China Publishes Data Claiming US Is World's Largest Cyber Attacker

Tyler Durden's picture

Well that didn't take long. Having already responded angrily to the US charging 5 military officers with cyber espionage, China has published details of the US cyber attacks:


From 3/19 to 5/18, they claim to have found 135 host computers in the US carrying 563 phishing pages targeting Chinese sites that directly controlled 1.18 million computers. But Jay Carney said earlier that "the US does not engage in economic espionage."


As Xinhua reports,

A spokesperson for China's State Internet Information Office on Monday published the latest data of U.S. cyber attack, saying that China is a solid defender of cyber security.


The U.S. is the biggest attacker of China's cyber space, the spokesperson said, adding that the U.S. charges of hacking against five Chinese military officers on Monday are "groundless".


Latest data from the National Computer Network Emergency Response Technical Team Coordination Center of China (NCNERTTCC) showed that from March 19 to May 18, a total of 2,077 Trojan horse networks or botnet servers in the U.S. directly controlled 1.18 million host computers in China.


The NCNERTTCC found 135 host computers in the U.S. carrying 563 phishing pages targeting Chinese websites that led to 14,000 phishing operations. In the same period, the center found 2,016 IP addresses in the U.S. had implanted backdoors in 1,754 Chinese websites, involving 57,000 backdoor attacks.


The U.S. attacks, infiltrates and taps Chinese networks belonging to governments, institutions, enterprises, universities and major communication backbone networks. Those activities target Chinese leaders, ordinary citizens and anyone with a mobile phone. In the meantime, the U.S. repeatedly accuses China of spying and hacking.


China has repeatedly asked the U.S. to stop, but it never makes any statement on its wiretaps, nor does it desist, not to mention make apology to the Chinese people.


After the Prism program leaked by Edward Snowden, the United States was accused by the whole world. However, it has never made retrospection, instead, it accuses others.


The spokesperson said the Chinese government opposes any kinds of cyber crimes, and any groundless accusations against the country.


If the United States goes its own way, China will take countermeasures, the spokesperson said.

Of course, the real way the Chinese can quiet down the US is by signing that Russian "holy grail" gas deal this week.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SilverIsMoney's picture

This is getting crazy... The dollar could be dead by Fall. What are we doing angering all these nations?!

LetThemEatRand's picture

NWO doesn't believe in nations, but it sure as hell believes in war and general chaos.  The Fed has printed literally trillions of dollars in a very short period of time.  That money is not going under Jamie's mattress.  The exlax has been taken.  The fan is oiled and ready to go.

NidStyles's picture

The NWO certainly believes in nations. They are districts for the agents of the NWO. Did you expect those people to give up their local power just to have the larger international power come in to support them? You can't be that damn stupid. 


Libertarians don't believe in nations though. Nations are idiotic if you actually spent time thinking about what they are.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Weren't you in the military, NidStyles?  What the fuck did you join up for if you don't believe in nations?  Were you just wanting to kill people for a living?

Keyser's picture

Well, less than 24 hours for a rebuttal for the criminal charges filed by the numpties at the DOJ today... 



Unknown User's picture

Why Obama is picking fights with so many at the same time?

Chupacabra-322's picture

@ Unknown User,

Order out of Chaos. That's why.

edotabin's picture

deiectio ab mauris

The way things are going it's more like diarrhea out of shit.


Gaius Frakkin' Baltar's picture

Buy more stawks. Buy, buy, buy.

pelican's picture

Maybe the shitheads who are busy making deals with mainland should read "Unresticted Warfare by Col. L/iang and Xia/ngsui.  It is a long term plan to ass rape the United States.


But who cares the Markets are up, the trust fund babies are doing great, and the idle rich are having fun.  Congress is making a fortune while sucking on hard  candies, The working guy watches JayZ and Mad Man.


This country has become the joke of history.  They will look back and wonder how fucking stupid this entire thing is, that is if we don't start WWIII first.





Quinvarius's picture

Why is Africa such a shithole full of violent criminal African warlords?  You either buy into the concepts of polite civilization plus status and compensation for merit, or you don't.  Everyone is created equal.  You work hard at life to become unequal.  Or you use government violence to destroy and steal the hard work of others because you are too fn stupid and disrespectful to see earned inequality good for everyone and society as whole.  Bailout Bankers, corrupt sellout theiving polticians, and the Free Shit Army are the exact same meritless parasites who believe they are entitled to equal or more than equal compensation for the hard work of others.

Ferrari's picture

If only TPTB would "buy into the concepts of polite civilization plus status and compensation for merit, or you don't." etc. The world would be such a better place.

LetThemEatRand's picture

"I think his eyes were opened."

I'm a great believer in second-chances, and not faulting someone for past mistakes.  But NidStyles strikes me as a black and white guy who went from "Let's kill terr'ists", to "fuck, I've been lied to, is there another simple worldview I can embrace?"

NidStyles's picture

You strike me as an idiot that doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. 

I joined for the training, and I have never viewed those people from Saudi as terrorists. Thanks for telling me what I think though.


BTW, why is that you always have to go personal rather than staying on topic? Is it because you can not hold a single thought clearly enough to elaborate?

LetThemEatRand's picture

You joined for the training?  I'm pretty sure they don't just train you and release you.  Were you an exception?

The Saudis were the ones on the plane, asswipe.  Did they teach you that in the one-off training seminar you attended after joining the military?

NidStyles's picture

So what, you think you are fit to judge me now? You, of all members on this site have very little right to judge others.


I'm sure your little cabal of statist assholes will have fun with junking me, because God know's you turds only get happy when you can feel vindicated in your hatred of anyone for making any sort of mistake when they were younger ;-)  Let's hear about how much better you are than the rest of us some more LTER, it's not like you don't share it with us daily.


Were they on the plane? Were you there to see them get on those planes?

LetThemEatRand's picture

If you reject your earlier mistakes then hats off.  But you are making them again.  The world is not a series of simple problems to be solved by embracing ideology.  I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not join the military to kill people and that you were merely misled.  But now you are a mouthpiece for oligarchy and anarchy ruled by oligarchy.  The answer to being lied to is not embracing another group of liars.

I don't believe the official 9/11 story, but I believe the Saudis were part of the real one.  The guys who made 9/11 happen were bankers whose entire existence depends on the petro dollar, and the petro dollar enables the Saudi Kings to do the insanely depraved things they do.

NidStyles's picture

Says the guy that has never read a fucking sentence of work by Rothbard, yet thinks all Libertarians derive insight from Ayn Rand, who is not even considered a Libertarian writer by any of the Libertarians alive now or in the past.

Secondly, you don't even know my personal world view on a damn thing, you've never actually interacted with me in any other shape or form that was not an Ad-Hom. Which, points out that the one making the mistake again here is not in fact me, but you. Go on your witchhunt though, I love reading what you progressive idiots think, it's like watch a sitcom with how simplesticly direct your reasoning is.


I honestly could care less what you personally think, but don't think for a second I'm some second rate intellectual push over. The truth is far further from your opinion than you could possibly imagine. I've seen you post your so called "opinion" all over this site for over two years now, and I have not seen anything impressive on any level. At least Flak was a damn challenge as he's actually intelligent.

Yeah the Saudi's were doing it all alone, while the FBI watched... You're a lot slower than I thought.


LetThemEatRand's picture

I don't consider you a second rate inellectual push over.  I consider you someone who gravites towards simple solutions to complex problems.  Many great writers (and I don't count you among them, anymore than I count myself among them) suffer from that affliction.  And if you read my post above, you would probably realize that I don't think the Saudis acted alone, unless you think all bankers are Saudis.

NidStyles's picture

You mistake simple replies for giving solutions. Some of us intelligent folks are very capable of transmiting complex topics in the simplest of terms with mutual understanding. Ceteris Paribus is always implied unless otherwise denied. 


Bankers don't have acces to military grade thermite, nor do they have access to airliners or NORCOM. 

LetThemEatRand's picture

People who work for the bankers do.  Do you think it is a coincidence that the Fed funds the MIC with printed dollars and that the Saudis agreed in the '70's to keep oil pegged to the dollar?  Stop name dropping and just say what you think.   The name dropping suggests that you simply adopt the thoughts of others, which is kind of my point.

NidStyles's picture

So come out and say it already. We all know it's true. Sure it took nearly 15 years for it to become obvious to everyone, but we all know it now. 


LetThemEatRand's picture

What is obvious to me is that oligarchs have taken control over our media, government, and military.  They want a breakdown of nations so they can rule absolutely, without the annoyance of nation states.  The NWO concept is that those with all of the money will rule without regional national elections.  To advocate for the elimination of governance by the people -- what you call statism -- is to throw them in the briar patch.  The system is broken.  The solution is not to hand the keys to the oligarchs.

Quus Ant's picture

Sorry to jump in here, as it seems you two are just about to start making out, but that doesn't make sense to me.  The oligarchs already rule absolutely WITH regional national elections.  It's a shell  game and it works beautifully.  How many times do conversations, even here on ZH, melt down to BLUE vs RED.  LIB vs CON.  Libertarian vs... everyone.  A shallow veneer of democracy conceals the deep state and infantilizes the public;  to remove it would only serve to expose the real power to scrutiny and, inevitably, to resistance.  To defend the veneer is to defend TPTB.  IMO.

If oligarchs have taken control of media, government and military you better check your pockets.  They already done got your keys.

LetThemEatRand's picture

You are absolutely right in a rational world, except that oligarchs do not live in a rational world.  They are not happy with the status quo of de facto control.  Normal people who are worth $20M are really happy.  These guys want $40M, then $1B, then $10B.  Why do you need $10B when you already have $1B?  What can't you do with $1B that you can do with ten?  There is no rational answer, yet these guys exist.  They also still have to worry about the People occasionally telling them no.  They don't like the word "no."  

Quus Ant's picture

Still doesn't explain why they would expose themselves.  They're greedy, not stupid.  They want to keep that 1bill.   A pacified democratic people will let you walk out with 1bill.  Heck, you can even convince them it was in their interest.  For "the childrens".  Retire, hit the lecture circuit and rub their noses in it.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Not to oversimplify, but you're debating about what a rational person would do.  Bernanke is rational.  He's on the circuit.  The guys he works for think about the survivability of nuclear war and how many babes they can bag in the caverns.  This is not hyperbole.  I've seen several small time sociopaths blow up extremely lucrative lives in the name of moar.  They are motivated by something we can only understand as one understands a Ted Bundy.  Ted Bundy was a successful guy.  He did some bad things that make no rational sense to anyone but him.  He was not stupid.  He killed a few people.  Could have stopped and lived out his life successful and a murderer.  Didn't.

Quus Ant's picture

K, thanks.  I don't exactly agree, but I see where you're coming from. 

LetThemEatRand's picture

I don't claim to have proof of this but everything makes sense when you think of Ted Bundy ruling the world.  As one final point, these same guys have killed literally millions of people.  They bomb weddings.  They invade countries for oil and leave devastation in their wake.  You obviously have a soul and therefore assume that they must have a good reason beyond personal avarice.

Quus Ant's picture

I don't think their reasons are good, just rational in the popular sense.  For instance- imagine a world.... where resources are scarce, agencies are rogue, the environment is on the brink, institutions are crumbling and the populace has been infantilized by thousands of years of religo-politik.  The experimental plane called "civilization" is going down.  It's gonna be brutal.  Telling the passengers isn't going to save anyone, the ensuing panic will actually exacerbate the situation.  They might even kill the messenger!  A rational person might do what they can to keep the plane airborne as long as possible, buy time and hope for the best- all while fashioning a golden parachute for themselves, naturally.

I would really like to have been a fly on the cave wall on Easter Island the week before they cut down the last tree.  Surely someone knew it was the last tree, but at that point does it really matter?  And do you want to be the one to point it out?   

Just one scenario.  We have imperfect information and purposely so.  Writing TPTB off as psychos does seem too simplistic to me, but... it's more terrifying to think they could be acting "rationally".

anyway... gn and thanks for the conversation.

Aussiekiwi's picture

Sorry to jump in here, as it seems you two are just about to start making out,'

Been following the thread with interest as the participants wandered all over history, that cracked me up, big thumbs up.

Anusocracy's picture

Yeah, but the problem is that you are STILL a mouthpiece for government, its military, and the Shadowy Subhuman Creatures running it. It is you who is embracing an obsolete, 10,000 year old wealth redistribution scheme that is failing and unneeded. You are incapable of the mental leap necessary.

And anarchy ruled by oligarchy? Are you really that much of a dupe? Oligarchy IS government.

If I had to pick .gov paid trolls on ZH, you would be in the first ten.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Simple, then.  Show me an example in the world throughout all of history of where your desired system 1) existed, and 2) worked.  I have an example of governance by the People that worked pretty well.  Not perfect, but pretty good.  Pass to you.

r00t61's picture

If I was an Egptian citizen living in 6000 BC, and I turned to my neighbor and said, "Boy, John, this absolute monarchy thing we have going on, with the High Priests reading the sacred texts and magically divining who the Pharoah will be, seems a bit wrong to me.  Shouldn't we instead have a government where the regular people elect someone to lead?  We could call it a democracy, or a constitutional republic, or something."

And your neighbor John would turn to you and say, "Bob, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.  Show me an example throughout all of history where your desired system existed and worked.  We are going to have a Phaorah for all time.  Deal with it."

Bob the Egyptian would have been right about his proposal, but about 8,000 years ahead of his time. 

LTER, you do realize that for most of human civilization (10,000+ years), monarchy and primogeniture has been THE dominant form of government on this planet?  The Roman Republic and the Hellenic city states were just blips on a radar that is covered with Kings and Tsars and Kaisers and Sheiks.  And even during the birth of democracy, Plato argued strongly against it, asserting that it was little more than mob rule, and that the best form of government was the Enlightened Philosopher King.

Only in the last one-hundred years have the vast majority of nation-states moved towards some system of what is known as liberal democracy.  And that's only because some of the world's most powerful monarchies blundered their way into WWI and effectively committed suicide, paving the path for old guard to fall.

So just because someone might suggest that the next evolutionary step in human governance and organization is Randian minarchism or full-blown Rothbardian AnCap, don't use your appeal to prior example as the foundation of your argument.  Just because something hasn't happened yet is not evidence that it never will.  This is one of the most simplistic of canards leveled at libertarian thought in general, and does little to bolster your position. 

Otherwise you're just John the Egyptian, declaring that the Pharoah will rule for all of time.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Except we're not in 6000 BC.  If we were, you'd have a point.  As it is, mankind has landed on the moon and tried a lot of different systems.  Seems we always ended up being ruled by Pharoahs, except when we group together.  But then again, I may find a unicorn tomorrow.  Haven't seen one yet, but there's always that possibility.

BigJim's picture

I don't think where we are in history is particularly relevant. Even in your example, the pharoahs had been ruling ancient Egypt for THOUSANDS of years - far longer than any democracy has ever survived.

Anyway... the problem is... we always wind up being ruled by pharoahs, even when we do band together.

At least in a democracy, the elites have to throw the people a few more bones to keep them onside. Even if you're not immediately downstream from the elite, you're better off in an obfuscated oligarchic democracy than an outright oligarchy.

And as much as I dismiss Plato/Aristotle's solution - the benevolent Philosopher King - it seems the old idea of 'Kyklos' is confirmed by history and our understanding of human nature. Any egalitarian anarchy will either be taken over by predators banding together from within, or from without. As an individual it's almost impossible to prevail against the aggregate political mindset of your fellow citizens. You can only* protect yourself from the prevailing idiocies of the time, do the best for yourself, your family, and friends, and try to get by without harming anyone else, while they - in their ignorance - are passively enabling (or even actively supporting) a political system that is doing its best to suck you dry.

* all the time trying to change their minds through debate and engagement, of course... look at Ghandi, Martin Luther King, the Abolitionists, etc

Anusocracy's picture

That's really an asinine statement.

That's like saying show me an example when cancer or bacterial infections didn't exist.

In other words, show me a time when parasites didn't exist.

I support panarchism, which allows you and everyone else to choose their own form of governance, or none. Choice is the way to discover what works, not force - which you definitely favor. Or is that too much against your control freak nature?

Why aren't you supportive of that, afraid that it would show that your beloved government is the miserable failure that history shows it is?

OldPhart's picture

In my youth I volunteered (when the draft had just ended) for the Marines.

I signed for the training, perhaps to see the world a bit, and to kill commies or whoever I was told to kill...absolute faith in my government and chain of command.

Wound up I didn't do shit, got injured out of boot and got an Honorable Discharge in short order.  I still don't know what my MOS was other than Avionics.

I maintained that belief in our government and kept my eyes shut pretty much all my life, until 2008 when I watched them bail out the banks in spite of 'over-whelming'* disapproval from the public.

It's easy to be asleep, all that nasty stuff just sort of slides right off.  It's when you're awakened by the icy drench of water down your back that you start to wonder how such a thing happened...and you start doing the research you should have been doing all along.  That's me, that's my story.

But don't start taking shots at another military guy who's in the midst of learning what our 'government' really represents.  It's a difficult journey and there's a lot of cherished ideas that are painfully hard to destroy.

Let the seeker seek.

* as my 'Representative' admitted at a later town hall, though he voted for approval.

Ying-Yang's picture

2008 bailout was an eye opener for many taxpayers... congrats

There is much more awakening to be had before we can all make a change.

Aussiekiwi's picture

99.99% of Saudis are wonderful people Rand, who just want to raise their families and do the best they can for their children Rand, including the ones on planes, you get good and bad buggers in all countries including the US...although they do tend to get attracted by all that power in Government.

malek's picture

Yeah, luckily noone else around here subscribes to simple worldviews

NidStyles's picture

How am I the one with the simple worldview if I am the one that is the demon because I admit I have made mistakes in my life? 


That I should be the morality criminal for being human, and understanding that people make mistakes and later have to live with them?

I'm not sure how that qualifies as a simple world view. If anything the guy that thinks there is only one nation of good and many nations of bad is the simple one. I don't think in terms of nations, when nations are a fallacy from the get go. It's individual people that matter.

malek's picture

You didn't catch my sarcasm it seems.

From my point of view LTER also has pretty simple worldviews on some things, but (as a true CogDis should be) I am aware that others mights subscribe the same opinion towards me, and maybe with good reason - there is after all a difference between simple worldviews (good, stripped out obfuscating unnecessary complexity!) and simplistic ones (overdid it and stripped out necessary distinctions as well!)

But then a calm discussion (not a defense of ideological beliefs) should commence on which complexities are necessary on a certain topic, not name calling.

Anusocracy's picture

You support an entity, government, that was responsible for about 400,000,000 deaths in the 20th century, and you don't show any remorse.

People get deprogrammed from the Cult of the Omnipotent State in many different ways, maybe you could learn one from NidiStyles.

Aussiekiwi's picture

Black and White guy? careful Rand, in today's world you could be called a racist...twice.

espirit's picture

When the music stops, it's gonna hurt.

AlaricBalth's picture

The music has stopped. What you are hearing now are echoes throughout the hallowed halls and majestic canyons of this once upon a time mighty nation.