Chinese Hackers Infiltrate New York Times Computers

The MO is that they are a state attacker, not a one trick pony.

Until proven otherwise, you should assume that in addition to what you know they did, they did everything you can think of that is within their known capabilities. Super fancy BIOS rootkits are not outside their known capabilities.

Also monitoring egress traffic is easier said than done. For example you could have a special gmail account that you connect to over https while the user is actively using the computer. This account receives and sends commands as email messages. Since it is normal for that computer to connect to gmail, and the connection is normally encrypted, that communications channel could be rather hard to detect.

I've been there. I spent 6 months last year.

What you might not understand is that the Chinese government has its hands in every corporation, organization, competitor, etc.

You might have false assumptions coming from the US system, where corporations and government are separate entities. They even sue one another at times.

In China, large corporations are overseen by the government. The government funds them, decides what they can and cannot do, and decides which corporations will succeed. You cannot build a search engine or social network right now, unless you pull a political coup, because the government controls which companies succeed. Baidu and Tencent are the "blessed children" for the time being.

Within the government, China is run by various clans, continually vying for power in the Communist Party. It's easiest to build a large company by having a family member in the upper echelon of the party, to push things through.

Everything is connected to the government in China. It's in your company's interest to keep the party in power, because the corrupt politicians keep you in business. It's in your wealthy family's interest to keep the government in power, because they keep you wealthy. It's a giant corrupt system, keeping itself in place.

Most likely, these attacks were actually executed by some low-level hackers somewhere. But most certainly, someone in the government has something to do with their funding, organization, or guidance.

It makes this sound more like a casualty of war, and less like an embarrassing mistake.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-...

  But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly 
  was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in 
  helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not 
  previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar 
  strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to   
  become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi 
  government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/16/us-iran-election-t...

  U.S. State Department speaks to Twitter over Iran

  The U.S. State Department said on Tuesday it had contacted 
  the social networking service Twitter to urge it to delay a 
  planned upgrade that would have cut daytime service to 
  Iranians who are disputing their election.

http://judiciary.house.gov/news/Hearing%20Statement%20hr2121...

  China Democracy Promotion Act of 2011

  By denying visas to certain Chinese nationals in the 
  government who promote human rights abuses, we might as 
  well assist Chinese patriots who work to end the lack of 
  accountability for government officials who are part of the 
  Chinese Communist Party. This legislation will send a 
  message that abuses by these officials that go unchecked 
  within China will not be ignored by the international 
  community.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/world/asia/chinese-communi...

  But they say the party’s agenda, as it stands today, is not 
  visionary enough to set China on the path to stability. 
  What is needed, they say, is a comprehensive strategy to 
  gradually extricate the Communist Party, which has more 
  than 80 million members, from its heavy-handed control of 
  the economy, the courts, the news media, the military, 
  educational institutions, civic life and just the plain 
  day-to-day affairs of citizens. Only then, the critics 
  argue, can the government start to address the array of 
  issues facing China 

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674008793

  By examining the growth in individual rights, the public 
  sphere, democratic processes, and pluralization, the author 
  seeks to answer questions concerning the relevance of 
  liberal democratic ideas for China and the relationship 
  between a democratic political culture and a democratic 
  political system. 

http://csis.org/files/publication/TWQ_13Winter_He.pdf

  China represents an uncomfortable thorn in U.S. efforts to 
  promote democracy around the world. While some projects 
  have been successful, a large gap exists between the 
  increasing U.S. funding in China and its "limited
  impact." [1] Moreover, U.S. democracy promotion in China 
  has contributed to strategic distrust between China and the 
  United States; Beijing perceives it as a strategic move to 
  destabilize the rise of China and sabotage the Communist
  Party’s leadership.

Given countless public statements like this, the PRC thinks with some justification that all these American institutions - Twitter, the State Department, the New York Times, Harvard - would like to see their government changed and replaced with a democracy. Despite their obvious internal differences, said institutions do share the assumption that exporting Western democracy will be good for China. But China sees what it has done for the Middle East and may have its own opinions.

  that doesn't mean sane people should believe extraordinary 
  claims without extraordinary evidence

Move along, nothing to see here? Yet the NYT itself admits: "Diplomatic cables report how American officials frequently assured skeptical [Arab] governments that the training was aimed at reform, not promoting revolutions." Much of this is out in the open, so it's more coordination than conspiracy. As for the phrase "conspiracy theory", the implication of that phrase is that conspiracies don't exist. And to entertain the idea that Americans (let alone Zionists!) could possibly conspire is equated by you to believing in the Illuminati and the Nibiru. Yet in this selfsame article the NYT implies that the Chinese government engaged in a conspiracy against them.

Perhaps then you believe it is only Americans that never conspire. What then to make of "the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants"?

Sorry, I should have stated that better. I'm not talking about, "best practice for an advanced attack from an unknown perpetrator". I absolutely agree with you in general.

I'm saying that, this particular attacker, is a known, identifiable actor. They have names, they have huge reams of files in manilla envelopes. If you are privy, you get to know their actual names, see photos of them.

They have a very specific methodology which they use. You use that methodology to determine the extent of what they've accomplished. This specific actor is not using any super fancy BIOS rootkits.

If one of their campaigns ever gets to the point that they are unable to obtain repeatable persistent access, that campaign is sent to a different actor (with a completely different big manilla envelope about) who will then attempt a more advanced campaign.

The tools and tactics for these intrusions are very specific to the actual actors responsible.