Chinezen bespioneren via mini chips op moederborden

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 december 2018 19:43 schreef john2406 het volgende:

[..]

Zit nu nog, in een computer via bios echter van de netspanning af dat wil ik nog eens ooit iemand zien doen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 december 2018 21:46 schreef john2406 het volgende:

[..]

Snowdon alweer terecht dan?

quote:

Could a Chinese-made Metro car spy on us? Many experts say yes.

The warnings sound like the plot of a Hollywood spy thriller: The Chinese hide malware in a Metro rail car’s security camera system that allows surveillance of Pentagon or White House officials as they ride the Blue Line — sending images back to Beijing.

Or sensors on the train secretly record the officials’ conversations. Or a flaw in the software that controls the train — inserted during the manufacturing process — allows it to be hacked by foreign agents or terrorists to cause a crash.

Congress, the Pentagon and industry experts have taken the warnings seriously, and now Metro will do the same. The transit agency recently decided to add cybersecurity safeguards to specifications for a contract it will award later this year for its next-generation rail cars following warnings that China’s state-owned rail car manufacturer could win the deal by undercutting other bidders.

Metro’s move to modify its bid specifications after they had been issued comes amid China’s push to dominate the multibillion-dollar U.S. transit rail car market. The state-owned China Railway Rolling Stock Corp., or CRRC, has used bargain prices to win four of five large U.S. transit rail car contracts awarded since 2014. The company is expected to be a strong contender for a Metro contract likely to exceed $1 billion for between 256 and 800 of the agency’s newest series of rail cars.

CRRC’s success has raised concerns about national security and China’s growing footprint in the U.S. industrial supply chain and infrastructure.

“This is part of a larger conversation about this country and China, and domination of industries,” said Robert J. Puentes, president of the Eno Center for Transportation. “We don’t want to get trapped into a xenophobic conversation . . . but we also don’t want to be naive.”

No U.S. company makes subway cars, so China competes in that market against companies from Asia, Europe and Canada. But U.S. companies build freight rail cars, such as boxcars and tank cars, and they fear China will target them next.

That could cost U.S. manufacturing jobs. It also could increase the risk of a cyberattack that cripples domestic rail transportation in a military confrontation or other national emergency.

“China’s attack on our rail system is insidious and ingenious,” retired Army Brig. Gen. John Adams wrote in an October report distributed by the Rail Security Alliance, a U.S. industry group. “We must retain the know-how and technology to . . . safeguard against disruption of this strategically vital sector of our economy.”

China makes no secret of its desire to dominate the global rail car industry. Its “Made in China 2025” economic strategy proposes to seek competitive advantage in that sector, among others.

Both the U.S. Senate and House have sought to block further Chinese penetration of the transit vehicle market. Each chamber has inserted language in annual transportation appropriations bills to impose a one-year ban on new purchases of mass transit rail cars or buses from Chinese-owned companies if the procurement uses federal funding. The ban is not yet law, as final action has been put off until this year.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) sponsored the Senate ban. His spokeswoman said it reflected his “concern over China’s market distorting practices and their whole government effort . . . to dominate industries sensitive to our national security.” Texas is home to Trinity Industries, a leading U.S. rail car company.

A ban on purchases from China could penalize financially pressed transit systems such as Metro, which may want to take advantage of CRRC’s low prices. Critics have said the company is able to underbid competitors because of state subsidies. CRRC did not respond to emails requesting comment.

Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) said Metro should be willing to pay extra if necessary.

“Saving a buck isn’t worth compromising security in the nation’s capital,” Connolly said. “If there are valid security concerns about sourcing rail cars from a Chinese state-owned company, then find another option.”

quote:

Op vrijdag 28 december 2018 18:31 schreef Jellereppe het volgende:

[..]

Het doet mij denken aan de verhalen in de aanloop naar de Irak-oorlog en Vietnam-oorlog. Het volk neemt het niet zo nauw met beschuldigingen. Als je het maar hard en lang genoeg roept, gaan anderen het wel geloven. Een ezel stoot zich niet voor de tweede keer aan dezelfde steen is bullshit. Het volk slikt het zelfs na 100 keer voor zoete koek. Kijk dan naar de eerste reacties op dit topic. 100% vertrouwen in de rapportage van Bloomberg.

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontwapeningscrisis_van_Irak_in_2002

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonkin-incident

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 januari 2019 08:46 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:

[..]

Ik noem de Trump-Russia hoax verzonnen door de DNC en Clinton-campaign. Past prima in het straatje van de nieuwe koude oorlog die door het militair-industriele complex in gang is gezet.

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 januari 2019 07:45 schreef TheoddDutchGuy het volgende:
Dit moet je gewoon zien als de hetze tegen het rode gevaar in de jaren 50 met name.

De enige reden waarom ze er wakker van liggen is natuurlijk gewoon omdat er op deze manier gaten ontstaan in het spionage netwerk van Amerika.

Of de Chinezen het daadwerkelijk via Huawei doen of niet, doet er eigenlijk niet eens toe.

quote:

Chinese hackers vallen Nederlandse overheidsinstanties aan



Hackers die worden gelinkt aan de Chinese overheid zouden zich hebben gericht op Nederlandse overheidsinstanties. Dat schrijft RTL Nieuws op basis van anonieme bronnen.

Een woordvoerder van de AIVD kan zaterdagmiddag tegen NU.nl niets zeggen over het bericht dat de Chinese hackersgroep het heeft gemunt op Nederlandse overheden.

De hackersgroep wordt aangeduid als APT10 en is volgens de AIVD gelinkt aan China. De benaming APT ('advanced persistent threat', geavanceerde aanhoudende dreiging) wordt gebruikt om aan te geven dat een organisatie wordt ondersteund door een natiestaat.

De AIVD maakte in december al wel kenbaar dat APT10 zich op Nederlandse bedrijven richt. Het bericht volgde beschuldigingen van de Verenigde Staten en het Vereningd Koninkrijk dat de Chinese hackers wereldwijd hackaanvallen uitvoeren.

APT10 staat al jaren bekend als een groep die zich richt op Westerse doelen. Volgens internetbeveiligingsbedrijf FireEye is naast economische spionage ook militaire spionage een motief van de Chinese hackers.

quote:

Hoogste militair VS benoemd tot commandeur Orde Oranje-Nassau (video)



De hoogste militair van de Amerikaanse krijgsmacht generaal Joe Dunford is vandaag benoemd tot Commandeur in de Orde van Oranje Nassau met de zwaarden. Hij kreeg de hoge onderscheiding uit handen van minister Ank Bijleveld-Schouten. Dat gebeurde in het ministerie.

Dunford kreeg de onderscheiding "voor zijn uitmuntende en van onschatbare waarde zijnde verdiensten voor de internationale vrede en veiligheid." De generaal speelde en speelt een verenigende en inspirerende rol binnen diverse internationale coalities zoals ISAF en de anti-ISIS-coalitie. Ook staat hij constructief en positief ten aanzien van de Nederlandse strijdkrachten.

quote:

US Senators fear Chinese-made metro rail cars could be used for surveillance



Four US Senators have sent a letter to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA or Metro) to persuade the agency into blocking a Chinese company from bidding on a contract to provide passenger rail cars for a new metro line in the US' capital. The Senators fear that the Chinese-made rail cars will include backdoors and other mechanisms that will allow the Chinese government to spy on US citizens in its capital, and even sabotage local transportation if ever needed.

The Senators group includes Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). The four sent their letter last Friday to WMATA CEO Paul J. Wiedefeld after the Washington Post published a report at the start of the year about the possibility of state-owned China Railway Rolling Stock Corp. (CRRC) winning the Washington metro rail car contract --worth around $1 billion for providing up to 800 rail cars.

According to the Post's report, CRRC "has used bargain prices to win four of five large U.S. transit rail car contracts awarded since 2014." "In the transportation sector, there has been increased interest from particular foreign governments to participate in state and local procurements, including those to manufacture and assemble rail cars for transit agencies around the country," the Senators wrote in an open letter sent to the WMATA CEO.

"While other cities have welcomed this kind of investment, we have serious concerns about similar activity happening here in our nation's capital, particularly when it could involve foreign governments that have explicitly sought to undermine our country's economic competitiveness and national security."

But besides the economic damage of a Chinese company winning a contract instead of a US-based supplier, experts cited in the Post's report have also raised questions about the cyber-security of the rail cars that the CRRC will supply. According to WMATA's procurement process, the agency's looking for smart rail cars that would include systems to ensure automatic train control, network and trainline control, video surveillance, monitoring and diagnostics, and a data interface with WMATA.

The Senators fear these systems could be abused to allow a foreign spy, terrorist, or other threat actor to break in and take control of WMATA's systems to conduct foreign espionage or disrupt rail car lines across the city. The Senators group would like WMATA to amend its procurement rules to include "Buy America" or other similar clauses that would ensure companies owned by foreign governments wouldn't be able to bid on the contract.

The Senators posed a series of questions regarding Metro's plans for the rail car procurement process, including:

• While we are aware that nearly all passenger railcar manufacturers in the United States are foreign-owned, what steps is WMATA taking to ascertain and mitigate against the involvement of foreign governments in this procurement?

• Has Metro received briefings from the Department of Homeland Security or related agencies on the attempts of foreign adversaries to infiltrate our critical infrastructure and the significant cyber vulnerabilities that can stem from them doing so?

• Will Metro take a company's ties to foreign governments with a record of industrial and cyber espionage into account when evaluating bids, particularly if such company is a state-owned enterprise?

• If so, will Metro allow sensitive component parts of these railcars to be sourced from such countries?

• Will Metro consult with the Department of Defense prior to awarding a contract to confirm whether the Department would permit railcars built by certain foreign governments to operate through the Pentagon?

• We understand that Metro has announced that the RFP will be amended to include baseline cybersecurity protocols. Please provide information about these protocols and how they are being developed. How will Metro evaluate bidder responses to this forthcoming cybersecurity addendum? Will Metro review these responses with the Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Department of Homeland Security, and seek the concurrence of USDOT and DHS in its cybersecurity evaluations before making any final contract award in this procurement? What specific requirements will the addendum include to ensure that any communications technology included in the rail car procurement is protected from being exploited for surveillance purposes?

The fears expressed by the four Senators come after the US has been mulling imposing a country-wide ban on US companies from buying and using any telecommunications equipment made by China's Huawei and ZTE, on similar fears that the Chinese government might be using the equipment sold by the two companies to spy on the US.

quote:

Huawei Stokes U.S. Fear With Low-Cost Networking Gear That Works



In the sparsely settled wildlands of eastern Oregon, Huawei Technologies Co. is hardly the big bad wolf of China that U.S. officials have depicted. It’s a lifeline to the 21st Century.

China’s largest tech company makes high-quality networking gear that it sells to rural telecommunications operators for 20 percent to 30 percent less than its competitors do, says Joseph Franell, chief executive officer and general manager of Eastern Oregon Telecom in Hermiston, a watermelon-growing hub of 18,000 people. Huawei’s equipment has helped some two dozen U.S. telecom companies provide landlines, mobile services and high-speed data to many of the poorest and most remote areas in the country. Some of these companies have received federal subsidies, but not Franell’s, which was spun out to senior management last year by the electric cooperative that founded it in 1999. Huawei makes the magic happen.

“Their equipment is very, very good,” says Franell, who chairs the Oregon legislature’s Broadband Advisory Council. “We haven’t found equivalent equipment on the market.”

The administration of President Donald Trump is escalating a fight with a formidable adversary – a face-off that intelligence and cybersecurity officials say has significant implications for the safety and security of the U.S. and its allies. Huawei has become a world leader in manufacturing networking equipment and is striving to dominate the next generation of wireless technology, known as 5G. The Trump administration, convinced Huawei is a Trojan horse for Chinese intelligence, is determined to blunt its growing sales and influence. The heightening tension, which is said to include a potential presidential order that won’t name Huawei but would greatly limit its and other companies’ U.S. business opportunities, stems from a fundamental hardening of U.S. policy toward China that took place in 2017 during Trump’s first year in office.

For a decade, U.S. officials have said Huawei may be acting as an arm of the Chinese state, a private company in name only whose ulterior mission, they claim, is to steal government and corporate secrets through conventional espionage and back-door bugs in its telecom gear. The Obama administration stopped Huawei from acquiring U.S. technology assets and exerted pressure that reportedly helped nix a $5 billion equipment deal with Sprint that would have saved the struggling U.S. carrier $800 million in its first year. Last summer, Congress barred federal agencies and contractors from buying Chinese networking gear, and now the Trump administration is preparing an executive order that could significantly restrict all Chinese telecom sales in the U.S., two people familiar with the matter said earlier this month.

Through it all, Huawei has prospered. The company garners about half its annual revenue of $92 billion outside China, led by Europe, the Middle East and Africa, where cutting-edge technology at affordable prices has endeared the Chinese company to budget-strapped purchasers. Huawei has also become the world’s second-biggest mobile-phone maker, after Samsung Electronics Co. and ahead of Apple Inc. In the U.S., however, the consumer market has effectively closed for Huawei. Last year, Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. said they would no longer carry Huawei smartphones because of government pressure, after the FBI, CIA and NSA had warned that the phones were unsafe.

Huawei, for its part, has repeatedly denied any kind of spying or even talking with the Chinese government, let alone acting on its behalf. Executives insist it is a private company, owned by employees, not the state.

“I love my country, I support the Communist Party, but I will not do anything to harm the world,’’ said Ren Zhengfei, Huawei’s founder and CEO, in a rare interview at company headquarters in Shenzhen, China, on Jan. 15.

Trust us, say current and former U.S. officials: Classified information they can’t discuss proves Huawei will purloin customer secrets any time it can. Out in the open, Huawei, after becoming the world’s largest telecom-equipment manufacturer, has elevated surveillance systems to be one of its “strategic business lines,’’ a phrase mentioned 23 times during an August event in Guangzhou, China, to release 30 new types of cameras, according to Jeffrey Ding of the University of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute.

Already in 230 cities – including many in China as well as in Mauritius, Serbia, Kenya and elsewhere – Huawei has installed what it calls its “Safe City’’ technology, which involves a network of cameras that can match faces and license plates to central databases.

Cybersecurity experts from both the Obama and Trump administrations agree on the risk. “These companies need to be considered as functional extensions of Chinese intelligence,” says James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence for President Barack Obama and is now a frequent Trump critic. “This is one case where I agree with this administration.”

The difference is what to do about it. Obama pursued diplomacy to rein in Chinese cyber-theft, signing a landmark agreement in 2015 in which the U.S. and China agreed not to hack each other’s economic secrets. The Trump team scrapped the whole idea of engaging China and supporting its economic development as a means of moderating the country’s conduct. This administration’s approach, confrontation and containment, was outlined in Trump’s first “National Security Strategy,” published in December 2017.

“For decades, U.S. policy was rooted in the belief that support for China’s rise and for its integration into the post-war international order would liberalize China. Contrary to our hopes, China expanded its power at the expense of the sovereignty of others,” the document declared. “We will work with our partners to contest China’s unfair trade and economic practices and restrict its acquisition of sensitive technologies.”

Huawei is the tip of the spear, the administration believes. In recent months, the U.S. has dispatched lawyers, diplomats and intelligence officials to corporate and government offices around the world to press its case that Huawei must not be allowed to run their 5G networks. The technology’s next generation is expected to facilitate connections that are 10 to 100 times faster than current standards allow. Everything from grocery shelves to surgical robots to supertankers on the high seas will communicate instantly via antennas, facilitating automation on a transformative scale. Driverless cars will ping each other to avoid collisions as they whiz within centimeters of one another at high speeds. Factories, drones and mobile phones will coordinate home deliveries in an algorithmic chain without a single human being. Entire movies will download onto a laptop in seconds.

quote:

Billionaire investor George Soros just went scorched Earth on China during his annual Davos speech



George Soros has made a tradition out of giving a big speech at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting. And based on how the last two years have gone, he’s not in the business of making friends – especially not in the Chinese government. The 2019 version of this – delivered on Thursday evening – featured Soros absolutely unloading on the emerging nation. After briefly greeting attendees, the billionaire investor and chairman of Soros Fund Management launched straight into his prepared spiel.

“I want to use my time tonight to warn the world about an unprecedented danger that’s threatening the very survival of open societies,” he said.

He continued: “I want to call attention to the mortal danger facing open societies from the instruments of control that machine learning and artificial intelligence can put in the hands of repressive regimes. I’ll focus on China, where Xi Jinping wants a one-party state to reign supreme.” And with that, Soros was off and running. At the center of his anti-China argument was the concept of a centralized database of personal information called a “social credit system.”

While Soros acknowledged that such a set-up doesn’t yet exist, he said he fears the capabilities afforded by the world’s technology heavyweights will hasten its arrival – and, in the process, dismantle what remains of an open society. The speech was similar in tone to the one delivered by Soros in 2018, which saw him lament the global dominance of tech titans like Facebook and Google. He called them a “menace,” and warned that their insatiable thirst for growth could eventually lead them to collaborate with authoritarian regimes like China.

Soros’ latest comments pushed that discussion further, and explored the aftermath of a global environment where China’s move away from an open society succeeded in full. “My key point is that the combination of repressive regimes with IT monopolies endows those regimes with a built-in advantage over open societies,” Soros said. “The instruments of control are useful tools in the hands of authoritarian regimes, but they pose a mortal threat.”

He continued: “China isn’t the only authoritarian regime in the world, but it’s undoubtedly the wealthiest, strongest and most developed in machine learning and artificial intelligence. This makes Xi Jinping the most dangerous opponent of those who believe in the concept of open society.”

What the US can do about the China situation
When President Donald Trump embarked upon his ongoing Chinese trade crusade, Soros was pleased. In his mind, China needed to be challenged before it was too late, and Trump was taking a step in the right direction.

However, according to Soros, the president’s follow-through has been disappointing. He noted that Trump’s political desires made him more amenable to compromise, while he should’ve been taking a harder stance. So what can the US do to play hardball and keep Xi from executing this nefarious closed-society plan? Soros outlined a pair of ideas. First, he said that the ongoing global trade war should be focused solely on China. While it appears to be fairly targeted at the moment, Soros argued Trump should forget about other nations entirely.

Second, Soros said the US’s handling of ZTE and Huawei – the two state-sponsored Chinese companies that recently came under fire for intellectual property theft, among other things – should be fierce. He wants the US to crack down on them. But Soros’ ultimate vision involves some sort of global agreement that puts tensions to rest. Allow him to explain:

“It is possible to dream of something similar to the United Nations Treaty that arose out of the Second World War,” Soros said. “This would be the appropriate ending to the current cycle of conflict between the US and China. It would reestablish international cooperation and allow open societies to flourish.”

quote:

Op donderdag 24 januari 2019 12:49 schreef Jellereppe het volgende:
Terwijl de Amerikanen met veel geschreeuw via media en politiek Chinese bedrijven als Huawei (telecommunicatie-apparatuur en smartphones) en CRRC (rollend materieel) bannen en bondgenoten bewegen hetzelfde te doen via diplomatieke kanalen laten de Chinezen nochtans Amerikaanse bedrijven als General Motors (auto's) en Apple (smartphones) in China ongemoeid.

quote:

Op vrijdag 25 januari 2019 20:55 schreef YuckFou het volgende:

[..]

Verschil is wel dat Apple door een halve hippie is opgericht en Huawei door 3 Chinese ex-militairen, dat voelt toch anders

quote:

Op vrijdag 25 januari 2019 21:04 schreef Jellereppe het volgende:

[..]

Hmm, vind je? Werken innovatieve Silicon Valley bedrijven ook niet vaak samen met het Amerikaanse leger via DARPA. Silicon Valley heeft zelfs zijn bestaan te danken aan DARPA.

quote:

Op vrijdag 25 januari 2019 21:08 schreef YuckFou het volgende:

[..]

Ohw zeker en d'r zal zeker kruisbestuiving zijn, maar de afkeer van amerikanen tegen hun eigen overheid is haat even groot als die jegens China, en dat is in China natuurlijk volledig anders, daar is het staat voor en staat na....