Category Archives: China

Singapore IP Address Hacking the Winter Olympics

Posted on by

BBC: Hackers have attempted to steal sensitive data from groups involved with next month’s Winter Olympics, cyber-security firm McAfee said.

The report found malware-infected emails were sent last month to organisations linked to the Pyeongchang Games.

It did not identify those responsible, but said more attacks tied to the upcoming Olympics were likely.

In similar past attacks, hackers tried to obtain passwords and financial data.

‘Casting net wide’

McAfee said a number of groups associated with the Olympics had received malicious emails – including several affiliated with ice hockey.

“The majority of these organisations had some association with the Olympics, either in providing infrastructure or in a supporting role,” the security firm said.

“The attackers appear to be casting a wide net with this campaign.”

The emails were sent from a Singapore IP address and told readers to open a text document in Korean.

McAfee said the hackers were trying to trick recipients into believing the emails had come from South Korea’s National Counter-Terrorism Center – which at the time was in the process of conducting anti-terror drills in the region.

In some cases the hackers used a technique in known as steganography which hides malware in text and images.

McAfee echoed recent warnings from University of California researchers to expect more cyber-attacks targeting major sporting events.

“With the upcoming Olympics, we expect to see an increase in cyber attacks using Olympics-related themes,” the security firm said.

It comes as Pyongyang prepares to hold official talks with South Korea for the first time in more than two years.

North Korea accepted an offer to attend the meeting on 9 January that will focus on finding a way for its athletes to attend the Games.

***

It uses a previously unseen form of malware designed to hand control of the victim’s machine over to the attackers. Among those sent the messages are individuals associated with the ice hockey tournament at the Games. The attack has been dubbed ‘Operation PowerShell Olympics’ by the researchers at McAfee Labs, who uncovered it taking place in late December.

winter-oympic-phishing.png

The lure document used in the cyber-attacks targeting the South Korea Winter Olympics.

Image: McAfee Labs

During the course of the investigation, researchers discovered a cached Apache server log which showed an IP address from South Korea connecting to the specific URL paths contained in the PowerShell implants, indicating that the intended targets were likely to have been infected.

Further investigation revealed the IP address from the PowerShell implant was connected to an anonymous domain provider based in Costa Rica, with the attacker using this domain to link up to the South Korean Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which the attacker has somehow managed to use parts of to carry out the attack.

Researchers are uncertain how many have been infected by the attack, but the campaign is thought to have targeted a wide range of South Korean organisations in the run up to the Winter Olympics. In similar campaigns in the past, victims were targeted for their passwords and financial information.

The phishing document was created on December 22, but rather than containing macros, it uses OLE (Objective Linking and Embedding) streams to carry out the attack. The document has been created by the same author, ‘John’, who created the malicious PowerShell script.

However, despite some evidence about how the attacks took place, researchers haven’t been able to identify the perpetrator — but they do note that whoever is behind the campaign must be fluent in the Korean language and the motive is to gather intelligence about organisations involved in the South Korea-hosted Winter Olympics.

“Technical details alone are often not enough to determine attribution. We are able to ascertain that the attackers have been trained in Korean language to ensure that the targets open the attachment, and the objective seems to be to gather information on the planning, direction and infrastructure related to the Olympics,” said Sherstobitoff.

Researchers warn that in the run up to the Winter Olympics, attackers will continue to use the event as a lure to carry out cyber-attacks.

To avoid falling victim to such attacks — including fileless malware distributed as part of Operation Powershell Olympics — organisations should educate their employees to be mindful of suspicious emails and unexpected attachments. More here from zdnet

Bannon out at Breitbart?

Posted on by

So, here we go, yet another handful of days of scandal…sigh

From the Wall Street Journal:

Breitbart Owners Debate Ousting Bannon Amid Trump Feud

Former White House strategist’s longtime benefactors, billionaires Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, are distancing themselves from him

Whew….okay so now what? Well after two cease and desist orders, that book ‘Fire and Fury’ hit the bookshelves early as the publisher dismissed the order.

So, what will Bannon do now? Will he stay at Breitbart, look for other benefactors and launch another similar political media operation?

Interpol Red Notice

Applied for U.S. Asylum

Well, it seems Bannon has made some other interesting contacts with very deep pockets. Back in October of 2017, the Chinese fugitive tycoon Guo Wengui on Tuesday posted photographs on Twitter of himself meeting former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon twice in less than a week.

In the post, the billionaire businessman, who is wanted in China on corruption charges, said he first met Bannon for lunch in Washington on Thursday after attending an event at the National Press Club. The second meeting came on Tuesday, when Bannon and his team visited Guo’s home in New York for a 3½-hour dinner.

Image result for steve bannon Guo Wengui photo

The post was accompanied by four photographs of the two men. It did not say what they talked about, but said Bannon had agreed for the images to be posted on the social media site. According to unnamed sources cited by the Financial Times last month, Wang and Bannon met for about 90 minutes at the party’s headquarters in Zhongnanhai. The report said Wang asked Bannon, who left U.S. President Donald Trump‘s administration in mid-August, about economic nationalism and populist movements – the subject of Bannon’s speech at an investor conference in Hong Kong in mid-September.

The Chinese government has made various attempts to discredit Guo, who is wanted in connection with several alleged crimes including bribery, fraud and rape. He is also the subject of an Interpol red notice that Beijing requested in April.

While speaking at the National Press Club event on Thursday, Guo said China had sent dozens of spies to the U.S., but his claims were later dismissed by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security.

As well as visiting China, Bannon last month travelled to the United Arab Emirates, where he met the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, The New York Times reported.

Chinese financial magazine Caixin reported in July that Guo had been introduced to bin Zayed in 2013, and that the prince had helped him to raise $3 billion for a fund jointly held by Guo and Abu Dhabi authorities. More here.

*** Could this bring a new headache for the Trump White House or throw more sand in the diplomatic gears between the United States and China?

Again back in October….

On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal published a gripping account of fugitive billionaire Guo Wengui’s time in the United States and efforts by Chinese security services to apprehend him. The story is well worth the read and sheds light on how agents with China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) — the country’s foreign and domestic intelligence arm — attempted to retrieve Guo in New York City, where he currently resides. (Guo has lived outside China since 2015.)

Guo, who also goes by Miles Kwok, is something of a celebrity in the China-watching world for the spectacular allegations he’s gradually unveiled and levied against many in China’s top leadership. Even without verification or corroboration, Guo’s perception as a once-in-the-loop politico in China has won him many friends stateside. He claims to have worked closely with Chinese intelligence and to have intimate knowledge of the personal and financial dealings of the Chinese Communist Party’s top elites.

The Chinese government’s heavy-handed attempts to censor him thrust him into prominence. Earlier this year, an hours-long Voice of America interview with Guo was cut short, reportedly after receiving a request from the Chinese foreign ministry. Since that interview, Voice of America clarified that it had not verified several claims Guo made and it did not endorse them. Guo had alleged, among other things, that Wang Qishan, China’s powerful anti-corruption czar, had taken a large interest in HNA Group, a powerful conglomerate. That claim resulted in a defamation suit against Guo by HNA Group.

Many of Guo’s claims have been impossible to verify via open sources, but he remains widely popular because there is enough of a degree of plausibility to many of his allegations to keep observers interested. Moreover, the Chinese government hasn’t simply written off Guo as a disgruntled billionaire with a score to settle. The concerted effort to retrieve and silence him lends credence to the idea that at least some of what Guo either knows or has already revealed has deeply irked China’s leadership. (Indeed, even if everything Guo was alleging was false, the Chinese Communist Party would hardly have wanted these rumors emerging just months before the soon-to-conclude 19th Party Congress.)

What’s so remarkable about the Journal‘s story is the detail it provides on the MSS’ efforts within the United States to contact Guo and the U.S. response. The latter is in some ways the more interesting component of the story. While President Donald Trump appeared positively disposed toward the Chinese government and was eager to help China out by deporting Guo — the U.S. and China don’t have an extradition treaty — his staff tried to stay his hand by pointing out that Guo belonged to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club!

What’s more, the Guo story contains all the hallmarks of a tough interagency problem. The Journal outlines the tug-of-war between the State Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the matter of the MSS agents who had been operating outside of the confines of their visa in the United States. State, unsurprisingly, preferred to take a softer approach to avoid kicking up a diplomatic hornet’s nest at a time when the United States is seeking Chinese cooperation on issues ranging from North Korea to trade policy.

What’s clear for now is that the Guo Wengui saga is far from over. Indeed, following the conclusion of the 19th Party Congress and Trump’s upcoming trip to China, he could turn into a more serious flashpoint in U.S.-China ties. In the meantime, Guo has started associating with ardent anti-China voices in the United States, including former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. By all appearances, Guo’s role in the story of U.S.-China relations in the Trump era may have just begun. Hat-tip

 

Hey NoKo, You can Keep Your Nukes, Need Missiles?

Posted on by

Frontline reported:

Farley Mesko, CEO of Sayari Analytics, a Washington-based financial intelligence firm, said there is somewhere between 100 and 300 Chinese companies that have joint ventures with North Korean companies. Of those, several dozen work specifically with sanctioned North Korean entities.

For example, in September 2016, the Justice Department filed criminal charges against Ma Xiaohong, owner of the Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Company (DHID), an industrial machinery and equipment wholesaler in China, and several associates, for working on behalf of a sanctioned North Korean bank, Korea Kwangson Banking Corp, to help them evade U.S. sanctions. More here.

Back in November:

The US has imposed ​​more sanctions on North Korea as well as​ Chinese firms that trade with the regime, as part of its campaign t​​o convince Pyongyang to abandon its missile and nuclear weapons programmes. The Treasury on Tuesday unveiled sanctions on one Chinese individual, 13 entities that included four Chinese trading companies, and 20 shipping vessels that it says are helping North Korea evade UN sanctions. More here.

***

Image result for china aids north korea photo

FB: China’s Communist Party adopted a secret plan in September to bolster the North Korean government with increased aid and military support, including new missiles, if Pyongyang halts further nuclear tests, according to an internal party document.

The document, labeled “top secret” and dated Sept. 15—12 days after North Korea’s latest underground nuclear blast—outlines China’s plan for dealing with the North Korean nuclear issue. It states China will allow North Korea to keep its current arsenal of nuclear weapons, contrary to Beijing’s public stance that it seeks a denuclearized Korean peninsula.

Chinese leaders also agreed to offer new assurances that the North Korean government will not be allowed to collapse, and that Beijing plans to apply sanctions “symbolically” to avoid punishing the regime of leader Kim Jong Un under a recent U.N. resolution requiring a halt to oil and gas shipments into North Korea.

A copy of the four-page Chinese-language document was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon from a person who once had ties to the Chinese intelligence and security communities. An English translation can be found here.

CIA spokesmen had no immediate comment on the document that could not be independently verified.

A Chinese Embassy spokesman did not return emails seeking comment.

Disclosure of the document comes amid reports China is continuing to send oil to North Korea in violation of United Nations sanctions, prompting criticism from President Trump. Trump tweeted last week that China was caught “red handed” allowing oil shipments to North Korea.

“There will never be a friendly solution to the North Korean problem if this continues to happen,” the president stated on Dec. 28.

Release of the classified internal document is unusual since China’s communist system imposes strict secrecy on all party policies. Exposure of the secret Central Committee directive could indicate high-level opposition within the party to current supreme leader Xi Jinping, who has consolidated more power than any leader since Mao Zedong.

China: Pressure on North Korea won’t work

China’s leaders, according to the document, concluded that international pressure will not force North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons, estimated to be at least 20 warheads.

As a result, the Central Committee of the party directed its International Liaison Department, the organ in charge of communicating with foreign political parties, to inform Pyongyang of China’s continued backing.

The head of the Liaison Department, Song Tao, visited Pyongyang Nov. 17 and met with senior North Korean officials. North Korean state media did not provide details of the talks, other than to say issues of mutual concern were discussed.

The directive appears written in response to the United Nations Security Council resolution passed after the Sept. 3 North Korean nuclear test. Included among the resolution’s new sanctions are restrictions on oil and gas transfers, including a ban on transferring oil between ships in open ocean waters.

On the U.N. requirement to shut down oil and gas transfers from China to North Korea, the party document said after North Korean businesses in China will be closed under the terms of the latest U.N. resolution, “our country will not for the moment restrict Korea from entrusting qualified Chinese agencies from trade with Korea or conducting related trade activities via third countries (region).”

A directive ordered the Liaison Department to offer a promised increase in aid for “daily life and infrastructure building” and a one-time increase in funds for North Korea of 15 percent for 2018. Chinese aid will be then be increased annually from 2019 through 2023 by “no less than 10 percent over the previous year.”

The Chinese also promised the North Koreans that in response to calls to suspend all banking business with North Korea that the financial ban will “only apply to state-owned banks controlled by the central government and some regional banks.”

On military support, the document reveals that China is offering North Korean “defensive military construction” and “high level military science and technology.”

The weaponry will include “more advanced mid- and short-range ballistic missiles, cluster munitions, etc.,” the document said.

“Your department should at the same time seriously warn the Korean authority not to overdo things on the nuclear issue,” the document says.

“Currently, there is no issue for our country to forcefully ask Korea to immediately and completely give up its nuclear weapons. Instead, we ask Korea to maintain restraint and after some years when the conditions are ripe, to apply gradual reforms and eventually meet the requirement of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.”

Beijing to warn Kim of ‘punitive measures’

The document then directs the Liaison Department to warn that if North Korea insists on acting rashly, further punitive measures will be imposed on senior North Korean leaders and their family members.

The directive lists “requirements” for the Liaison Department to pursue, including informing the North Koreans of China’s “determination to protect the Korean government on behalf of the Central Committee of CPC.”

Liaison officials also were tasked with informing the North Koreans of promises of support and aid in exchange for Pyongyang making “substantial compromises on its nuclear issues.”

“According to the current deployment of world forces and the geographic position of the Korean Peninsula, to prevent the collapse of the Korean government and the possible direct military confrontation with western hostile forces led by the United States on the Korean Peninsula caused by these issues, our country, Russia, and other countries will have to resort to all the effective measures such as diplomatic mediation and military diversion to firmly ensure the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and to prevent ‘chaos and war,’ which is also the common position held firmly by our country, Russia, and others,” the report says.

The document states that if the United States “rushes to war” against North Korea, the conflict would have a huge impact on the political and economic state of the region and the world.

“At such a time, the security of Japan and (South) Korea can be hardly taken care of, especially the security of Seoul, the (South) Korean capital,” the document says.

“Also, our country, Russia, and others will absolutely not look on the chaotic situation on the Korean Peninsula without taking any action.”

The document states that China believes that “theoretically” western powers will not use military force to overthrow the Kim Jong Un regime to solve the nuclear issue.

“However, international provocations by Korea via repeatedly conducting nuclear tests has imposed huge international pressure on our country that is continuously accumulating and becoming unbearably heavy,” the document says.

‘Stern warning’ and ‘assurances’

The deal outlined in the document to be communicated to Pyongyang includes a “stern warning” combined with “related assurances to Korea at the same time.”

“That is, currently Korea will not have to immediately give up its nuclear weapons, that so long as Korea promises not to continue conducting new nuclear tests and immediately puts those promises into action, our country will immediately increase economic, trade, and military assistance to Korea, and will add or continue providing the following benefits,” the report states.

The first item then lists greatly increasing trade with North Korea to keep the government operating and to raise the living standard of North Koreans.

“As for products under international sanctions such as crude oil products (except for the related products clearly defined as related to nuclear tests), under the condition of fully ensuring domestic demand of Korea, we will only make a symbolic handling or punishment,” the Party document said.

Past document leaks have included party documents on decision making related to the 1989 military crackdown on unarmed protesters in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square published in the 2001 book The Tiananmen Paper.

A more recent disclosure in October was the release of an internal Communist Party document authorizing the Ministry of State Security, China’s civilian spy service, to dispatch 27 intelligence officers to the United States to “crush hostile forces.” That document was made public by exiled Chinese businessman-turned-dissident Guo Wengui.

Orville Schell, a China specialist who worked on the Tiananmen Papers, said he could not authenticate the document but said it has “an air of veracity.”

“The language in Chinese is spot on party-speak, and the logic of the argument would appear to be congruent with the current line and what is happening,” said Schell, director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society in New York.

Columbia University Professor Andrew Nathan also could not authenticate the document but said it looks genuine. “The typeface, layout, header, seal, vocabulary, and diction are all those of an official inner party document,” said Nathan who also worked on the Tiananmen papers.

Nathan said the document appeared to be a directive for International Liaison Department director Song Tao’s mission to Pyongyang two months later, and Beijing’s attempt to press North Korea to halt nuclear tests using a combination of incentives and warnings.

The Chinese language version uses some terms that reveal China’s contempt for North Korea, such as the term “ruling authorities” for the Kim regime, something Nathan said is an “unfriendly” tone.

Former State Department intelligence official John Tkacik, a China affairs specialist, said the document appears genuine and if confirmed as authentic would represent “a bombshell” disclosure.

Tkacik told the Free Beacon the document, may be “evidence that China has no real commitment to pressuring North Korea to give up nuclear weapons, and indeed sees North Korean nuclear arms as an additional strategic threat to the United States, one that China can claim no influence over.”

“Reading between the lines, it is clear that China views North Korea as giving it leverage with the U.S., so long as the U.S. believes that China is doing all it can do,” Tkacik said.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said if the document is authentic, “it reveals China’s policy to be completely cynical and utterly detached from its publicly stated position.”

“The White House would have to react accordingly,” he added.

Trump criticizes past N. Korea policies

Trump last week tweeted a video showing then-President Bill Clinton praising the 1994 Agreed Framework that Clinton said would freeze and ultimately dismantle the North Korean nuclear program.

The video also included a clip of Trump on NBC’s “Meet the Press” from 1999 urging action then to stop the North Korean nuclear program in its early stages.

Trump told the New York Times after the tweet he was disappointed China is secretly shipping oil to North Korea. “Oil is going into North Korea. So I’m not happy about it,” he said, adding that he has been “soft on China” for its unfair trade practices and technology theft.

“China has a tremendous power over North Korea. Far greater than anyone knows,” Trump said Dec. 28, adding that “China can solve the North Korea problem, and they’re helping us, and they’re even helping us a lot, but they’re not helping us enough.”

“If they don’t help us with North Korea, then I do what I’ve always said I want to do,” the president added. “China can help us much more, and they have to help us much more … We have a nuclear menace out there, which is no good for China, and it’s not good for Russia. It’s no good for anybody.”

The Trump administration has been signaling for months it is prepared to use military force against North Korea to rid the country of nuclear arms and missile delivery systems.

North Korea conducted several long-range missile tests in 2017 that U.S. officials have said indicate rapid progress toward building a missile capable of targeting the United States with a nuclear warhead.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Dec. 29 that he has drawn up military options for operations against North Korea.

“I don’t speculate, as you know, about future operations by our forces,” Mattis told reporters. “But with three U.N. Security Council resolutions in a row, unanimously adopted, each one has put significantly more pressure on the North Korean regime for its provocations, for its outlaw activities. I think you will see increased pressure. What form that pressure takes in terms of physical operations is something that will be determined by the Congress and government.”

Asked if the United States is closer to war with North Korea, Mattis said: “You know, I provide military options right now. This is a clearly a diplomatically led effort with a lot of international diplomatic support. It’s got a lot of economic buttressing, so it’s not like it’s just words. It’s real activities.”

China backs N. Korea as buffer zone

The party directive states that China regards North Korea as a strategic “buffer zone” needed to “fend off hostile western forces.” Ideologically, North Korea also is important to China in promoting its vision of “socialism with Chinese characteristics led by our Party” and identifying North Korea as “irreplaceable.”

According to the document, the Party regards the “continuity of the Korean government,” maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula and one of its unwavering goals.

“This issue is about the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula and the fundamental interests of our Party, our country, and all Chinese people,” the document concludes, adding that the department should quickly coordinate with the Foreign and Commerce Ministries and other agencies to develop an operational plan to implement the policy “to ensure the sense of responsibility, to strictly maintain related confidentiality, and to seriously accomplish the heavy tasks entrusted by the Central Committee of CPC.”

The document bears the seal of the General Office of the Communist Party Central Committee, the office in charge of administrative affairs. Copies were sent to the administrative offices of the National People’s Congress, State Council, and Central Military Commission.

The internal document states that the new policy toward the North Korean nuclear issue is based on consultations among key power organs within the ruling party, including the Central Committee and State Council, along with what was termed “the guiding spirit” of meetings held by the National Security Commission, headed by Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

“After research and assessment, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China decided to authorize your department to lead and organize the communication and coordination work with the Korean administration on its nuclear issues,” the document states.

Russia Plans Alternate Internet, Condemns the West

Posted on by

Image result for putin in china photo

Primer: Capping off months of controversy, espionage claims and international intrigue, the U.S. government ban on Kaspersky Lab software has been signed into law. The ban, wedged into the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), would preclude all federal computers and connected networks from using antivirus software made by the Russian cybersecurity firm.

The Kaspersky ban, which appears in Section 1634 of the 2018 NDAA, reads as follows:

“No department, agency, organization, or other element of the Federal Government may use, whether directly or through work with or on behalf of another department, agency, organization, or element of the Federal Government, any hardware, software, or services developed or provided, in whole or in part, by—

(1) Kaspersky Lab (or any successor entity);

(2) any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with Kaspersky Lab; or

(3) any entity of which Kaspersky Lab has majority ownership.”

Last week, Kaspersky Lab announced that it would close its Washington, D.C. offices, which it stated were “no longer viable.”

***

Since the founding of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2009, Russian and Chinese officials have frequently discussed joint cybersecurity initiatives. A relatively substantial degree of collaboration was formalized in the context of heightened Russo-Chinese cooperation in 2014 and 2015, with both countries signing an agreement that included cybersecurity cooperation provisions in May of last year. In the words of the agreement’s signatories, its purpose was to limit the use of informational technology designed “to interfere in the internal affairs of states; undermine sovereignty, political, economic and social stability; [and] disturb public order.”

Digital Sovereignty

This emphasis on digital sovereignty remains a central tenet of both countries’ cyber policies, even as cooperation on the issue has ebbed and flowed. The non-aggression elements of the 2015 agreement floundered in the implementation stage, in part due to ambiguous language but largely as a result of continued Chinese cyberespionage. This activity rose to unprecedented levels in 2016, with Russian cybersecurity company Kaspersky Labs reporting 194 Chinese cyberattacks in the first seven months of the year alone—compared to just 72 in 2015. These attacks targeted Russian government agencies, the defense and aerospace industries, and nuclear technology companies. And they’re probably underreported: A Kaspersky Labs spokesperson told Bloomberg that only around 10% of their corporate clients exchange data related to hacks with their security network. More here.

Image result for BRICS photo

Russia Seeks to Build Alternative Internet

TJF: Numerous Russian sources report that efforts are underway to produce a new and independent internet that would align Russia more closely with the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India China and South Africa) while giving Russian political authorities greater control over what they refer to as “digital sovereignty.” In late November, the RBK news agency reported on the proceedings of a recent meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation (SCRF), which underscored the national security threats posed by the increasing vulnerability of the global Internet (RBK, November 28). The publicly available SCRF website confirms that a high-level meeting on cyber security did take place, but it does not expand upon it in detail (Scrf.gov.ru, October 25). Russia’s state-managed propaganda mouthpiece RT, however, cited “members of the Security Council” as stating that “the increased capabilities of Western nations to conduct offensive operations in the informational space as well as the increased readiness to exercise these capabilities pose a serious threat to Russia’s security” (RT, November 28). RT also noted that President Vladimir Putin set August 1, 2018, as the deadline for creating an alternative to the Internet.

The creation of an alternative internet—which would allow the governments of Russia and the BRICS countries to control the addressing and routing of electronic communications within their territory—raises many complex questions. For one thing, the establishment of a disjointed and competitive sphere of cyberspace threatens to disrupt and potentially fragment the existing conventions of global Internet practice. Moreover, the creation a “counter-net” would necessitate the establishment of an alternative system of identification, addressing and routing information through a new information network operating in a new “domain name system,” a new DNS. The existing DNS is based on a unique number associated with each originating and terminating point for every Internet transmission, coded in the form of a packet of digital information. The idea of the “RU NET” has long been discussed in post-Communist countries. But until now, this idea has only referred to the Russian-language-speaking Internet activities originating from servers in Russia or in other post-Soviet countries where Russian is recognized as an official language—not to a separate internet architecture (APN, December 14, 2016).

The global Internet is already a network of networks, consisting of a broad common space but with some segmented spheres of activity. Gaining complete control over a specific domain in the cyber-sphere, however, would require gaining autonomy. Full control over the Internet (or any segment therein) could only be achieved by creating “the ability to set policies for naming, addressing and routing” transmissions (Milton Mueller, Will the Internet Fragment?, 2017, p. 22). That, in turn, would require establishing control over the domain name system.

Earlier attempts by Russian authorities to gain control over the digital sphere focused on taking charge of the physical hardware of the Internet, such as transmission facilities, and asserting authority over the places where data resides, particularly web servers. In 2014, Russia’s Ministry of Communications and Mass Media specified data localization requirements in the federal communications legislation (Federal Law No. 242) (Minsvyaz.ru, accessed December 13). The law requires data operators in Russia to store all personal data of citizens of the Russian Federation in databases located inside Russia. This legislation was further extended in December 2016 by a set of measures by President Putin to establish a “digital economy” in Russia (Kremlin.ru, December 1, 2016). The most recent Law on “Security of Critical Infrastructure” was passed in July 2017, and is scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2018 (Pravo.gov.ru, July 27).

In order to control the flow of information not in compliance with the legislation, the idea of blocking transmission through physical facilities located on the territory of the Russian Federation led to the establishment of a single register of websites, maintained by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor). In an effort to conduct this “filtering,” Roskomnadzor developed and implemented a so-called “blacklist” (Rkn.gov.ru, accessed December 13). But while the blacklist succeeded in blocking some websites it identified as unwanted, it also had the effect of blocking websites linked to those, effectively creating a self-censoring network. Roskomnadzor has now stepped back from this practice, correcting many of those problems of excessive blockage but has nonetheless reasserted the intention to more vigorously pursue the policing of websites (Rkn.gov.ru, December 8). Creating the establishment of a separate domain naming system goes considerably further than efforts to “filter” websites, even though Igor Shchyogolev, the staff member of the President’s Office assigned to mass communications, has insisted the idea is not to fragment the Internet (TASS, March 27, 2017)

The robustness of the current Internet naming conventions probably can be attributed to the fact that the Internet emerged in its early days more as a computer science experiment than as an effort to create a new format for global communication, commerce and governance. The identification of parties communicating on the Internet was established through naming protocols established for convenience and by convention, not for control. But the Internet grew so quickly that management responsibility was turned over to a new body, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), in September 1998, which, on October 1, 2016, was re-chartered as a fully independent, non-governmental organization.

The functions of ICANN quickly attracted international competition. Some governments sought to promote a government-centric framework for addressing and naming conventions, while other parties sought to maintain a multiple-stakeholders approach. The failure of the Russian government and others to prevail in winning greater control for states is what has led to Moscow’s intention to create a “counter-net.” The question of whether an autonomous and detachable “segment” of cyberspace could be fashioned by the Kremlin without resulting in self-imposed isolation is an issue with far-reaching implications.

 

–Gregory Gleason

Deport Those Chinese Operatives Now

Posted on by

Have you read the newly released book titled ‘Bully of Asia’ by Steven W. Mosher? China is the single largest threat to global stability and Russia and Iran in second and third place.

Have you heard of the Thucydides Trap? China is an ascending power and just who is paying attention? Have you studied the fact that China is a major enabler of North Korea’s aggression behavior including the most recent launch of the intercontinental ballistic missile?

China is a thief. China has dispatched operatives throughout the West under the guise of cultural exchanges, students, temporary workers and journalists. It is all about espionage and cyberwar.

Image result for china spies photo

Hey State Department and DHS, get these operatives outta here. By the way, are there any sanctions on China with regard to PLA Unit 61398?

photo

Have you wondered what happened to that Obama Asia Pivot that he announced in 2011? The United States needs to pivot again and now.

Why?

This Beijing-Linked Billionaire Is Funding Policy Research at Washington’s Most Influential Institutions

The Chinese Communist Party is quietly reshaping public opinion and policy abroad.

FP: The Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), located just a short walk from Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C., is one of the top international relations schools in the United States. Its graduates feed into a variety of government agencies, from the State Department to the CIA, and the military. Its China studies program is especially well known; many graduates come away with expert knowledge of the language, culture, and politics of the United States’ most important strategic competitor.

In August, SAIS announced a new endowed professorship in the China Studies department as well as a new research project called the Pacific Community Initiative, which aims to examine “what China’s broader role in Asia and the world means for its neighbors and partners.”

What the SAIS press release did not say is that the money for the new initiatives came in part from the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), a Hong Kong-based nonprofit. CUSEF is a registered foreign agent bankrolled by a high-ranking Chinese government official with close ties to a sprawling Chinese Communist Party apparatus that handles influence operations abroad, known as the “united front.”

The China-U.S. Exchange Foundation’s partnership with a premier U.S. academic institution comes amid a Chinese Communist Party push to strengthen its influence over policy debate around the globe. The Chinese government has sought to repress ideas it doesn’t like and to amplify those it does, and its efforts have met with growing success.

Even as Washington is embroiled in a debate over Russian influence in U.S. elections, it’s China that has proved adept at inserting itself in American politics.

“The Chinese approach to influence operation is a bit different than the Russian one,” said Peter Mattis, a fellow at the Jamestown Foundation. “The Russian one is much more about an operational objective and they work backward from that objective, saying, ‘How do we achieve that?’” But on the Chinese side, Mattis said, “they focus on relationships — and not on the relationships having specific takeaway value, but that someday, some way, those relationships might become valuable.”

The Chinese seek a kind of “ecological change,” he explained. “If they cultivate enough people in the right places, they start to change the debate without having to directly inject their own voice.”

The China-U.S. Exchange Foundation was founded in 2008 by Tung Chee-hwa, a Hong Kong shipping magnate who later served as the chief executive of the former British colony, where he championed the benefits of close ties to Beijing. Tung’s Hong Kong-based nonprofit conducts academic and professional exchanges, bringing U.S. journalists, scholars, and political and military leaders to mainland China. It also has funded research projects at numerous U.S. institutions, including the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Atlantic Council, the Center for American Progress, the East-West Institute, the Carter Center, and the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

Tung’s foundation’s ties to the united front are indirect, but important. Tung currently serves as the vice chairman of one of the united front’s most important entities — the so-called Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, which is one of China’s two rubber-stamp assemblies.

The body is one of Beijing’s most crucial tentacles for extending influence.

In its newest project with SAIS, the foundation describes the Pacific Community Initiative as a “joint research project.” David Lampton, director of the university’s China Studies Program, said in an August press release that the new professor “will also be responsible for running our Pacific Community Initiative and work closely with the China-U.S. Exchange Foundation in Hong Kong.”

Lampton also confirmed that CUSEF funded the new programs. “Both the Initiative and the Professorship were made possible through the support of the China-U.S. Exchange Foundation,” he said in an emailed statement to Foreign Policy.

But he denied that CUSEF had attached any intellectual strings to its funding.

“There are absolutely no conditions or limitations imposed upon the Pacific Community Initiative or our faculty members by reason of a gift or otherwise,” Lampton told FP. “We have full confidence in the academic integrity and independence of these endeavors.”

CUSEF denies it acts as a vehicle for Beijing’s ideological agenda or has “any connections” to the united front. “We do not aim to promote or support the policies of any one government,” wrote a spokesperson for the foundation in an email.

This isn’t the first time SAIS and the foundation have worked together; they co-sponsored a conference on China’s economy in Hong Kong in March 2016, according to the school’s website. But a professorship and a major research project offer an opportunity for broader reach — the kind of global influence that Chinese President Xi Jinping has made a centerpiece of his policies. In October, at the meeting of the Communist Party that sets the national agenda for the next five years, Xi called for an expansion of the party’s overseas influence work, referring to the united front as a “magic weapon” of party power.

That quest to shape the global view of China isn’t the same thing as soft power, said James Leibold, a professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne who researches Chinese influence in Australia, where Beijing’s recent influence operations have sparked a national controversy.

China is an authoritarian state where the Communist Party rules with an iron fist, Leibold said — and that is what Beijing is trying to export.

“What we’re talking about here is not Chinese influence per se, but the influence of the Chinese Communist Party.”

In a joint project like the one at SAIS, that influence can be subtle rather than being heavy-handed, said Jamestown’s Mattis. “It’s the ability to privilege certain views over others, to create a platform for someone to speak,” he said. “When you have a role in selecting the platform and generating what I presume they hope are some of the bigger reports on U.S.-China relations in the next few years, that’s important.”

One goal of the joint research project is, in fact, to “yield a white paper to be submitted for endorsement by both the U.S. and Chinese governments,” a CUSEF spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to FP.

While CUSEF representatives stress that it is not an agent of the Chinese Communist Party, the foundation has cooperated on projects with the the People’s Liberation Army and uses the same Washington public relations firm that the Chinese Embassy does.

One of those PLA projects is the Sanya Initiative, an exchange program that brings together U.S. and Chinese former high-ranking military leaders. On the Chinese side, the Sanya Initiative is led by a bureau of the PLA that engages in political warfare and influence operations, according to Mark Stokes, executive director of the Project 2049 Institute.

Sometimes the results of such high-level exchanges aren’t subtle. In February 2008, PLA participants in the Sanya Initiative asked their U.S. counterparts to persuade the Pentagon to delay publishing a forthcoming report about China’s military buildup, according to a segment excised from the 2011 annual report of the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

The U.S. members complied, though their request was not successful.

Exchanges and partnerships are not CUSEF’s only initiatives. As a registered foreign agent, in 2016 it spent just under $668,000 on lobbying, hiring the Podesta Group and other firms to lobby Congress on the topic of “China-U.S. relations.” The foundation has spent $510,000 on lobbying to date in 2017.

CUSEF also keeps on retainer the consulting and public relations firm BLJ Worldwide LTD, the same firm the Chinese Embassy in the United States uses. According to FARA filings, CUSEF currently pays the firm $29,700 a month to promote the foundation’s work and run a pro-Beijing website called China US Focus.

Whether through websites, partnerships, or endowments, China has learned to wrap its message in a palatable wrapper of U.S. academics and intellectuals, according to Mattis.

“Who better to influence Americans than other Americans?” he said.