Beta
×

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!

Is China Creating the World's Largest Botnet Army?

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the economies-of-scale dept.

Security 195

david_a_eaves writes "The Chinese government is mandating that all computers sold in China come with Internet blocking software. Rob Cottingham writes an excellent piece noting how the censorship application of this software should be the least of our concerns. This new software may create an opportunity for the Chinese Government to appropriate these computers and use them to create the worlds largest botnet army." Update: 06/11 21:26 GMT by T : J. Alex Halderman writes "My students and I have been examining the Green Dam censorware software. We've found serious vulnerabilities that can be exploited by any web site a user visits with the software installed. We also found that some of the blacklists seems to have been taken from the American-made filtering program CyberSitter. We've posted a report and demo."

cancel ×

195 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Correct me if I am wrong... (4, Insightful)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298531)

Would it be easier to just sever the undersea fibre cable to China if it's really such a grave threat?

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298777)

Would it be easier to just sever the undersea fibre cable to China if it's really such a grave threat?

I will not foor. foor is the mind-killer. I will face my foor. I will allow it to pass through me. When the foor has gone I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the foor has gone there will be nothing. Only typo will remain.

Pssst: it's spelled 'fiber'. Idiot.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (1)

Niris (1443675) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298839)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber [wikipedia.org]

"Fiber, also spelled fibre"
Fail.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299287)

Maybe that's why he posted AC.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (1)

cheftw (996831) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299371)

Fale

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298847)

It's spelled both ways fuckwad.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (4, Funny)

Tinctorius (1529849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299133)

I knew it! I knew erbif was a word!

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (4, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298797)

This is economic warfare. The question is which is worth more economically to the US, a connection to China which opens Chinese citizens to the world's press or severing the connection and avoiding any potential complications.

So the question is which one is worth more? Personally im willing to bet that being connected to them is worth more to the US than it is to China.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298999)

The question is which is worth more economically to the US, a connection to China which opens the Great Firewall of China to the world's press

Fixed that for you.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299147)

So the question is which one is worth more? Personally im willing to bet that being connected to them is worth more to the US than it is to China.

Do you have any rhyme, reason, or citation for saying this?

Or is it just another "the US is the suxxor" post.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298823)

This. Or firewall them off at your network's edge.

Or just block their IP space (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298841)

The only reason botnets are so effective is they are distributed. When they come from all over the place, you have to do a ton of individual blocks. If they are all from the same IP space, ok just black hole China's space and that's it. Wouldn't take a block from very many top level providers and they'd be doing nothing at all.

Re:Or just block their IP space (4, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299835)

I agree, personally I would worry more about the private key for Windows Update finding its way into the wild. Now that is centralized administrative authority.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298929)

And what this article doesn't say is that we can create the botnet ourselves! Are you telling me their software has no exploitable vulnerabilities? You bet your arse it does. We can have the baddest bot and thank them for the infrastructure to do it.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (1)

evilkasper (1292798) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299089)

we could "accidentally" drop anchor on it....

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (2, Insightful)

markkezner (1209776) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299241)

If you do cut the cable, the traffic will try to route around the damage, clogging the "tubes" elsewhere and disrupting a lot of services.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299659)

You mean the ones that go through Japan ? Or the one that goes through Russia ? Yeah, that will go over well.

Re:Correct me if I am wrong... (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299677)

Wouldn't it be easy for the people buying the computers to wipe the hard drive and install their own software, without the internet blocking software on it?

Chinese People all look the Same (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298545)

I know it may look like China is creating the world's largest bot-net, but that is just an optical illusion. Chinese people just all look and behave the same.

Is this a problem? (1, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298557)

How hard is it to block all traffic based on the country of origin, China in this case?

It is a problem (3, Funny)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298639)

For the sake of argument, let's assume this is the case. (And to correct me if I am wrong here.) To be able to block, at the very least the packet header has to be examined. If remote attacker can generate packets faster than you can examine and drop them, you've just been DoS'ed. Multiply the number of packets by the number of computers in China...

Re:It is a problem (3, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298723)

For the sake of argument, lets assume the transit providers drop China's interconnects. 0% CPU overhead.

Re:It is a problem (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299035)

To be able to block, at the very least the packet header has to be examined. If remote attacker can generate packets faster than you can examine and drop them, you've just been DoS'ed.

You also have to look at the packet header in the course of regular routing decisions. Would it really take more CPU to look at the packet header and drop it into /dev/null than it does to look at the packet header and send it out a different network interface?

Re:It is a problem (3, Insightful)

caladine (1290184) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299191)

You also have to look at the packet header in the course of regular routing decisions. Would it really take more CPU to look at the packet header and drop it into /dev/null than it does to look at the packet header and send it out a different network interface?

That's not what really causes the extra CPU usage. It's the sheer volume of the packets you now have to handle. It's not as if these botnet computers are generating traffic like the would during a normal transaction. They're transmitting as fast as they can.

Re:It is a problem (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299741)

You can be DOSd with legitimate traffic just as easily as a botnet. Too many packets is too many packets.

Re:It is a problem (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299253)

Really, we need to rethink being so close to our adversaries online. I mean, isn't that obvious?
It's like we're waiting for the cyber-911 (god that's terrible) before we have the mandate to act.

They have to come over the same sets of pipes. You can't get around that.
At some point, you can shut off mega.undersea.cable01 and all traffic stops.
Cut the ties that bind the C&C with the bots, and monitor what happens next.

If sh!t hit hit the fan, the USAF/NSA/??? would step in and do this. The question is,
under what circumstances, and what good does that do us in the long term?

You can't disconnect CN forever. This problem will remain as long as we're tied to them.
If we treat our enemies as trusted friends and get screwed, whose fault is it? Exactly.
I think there's a word for this in Cantonese, but my pronunciation suffers.

Re:Is this a problem? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298885)

How is this troll? Did this guy beat a mod in an earlier slashdot debate?

Re:Is this a problem? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299455)

Why are the replies modded funny? Someone's doing a crappy job of moderating today.

Re:Is this a problem? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299637)

How hard is it to block all traffic based on the country of origin

A quick look at the spam trap shows more being relayed by bots in the US than China. Shall we start there?

2nd. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298567)

Windows is the #1

geographically centralized Botnet (2, Insightful)

Yo_mama (72429) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298577)

Should make it easier to block during an attack....

oOooo Scary! (5, Funny)

vancondo (986849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298583)

Well if they are it's certainly more threatening than a bunch of terracotta warriors.
-
- - VanCondo [vancouvercondo.info]

Re:oOooo Scary! (2, Insightful)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299325)

And if they're running pirated, unpatched copies of windows, equally as fragile.

I for one... (1)

grepya (67436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298585)

...welcome our chin... oh wait!!

And Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298615)

Interesting, but this means that Microsoft may create a bigger botnet army?

Re:And Windows? (1, Insightful)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299283)

Already done. They call it Windows Update.

Does America already have the World's Largest? (5, Funny)

CmdrSammo (1086973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298617)

Obama: Hey Ballmer, you mind if we borrow 90% of the world's computers for a quick cyber war?

Ballmer: Finally, the moment I've been waiting for! *Throws ceremonial war chair at wall*

Re:Does America already have the World's Largest? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298887)

Ballmer: Sure, you have have them after Tuesday, five months from now.

Re:Does America already have the World's Largest? (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299529)

In all seriousness, that's not a bad idea.

That would be like... (5, Funny)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298619)

A few million Stormtroopers standing on the surface of the Death Star with ThinkGeek green lasers.

Archimedes would be proud!


(Think before you mod me offtopic.)

Re:That would be like... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298807)

(Think before you mod me offtopic.)

Think? You must be new here!

Re:That would be like... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299409)

(Think before you mod me offtopic.)

Think? You must be new here!

Especially moderators. They never think when they mod, so any strong opinion is Flamebait and any subtle humor is Troll and any useful question is Offtopic. Fuckin' wankers.

Re:That would be like... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299023)

I modded you off topic. As the post above me says... This is Slashdot. No thinking goes on here.

Re:That would be like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299169)

You fail it. If you mod someone and then post, your mad machiavellian mod (de)materializes.

Re:That would be like... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299559)

You fail it. If you mod someone and then post, your mad machiavellian mod (de)materializes.

You fail it. GP posted Anon, probably from another IP as well.

ASTEROID DEFENSE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299213)

Could we use this system for zapping asteroids?

People are such suckers (5, Interesting)

qortra (591818) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298621)

The goal, authorities say, is to protect children from pornography

Of course, that morsel isn't for the Chinese people. They could tell their own people "we're creating a botnet to terrorize you", and nothing would happen. In fact, it's for the benefit of people in other countries. Social conservatives everywhere will exclaim "what an excellent goal!" Those people have simply failed to realize that governments will use whatever power they have for whatever they want, and never exclusively for its "intended purpose". The US does this too, but they've been moving more slowly because more people fail to notice when the power shift is gradual.

Solution: (0, Redundant)

Random2 (1412773) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298627)

Disconnect when they try to attack.

I've already blocked the Idle news items. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298631)

Can I block the stupid Idle videos too?

Re:I've already blocked the Idle news items. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299303)

IINM you can if you're logged in.

All your computer are belong to US!!!! (1)

Uchiha (811374) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298641)

All your computer are belong to US!!!!

Typo correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298763)

All your computer are belong to CHINA!!!!

There, fixed it for you.

No, the typo is yours (2, Insightful)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299235)

No, all your computer belong to someone who wants to harm China. This is more of a threat to China itself, than anyone else.

From a point of view outside China, this botnet is not distributed. It all shares a few links (possibly saturating them if the botnets gets too crazy), shares netblocks, etc. This botnet isn't capable of doing anything that the Great Firewall operators aren't already able to do.

From a point of view inside China, the botnet is distributed and its crap looks like it's coming from everywhere.

All your computer are belong to US.

The "least of our worries" ? (4, Funny)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298667)

Let me get this straight.

China further on intruding on its citizens who are already exploited and given no voice is a valid concern -- until it causes the rest of the world the slightest discomfort?

Re:The "least of our worries" ? (4, Funny)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299271)

Let me get this straight.

China further on intruding on its citizens who are already exploited and given no voice is a valid concern -- until it causes the rest of the world the slightest discomfort?

And what exactly would you have the rest of the world do about it? Chinese are already subject to an oppressive dictatorial government, as are North Koreans, Vietnamese, Cubans, Laotians, Burmese, Iranians, Zimbabweans, and in general around half the total world population.

Re:The "least of our worries" ? (2, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299505)

What I would have the rest of the world do about it is escalate "it" from the "least of their worries" to something just a bit higher.

Re:The "least of our worries" ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299597)

Iranians are in a democratic process to elege a new presidente.

Re:The "least of our worries" ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299797)

Really? The Iranians have the opportunity to vote out Kammenei? That's news to everyone on planet Earth!

Achmenuttyjob is the Iranian government's equivalent to White House press sceretary Gibbs.

M$ made largest botnet, Cisco the next Echelon (5, Interesting)

kubitus (927806) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298671)

The US is in the dominant position regarding hidden backdoors and establishing Trojan Boot loaders into routers.

I advice any government to use in their networks only SW they can compile by themselfes!

And even more important: use routers ( and switches ) where they compiled the firmware/software themselves!

Re:M$ made largest botnet, Cisco the next Echelon (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298755)

The problem with this paranoia is where does it end. Compilers have known to have backdoors, you can code in assembly but you still need to compile it, what about a backdoor in the BIOS? Hidden microcode in the CPU?

Re:M$ made largest botnet, Cisco the next Echelon (1)

Niris (1443675) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298971)

Solution: Paper and pens! But wait, what if there's hidden recorders in the pens? We're all screwed :(

Yes it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298695)

but it's got nothing to do with that censorship proggie... :-/

Look.... (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298709)

Look, in a "cyber war" you don't fight with DoS attacks, you fight by simply severing the undersea cables. If we were really "attacked" by China this way (which, we won't be, it would end their economy and their leaders seem to be halfway sane unlike that of North Korea) we could simply sever the lines.

Re:Look.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298859)

you fight by simply severing the undersea cables.

Is there no other way for traffic to reach the US both across the Pacific?

Re:Look.... (4, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298867)

Look, in a "cyber war" you don't fight with DoS attacks, you fight by simply severing the undersea cables.

Well, severing the cables would be expensive. More likely we'd just filter incoming traffic from that address space. If every computer in China today started sending a DoS attack at something in the US or Europe, an IT guy would get beeped and would authorize their automated system to blackhole that traffic at the core routers. Basically, it would just cut off traffic originating in China and the rest of us would go on as usual except there would be some interesting network security articles. Heck, with some of the systems in place, companies with regular traffic to china might not even have their normal traffic disrupted since it had been previously mapped out as normal and white-listed.

Re:Look.... (1)

evilkasper (1292798) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299483)

Its not expensive, didn't you read about all those ships that just dropped anchor in the wrong place... its only expensive to fix, not break. In the case of "cyberwar" I assume we don't care about fixing it.

Re:Look.... (2, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299679)

You don't even need to cut the cables. They have to come out somewhere.. switch the routers off.

If you can't do that, advertise high priority routes so that all traffic to china gets null routed (they can do the same to you, theoretically, if they get in first).

Re:Look.... (3, Informative)

illiter4te (1574849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299087)

Look

at this... under sea map of fiber connections [guardian.co.uk] How do you propose the US cut off those connections?

Re:Look.... (1)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299403)

USS Jimmy Carter [wikipedia.org] is ready and willing.

Or you could just use the SHUT command on some routers. Either way.

Re:Look.... (1)

Atrox666 (957601) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299153)

Why would China attack? They already own the US why would they break their new toy?

Internal Security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28298711)

Even if they had a botnet army, the botnet is only as smart as the person(s) controlling them.

That being said, even if China itself didn't use this software as a backdoor into people's systems to install botnet software, a skilled group of hackers can.

What could they do with it? They could... use it to gather intelligence. China's security software already gathers info, directing a copy of that same information elsewhere should be trivial.

As far as more nefarious uses? What could they do that we haven't seen before? Hack into the Pentagon? Oh, that's already been done.

This looks like more of a threat to China's internal security than to the USA's security. They could gather any information they wanted to, including finding dirt to smear political opponents with, or using it to find out what tidbits there are out there.

Considering that this won't really affect computers outside of China (with the possible exception of exported pre-loaded PCs), the most harm they can do to us is a DDoS attack. The noticeable lack of security within this software is much more of a threat. (memory address copy? OK! I don't even have to decrypt it!)

Isn't that a bit dangerous for China? (1)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298749)

I mean, if this is true, what if the Russians found a way to activate the botnet first?

Stating The Obvious (2, Interesting)

BigBlueOx (1201587) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298751)

From the FA:
Conceivably, everything from hospitals to electrical power grids could be targets.

Here's a thought! Make sure hospitals and electrical power grids AREN'T ON THE INTERNET! This is hard? VPNs and darknets are hard??

Choir, consider yourself preached to.

Wrong country in Asia (1)

emocomputerjock (1099941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298795)

I hope everyone's spam filters are up to date, because I'm sure crimeware authors would exploit it first..

Yawn (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298805)

I think it is bad enough that the Chinese government is forcing people to have censorship software installed on their computers which obviously will have to know what sites they are visiting and probably what else they are doing on their computers without having to engage in idle speculation on what else it can be used for. In any case, the idea that it will be used as a botnet is kind of weird and imho unlikely. You'd think that the Chinese government would have enough computing resources to do what it needs including waging cyberwar without having to resort to something as messy as this. Or it could commandeer an existing botnet, or, being a totalitarian government it could simply make it mandatory to install botnet software, or it could build one in "traditional" way using viruses etc.

Re:Yawn (2, Insightful)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299031)

"it could build one in "traditional" way using viruses etc."

yea, it's a huge vector for launching a traditional attack though. It hasn't got to go boom on day one, the attack could begin silently by spreading crap slowly over the course of years.

Other than that, I'm guessing Chinese Wikipedians are crapping themselves over this news.

So this is a dupe? (0, Redundant)

Looce (1062620) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298815)

Chinese Govt Spyware Puts Computers at Risk [slashdot.org] . It was posted this morning.

Re:So this is a dupe? (0, Redundant)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299625)

What's ironic is you're going to be modded redundant [slashdot.org] for that comment! Yes, your comment is a dupe!

Easily identifiable source = easy blocked traffic (5, Informative)

nuckfuts (690967) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298821)

What makes a botnet potentially devastating is that it can create traffic that's indistinguishable from legitimate traffic. When a large enough number of computers from random locations request a page from your webserver, how do you sort the bad requests from the good? It's the slashdot effect on steroids.

If all the traffic was originating from within a particular country, it would be straightfoward to drop that traffic and let other traffic through.

It's interesting to note that in the early days, it wasn't possible to determine geographic location based on IP address. Address blocks were originally assigned rather haphazardly. As the number of networks grew, routers had to store larger and larger routing tables. Eventually this led to a push to reorganize address block allocations in a more hierarchical fashion, which ultimately made geolocation possible.

Re:Easily identifiable source = easy blocked traff (1)

philgross (23409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299029)

I was going to add the same comment. The point of a botnet is that the computers, being hijacked consumer/corporate pcs, are from all over the world and indistinguishable from random traffic IPs. If you're getting attacked by an all-China botnet, just cut off a well-defined set of addresses and the threat vanishes.

A China based botnet army only threatens China (2, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298825)

All we have to do is filter them out at our end of the intercontinental cables and the army can't get in here. The same applies to everyone else so a Chinese botnet army only threatens China.

Not smart (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298845)

Massive botnets have already been infiltrated and subverted. So those computers meant to ban pornography, and maybe anti-government web sites could any day be used to send anti-government propaganda with maybe simple commands... not sure how comfortable are chinese with double-edge swords, but this could be a good example.

Anyway, i would be more worried about the US government botnet construction kit, a.k.a. microsoft windows, that seems to be putting that power to individuals, groups and foreign governments.

while of course this is fud (3, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298901)

trusting the chinese government at their word is equally foolish. there are no deep nefarious plots and twisty hidden meanings in this piece of censorware most probably. but at the same time, the chinese government is certainly no paragon of virtue that we should trust is motivated by exactly what they say

not that western nations are any more trustworthy. its just that there is this idiotic notion i often encounter that says "western critics are complaining the chinese have hidden purposes, so since i don't trust western mouthpieces, i'll believe the chinese at their word that they are completely virtuous and innocent in their motivations"

you know, like iran is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. "that's what they said, that's what i believe. because i won't be a naive idiot for the west. i choose to be a naive idiot for the west's enemies"

hey, here's a radical idea: how about you trust no one and be a naive idiot for no one? that is: distrust the west, distrust china, and distrust iran, all at the same time

thunderclap

Re:while of course this is fud (-1, Redundant)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299091)

trusting the government at their word is equally foolish

Fixed that for you, you had an extra word in there....

Re:while of course this is fud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299707)

trusting the government at their word is equally foolish

Fixed that for you, you had an extra word in there....

Did you not read his post? His entire post made that point so you are utterly and thoroughly redundant.

Besides, "fixed that for you [tee hee]" quit being cute and funny a long, long time ago. It was never very clever, it's rather presumptuous, and it makes you a dick. Why would you do that?

Re:while of course this is fud (1)

TropicalCoder (898500) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299331)

um - hate to tell you this, but I think you need a new keyboard. It appears that your shift key is not working...

Re:while of course this is fud (0, Offtopic)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299581)

His keyboard has never worked. [kuro5hin.org] Check the date stamp on the linked comment.

Re:while of course this is fud (3, Insightful)

Drake42 (4074) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299713)

TRUST NO ONE!

DO NOT TRUST THE CHINESE! (But eat their food, wear their clothes, use their electronics)
DO NOT TRUST THE USA! (But obey their laws, enjoy their movies, work for their money)
DO NOT TRUST THE IRANIANS (But ignore their democratic progress and ignore their people's work for peace)

Here's the real answer:
DO NOT TRUST YOURSELF, because you're an idiot.

Distrust is for the weak. Optimistic skepticism and honest effort are for the strong.

Re:while of course this is fud (3, Insightful)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299841)

Good advice. I'll trust no one. I don't trust you. Horrible advice. I'll trust everyone.

A botnet that lives within one's own borders... (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28298951)

...would seem to have some serious limitations.

Re:A botnet that lives within one's own borders... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299697)

Unless the entire botnet is just the initial C&C system for a wider array of international botnets.

Why worry? (1)

sehlat (180760) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299203)

They still have to get their updates from Microsoft. [long, slow, evil grin]

all chineese botnet? (2, Informative)

bizitch (546406) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299215)

Assuming that this is true - all the bots would be contained inside China

If they unleashed the botnet on something outside China

1) Would it not just crush the internal network(s) inside China?
2) Would it not just crush the connections to the rest of the world?
3) Would it not just crush the massive control and filter systems?
4) Would it not just super easy to identify and quarantine?

What am I missing here?

Re:all chineese botnet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28299575)

So what's to stop them from using their botnet to subvert other botnets not in China?

mother of god (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299227)

Can you say DDoS? Obviously the top priority of the military in all other nations of the world should be learning how to hijack that beast.

This is new.. how? (1)

XiaoMing (1574363) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299281)

Anyone remember that trigger built into windows 98 that showed a message informing you your computer was being commandeered for the government?

China is obviously in the dark ages, using additional software for potential commandeering when we just have it built into ours!

To answer the headline... (1)

cylcyl (144755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299341)

No, they're just creating skynet.

Don't panic! (3, Funny)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299531)

Don't panic, we will be ok! I have Windows Firewall!!!

Not too far-fetched to me (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 5 years ago | (#28299747)

I'll believe this. I don't really believe the Chinese government gives a rat's ass about their youth beyond them being more slave labor in a country that doesn't value the lives of their citizens. I also wouldn't put it past them to make their net-nanny software appear to be uninstallable, but that does leave behind a 'bot for them to control. Cut the cables now and isolate them, it seems to be what they want anyways -- to be isolated.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>