CHINA ACCUSED OF "HUGE HACK" OF THOUSANDS OF EUROPEAN DIPLOMATIC CABLES | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

CHINA ACCUSED OF "HUGE HACK" OF THOUSANDS OF EUROPEAN DIPLOMATIC CABLES

Step side Russia: the new global hacking bogeyman is now officially China.

But how do we know it's China this time and not, say, North Korea, Moscow, or some basement dwelling supporter of Julian Assange? Well, according to Oren Falkowitz, CEO of Area 1, he had “absolute confidence” that a Chinese group was behind the attacks, because of an extensive analysis of their techniques... the same way CrowdStrike had "absolute confidence" Russia hacked the DNC server without, of course, allowing the FBI to also investigate it independent. He linked the hacks to the Strategic Support Force of the People’s Liberation Army.

In a hack surprisingly reminiscent of how "the Russians" got access to John Podesta's email, Area 1 said the hackers initially accessed the system using unsophisticated phishing techniques, sending an email with a malicious link or attachment to people inside the ministry in Cyprus.

“It only takes access to one of the parties to expose all the other secrets,” Mr Falkowitz said. “You just break the weakest link in the diplomatic chain.”

Of course, cynics may respond that this is just another convenient arrangement meant to escalate cyberwar tensions between the west and China.

The hack is the latest to involve China, whose government reached an agreement with the Obama administration in 2015 designed to curtail corporate espionage hacking companies to steal intellectual property or data, but it did not directly address more conventional cyber espionage against governments. As a trade war escalates between the US and China, the agreement is under pressure.

Webmaster's Commentary: 

This smells like more demonization of China.

And we all know what demonization, coupled with sanctions means; it is, most generally, a prelude to a shooting war.

I would very strongly caution President Trump against war with China, either now, or in the very near future. And I say that because, at this point in its history, the American military doesn't have the weaponry; the troop strength; the manufacturing; or the money to insure a positive outcome in such a conflict.

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA