131–140 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't selectively block content on an SSL connection w/o having a back door to the encryption keys used to secure the connection. A man in the middle attack would be detectable unless the root certificates were compromised.
That's where CNNIC comes in. All they need to do is issue their own fake certificate for (insert blocked site here).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't financial sanctions hurt the US a lot more than it does China ? I mean they've Tibet for the trump card after all; Cyber-attacks are kid-stuff. (P.S: I sympathize with the Tibetans; but there is really no political will to resolve this, not in the US, not in EU, not in India).
The threat is just as useful as an actual sanction.
Besides, I'm sure it is easy for them to manipulate US senators by giving them campaign funds.
This mouth-breathing Bullshit really needs to stop. the overwhelmingly most likely suspect for the source of the GitHub attacks is the Chinese government. Why would the "Chinese government" carry out an open attack against an american company for absolutely no potential gain at all? Do you really think they are stupid enough to believe such an attack could remove these two software packages from the internet?
Why would the "Chinese government" carry out pervasive domestic censorship? They know information is still going to get around on back channels. That was never the point. The potential gain is that they can extend this capability (and chilling effect) to GitHub and other sites that aren't under the sovereign control of China. Nobody wants to go out of business just because a user uploaded a file which is politically…
You mean like Github did in this very case? Except wait, they didn't.
So who is this "every company" that will now "think twice"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What chilling effect? Github is up and running after all. Both targeted projects are online: https://github.com/greatfire https://github.com/cn-nytimes Looks like if you want to mess with China then all you have to do is put your material on Github. You think that is the lesson China wanted to teach the world?
GitHub has the protection of the US Government, which has a vested interest in fighting the precedent that Chinese attackers are setting here. Interestingly, this also gives China more bargaining power in its negotiations with the US about "cyber" issues
Why would the US Government be concerned about "chinese attackers" that apparently can't even take out a civilian top100 website?
Interestingly, this also gives China more bargaining power in its negotiations with the US about "cyber" issues
You mean they will offer to stop "pretend attacking" american companies, and the US will then make concessions out of gratitude?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HTTPS. They can't tell what URL a user is requesting.
> HTTPS. They can't tell what URL a user is requesting. I am sure they have a private key of some of the CAs shipped with major browsers lying around somewhere...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that action was somewhat different in nature, though. It's an instance of Vogon-type bureaucracy that sends blocking orders to Internet service providers without an understanding of the issues. I presume the Indian government is not actively trying to shut down VPNs that people use to access this kind of resources. In short, I believe the Chinese government knows what it is doing, while the Indian government…
"Vogon-type": that's mind-bogglingly accurate!
That was when the company transferred our work, and the test servers, to India. We shipped the machines, and to send them, they had to be packed on pallets. The pallets were wooden. For Indian customs bureaucracy, I had to arrange a paper called phytosanitary certificate, which states that the wood has no bugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Internet has always been weaponized (in the sense that it was designed to be a countermeasure against a nuclear first strike).
That's not true, pure urban legend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Misconceptions_of_desig... Even if it were true, designing something to withstand attack doesn't make it a weapon. Is a kevlar vest a weapon?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extremely unlikely. GFW is, ironically, considered "critical infrastructure" and is closely monitored.
Ironically? How is it ironic that a centerpiece of the he Chinese Government's control and monitoring of information is considered critical infrastructure and closely monitored by the Chinese Government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes sense, once you can come up with a single word to refer to targeting civilians with violence to try to effect political change. That's what "terrorism" meant and that's what it means, even if our news media and government have decided that it can only ever be applied to Muslims.
The problem is, there's no well defined way to tell which version of the word someone's using. That's the point. So best to just not use it. (Obviously you do need to use it sometimes, in an academic context for example. It's a tricky one.)
I'm not sure if that causes the word to be avoided in academic writing, I suppose largely yes (for its lack of any well-defined meaning) with some exceptions (probably by those who agree with the propaganda surrounding the word).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But is "terrorism" even the correct word for this? Don't use that word. It's barely even a word any more, its become one of those weaponized magic symbols used for mind control. See also "freedom", "globalization", "sharing", "choice" and so on. Instead, you can just use words like "murder", "destruction of infrastructure" and the like.
You forgot 'communism'.