Chinese Cyber (war)fare (merged thread)

[carl]

Yes, a true headline from the BBC; clearly John Kerry has been reading and ignoring Carl's advice:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22137950

I guess whatever change in policy Mr. Thomas (of the article AdamG presented) has discerned has been firmly reversed.

One of the very interesting things Mr. Thomas said in that article was the ChiComs don't go after the Russkis. They go after Luxembourg and Singapore but not the Russkis. Luxembourg and Singapore probably take their lead from us when they are attacked. The Russkis of course tell us to go pound sand. I suspect the reason the Red Chinese don't go after the Russ is because if they do, they know the Russ will go after them; unlike us they won't wring their hands and quietly hyperventilate.

David: I started laughing when I read what you posted above. It was the kind of laugh a character in a movie laughs when he asks another character "You gave them our guns?!" and that second character replies "Yea. They said they wouldn't hurt us. I looked into their eyes and I believed them." Oh no, I am starting to laugh again.

To use another WWII analogy, the story you cited is like reading that Churchill had directed Fighter Command to work closely with the Luftwaffe in order to figure out how to solve the problem of the Blitz.

You know the most incredible fiction is coming to life. In the original Battlestar Galactica, an oh so well educated and refined character gave the keys to the Cylons and they killed everybody, except the doughty crew of the Galactica. The writers probably wrote it that way thinking it was too improbable ever to be true. Unknowing prophets they were.

Future historians will devote many volumes (or electrons...no, volumes, they won't trust computers in the future) in trying to explain how a fundamentally sensible and practical people like the Americans, allowed themselves to be directed by such a feckless, foolish, arrogant and cowardly group as are our inside the beltway elites.

[carl]

Something Mr. Thomas said in his article got me to thinking. He said a particular Red Chinese target is the company that supplies most of the nat gas and petroleum pipeline remote control software in North American. Now, we ran all kinds of complicated pipeline systems just fine for decades before computers came along. So I have two questions for those of you who know a lot about such things.

First, would the pipeline infrastructure of the 1950s be vulnerable to a cyber attack from Red China or anywhere else? I am guessing it would not be.

Second, do you think we might someday go back to such manual system with land line communications in order to be more secure from lethal cyber attack? I know I am probably getting something wrong but the general thrust of the question is about whether older tech might be better in the long run.

[bourbon]

First, would the pipeline infrastructure of the 1950s be vulnerable to a cyber attack from Red China or anywhere else? I am guessing it would not be.

Maybe, I don’t know – doesn’t really matter. Pipelines are only useful if you have something to actually pump through it – they are dependent on other processes in the supply/value chain. Take natural gas as an example – if the processing plant is disrupted, you would have no product to pump through the gas pipeline.

[carl]

The real point of my question is should we go back to the level of control tech that existed in the 50s or 60s? Are we so vulnerable now that that would be worth the cost? Would a cyber disaster prompt that kind of move?

[bourbon]

The real point of my question is should we go back to the level of control tech that existed in the 50s or 60s? Are we so vulnerable now that that would be worth the cost? Would a cyber disaster prompt that kind of move?

I don't think the government could even get a law passed requiring conversion to 1950's era industrial controls. The unpleasant reality is that it would require the private-sector to hire and retrain hundreds-of-thousands to millions of people; which is something large-corporations and Wall Street simply would not stand for.

The alternative is to develop a new more secure internet - which is one idea being considered. I can't say if this is even feasible or not. This is a thread where we could use subject matter expertise of dormant council member selil. But all things infosec and cyber are hot right now, so I imagine he is a busy man.

[Dayuhan]

Something Mr. Thomas said in his article got me to thinking. He said a particular Red Chinese target is the company that supplies most of the nat gas and petroleum pipeline remote control software in North American. Now, we ran all kinds of complicated pipeline systems just fine for decades before computers came along. So I have two questions for those of you who know a lot about such things.

First, would the pipeline infrastructure of the 1950s be vulnerable to a cyber attack from Red China or anywhere else? I am guessing it would not be.

Second, do you think we might someday go back to such manual system with land line communications in order to be more secure from lethal cyber attack? I know I am probably getting something wrong but the general thrust of the question is about whether older tech might be better in the long run.

The Chinese are in the process of building an enormous pipeline network spanning vast distances and extremely hostile terrain. Why would you assume that their interest in pipeline controls is aimed at disrupting US pipelines? Wouldn't Occam's razor suggest that their own control technology is not that good, they know it, and they think stealing upgrades is easier and cheaper than buying or developing them?

Sending American industry back to the dark ages in an effort to insulate it from hypothetical cyber attacks seems a bit over the top to me. These systems may have run "just fine" in the 50s to a casual observer, but I suspect that if you talked to those in the industry they would tell you that the way they do things now is far more effective and far more efficient, and not just in using fewer workers. The technology developed for a reason.

[carl]

The Chinese are in the process of building an enormous pipeline network spanning vast distances and extremely hostile terrain. Why would you assume that their interest in pipeline controls is aimed at disrupting US pipelines? Wouldn't Occam's razor suggest that their own control technology is not that good, they know it, and they think stealing upgrades is easier and cheaper than buying or developing them?

Sending American industry back to the dark ages in an effort to insulate it from hypothetical cyber attacks seems a bit over the top to me. These systems may have run "just fine" in the 50s to a casual observer, but I suspect that if you talked to those in the industry they would tell you that the way they do things now is far more effective and far more efficient, and not just in using fewer workers. The technology developed for a reason.

Why am I not surprised at the tone this reply?

[Dayuhan]

Why am I not surprised at the tone this reply?

If you don't like the tone, address the substance.

[carl]

No, I am not talented enough to refute "Why would you...", "Wouldn't..."and "I suspect...".

[Dayuhan]

Do you believe that Chinese interest in pipeline controls is aimed at disrupting American pipelines, rather that simple industrial espionage aimed at improving Chinese pipeline control capacity? If so, why?

Do you think that today's pipeline infrastructure, or electrical distribution infrastructure, or financial infrastructure, or any of the other critical industries that are theoretically vulnerable to cyber attack could function with any vestige of effectiveness on the monumentally obsolete technology that would be immune to such attack? If so, why?

Do you think we should disable critical industries and render them uncompetitive out of fear that the Chinese will disrupt them? How is that different from cutting off our head so the Chinese can't punch us in the nose?