Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack

thecyberwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack

#71

Post by nix23 »

bawolff wrote: post #42
nix23 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please give me a proof that it's China and not someone else...or nothing at all? I always hear cyber-attack's from Russia, North Korea or China, but never from Israel or the US, are they just so bad in covering up or is maybe something else behind it?

Well tbf, stuxnet & flame are probably the two cyber-attacks that can actually beyond all doubt be called cyber warfare. Most everything else seems more about finding a scapegoat to blame.

Yes your right, i am not saying cyber-warfare does no exist, i just don't see often good point's for the origin of the attack...often its like HAHA we found the timezone of Peking in a file....as if a professional agency is that stupid (well sometimes they are)

Re: Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack

#72

Post by fit2rule »

ericmay wrote: post #32
fit2rule wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it the US' problem? If AUSTRALIA were currently being led by a wiser politician, or indeed had in the last .. 20 years .. been led by wise politicians .. it wouldn't be in this mess right now in the first place. Its only because Australia kowtows with fluidity every time the US snaps its fingers that its in this mess right now. Australians need to stop being the lapdogs to the American empire, and start thinki…

Yea.... no thanks. Australia is a liberal democracy, and turning away from that to the arms of communist, authoritarian China is simply a non-starter. Like America, Australia will be multi-ethnic, but it’s still a liberal democracy. America is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy too, and supports Australia against Chinese communism. The fact that the US will be less white in the future has no bearing on anything here. D…

I don't agree on any of these points, nor do I think the questions are of any relevance. But we will just have to end this thread now, as it is going to get flagged.

(Wouldn't it be nice if HN had a "Take it Private.." mode, hmm..)

Re: Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack

#73

Post by nix23 »

MattGaiser wrote: post #55
nix23 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please give me a proof that it's China and not someone else...or nothing at all? I always hear cyber-attack's from Russia, North Korea or China, but never from Israel or the US, are they just so bad in covering up or is maybe something else behind it?

Russia, China, and North Korea have no free media to report such things.

Ok you win, since the NSA and the CIA have a complete transparency rule like all the western security services have...it has to be China (or something like that) ;)

Re: Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack

#74

Post by fit2rule »

jacquesm wrote: post #29
fit2rule wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it the US' problem? If AUSTRALIA were currently being led by a wiser politician, or indeed had in the last .. 20 years .. been led by wise politicians .. it wouldn't be in this mess right now in the first place. Its only because Australia kowtows with fluidity every time the US snaps its fingers that its in this mess right now. Australians need to stop being the lapdogs to the American empire, and start thinki…

Because Australians have been led to believe that the US and Australia are allies, resulting in Australia punching way above its weight in giving the USA cover whenever it went abroad, for instance in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on. The usual understanding is that such loyalty is a two-way street. Not that the current US government cares about such pesky details but that's where it stands.

Australias gullible populace will be humbled and embarrassed for its covering of Americas immense crimes against humanity, soon enough.

The 5-eyes are in a lot of hot water.

Re: Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack

#75

Post by klipt »

cosmie wrote: post #64
klipt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What mandate would the Taiwan government have to rule China? Nobody on the mainland voted for them.

The Tawainese government used to rule mainland China back when it was known as the Republic of China, before retreating to Taiwan during a civil war. They were also the "China" entity that was the founding member of the UN. It was only a few years after the UN's founding that the Communist Party won the civil war and formed a new country (the People's Republic of China), yet it took several decades for the UN to offi…

Seems about as likely to work as tracking down a distant relative of the Romanovs and giving them Russia's seat on the security council.

Re: Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack

#76

Post by dane-pgp »

m0zg wrote: post #58
slacka wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Below are the top stories. No consensus, let alone overwhelming. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21757097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19954673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23191055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19923655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20279227

Now do the following: search the threads you provided for "Trump". The decision might have been "right", but easily 90% of posters say that Trump was "wrong" to make it somehow, because saying he was right at anything is socially unacceptable here. Note that I did not say HN disagreed with the decision necessarily. I was just saying it was shitting on Trump for making it.

> Now do the following: search the threads you provided for "Trump".

Okay then. The first two links have 8 occurrences of the string "Trump":

1. "Meaning while Trump is trying to make other country buy more Boeing planes?" I don't think this person is complaining that Trump is trying to support American businesses, but in any case they aren't saying that he shouldn't have opposed Huawei.

2. "... Trump only says pleasant words [about trade] which is completely legal in both countries?" This seems to be a defence of Trump.

3. "Trump considered [purchasing Greenland]." A criticism of a different Trump policy (in the context of an article about the Faroese prime minister).

4. "I think that Trump's move with banning Huawei is bad for the US in the mid and long run." An actual criticism of Trump's Huawei decision, based on fear of retaliation from China. Two child comments support Trump, while one supports the criticism.

5. "Trump's trade war with China, as many contract manufacturer move out of China, will prove none of that supply chain myth is true within a year or two." A comment supporting Trump's approach.

6. "These things, and I'm not passing judgment on them, are simply pushing the Chinese to be self-sufficient on everything. Stroke of the Trump pen and X chip for your hardware is denied." A comment trying to look at the long term consequences without being critical of Trump.

7. "I'm sure that the EU/australia/the west is breathing a sigh of relief that Trump did this instead of forcing them to make up some more draconian law..." A comment supportive of Trump.

8. "FYI: Trump says U.S. "wants to be the leader' in 5G development" A comment potentially trying to explain Trump's actions, but not critical of them.

If that is an accurate analysis of a random sample of comments, I would say that most posters agree with Trump about Huawei. I don't know where you get your "easily 90%" statistic from.

Re: Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack

#77

Post by cosmie »

klipt wrote: post #75
cosmie wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tawainese government used to rule mainland China back when it was known as the Republic of China, before retreating to Taiwan during a civil war. They were also the "China" entity that was the founding member of the UN. It was only a few years after the UN's founding that the Communist Party won the civil war and formed a new country (the People's Republic of China), yet it took several decades for the UN to offi…

Seems about as likely to work as tracking down a distant relative of the Romanovs and giving them Russia's seat on the security council.

Except the Romanovs never had a seat on the security council.

In this case, the Republic of China did have a seat, and continues to exist although the landmass they control has shrunk primarily to just the island of Taiwan. They didn't found a new country and call it Taiwan, they're just called that by others for political convenience because calling them by the Republic of China (their original and still official) name unnecessarily provokes the PRC.

The Communist Party officially established a brand new country (the People's Republic of China) once they won the civil war and had control over the mainland. Due to controlling the majority of the landmass originally controlled by the ROC, they were eventually after several decades recognized by the UN as the government body allowed to represent China at the UN (and therefore the permanent seat on the security council held by that position).

But the entity that originally held that seat has never ceased to exist, even if the land they control has shrunk drastically since the UN's original formation. Which is why you could plausibly argue that they have claim to the permanent seat on the security council, rather than the representative of the PRC.

But like I said, that's likely to cause all hell to break loose. As the most direct way for the PRC to respond to that maneuver would be to militaristically assert their claimed sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, and fully dismantle the remnants of the POC that govern it so that it does cease to exist and the above premise no longer holds true. Which would escalate horrifically as other UN member states step in to prevent that. Hence why it's a nuclear option, and not one that is likely to ever happen unless China sufficiently provokes the international community to the point where they see that as an inevitability, and just want to maneuver into a position where they can respond to it from a seemingly unified position without the inconveniences that would present if the PRC still had veto power on the Security Council.

Re: Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack

#78

Post by Knuthtruth »

nix23 wrote: post #73
MattGaiser wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia, China, and North Korea have no free media to report such things.

Ok you win, since the NSA and the CIA have a complete transparency rule like all the western security services have...it has to be China (or something like that) ;)

All your replies are arrogant in tone and derogatory to other posters. If you're trying to prove a point you should have to put in as much effort as you are requesting from the others. Provide valid links where the assumptions were wrong and justify your argument. This condescending tone does not suit HN community. I hope someone flags your comments.

Re: Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack

#79

Post by nix23 »

Knuthtruth wrote: post #78
nix23 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok you win, since the NSA and the CIA have a complete transparency rule like all the western security services have...it has to be China (or something like that) ;)

All your replies are arrogant in tone and derogatory to other posters. If you're trying to prove a point you should have to put in as much effort as you are requesting from the others. Provide valid links where the assumptions were wrong and justify your argument. This condescending tone does not suit HN community. I hope someone flags your comments.

You make the allegations so bringing the proof is on your side...

To believe everything a state says well THAT is arrogant..one hint?

-Chemical weapons in Iraq (many times repeated by 'free' media, with a war at the end and no chem found)

And NO i like the HN community exactly because thinking out of the box is normal, just believe what a state like Australia says and the standard 'enemy' is china...that's a dangerous thing. I'm NOT saying it's not true, i just want some proof, otherwise it smells once again foul.

Re: Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack

#80

Post by [deleted] »

nix23 wrote: post #79
Knuthtruth wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All your replies are arrogant in tone and derogatory to other posters. If you're trying to prove a point you should have to put in as much effort as you are requesting from the others. Provide valid links where the assumptions were wrong and justify your argument. This condescending tone does not suit HN community. I hope someone flags your comments.

You make the allegations so bringing the proof is on your side... To believe everything a state says well THAT is arrogant..one hint? -Chemical weapons in Iraq (many times repeated by 'free' media, with a war at the end and no chem found) And NO i like the HN community exactly because thinking out of the box is normal, just believe what a state like Australia says and the standard 'enemy' is china...that's a dangerou…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN