Cybersecurity firm Antiy denounces reported surveillance by US and UK

[TaiShang]

Cybersecurity firm Antiy denounces reported surveillance

2015-06-26

Chinese cybersecurity firm Antiy Labs denounced reported targeting by the United States and Britain on Thursday, saying the practice is "despicable".

The Intercept, an investigative news site, reported this week that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had reverse engineered software, sometimes under questionable legal authority, and monitored web and email traffic. The report alleged that the move aimed to thwart anti-virus software and obtain intelligence from companies about security software and users of such software, citing documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The Intercept reported that the NSA targeted foreign anti-virus companies to monitor their email traffic for reports of new vulnerabilities and malware, in a project called Camberdada.

An NSA presentation, cited by The Intercept, listed nearly two dozen antivirus companies as "More Targets!", including Chinese security firm Antiy Labs. Notably omitted are the American anti-virus brands McAfee and Symantec and the British company Sophos.

Antiy said in a statement that the monitoring of email traffic - computer users' reports of potential malware - from cybersecurity firms to gain an advantage was "despicable".

In years of combating malicious code, cybersecurity firms across the globe have established an industry-wide understanding and cooperation mechanism by which they share information, and jointly respond to threats, according to Antiy, but this reported targeting of certain firms would undermine trust within the industry and threaten future cooperations.

Founded in 2000, Antiy is headquartered in northeast China's Heilongjiang Province. It claims to have first found famous malware like CodeRed II and Dvldr, and also published insights on others including Stuxnet, which reports said was being used as a cyberweapon.

 

[qwerrty]

Notably omitted are the American anti-virus brands McAfee and Symantec and the British company Sophos.

those softwares already have NSA and GCHQ backddors built in

 

[JSCh]

Somehow I am not surprise.

US' industrial cyber espionage - Opinion - Chinadaily.com.cn
By Kong Chushan (China Daily) Updated: 2014-05-28 07:58


NAS and other intelligence departments have for a long time been stealing commercial secrets for the benefit of US companies

On May 19, the United States Justice Department indicted five Chinese military officers on charges of hacking into computers and stealing valuable trade secrets from leading US companies. This is the first time that the US has leveled such criminal charges against a foreign country.

Washington's unfounded charges and crude behavior have once again demonstrated to the world its hypocrisy and shamelessness.

Edward Snowden's revelations about the US National Security Agency's surveillance programs let the whole world know that the US is the biggest cyber spy, perhaps that is why it is so desperate to point a finger at China.

The US argues all countries engage in espionage, but it does not provide information gathered by its intelligence agencies to US companies for commercial gain. In other words, it is saying that it is OK for the US to steal information from other countries if it is in the name of safeguarding its national security, even if it is the commercial secrets of other countries, but it isn't using that information to help US enterprises.

It is well-known the US wants to maintain its hegemony in the world, so it is not surprising that the US puts its own security interests above other countries' national sovereignty.

According to Snowden's revelations, US institutions have long been involved in large-scale and organized cyber theft as well as wiretapping and surveillance activities against foreign political leaders, companies and individuals, and the intelligence it has obtained naturally includes a large number of business secrets. People cannot help but ask: Do all those countries, enterprises, institutions and individuals around the world pose a threat to US national security?

If the US does not take advantage of these information, why does it take the trouble to steal them?

In 1977, the US launched a commercial espionage program, called "Echelon", to steal other countries' business intelligence on a large scale by monitoring phone conversations and intercepting cable and fax messages, and offered this information to American companies. Over the decades, the US intelligence department's stealing of commercial secrets has continuously increased rather than lessened.

An article published in The New York times in 1995 disclosed the details of the US' theft of economic information from Japan, and pointed out that as overseas commercial interests have become the US' foreign policy priority, spying on its allies' for economic gain has become a key task of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In fact, for many years such reports have been fairly common in the US' mainstream media, and there have been many reports of the US government, enterprises and intelligence agents making handsome profits through stealing commercial secrets.

In 1999, the European Parliament conducted a two-year investigation into the US' intelligence agencies theft of European countries' business secrets . It published a 200-page report on July 11, 2001, which concluded that the US had been stealing European countries' business intelligence on a large scale for a long time and this information was handed over to the US companies, helping them obtain enormous commercial advantages.

The report by the European Parliament gave a large number of examples. For example, the NSA provided Boeing and McDonnell Douglas with the negotiations that took place between Airbus and Saudi Arabia, the US companies finally wining a $6 billion contract. For the same reason the French electronics company Thomson lost out on a $1.4-billion deal to the US' Raytheon Corporation.

In addition to the European countries, the report also listed a number of cases concerning the US' commercial espionage activities in countries such as Japan.

After the Prism program was exposed, the European Parliament held another hearing about the US' espionage activities and recommended that countries pay more attention to the advice of the report.

Even after the Snowden disclosures, the US has not made clear why it has been monitoring Brazilian and Mexican oil companies.

Now the whole world knows that the US is the biggest aggressor in cyberspace.

The author is a Beijing-based expert on international relations.

 

[TaiShang]

Somehow I am not surprise.

US' industrial cyber espionage - Opinion - Chinadaily.com.cn
By Kong Chushan (China Daily) Updated: 2014-05-28 07:58


NAS and other intelligence departments have for a long time been stealing commercial secrets for the benefit of US companies

On May 19, the United States Justice Department indicted five Chinese military officers on charges of hacking into computers and stealing valuable trade secrets from leading US companies. This is the first time that the US has leveled such criminal charges against a foreign country.

Washington's unfounded charges and crude behavior have once again demonstrated to the world its hypocrisy and shamelessness.

Edward Snowden's revelations about the US National Security Agency's surveillance programs let the whole world know that the US is the biggest cyber spy, perhaps that is why it is so desperate to point a finger at China.

The US argues all countries engage in espionage, but it does not provide information gathered by its intelligence agencies to US companies for commercial gain. In other words, it is saying that it is OK for the US to steal information from other countries if it is in the name of safeguarding its national security, even if it is the commercial secrets of other countries, but it isn't using that information to help US enterprises.

It is well-known the US wants to maintain its hegemony in the world, so it is not surprising that the US puts its own security interests above other countries' national sovereignty.

According to Snowden's revelations, US institutions have long been involved in large-scale and organized cyber theft as well as wiretapping and surveillance activities against foreign political leaders, companies and individuals, and the intelligence it has obtained naturally includes a large number of business secrets. People cannot help but ask: Do all those countries, enterprises, institutions and individuals around the world pose a threat to US national security?

If the US does not take advantage of these information, why does it take the trouble to steal them?

In 1977, the US launched a commercial espionage program, called "Echelon", to steal other countries' business intelligence on a large scale by monitoring phone conversations and intercepting cable and fax messages, and offered this information to American companies. Over the decades, the US intelligence department's stealing of commercial secrets has continuously increased rather than lessened.

An article published in The New York times in 1995 disclosed the details of the US' theft of economic information from Japan, and pointed out that as overseas commercial interests have become the US' foreign policy priority, spying on its allies' for economic gain has become a key task of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In fact, for many years such reports have been fairly common in the US' mainstream media, and there have been many reports of the US government, enterprises and intelligence agents making handsome profits through stealing commercial secrets.

In 1999, the European Parliament conducted a two-year investigation into the US' intelligence agencies theft of European countries' business secrets . It published a 200-page report on July 11, 2001, which concluded that the US had been stealing European countries' business intelligence on a large scale for a long time and this information was handed over to the US companies, helping them obtain enormous commercial advantages.

The report by the European Parliament gave a large number of examples. For example, the NSA provided Boeing and McDonnell Douglas with the negotiations that took place between Airbus and Saudi Arabia, the US companies finally wining a $6 billion contract. For the same reason the French electronics company Thomson lost out on a $1.4-billion deal to the US' Raytheon Corporation.

In addition to the European countries, the report also listed a number of cases concerning the US' commercial espionage activities in countries such as Japan.

After the Prism program was exposed, the European Parliament held another hearing about the US' espionage activities and recommended that countries pay more attention to the advice of the report.

Even after the Snowden disclosures, the US has not made clear why it has been monitoring Brazilian and Mexican oil companies.

Now the whole world knows that the US is the biggest aggressor in cyberspace.

The author is a Beijing-based expert on international relations.

China should present these ideas strongly through all available media channels. Just like how the US does. The cooperation agreement between Russia Today and China News Services will hopefully provide a practical basis for a stronger international media presence. There is a lot CCTV could learn from RT.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

China should present these ideas strongly through all available media channels. Just like how the US does. The cooperation agreement between Russia Today and China News Services will hopefully provide a practical basis for a stronger international media presence. There is a lot CCTV could learn from RT.

True, RT is a far better than CCTV. RT has a huge following in the west.

 

[TaiShang]

True, RT is a far better than CCTV. RT has a huge following in the west.

CCTV needs to employ a sharper discourse. Too much sweet talk to the West does not serve the purpose as the other side only understands the language of sheer power.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

CCTV needs to employ a sharper discourse. Too much sweet talk to the West does not serve the purpose as the other side only understands the language of sheer power.

Umm.. No. It is about credibility.

CCTV is clearly visibly controlled by the Chinese state bodies, with clear guidelines. Of course it is still able to do good journalism, yet it is constrained by guidelines, and restrictions on reporting.

RT claims to be a free news media body on the other hand. It has its own point of view, but it is far more sophisticated in siphoning off Russian views in the world. It has huge credibility in certain sectors of the west.

Just see the difference. Abby Martin is a journalist who publicly, openly criticized Russia for its Crimea Operation ON RT!

And nothing happened to her.

That is why I'm saying, for good journalism there must be credibility, and independence from the government. As media organization obviously you can be selective in representing views, by choosing people with certain biases etc. Yet, almost all media organizations will suffer a reputation blow if they remove anyone simply because of what they write.

That is why I'm saying CCP and Chinese Government are novices when it comes to marketing, soft power, and shaping narratives.

Media is a the body which is almost solely responsible for information and views for almost all people. And China is at very odds with western media. And Chinese media has no credibility outside. Leave outside, it has low credibility within the country itself.

 

[Jlaw]

Umm.. No. It is about credibility.

CCTV is clearly visibly controlled by the Chinese state bodies, with clear guidelines. Of course it is still able to do good journalism, yet it is constrained by guidelines, and restrictions on reporting.

RT claims to be a free news media body on the other hand. It has its own point of view, but it is far more sophisticated in siphoning off Russian views in the world. It has huge credibility in certain sectors of the west.

Just see the difference. Abby Martin is a journalist who publicly, openly criticized Russia for its Crimea Operation ON RT!

And nothing happened to her.

That is why I'm saying, for good journalism there must be credibility, and independence from the government. As media organization obviously you can be selective in representing views, by choosing people with certain biases etc. Yet, almost all media organizations will suffer a reputation blow if they remove anyone simply because of what they write.

That is why I'm saying CCP and Chinese Government are novices when it comes to marketing, soft power, and shaping narratives.

Media is a the body which is almost solely responsible for information and views for almost all people. And China is at very odds with western media. And Chinese media has no credibility outside. Leave outside, it has low credibility within the country itself.

India medias are so credible

CCTV needs to employ a sharper discourse. Too much sweet talk to the West does not serve the purpose as the other side only understands the language of sheer power.

It's not going to happen. I hate to say it but Chinese people are too fixated with the west and deem them to be more superior. I would argue that there are more liberal Chinese than patriotic Chinese in China.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

India medias are so credible



It's not going to happen. I hate to say it but Chinese people are too fixated with the west and deem them to be more superior. I would argue that there are more liberal Chinese than patriotic Chinese in China.

One can be liberal AND Patriotic.
Patriotic is looking after your own country's interests, NOT racially segregating people, or believe in some kind of racial "purity."

 

[TaiShang]

It's not going to happen. I hate to say it but Chinese people are too fixated with the west and deem them to be more superior. I would argue that there are more liberal Chinese than patriotic Chinese in China.

These ideologies are like titles, might sound cool, but empty and insignificant inside. All I see is a China that challenges Western superiority on all fronts. I do not know of any other power coming so close. This tells pretty much about China's intentions. I do not criticize the presence of CCTV. It is required and good that it is backed by the state. No one denies that, unlike the Indian suggests above. China's private media is taking shape, as well, in the meantime. What I criticize is just in the details: Probably a bit more provocative news-making would not hurt. Like the Western media thus, manipulate here, change opinion by over repeating there. Simple stuff only if they wanted to do it.