US charges Chinese hackers for massive personal data breach

Hanno Labuschagne

Expert Member
Staff member
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
1,053
US charges Chinese hackers for massive personal data breach

For the last several years, hackers based in China have allegedly been sucking up vast amounts of personal data of U.S. citizens: names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, even fingerprints.

On Monday, the U.S. Justice Department took another stab at stopping them.

Attorney General William Barr announced that four members of China’s People’s Liberation Army had engaged in a three-months-long campaign to steal information on about 145 million Americans from Equifax Inc. In doing so, Barr detailed an audacious plan that allegedly began with a vulnerability in Apache software and uncovered a mother load of personal data.

[Bloomberg]
 

Daruk

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
46,091
And I'm guessing more than half the data stolen need not have been collected in the first place.
 

system32

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
3,436
ALLEGATIONS: Where's the proof/evidence that Chinese hackers are responsible?

According to official documents:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chin...aud-economic-espionage-and-wire-fraud-hacking
They routed traffic through approximately 34 servers located in nearly 20 countries to obfuscate their true location, used encrypted communication channels within Equifax’s network to blend in with normal network activity, and deleted compressed files and wiped log files on a daily basis in an effort to eliminate records of their activity.

The details contained in the charging document are allegations. The defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
No evidence has been provided that it was the Chinese.
PS. Good luck tracking encrypted data via 34 servers in 20 countries.
 

Daruk

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
46,091
Where it states:
The details contained in the charging document are allegations
That's a technicality. Everything is an allegation until the outcome of legal proceedings. Where does it say that no evidence was provided?
 

system32

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
3,436
That's a technicality. Everything is an allegation until the outcome of legal proceedings.
Where does it say that no evidence was provided?
Technically, making an allegation without evidence is an accusation without merit.
If they had proof they would provide it.

We do have real proof - no need for allegations:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51467536
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...de-factory-show-cisco-router-getting-implant/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls
 

Daruk

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
46,091
Technically, making an allegation without evidence is an accusation without merit.
If they had proof they would provide it.

We do have real proof - no need for allegations:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51467536
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...de-factory-show-cisco-router-getting-implant/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls
You're just not getting it. It doesn't matter if you provide proof or not, it's an allegation until proven in a court of law. How does the term allegation imply lack of evidence?

Your blinkers are blinding you to simple facts. Just bear in mind I'm not arguing the merits of the US blaming China and whether it's hypocritical or not, so you can leave that out of the equasion, I'm arguing your understanding of english and the legal process.
 
Last edited:

system32

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
3,436
You're just not getting it. It doesn't matter if you provide proof or not, it's an allegation until proven in a court of law. How does the term allegation imply lack of evidence?

Your blinkers are blinding you to simple facts. Just bear in mind I'm not arguing the merits of the US blaming China and whether it's hypocritical or not, so you can leave that out of the equasion, I'm arguing your understanding of english and the legal process.
I disagree, if you look at the indictment, the "evidence" that is provided:
1581574835128.png
This "evidence" only gives information from Equifax servers derived from OS, Webserver & DB logs
  • Connections received from remote IP addresses
  • Used Apache struts exploit to uploaded some files to a get web shell
  • Extracted data via SQL
  • Compressed data
  • Split data
  • Downloaded splits using HTTP
  • Removed splits
There is no "evidence" linking the 4 accused to the breech.

Don't believe me, read the "evidence" here:

This "evidence" is for the MSM consumption, same as the WMD allegations.
 
Top