removed from the web page.
Is that a good enough reply there for ya toaster?
Like I said, its not worth the effort or time to have a contest in here about who can spell better or use big words. Lets see how the real author feels later?
![]()
TerribleToaster
August 04, 2011 at 5:21am
Big words?
"and the not worth my time comment was for what I REMOVED and did not post, I had a lengthy reply for you, but I decided to take a different road."
It doesn't matter what you removed or why you removed anything. There's no need to draw attention to that fact as that negates the point of removing it in the first place. It's just a backhanded slap.
Also, this article cites it source by name and by linking to the orginal report which is standard fare.
It's a simple and clean "hook/introduction, abstract, block quote of major point(s) for validity, and references" report.
Nothing about it is plagrism.
And if you wished simply to inform Paul that you feel the article was plagrized, you probably shouldn't have started off with the insults or generally have put any insults in the post. Your orginal post just came off as tirade, not a piece of friendly advice.
![]()
whathuhitwasntme
August 04, 2011 at 6:29am
thats your opinion
and I suppose you are allowed one
like I said,
if the author feels the wholesale duplication of his work verbatim
and the subsequent publishing of it is indeed fair use
I am wrong, I'm man enough to admit if I am wrong.
However,
if the author of the original work feels differently........
well I guess we wait an see
![]()
TerribleToaster
August 04, 2011 at 9:21am
As honored as I am that you deem me worthy of having my opinion, I must inform you that it is actually not an opinion. If you quote something and then cite it directly, that is fair use. Plagiarism would require Paul telling us or implying that he wrote the quoted text. Seeing as he cited said quote(and cited it to someone other than himself), it's not plagiarism. It can never be plagiarism, because he never portrayed it as his own work in anyway (hence why it's a news report).
But by all means, don't dilly-dally here. Report this criminal offense to the original author. I'm sure he will be upset that two sentences from his sixity some sentence report (also excluding tables and diagrams) were used as free advertisment for his article, or as you put it, the "wholesale duplication of his work verbatim."
![]()
Carlidan
August 03, 2011 at 5:46pm
You probably had a lengthy reponse. But most of it is F****,S****,BI****, etc.... So yeah probably would have been taken off.
![]()
whathuhitwasntme
August 03, 2011 at 6:01pm
nah it went a bit into a ramble about other things and it was clear it was going to come across
wrong, so I removed, and said, its not worth it, as it was not worth it to drag my personal business in here.
![]()
SAND_CREATURE
August 03, 2011 at 8:58am
Is it just me or has this exact same report been published many times before?
![]()
blkpanthr
August 03, 2011 at 9:28am
the finger has been pointed a couple of times, but this is the first time anyone has had any direct evidence other than conjecture.
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

















