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!

US and China Held Secret Cyber Wargames

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the now-you-hit-me dept.

China 71

judgecorp writes "Despite the accusations that have flown both ways between the countries, the US and China have co-operated in wargames, held in secret in Beijing and Washington, designed to head off escalations in hostilities. From the article: 'During the first exercise, both sides had to describe what they would do if they were attacked by a sophisticated computer virus, such as Stuxnet, which disabled centrifuges in Iran's nuclear program. In the second, they had to describe their reaction if the attack was known to have been launched from the other side.'"

cancel ×

71 comments

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

I fuck chink bitches! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39710529)

I fuck chink bitches!

Re:I fuck chink bitches! (0)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710547)

Yes, but what would the Americans do?

Re:I fuck chink bitches! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39710941)

RTFA. They'd cyber.

America LOVES Wargasms! (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711783)

Wargame. Oxymoron.

Re:I fuck chink bitches! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39711531)

I bang american whores!

Re:I fuck chink bitches! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39716885)

Really? Why do you like Republicans? You are likely to pick up an STD.

Re:I fuck chink bitches! (2)

aekafan (1690920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711707)

I am sure you do. But, do you mean Shitzu, or Pomeranian?

Re:I fuck chink bitches! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711809)

Do they bark and scratch, just like their American counterparts?

Re:I fuck chink bitches! (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39716381)

You have time to troll Slashdot, suggesting that your AZN nookie is purely imaginary.

Enjoy your hand.

Describe? (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710545)

"Describe what they would do if they were attacked by a sophisticated computer virus... [or] their reaction if the attack was known to have been launched from the other side."

Doesn't sound like wargames to me, sounds like a thinktank. Although it's a promising start and may end up with something like the START [wikipedia.org] treaty.

A transcript: (5, Funny)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710567)

US: We send you a group of spies with Stuxnet virus on USB drives.
China: Virus was incompatible with our hardware and software, we caught your spies and keep them in prison forever.

China: Our spies stolen Outlook password while your diplomat was emailing our documents to CIA. We discovered that the same password works on all VPNs in CIA and NSA where your spy-diplomat had an account, and got encryption keys for all your drones in the Middle East.
US: You can't, we have Norton!

Re:A transcript: (5, Funny)

blacklint (985235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710671)

Where you went wrong: you assumed our drones use encryption ;)

Re:A transcript: (2)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711785)

Funny but also true at some point, according to the news of video feeds from drone surveillance found in enemy bases.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/12/insurgents-intercept-drone-video-in-king-sized-security-breach/ [wired.com]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/12/not-just-drones-militants-can-snoop-on-most-us-warplanes/ [wired.com]

Re:A transcript: (2)

Caratted (806506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710689)

Or: China: We've been manufacturing all of your hardware for decades. What did you expect?

Re:A transcript: (2)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710709)

This wouldn't surprise me, considering most Americans would believe that they could infect an alien ship with a 'cold' using a Mac.

Re:A transcript: (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710861)

Distortion field enables quantum tunnelling with plant-wide range?

Re:A transcript: (3, Funny)

Mechanik (104328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710983)

US: I cast... magic missile

China: Why you cast magic missile? There nothing to attack!

Re:A transcript: (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711453)

US: I cast... magic missile
China: Why you cast magic missile? There nothing to attack!

Dan J. Bernstein [neohapsis.com] for DM!

Re:A transcript: (2)

Apothem (1921856) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711463)

US: I am casting magic missle.... at the DARKNESS! China: *sighs and rolls the dice*

Re:A transcript: (2)

matrim99 (123693) | more than 2 years ago | (#39712245)

US: I cast... magic missile
China: Why you cast magic missile? There nothing to attack!

US: But you just said: "You see a well-groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo."

Re:A transcript: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39711389)

We discovered that the same password works on all VPNs in CIA and NSA where your spy-diplomat had an account

And his luggage. The password was 12345.

Re:A transcript: (1)

Alumoi (1321661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711849)

China: We got the source code for it!

Re:A transcript: (1)

user flynn (236683) | more than 2 years ago | (#39718525)

US: We send you a group of spies with Stuxnet virus on USB drives.
China: Virus was incompatible with our hardware and software, we caught your spies and keep them in prison forever.

I read that as:
US: We send you group of spies with Stuxnet on drives.
China: Virus incompatible with hardware, we caught spies and keep in prison forever.

    Wrong meme, know I. But somehow All Your Base sensor caught in article.

Now I get it. (4, Interesting)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710585)

And, as a reaction, they outlawed the internet entirely with SOPA / CRIPPA / Heaven knows what the law is called today?

China is victim of American computer war (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39710595)

China has become the biggest victim of cyber attack,” says Zhou Yonglin.

The report claims Japan was the source of most attacks (22.8 percent), followed closely by the United States (20.4 percent) and the Republic of Korea (7.1 percent).

Attacks ranged from wiping server and defacing website to stearing personal and corporate data from Chinese web users.

Although it was discovered that many hacker used Trojan programs to stear personral data, Zhou said “money is not the sole motivation”, as in several cases the hackers had intended to access state networks and stear confidential government information.

To assist damaged private websites and maintain online security, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has raunched several investigations, and authorities claim they prevented the spread of online viruses 14 times rast year.

Re:China is victim of American computer war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39710717)

>stearing
>stear

I see what u did there.

Re:China is victim of American computer war (1)

gislifb (1979154) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710757)

Oh herro!

joshua (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39710637)

wopr

Only mildly surprising . . . (2)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710661)

Sounds like a form of what are referred to as "confidence building measures" taken in various treaties aimed at reducing arms or reducing the chance of war. Interesting form though.

SlowNewsDay (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710663)

What we have here is a pen-and-paper exercise between two groups of bigwigs where there were asked a few questions about what they would do, and we have no idea if they answered truly or not. What is this story doing here? We must not have anything to talk about today.

Re:SlowNewsDay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39710769)

Don't you know that politicians and diplomats are experts on every single aspect of human existence? If you don't agree, you must be a terrorist, or child pornographer, or whatever buzzword we're using these days.

Re:SlowNewsDay (4, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710855)

I would disagree. The more communication the US has with China, and the more diplomatic friction is handled by other methods, especially in the computer intrusion department, the less chance there would be of a Sino-American war. Trust me, if people thought the Middle East was bad, it would be nothing compared to the Pacific Rim destabilizing.

The good thing is that both the US and China want to survive, and are more interested in keeping their cities and next generations intact than blind ideology. Neither nation is interested in a war with the other.

If the pissing contests are sorted out via wargames or a 2x2 Arena team in WoW, all the better. Better that than ICBMs.

Re:SlowNewsDay (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39712083)

The more communication the US has with China

Who said this was communication? This was barely a "wargame" and not something worth our time.

More accurately (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39712475)

China is waiting for the collapse of the US, Roman Empire style without an (international) shot fired. Once they pick up the final paroxyism signified by the Cheetos and Chrystal Meth mushroom cloud, they can crack open the seal on the World Domination plans. The (lumm)ox is slow, but the earth is patient.

Re:More accurately (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#39719123)

Too bad when the US collapses it will take China and whole lot of other countries down with it. The more dialog between the US and China is a good thing. China is more dependant on the US then the US is on China. They produce nothing that cannot be acquired elsewhere or produced domestically. And contrary to most people's beliefs the US still commands the highest GDP and is still the #1 manufacturer in the world. China's appeal was it's cheaper exports but with other countries in the region finally getting their shit together they are becoming able to match or better China's export costs. They have also reached the limit on currency manipulations which is causing the inflation and causing some countries to debate increased tariffs on imports. China also stashes a shit load of money in US securities and bonds because of the basic US stability. They consider the US a good investment.
China has also started running deficits instead of surpluses. The have increased the amount of food imports from the US by a factor of 5 over the past 6 years. The current Chinese government is walking a fine line right now.

For a country that is supposed to be a communist or socialist government there are a lot of people that are becoming very wealthy and it's starting to become noticeable to their citizens.

Re:SlowNewsDay (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39715617)

If the pissing contests are sorted out via wargames or a 2x2 Arena team in WoW, all the better. Better that than ICBMs.

Whoa, I don't think so! Having the teams on either side of an Arena match with access to ICBMs is a terrible idea for preventing nuclear war.

Re:SlowNewsDay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39717755)

Hey! You bubbled you dirty paladin! No fair!

Re:SlowNewsDay (2)

Spykk (823586) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711449)

What we have here is a pen-and-paper exercise

GM: "Your party is enriching uranium when suddenly one of your centrifuges begins accelerating outside its operational parameters. How do you react?"
China: "We cast clairvoyance on the US to see what technology they use to respond to this issue."
US: "We summon a tarasque in the middle east and shout for everyone to look over there."

Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (3, Insightful)

dryriver (1010635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710751)

For Cyberwarfare to be able happen to begin with, critical IT systems on both sides would have to be connected to the Internet, right? Question: Why are those critical IT systems connected-to/reachable by Internet to begin with? Wouldn't you keep those systems AWAY from the Internet, and connect them together using some custom-laid fiberoptic WAN or something? Wouldn't you - for security's sake - maybe use custom CPUs/OSs on those systems that aren't even available on the free market? (i.e. having Intel or AMD or ARM manufacture a few thousand non-X86 compatible custom CPUs for you... running a custom-flavour of Linux on them that isn't compatible with the original Linux at all).

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39710843)

TOO MUCH COMMON SENSE!! Terrorist threat level: RED

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39710911)

Yes, but that would require competent maintainers, additional development costs, etc etc.

Having worked in/around government security for as long as I have, it's often a matter of "buy X, make it work" then test it and find vulnerabilities, patch them, expose new, rinse wash, repeat. Or they're systems that don't belong "to the domain" even though they're physically connected to the network. This is usually Commercial, Off-The-Shelf equipment (and software is whatever the manufacturer put on). Specialized systems (ie. medical) are often connected to the network infrastructure, but not part of the domain, and therefore never patched, scanned, or updated.

I've seen Win2000 and XP boxes still in use that haven't had any patches, updates, or Antivirus on them in over 4 years.

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39710943)

That's what i would do but we are talking about lazy ass gov't folks here. I could see it now they would contract out all the work to the highest bidder of course probably chinese and then nothing would get done because some freshly manufactured red tape would be unleashed and the chinese chip maker would have the hardware and software riddled with backdoors front doors and basement accesses and all other kinda funky stuff we probably never heard of. Bottom line worry when you see a brigade of chinese soldiers marching down your street clubbing people, till then it's all smoke and mirrors.

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39711145)

Security through obscurity?

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (3, Informative)

schlachter (862210) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711211)

For Cyberwarfare to be able happen to begin with, critical IT systems on both sides would have to be connected to the Internet, right? Question: Why are those critical IT systems connected-to/reachable by Internet to begin with? Wouldn't you keep those systems AWAY from the Internet, and connect them together using some custom-laid fiberoptic WAN or something?

Systems communicate across the country and sometimes across the world, and their location might be dynamic. It's not possible/practical to have custom fiber everywhere.

Wouldn't you - for security's sake - maybe use custom CPUs/OSs on those systems that aren't even available on the free market? (i.e. having Intel or AMD or ARM manufacture a few thousand non-X86 compatible custom CPUs for you... running a custom-flavour of Linux on them that isn't compatible with the original Linux at all).

It's an almost certainty that there are industrial and foreign spies at Intel, AMD, and nearly every major tech company in the US. And even if that weren't the case, foreign countries have ways of getting people to cooperate, especially when members of their family live abroad. Not sure it's as simple as you think.

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39711835)

I think it is pretty much a given. Although I have seen a couple of companies (not intel or AMD) who take this very very seriously. I was surprised when I dealt with a company that flat out said "You are associated with China , we are not going to do business with you". On the other hand , I saw evidence that a Chinese national copied all of a companies R&D files a month before he went to China. Nothing was done. You may also ask why in the hell he had access to all of that information. Well I think it was intended to be that way.

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39717653)

"On the other hand , I saw evidence that a Chinese national copied all of a companies R&D files a month before he went to China. Nothing was done. You may also ask why in the hell he had access to all of that information. Well I think it was intended to be that way."

The problem is that the West is composed of self-absorbed individuals who care nothing beyond their lifetimes. The East is composed of collectives with perspectives spanning centuries. Which is more likely to conquer?

Once upon a time the whole world was East. Then some fair-skinned "troublemakers" were pushed west of the Urals into the steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas. These continued to migrate until reaching the warmer climates of the Mediterranean Sea. Others were driven into the colder regions of Europe. Centuries pass with interactions among these peoples. Add input from ethical monotheisms of Semitic origin and Classical philosophy there arose the ideas that differentiated those people. Behold the West. The key is voluntary co-operation to defend that which allows the individual to exist. One must understand that the concept of the individual must trump any collectivist alternative or humanity will return to the beehive or ant hill which has been the norm since the close of the Pleistocene.

Remember whence came the adage that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

It's not a false choice. Discriminate or Die, America.

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (1)

Choatic Emptiness (1661231) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711257)

You're not thinking logically... Sorry I'll rephrase that, "You are not thinking like a dickwad" How much do you think it would cost to make a custom OS now? Hell google couldn't do it, so how is the govt going to do it? On a lighter note, a spaceship was retired today... --- oh that's right, Gov couldn't afford that bitch either!

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (1)

vagn (2168) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711349)

Thing is, if it is reachable by carrier pidgeon it is on the internet.

*infiltraor required for full effectiveness
**infiltrator sold separately
***not legal in all jurisdictions

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39711519)

If you didn't miss it, stuxnet targeted PLC, which is different from x86. That didn't stop stuxnext which was a targeted attack.

Custom hardware doesn't stop targeted attacks if you know the about the hardware and software. It is also extremely expensive to have custom made hardware for each system. Your "advice" is no different from what they are already doing and that was of no help. Their custom software was security prone as it didn't have enough push to secure and fix security problems until now. A custom version of linux while has less security bugs, also would make it easier to target since it would share most code with linux (including known security bugs).

As for internet, there are a few ways things can get into computers besides the direct internet connection as shown through stuxnet. From removable storage devices like pen drives to infecting the hardware in the first place to indirect internet connection through lan. At some point, some files may touch a computer that needs internet connection which gives a chance of infection. Stuxnet succeeded because it was undetectable by current antivirus, low profile so users wouldn't notice it, and targeted to attack subtlety once it spread far and wide enough to reach it's goal.

In the end, this has been known for a long time, security complacency is worst enemies. We don't actively secure our systems often times like following basic security like preventing the attachment of removable storage because it's too troublesome. That said, even with the best of security, things can always fall through the cracks in the real world but it becomes so much harder if done right.

That said, stuxnet is stupid in a state of war. It's much easier to fuck the other country by attacking it's economy (companies) and would have a much greater effect. With many companies relying on the internet greatly these days, the amount of damage that can be done could be devastating in a mass coordinated attack.

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711767)

probably because paradigm these days is have all computer stuff online. i.e. database services, put your pics on Flickr, Facebook, Cloud Computing, twitter, etc. Really, talk with most people and when you mention you have computer systems that are not connected to the internet, they will give you this deer-in-the-headlights look. I heard even Windows 7 systems have to be online (though I am not fully aware of details) reason that OS occasionally has to "phone home" to be sure it is not a pirated copy. This has inherent problem with some govt agencies and companies with large facilities with many small misc control systems and data acquisition systems that are standalone, many running XP (as long as you don't connect that PC to the internet, it will ***never*** crash). However, having those systems online is just begging for problems. And no, VPN and all that jazz is not an option. So appears Linux to the rescue! is being considered the future OS for some of these that want standalone systems.

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711781)

and connect them together using some custom-laid fiberoptic WAN or something? Wouldn't you - for security's sake - maybe use custom CPUs/OSs on those systems that aren't even available on the free market?

And you, the taxpayer then immediately questions why the government is spending billions of dollars on a private fiber connectivity links and paying $5000 for hardware when they could be spending only millions and hundreds using COTS stuff. Government is so wasteful!

Hell, I'm sure the ire of /. is raised should the government pay $400 to buy a 2TB hard drive from a SAN vendor when they could've gotten the NewEgg special for under $100.

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (1)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 2 years ago | (#39712177)

Why do you assume that cyber warfare requires Internet access when the most salient example of modern cyber warfare, Stuxnet, was spread through USB keys? We should airgap utilities and stuff like that, but at the end of the day, cyber warfare will probably involve agents (spies) planting software onto the other sides' hardware. Or spies just turning information over to the other side. I mean, it's like the flip side of encryption and the five dollar wrench. You can give a million bucks to the guy who knows how to access your private network and then have a fucking field day there. Remember, the user is always the greatest security vulnerability.

Also, there may be systems that are required to be accessed by men in the field. Off the top of my head, I remember that CIA paramilitaries involved in the US invasion of Afghanistan were uplinking to CIA computers to get update spymaps and to demand intelligence work product. Even if that network were secure, what if the paramilitary was captured and banged with a wrench? That's the kind of shit we have to worry about. It's great if you can airgap everything, but you might end up with a very unusable system.

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39712811)

Stuxnet successfully targeted Siemens PLCs that
- Weren't running Windows
- Weren't using x86
- Weren't connected to the Internet

There's always a way.

Re:Why would your Critical Systems be Online? (1)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39714135)

I imagine there are probably some of that going on, the "dedicated lines" thing I mean.
The problem is that by its very nature there are some elements of the global telecommunications network that cannot be 'away from the internet', like core routers plugged into high-capacity backbone lines, like you cannot have the end points of a transoceanic fiber be 'away from the internet', and I doubt any army having to build a global communication network will want to lay their own private transoceanic cables.

Wargames (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39710821)

Did it end in global thermonuclear war?

Re:Wargames (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39710901)

Actually, it ended with a game of Tic-Tac-Toe.

So THAT's what the Secret Service agents did ... (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39710899)

They weren't boozing and whoring it up in Columbia. They were MacGyvering at Secret Cyber Wargames. They needed the hooker for the elastic straps in her bra, as the key ingredient of their hotel made laser canon.

They can't let the truth get out, because, it is, like, you know, secret.

Re:So THAT's what the Secret Service agents did .. (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711595)

Ah so that explains what Deep Throat was all about. I bought that movie and was mystified to find not a single spy in it.

Really? (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711021)

If you think either side gave away thier true responses then you sirr are either naive or an idiot.

Is it just me or... (1)

Apothem (1921856) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711491)

Has this turned into a military style of "who's got the bigger pen0r?"

Linked CCs (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711589)

So they finally checked their command centers and found that they have something in common.

getting to know each other (1)

steve.cri (2593117) | more than 2 years ago | (#39711853)

... certainly is what this is about, although analysing the others capabilities is probably at least as important as the confidence-building part.

And everyone's being completely honest... (2)

DaneM (810927) | more than 2 years ago | (#39712015)

So, am I the only one wondering just how there's any guarantee whatsoever that these "descriptions" represent full disclosure and complete accuracy? How about this:

China: We got your NSA admin login(s) through a botnet we planted in the USA, which eventually made it into your office. (Reality: we have a mole in your office who installed surveillance devices and then told us all the logins he could determine.) We then upload lots of spy/malware and own (all) your base.
USA: We use our custom-made antivirus software (AKA Norton Antivirus or some other junk, probably) to scour our system of all your malware. (Reality: you really just found our honeypot. Now your attack computers are being used to feed malware into your systems. By the way, the mole is a double agent.)

I guess I can't see how these exercises are reliably going to be used for anything but PR/propaganda and disinformation. It's obvious that each government sees the other as a potential threat (why would they even be worried about all this if not?), so it would be mind-bogglingly stupid for either side to explain exactly how the attacks will be done, and how incoming attacks would be countered. It's on the same level of "stupid" as giving the enemy complete briefings on our troop dispositions and armaments. So, I imagine that all that's really going on is something like:

USA: We attack your stuff.
China: We defend against your attacks, then counterattack.
USA: We defend against your attacks, then counterattack. ...
[several million tax dollars later]
USA: That was productive. We're friends, now, right?
China: Of course, we are. Let's shake hands in front of the cameras. You'll lower your firewalls, now, right?
USA: Not a chance. You?
China: Dream on.

Does anyone else see how obtuse this seems?

Re:And everyone's being completely honest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39712131)

The exercise was in diplomacy, not technology - it was an experiment to see how China would react to a cyberattack from the U.S. and vice versa. Things like: would the accusation be made public, or directed through private channels? What sort of reparations or concessions would be demanded and/or agreed to, and what sort of proof would be needed? Things like that. Not that I'm a diplomat or anything, my examples might be way off, but that's the general category being discussed. "Wargames" is a misnomer.

Re:And everyone's being completely honest... (1)

Tweezak (871255) | more than 2 years ago | (#39713755)

It seems from the original Guardian article that as much effort was put into analyzing threat response as was put into understanding the reasons behind that response. As much as we don't trust the Chinese we are learning that they also don't trust us. If we begin to understand what we do that makes them uneasy we may just be able to avoid triggering the events we fear most.

Re:And everyone's being completely honest... (1)

DaneM (810927) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721431)

Good insights, AC and Tweezak. Thanks for the clarification.

China wakes up? (1)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39712031)

Could it be that the Chinese government realized that by encouraging cyber-hooliganism, they've made a huge rod for their own backs? Blind Freddy could've seen it coming.

Anyway, anything which encourages the Chinese to start 'acting their age', can only be a good thing.

In related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39714295)

In related news, China and the US suddenly come to a full peace agreement. Our sources report repeated games of tic-tac-toe took place between the US and China, followed by both sides concluding that the only winning move is not to play.

Heh (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39714833)

This article is weak for the cyber drinking game with only 6 mentions of the word "cyber".

Cant' resist.. (2)

cyberchondriac (456626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39716587)


China to US: All your base are belong to us!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>