×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Gov't Victim of Cyberattacks

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the i-hate-when-that-happens dept.

Security 187

courteaudotbiz writes "Canada and all members of the U5 (United States, Germany, United Kingdom, France and New-Zealand) state that they all suffered government-directed attacks between June and September 2007. These seemed to be Chinese government sponsored attacks." It's a Google translation, so it's a bit hard to read, but it seems to be a recurring story these last few months.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

187 comments

And? (5, Insightful)

PawNtheSandman (1238854) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710489)

I'm sure we are returning the favor and have been for decades.

Re:And? (3, Insightful)

cytg.net (912690) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710617)

more importantly, whos really to gain something from putting the chinese in the cyberspot these days.
Someone needs funding for something im sure..

Re: Ay? It's Canada. LEAVE them ALONE !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23710733)

It's Canada for christs sake. What do you expect from Canada? Just leave them alone !!

Re: Ay? It's Canada. LEAVE them ALONE !! (1)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710915)

First and foremost, It's Eh. Secondly, Southpark stated that if anything bad happens... Blame Canada. Thirdly, I believe it was in a previous post that said that china's .CH or whatever they use is one of the most volatile places on the net. SO if we (the United states) decided to invade them via cyber-terrorism We might want to beef up our McAfee lol.

Re: Ay? It's Canada. LEAVE them ALONE !! (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711649)

Yeah well, considering the huge number of Chinese people living in Canada, whoever's launching these attacks should back the fuck off. I can't think of very many countries that are as welcoming to Chinese immigrants as Canada, because a significant portion of the world is (justifiably) pissed off / scared of them.

Me, I like Chinese food a lot :)

But seriously, back the fuck off. I've already banned Chinese IP blocks from every single box I own, nothing but trouble. They should work on cleaning up their act - this world doesn't need another war.

Re: Ay? It's Canada. LEAVE them ALONE !! (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711947)

Me, I like Chinese food a lot :)
Me too. I was thinking of opening a Chinese restaurant in China. It could be successful. There is no Lemon Chicken or Ginger beef there. It may catch on.

Re:And? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23711897)

Yep - there's even a webpage for the Air Force's cyber attackers [af.mil] .

The NSA is known to hide backdoors in US software distributed overseas (think "Windows") and the CIA and NSA almost certainly also have cyber war departments - although they don't broadcast that fact via a webpage.

The CIA has actually managed to blow up a Russian pipeline [zdnet.co.uk] using cyber attacks - in 1982!

China is just returning fire from US attacks that have been occurring since the dawn of the information age.

For Shame (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23710545)

The bullies always pick on the slower kids.

Re:For Shame (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23710609)

Hey, don't cyberattck me buddy!

Re:For Shame (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23710997)

Don't call me "buddy" friend!

So... (5, Funny)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710567)

When is the US going to "Cyber invade" China? I'm not sure how exactly they would do it but I'm guessing it would involve telling people that they export viruses of mass destruction, letting people know it'll take a day or 2 to get the Chinese servers in line, and the backbones there will welcome them with open arms. The US will then be there for a month or 2 before they get someone in the government to call it off leaving the Chinese networks in the hands of a few ISP "Warlords" for a few years...

Re:So... (3, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711251)

When is the US going to "Cyber invade" China? ...
Put on the tin foil hat. To properly cyber-invade the country, the U5 will need some advance search teams on the ground there. Some folks to ensure that targeted data attacks hit the right spots. These advanced search and spotter groups will be sent in the form of Olympic "trainers", cooks, security, and flunkies. Once the Olympics is done, then we'll see some interesting fiber cable cuts and one or two odd DNS issues, then the spynetwork installation will be complete, and the only person that will know more about China than the US government will be Mr Chan who sells noodles on a side street in Beijing.

Tinfoil hat off: They are already spying on them with satellites and anything that you might think of plus a few other things that are so outrageously expensive and impractical that you would not imagine that they are using them.

The cold war is not over, it simply moved to the Intarwebtubes.

U5? (2, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710611)

What are the U5 nations? The article didn't say, and Google wasn't much help. I'm not used to seeing NZ in the short-list for anything, especially not with USA, France and Germany.

Anyone know what that group is?

Re:U5? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23710873)

There is no such group as the "U5". Google did not know how to translate the article properly from french (but did a reasonably good job), and then the submitter misinterpreted the botched translation.

Finally the slashdot "editor" couldnt be bothered to do any fact-checking, and so here we are.

Re:U5? (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710889)

I honestly don't know either, i'd be willing to bet its just some bullshit kinda like the title of the summary.

The only thing I can think of thats close, is the permanent members of the United Nations, which is 5 countries, some of which are similar, but... not the same list.

China, France, Russia, UK, US.

Maybe there is some sort of internet related U-list, meaning that those 5 governments do more business online or something.

Re:U5? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#23712193)

That's permanent members of the UN security council, not "the UN," which would normally be interpreted to mean the general assembly.

Re:U5? Well, maybe it's because they all (2, Funny)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710985)

sound like they have a "u" or "yoo" in them somewhere...

Yoo-knighted-sutates...

Can-u-dah...

Furansu (if hailing from Korea or Japan...)...

Yoo-knighted-king-dum

Germ-u-knee...

What is probably yoo-s-ful to consider is that Can-u-da probably hasn't really colun-ized any other sove-run nation... LOL!

Re:U5? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23711009)

US, UK, AU, NZ, CA

Re:U5? (5, Informative)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711229)

I submitted this story, and am a french Canadian. The google translation was not wrong, the article really stated "the U5 countries". I did some research after I posted, and found really NO INFORMATION about this "organization". Maybe it's just a term internally used by the Canadian secret services. I'm as confused as you all about the presence of N-Z on such a short list :-)

Re:U5? (2, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711863)

"Maybe it's just a term internally used by the Canadian secret services."

Or, maybe because it's being translated from a French document, it's a French abbreviation. After all, the abbreviation "EU" means completely different things to francophones and anglophones.

Re:U5? (1)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711387)

Aren't those the 5 most prominant English-speaking countries? Am I missing someone?

Perhaps the Chinese government has something against the English language. Or perhaps this French writer thinks English speaking countries have some sort of conspiracy to suppress the French.

Re:U5? (1)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711893)

Aren't those the 5 most prominant English-speaking countries?


Is France REALLY a country where English language is dominant? Mmmm.... Not!

Re:U5? (1)

TransEurope (889206) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711487)

Everyone of them has a 'u' in it's name. UK, Deutschland, Neu Seeland, Republik Frankreich, USA. Well, in some kind of language.

Never heard of a group named U5. I would assume it's some kind of military cooperation. New Zealand is also a part of the Echelon-Program. Germany, UK and the US too. Maybe there is also a Echelon-station in France or they share the informations.

Re:U5? (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711673)

"I'm not used to seeing NZ in the short-list for anything,"

The Back-Seater's Gang, along with Canada and, um... Canada...

There's gotta be more members!

Re:U5? (1)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 5 years ago | (#23712141)

From TFA (accents butchered by Slashdot):

"U5 (Ãtats-Unis, Grande-Bretagne, Australie, Nouvelle-Zélande et Canada) "
These governments have an agreement to share intelligence information.

Raid? Border Scurmish? War? (2, Interesting)

bozojoe (102606) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710613)

So at what point does someone decide this is with hostile intent? Does this apply to corporation as well? Can DuPont invade Johnson's and Johnson's?

Make it legal (3, Interesting)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710623)

Why not just make it legal for us to hack Chinese IP addresses? This could be fun!

Then once we have their systems they will negotiate.

Re:Make it legal (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710791)

And while we are at it, block all Chinese IP's from reaching outside their borders. The problems though may be 'fake' routers. It is believed the Chinese government manufactured fake Cisco routers and got them in several places to bypass locations should a blocking attempt be made in the future.

Re:Make it legal (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711143)

block all Chinese IP's from reaching outside their borders
The Chinese government already has that one covered.

Re:Make it legal (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711379)

No they don't. They 'filter' content. Totally different thing. Blocking an IP going out of China and coming into your location vs blocking content coming from an IP going into China are two different things.

Re:Make it legal (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711445)

Also, China blocks domains nas well in their firewall. We want to be doing the same for all IP's and domains coming from China. Thats not the same thing, it's the reverse and China doesn't do it for all domains and IP's coming from any one country. We would want to do it for all IP's coming from V=China (couldn't do it for domains as that's too vague).

Re:Make it legal (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710805)

You're making it too complicated. We should just use our existing state-of-the-art AI, and have it probe the networks and have it destroy any hint of the attacks. It'll squash these hackers like a bug!

In Defence of the Chinese Government (0, Troll)

daliman (626662) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710633)

Whenever I hear about my government cooperating in any way with those muppets in charge of the US, I feel like launching attacks on them too.

The U5 ?? (3, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710643)

I know I can't be the only one who has never heard of this group. It doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry.

This is all I could dig up really - seems to be some cyber-security e-commerce related group?

Whereas work in other areas of shared concern, such as international trade, is conducted in line with some "ground truths and principles," there is little by way of standards, laws, regulations, etc. to guide international cooperation between key partners on cyber security. Mr. Aisenberg argued that such cooperation could be especially fruitful between the so called "U5 Countries" - Canada, Great Britain, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. As countries with a shared history, common language, and similar institutions and values, the U5 countries could work together and "develop a doctrine that they can all believe in," before moving policy, regulation, and legislation in that shared direction. In fact, Mr. Aisenberg emphasized that the democratic, liberal, free-market commitments common across the U5 countries are a logical starting point for cooperation, as they can anchor cooperation in common objectives and principles.

Re:The U5 ?? (1)

MasterPuppeteer (962029) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710837)

I'm guessing it's related to ECHELON. The US, UK, NZ, Canada and Australia are the five participants of that program.

Re:The U5 ?? (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711339)

If the UK-USA, U8, and ECHELON are all the same thing, then the question is this: Who are the good guys, them or the chinese?

Re:The U5 ?? (1)

daliman (626662) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710893)

It's a little odd... and the countries in your list don't match the countries in the OP list.

Is this the same group that was pushing the ACTA scam?

U5? (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710645)

"U5 (United States, Germany, United Kingdom, France and New-Zealand)": Is this a typo/mistranslation? Because neither I, nor wikipedia knows what this is. G5 [wikipedia.org] , however seems to describe the same thing.

Re:U5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23710787)

...Only it has Japan instead of New Zealand. How very odd that New Zealand (a nation of only 4 million) is included in a group whose other 4 members are members of the G5 (largest industrialied nations).

Re:U5? (5, Informative)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710933)

I think it's this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK-USA_Security_Agreement [wikipedia.org]

The UK-USA Security Agreement is an agreement or treaty that established an alliance of Anglosphere countries for the purpose of sharing intelligence. The alliance includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States.

The community is derived from an intelligence sharing agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States signed immediately following the Second World War to capitalize on intelligence relationships built up during that conflict. This formalized the intelligence sharing agreement in the Atlantic charter, signed in 1941, following the cessation of the conflict.

Google translation? (5, Funny)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710647)

It's a google translation, so it's a bit hard to read, but it seems to be a recurring story these last few months.
They tried to Google-translate Canadian into English? You fools, It cannot be done!

OK, OK I didn't RTFA. My way's better.

Re:Google translation? (0, Flamebait)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711227)

They tried to Google-translate Canadian into English? You fools, It cannot be done!

You actually make a good point, humor aside... Why does an article from a primarily-English speaking country (And the Quebecois all speak English fluently, the pompous gits just won't) need translation in the first place?

Offhand, I would have to suspect this as some sort of propagandist rag that cares more about inciting the masses than reaching them.

Re:Google translation? (1)

Len (89493) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711543)

I can't decide whether your comment is intended as humour or flamebait, so I'll just give a straight reply:

The article is written in one of Canada's official languages. Get over it.

Not only that (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23710667)

the shit some chinese restaurants serve, someone needs to drop the A-bomb now.

Apart from that, I actually like the Chinese. Nice people. Especially the women. Well, the one's that don't look like cunts anyway.

Ridiculous (2, Insightful)

geekmansworld (950281) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710669)

It is baffling to me how these sort of Cyber-wars can go on and in the meantime countries will continue talking to eachother like nothing's the matter.

Understandably, one can draw parallels to the ongoing espionage among all countries during the 20th century. Still, this seems like the militarization of the internet, which is a civilian construct. That sets a troubling precedent.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711269)

We've made it into a civilian domain, but don't forget it was originally ARPANET, and was intended for military use, before it became the Internet and the american MILNET broke away from it. There might be some people in the US military that think the Internet belongs to them.

Re:Ridiculous (2, Funny)

geekmansworld (950281) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711767)

That's true. The problem with militaries thinking in this manner is that the internet has become essential for the operation of the civilian industrialized world.

This probably explains why governments haven't retaliated against hacking with DoS attacks: it would lead to reprisals and a state of mutually assured internets destruction. Which I like to call "MAID".

Re:Ridiculous (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711555)

It's the politics of money. We need more to defend against the Russian, communists, Muslims, or what ever evil will get us more funds.

The article should read "Stupid government department lax on security was broken into". There is no way to prove who broke in. Who's to say that the compromised system wasn't used to hack back into China. Who's to say it's not another Canadian political party using a hacked system in china to hide their tracks. Better yet, who's to say it's not propaganda in order to create fear to increase the tax base. It seams the only solution that keeps coming out of governments is we need more...

Espionage and Reconnaissance (1)

thesandbender (911391) | more than 5 years ago | (#23712115)

The duty of the military, any military, it to be prepared to strike immediately and decisively. A more physical example is sending bombers towards a foreign airspace to gauge their response and determine how to adjust your attack profile. This was common practice during the cold war and Russia has started it up again. It's a little bit of "saber-rattling" mostly it's just reconnaissance and planning.

google translation (2, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710673)

Yeah, I've noticed google translator has a trouble translating from Canadian. Not that I read the article or anything.

It's a google translation, so it's a bit hard to read, but it seems to be a recurring story these last few months.

Critical Infrastrucure attack (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23710681)

So when is a nation wide attack on a critical infrastructure not a call to war?

It appears to have caused measurable damage and have been deliberately caused by a foreign nation.

What's a U5 ? (1)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710685)

If I read it write, U5 is shorthand for U.S., Germany, UK, Canada, and NZ. That's an odd assortment of countries. Where did that come from?

I sounds like an Irish rock band.

Re:What's a U5 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23710901)

it's actually a mistake. U5 is US, AUTRALIA, UK, Canada and NZ.

AC

Translating from Canadian is hard (5, Funny)

Kohath (38547) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710689)

I'm surprised Google can do it at all. Removing the "u" from words like "color" is easy enough. But the hostile subtext in the Canadian niceness and politeness is hard for machines to render into American.

The further you get from the border, the harder it is to understand. Of course Canadians will deny it. But they'll do it politely.

Re:Translating from Canadian is hard (1)

fyoder (857358) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711043)

Of course Canadians will deny it. But they'll do it politely.
We could admit it. But then we'd have to find a way to kill you passive agressively.

I'd mod you 'insightful' if I had points.

Re:Translating from Canadian is hard (2, Funny)

jax9999 (919336) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711051)

I find the best way to do this is to replace thank you with fuck you, and you're welcome with die die DIEEEEE!!!!1!!!

It seems to be the closest translation.

Re:Translating from Canadian is hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23711109)

Oh, no we don't, eh? Canada bought some submarines but they lit on fire, so we don't have any sub texts. Don't worry, though, we ain't hostile, we just like beer and hockey, eh?

(HIDDEN NOTE TO FROZEN OVERLORDS: This one is on to us. We must destroy him. Fire up the Zamboni!)

Re:Translating from Canadian is hard (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23711323)

hey now, dont forget the edmonton mall navy!

U5? (0, Redundant)

pubjames (468013) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710695)

What is the U5? I've done a google search for it and nothing comes up.

Looks like you can just make stuff up and the Slashdot won't notice.

What's a U5? (1)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710797)

And how come NZ is a member, but Australia isn't?

Sounds like their not quite sure.... (2, Insightful)

SGDarkKnight (253157) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710799)

The article tosses around the word "accused" a lot, but dosn't really point out if they have any hard evidense to back it up. Of course China is a likely suspect to "accuse" any high tech cyber-attacks of, but really, wouldn't you think any country that has a strong backbone to the internet would be capable of doing these attacks? Or am I just missing something completely?

Montreal as the International Capital (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23710975)

Funny that this guy has written three (3) articles in three (3) years, one of them putting Montreal as the International Capital of movie pirates.

Equally as funny as to think of Montreal as producing more movie copies that any Asian city, in such a way that it affects the World Market of Movies, knowing that a lot of movies in Montreal are shown in French.

Original link, please (0, Flamebait)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 5 years ago | (#23710995)

One small request: when you post stuff like this, please post the original link. We're not all illiterates around here.

...laura

Re:Original link, please (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711289)

I'm not exactly proficient in french, but I wouldn't have minded either.

Re:Original link, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23711541)

Clearly you are. The original link was easily found on the page:

http://technaute.cyberpresse.ca/200806/09/nouvelles/internet/18725-cyberattaque-a-ottawa.php

One small request: when you post stuff like this, please post the original link.
We're not all illiterates around here.

Re:Original link, please (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23711771)

One small request: when you post stuff like this, please post the original link. We're not all illiterates around here.
Instead of learning French you should've learn what 'illiterate' means.

great firewall of china (4, Interesting)

superflex (318432) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711015)

Would it not be really easy to misattribute the sources of these attacks to Chinese-gov't sources when everybody in China connects to the Net through a gov't-controlled firewall?
Can anyone who knows more about this than me comment?

Oh, and regarding the "U5" debate, RTFA. From the article "We have had confirmation from our partners U5 (USA, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada)" This corresponds to the UKUSA member countries [wikipedia.org] .

BOYCOTT THE OLYMPICS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23711145)

BOYCOTT THE OLYMPICS!

er ...

Well, (0)

travelmug (1304549) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711215)

It's not like this is anything new. Just wait... see whoever gets IPv6 up and running first. There will be more hacking than anyone has ever seen.

Translated from french (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23711235)

I know it's pretty oblivious... and I know all the jokes about translating candian to plain english is just to be funny ...

but I'm also pretty sure a lot of people don't know that there is two official languages in Canada... the text is originally in french

original link : http://technaute.cyberpresse.ca/200806/09/nouvelles/internet/18725-cyberattaque-a-ottawa.php

You know the primary question ... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711305)

...that's pondered in the various governmental offices now, right?

"How can we use that to justify more laws for domestic surveillance?"

Or do you have any other reason at hand why we hear about this at all?

Countries involved (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23711313)

The article actually reads " We have had confirmation from our partners U5 (USA, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) "

Submitter needs eyeglasses, and an atlas.

Not to worry.... (1)

cellocgw (617879) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711349)

I hear we've got some all-encompassing system about to go online. Codenamed "Colossus," it will implement a new level of Internet control known as "Skynet."

Big mistake (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711361)

In a followup, the Canadian government regrets to report that the increased traffic was not the result of an attack but rather a massive numbers of internet users from China hitting the website at once. Unfortunately a number of separate reports caused the site to represent something different than it's purpose. The weather report, a biopic on Jessica Alba, and a report about the beaches in southern France combined with the Google translation to be: Hot Nude Jessica Alba. That was nothing compared network strain in the November - December time frame when different reports came out to be: Cold Nipples Jessica Simpson

Google translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23711367)

Hey, thanks a lot for not hot linking to the original article. It's not as though everyone is stuck with only one language.

Network Robustness (2, Insightful)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711447)

While the article is long on smoke and short on fire, it does raise an interesting question in my mind.

To what extent has our critical network infrastructure retained the sort of "after-the-bomb" resilience of the original DARPAnet project? As I recall from a long ago text-book, our forbears with slide-rules and lab-coats worked out that if each node had separate links to three independent communication peers, that for most random removals of up to 90% of those nodes the remainder could still communicate. That is the design spec/philosophy that gave rise to the whole "built to survive a nuclear attack" meme.

Fast forward half a century, and everyone knows that our overall network infrastructure has nowhere near that level of redundancy and robustness, owing reasonably to that fact that most of our deployed applications don't require it. If it's not needed, why pay to build it across the board.

However, for those applications for which high-availability under outage/disaster/attack/DoS conditions is critical, have we been building appropriately? Or, as I fear, are we reliant on a small handful of satellites and long-haul backbones in support of everything else?

Is there anyone more current than I in that realm who might care to weigh in?

Quick translation (from a Canadian) (3, Interesting)

An anonymous Frank (559486) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711563)

What if the Chinese gov simply told a bunch of lonely Chinese teenagers that they'd get access to playboy.com if they ran some scripts for them on the weekends?

anyhoot, here are the only "facts" from TFA:

- over 20 branches of CA gov hit
- "U5" is quoted from a note given to Stockwell Day
- link to China is unconfirmed by US and Canada
- in an unrelated case, Le Monde (France) traced attacks back to Chinese nodes

More U5 complaining (4, Funny)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 5 years ago | (#23711783)

Even TFA doesn't include France and Germany in this "U5" boy band thing or whatever it is.

Welcome to Slashdot, where even the submitter doesn't need to RTFA.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...