Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Jan 2010 23:15 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption "An error-checking algorithm found in software used to attack Google and other large companies circulated for years on English-language books and websites, casting doubt on claims it provided strong evidence that the malware was written by someone inside the People's Republic of China."
Order by: Score:
Aoraru?
by acid_head on Wed 27th Jan 2010 07:01 UTC
acid_head
Member since:
2007-05-23

OMG!!! Is this REALLY an argument!?!? We are talking about the country where Adibas and Nikey shoes are made, and they look exactly like shoes that can be found in UK stores! How is code reuse any different?

Better explain how come the email accounts of Chinese dissidents have been the target of the attack.

Edited 2010-01-27 07:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Aoraru?
by talaf on Wed 27th Jan 2010 07:25 UTC in reply to "Aoraru?"
talaf Member since:
2008-11-19

To make it look like the Chinese Govt? I didn't even read the issue profoundly but it's not like framing other people for your own misdemeanors is a new behavior.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by another_sam
by another_sam on Wed 27th Jan 2010 09:10 UTC
another_sam
Member since:
2009-08-19

thom you are a cachondo.

Reply Score: 0

spudley99
Member since:
2009-03-25

The whole thing with aurora was that it was an *additional* way to blame China. The aurora code surfaced several days after the incident began, and by then it was already basically assumed that China was the guilty party.

Aurora was circumstantial evidence anyway, so it should never really have been considered as proof, so the fact that it is no longer relevant doesn't alter anything as far as I'm concerned.

There is no *proof* of China being involved here, and there never has been. All we really have is what Google have told us.

Frankly, if Google were prepared to make as much noise about it as they have, then I would assume they felt they had a strong case. But what do I know? It could just have been Google playing politics all along.

Reply Score: 2

Poor dear...
by dulac on Wed 27th Jan 2010 15:35 UTC
dulac
Member since:
2006-12-27

In an imaginary trial, the defense:

- Though my client has a long history of crimes against these people... motivation... opportunity... not changing it's mind in regard of the victims... etc. etc... May I remind you that evidence #16 (the weapon used) is not proven to be his creation?

- I ask this court to investigate a certain mr winchester (close linked with the gun) instead of losing time with the profiler and detectives hints. These, and the family victims, only harass my client and (in absence of hard rock solid evidence) should be severely punished for disturbing my client.

[ Is everybody drunk? ]

Edited 2010-01-27 15:40 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Poor dear...
by Tuishimi on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:15 UTC in reply to "Poor dear..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

*hic*

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Wed 27th Jan 2010 17:45 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Maybe. But if the 16-constant CRC routine is this widely known, it seems plausible that attackers from any number of countries could have appropriated it.


Because it is entirely impossible that someone in China read it and used it...

Ah The Register. The National Enquirer of computer reporting. Why does anyone even pay attention?

Reply Score: 2