Random bits
29 January 2010Random bits
26 January 2010Random bits
20 January 2010China and Google
14 January 2010Time for the (n+1)th dissection of Google’s recent announcement concerning cyberattacks and censorship. (You’ve got to love recursion!)
As Galrahn points out, discounting Google’s market share relative to Baidu isn’t really sensible. They’ve got a lot of market share there, especially for non-search services without strong competitors—but many of these services (YouTube, Picasa, and often Blogger) have been blocked by the Chinese government. That speaks to two things in China: an opportunity for user base consolidation and to a governmental approach to information that is inimical to Google’s business model. More to the point:
For what amounts to only 2% of revenue, Google is threatening to disrupt the internet behavior of at minimum 118 million internet savvy Chinese and believes that fact alone has value in negotiations.
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dong/4271035989/ / CC BY 2.0
Is this really a funeral, or will a hundred flowers blossom?
That is, Google is using a casus belli to force an issue that predates their entry into the Chinese market. It doesn’t cost them much to do so. They’ve already got the explicit backing of some other heavyweight Western companies (e.g., Yahoo) and network effects may induce many others to climb on board the bandwagon. They surely have the implicit backing of the US government in pushing back against China (and am I the only one who is thinking about the possibility of honeypots here? No way).
The bottom line is that this is not about a moral stand. By taking things public, Google is creating a negotiating opportunity for what it’s wanted all along from China. The real issue here is not who is “right” or “wrong” but who is going to win. For Google to thrive in China, the Chinese Communist Party’s control over information has to be weakened. For the CCP to thrive in China, it has to retain a monopoly on political power, and this requires controlling the flow of information. Moreover, and as I’ve mentioned before, there is a clear path from China’s cyber strategy to the foundations of its politics. So Google will probably not win much if anything in this skirmish.
The larger point is much more interesting, though. After a decade of undeclared cyber war with Chinese characteristics, this is the first overt public response. China has less to lose from cyberwarfare than the West does. But as it finds what it’s looking for with rampant cyberespionage, China may also find that it is hurting itself.
Random bits
13 January 2010“Google said Tuesday that it may pull out of China because of a sophisticated computer network attack originating there and targeting its e-mail service and corporate infrastructure, a threat that could rattle U.S.-China relations, as well as China’s business community…[the hackers] appeared to be after information on weapons systems from defense firms and were seeking companies’ ‘source code'”. More from the WSJ. As Richard Bejtlich asks, has China crossed a line? Google will stop censoring search results, which is yet another huge implication for Chinese internal and foreign affairs.
Entropy, entropy, entropy…
Random bits
11 January 2010“why would anyone use OpenGL?” To me the question is, why would anyone use DirectX for anything other than a game?
Single-qubit experimental quantum computation for the Jones polynomial
Random bits
8 January 2010768-bit RSA modulus factored. This is basically right on schedule for a Moore’s law fit of largest publicly factored RSA moduli from a RSA technical report dating from 2000. Expect 1024-bit moduli to go down in about a decade.
Visualizing Abdulmutallab. This is supposed to make some sense if you look at it long enough, apparently.
Random bits
6 January 2010Random bits
4 January 2010Holiday round-up edition…
Suricata IDS in beta. Another open-source IDS is a good thing. (But open-source network monitoring will be even better!)
The best defense is a good offense
Eavesdropping on quantum crypto?
Survey of key exchange security deriving from the Second Law
An approach to subexponential factoring
The use of ideas of Information Theory for studying “language” and intelligence in ants
The Clinton doctrine
25 January 2010After the fallout from Aurora, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a major speech last Thursday at the Newseum in DC. Highlights below:
China denies everything and is trying to change the subject.
The tone of this speech was remarkable. While it is natural to expect that most nations conduct offensive computer network operations against foreign governments and organizations, getting publicly called on it is rare. Most observers have no doubt that the PRC has been infiltrating and attacking US government and commercial networks for strategic ends, and the NSA would not be doing its job if it were not doing the same thing abroad. So even if everything isn’t Marquis of Queensberry you wouldn’t expect to see folks complain too loudly.
But human rights and censorship is another story. There is a simple reason why Cold War rhetoric was recycled in this speech. Regardless of whether Google capitulates or leaves China (any other outcome is unlikely), by going public instead of leaking to the press they have put the PRC on the defensive. As I remarked earlier, Google surely must have known it had the (at least implicit) backing of the US before it (effectively) named names. The administration must have seen this as a golden opportunity to seize the moral high ground. When force of arms cannot be decisive, the justness of a cause still might be.
3 Comments | Commentary, Communications security, Networks, Nonrandom bits, Security | Permalink
Posted by eqnets