Okay, here's another thread bomb that's pretty much me geeking out on one of the better public #ThreatIntelligence reports to be released on #Chinese threat actors in recent memory.
One of the bigger revelations of this report is the correlation between Chinese economic and political activity and cyberespionage, a clear trend laid out throughout the report using correlative analysis.
Basically, Chinese cyber activity directly correlated with BRI talks.
I had a tweet bomb that hinted at this correlation last night but was mainly concerned with the dangers of the BRI/SoP activity in general.
The correlation is a valuable attribution mechanism when talking on the Chinese cyberespionage threat and is incredibly valuable in terms of fighting against the normal Chinese "baseless and unscientific allegations" argument against frequent allegations of espionage.
Another incredibly important point is the correlation between state-sponsored espionage targeting foreign public/private entities and espionage targeting the "Five Poisons" groups (a term I was unfamiliar with before the report)
This victimology is incredibly important to attribution, especially when approaching the Chinese threat. China has a very focused set of perceived and actual threats, and correlating "traditional" espionage to much more Sino-specific targeting (Falun Gong, activists, Tibetans)
is a really damming way to attributing threat groups to China.
The use of correlative data sets as well as geopolitical analysis paired with some top-notch technical analysis really sets this report apart.This is the required sort of publication when approaching CN threat groups
Highlighting the connection between CN state actors and academia is important as well, as it highlights the bodies that may take financial and logistical responsibility for attack infrastructure and could take another "well we didn't know about it" excuse away from CN.
Overall, this connection is incredibly important in general, as it highlights the true reach that the PLA and CCP has in the country. Attacks can come from just about any Chinese IP space, private, public or otherwise.
Read and memorize this report. A repeated "huge thanks" to the researchers from @RecordedFuture for highlighting the unique intricacies in the Chinese threat space.
Personalized #FF in a thread. @WylieNewmark for bridging the Gap between cultural and political academia to operations. @DrunkBinary for the constant onslaught of crowdsourced and community effort. @hacks4pancakes and @jfslowik for the human side of ICS infosec.
@CharlesDardaman for being a malware reversing trooper and an awesome drinking buddy. @HumanMalware for staying real and putting the warfare in cyber warfare. @QW5kcmV3 for talking about tough subjects and being operator af. @notdan for giving me the other perspective.
@oscaron for humility. @DAkacki for being a human and a defender first, above all. @Chazb0t for community effort. @RobertMLee for being ICS sec philosopher. @cnoanalysis for doing the ugly work with no recognition.
Today I made a comment that I think everyone should vote third party. I seemed to get a good bit of pushback, which I expected because, well, it's a political tweet and politics are polarizing.
Here's why I am undecided but supportive of third party candidates.
I am firmly Libertarian. I feel as though individual liberty is the answer to the vast majority of problems, and while I think the Non-Agression Policy (NAP) is flawed, we could do with significantly less war.
Usually, when I bring up the fact that I'm Libertarian, the reaction to that statement is disdain, condescension or blatant irritation. Regardless, the reaction is usually something along the lines of:
This one is... interesting. Authored by WaPo's Fred Hu, the article alleges first that China's technological rise is non-malicious both in foundation and in intent. It goes on to allege that it's not altogether that powerful, and still depends on the US for much of its tech.
The overall "moral to the story" is that the US is being overly paranoid by painting China's rise to technological superiority, using some honestly cherry-picked examples of China hawks such as Peter Navarro.
This is a particularly important piece of news. It goes a bit further than "ZOMG OUR ENEMIES ARE FRIENDS NOW!" There are deeper implications and likely caveats, but this is surely a sign of a deepening relationship.
Right now, sanctions are hurting Russia, and the threat of sanctions and existing tariffs are hurting China. Decreased dependence on the US sounds good unless we're talking about nations that aren't strategic rivals and national security threats.
China is injecting billions into foreign infrastructure as part of the BRI. Russia has a crumbling infrastructure. RU and CN missile forces are some of the more advanced in the world. Both are focusing intelligence assets on HUMINT and offensive CNO.
As a self-professed China hawk, I firmly believe that if China is mad, we're heading in the right direction. However, there was a particular quote in the BI article that highlights the perception that China has of their influence in the United States.
The US "must not let this bill containing negative Chinese-related content become law," he (Geng Shuang, Foreign Ministry Spokesman) added, stressing that the US risks "undermining China-US relations and cooperation."
Hey look, it's another thread on Chinese geopolitics!
This thread is concerning China's Belt and Road Initiative, better known by it's more sinister name and implication as the String of Pearls initiative.
So dating all the way back to Sun Tzu, the most infamously overquoted book on strategy in history (disclaimer: I have a Sun Tzu quote in my bio) China has based strategy on the simplest and most complicated board game in the world:
围棋 // Wei Qi // Go.
This is a board game that consists of black and white tiles, with the goal being to use strategy to surround your opponent (strategic encirclement) and occupy space on the board.
This has lead to Chinese strategic thought placing a massive importance on strategic encirclement.