Affichage des articles dont le libellé est CrowdStrike. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est CrowdStrike. Afficher tous les articles

mardi 25 juin 2019

Chinese Aggressions

Chinese Hackers Conduct Mass-Scale Espionage Attack On Global Cellular Networks
By Zak Doffman

An Israeli-U.S. cybersecurity firm released a new report on Monday evening, claiming that Chinese hackers had compromised the systems of at least ten cellular carriers around the world to steal metadata related to specific users. 
None of the affected carriers or targeted individuals have been named.
Cybereason claimed that the sophistication and scale of the attack, which they have dubbed Operation Softcell, bear the hallmarks of a nation-state action and that the individual targets—military officials and dissidents—tie to China. 
All of which points to the Chinese government as the culprit. 
The affected carriers were in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. 
None were thought to be in the United States.
"The advanced, persistent attack targeting telecommunications providers," the company said, "has been active since at least 2017... The Chinese were attempting to steal all data stored in the active directory, compromising every single username and password in the organization, along with other personally identifiable information, billing data, call detail records, credentials, email servers, geo-location of users, and more."
The attack was described in the report as a "game of cat and mouse between the Chinese and the defenders." 
As soon as the compromise [of] critical assets, such as database servers, billing servers, and the active directory" was detected, "the Chinese stopped the attack" only to resume later.
The implications of China "infiltrating into the deepest segments of providers’ network, including some isolated from the internet," enabling hackers to "compromise critical assets and steal communications data of specific individuals in various countries" are extremely significant. 
It suggests almost open access for intelligence harvesting.
Cybereason also pointed out that "even though the attacks targeted specific individuals, any entity that possesses the power to take over the networks of telecommunications providers can potentially leverage its unlawful access and control of the network to shut down or disrupt an entire cellular network as part of a larger cyber warfare operation."
According to the Wall Street Journal, "Cybereason Chief Executive Lior Div gave a weekend, in-person briefing about the hack to more than two dozen other global carriers. For the firms already affected, the response has been disbelief and anger, Mr. Div said. 'We never heard of this kind of mass-scale espionage ability to track any person across different countries'."
The nature of the data harvested in the attack is of real value to intelligence agencies, which analyze the metadata for patterns. 
Even if the call or messaging content is not retrieved, analysis of who talks to who and when and how often and for how long and from where is a rich seam to be mined. 
In essence, every piece of metadata collected by the networks from registered smartphones was potentially vulnerable. 
And once the network's core security was compromised, the threat became almost internal in nature.
In the U.S. and U.K., when national intelligence agencies "hoover up" such data or campaign for additional collection legislation to enable them to do so, there is inevitably a privacy backlash. 
And this collection campaign has gone beyond anything a national agency would campaign for. 
The WSJ reported that "Operation Soft Cell gave Chinese hackers access to the carriers’ entire active directory, an exposure of hundreds of millions of users... [with] the hackers creating high-privileged accounts that allowed them to roam through the telecoms’ systems, appearing as if they were legitimate employees."
Cybereason pointed towards China's APT10—Advanced Persistent Threat 10—as the likely hackers behind this attack. 
The group is known for long-term, persistent threat campaigns, harvesting information as might an actual agency. 
And this campaign is thought to have been running for as long as seven years. 
Coincidentally, NASA, one of the previous targets of APT10, confirmed in recent days that it had also been hacked, a compromise which again bears nation-state hallmarks.
"Cybereason said it couldn't be ruled out that a non-Chinese actor mirrored the attacks to appear as if it were APT 10," reported the WSJ, "as part of a misdirection. But the servers, domains and internet-protocol addresses came from China, Hong Kong or Taiwan... All the indications are directed to China."
FireEye and Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity firms that have painted the most complete profile of APT10, told Wired that "they couldn't confirm Cybereason's findings, but that they have seen broad targeting of cellular providers, both for tracking individuals and for bypassing two-factor authentication, intercepting the SMS messages sent to phones as a one-time passcode."
Two hackers allegedly linked to APT10 were indicted on federal charges in the U.S. last year.
The fact that a Chinese state hacking outfit has targeted cellphone metadata will clearly be tied to the ongoing U.S. campaign against Chinese telecoms equipment manufacturers in general, and Huawei in particular. 
The argument will now run that this is exactly the kind of vulnerability that becomes exposed if the Chinese government uses its influence over domestic companies to pull intelligence from overseas.
"We’ve concluded with a high level of certainty," Cybereason claimed on issuing its report, "that the threat actor is affiliated with China and is state-sponsored. The tools and techniques used throughout these attacks are consistent with several Chinese threat actors, specifically with APT10, a threat actor operating on behalf of the Chinese Ministry of State Security."

mardi 20 novembre 2018

Born to Spy

China uses the cloud to step up spying on Australian business
By Nick McKenzie, Angus Grigg & Chris Uhlmann

China’s peak security agency has directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year, breaching an agreement struck between Li Keqiang and former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to not steal each other’s commercial secrets.
A Fairfax Media/Nine News investigation has confirmed that China’s Ministry of State Security is responsible for what is known in cyber circles as “Operation Cloud Hopper”, a wave of attacks detected by Australia and its partners in the Five Eyes intelligence sharing alliance.

China's Ministry of State Security is overseeing a massive hacking operation of large Australian businesses. 

A senior Australian Government source described China’s activity as “a constant, significant effort to steal our intellectual property”.
The cyber theft places intense pressure on the Morrison government to respond either via law enforcement, diplomatic channels or public advocacy, in order to uphold the cyber security pact signed between the two countries only last year.
The US Department of Justice has ramped up its investigation and prosecution of Chinese cyber hackers this year, and over the weekend US Vice President Mike Pence again accused China of “intellectual property theft” as part of an escalating trade and strategic battle with Beijing.
The Australian Federal Police and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation have stepped up their cooperation to respond to the threat, according to a senior police source, although they are many months behind the US operation.
Without enforcement, there was no effective deterrence, said one national security source.
Other sources said the Australian Signals Directorate has detected attacks against several Western businesses, although the names of the affected firms have not been made public. 
The ASD works with the other Five Eyes countries – the US, Canada, UK and New Zealand – on cyber security issues.
A spokesman for the federal government said Australia condemns the cyber enabled theft of intellectual property for commercial gain from any country.
"The Coalition Government has been active in strengthening Australia’s capability to detect and respond to cyber enabled threats and is committed to ensuring businesses and the Australian community are resilient to cyber-attacks," the spokesman said.
One major irritation, raised by several police and intelligence officials, was that Australian companies and universities failed to heed repeated warnings to harden their security against both criminals and attacks directed by nation states.
These state actors are called advanced persistent threats because they work over months or years, adapt to defences and often strike the same victim multiple times. 
One of the most active Chinese adversaries has been dubbed “APT10”, while “Cloud Hopper” refers to the technique used by this group as they “hop” from cloud storage services into a company’s IT system.
In this case the Chinese penetrated poorly secured IT service providers, to which Australian firms had outsourced their IT. 
The targets include cloud storage companies and helpdesk firms in North America and Asia. 
The initial penetration by the Cloud Hopper team allowed the hackers to enter the IT systems of Australian companies.
Adrian Nish, BAE Systems’ Head of Threat Intelligence, said the APT10/Cloud Hopper attacks had focussed on the mining, engineering and professional service companies.
“It is still active. We have evidence of [Cloud Hopper] again actively compromising managed service providers,” he said.
The theft of intellectual property is part of China’s broader industrial policy to match the US’s technological edge by 2025. 
The theft can shorten the research and development process and give Chinese companies a crucial market edge. 
They can also acquire sensitive information around pricing and corporate activity.
A national security official said the Turnbull-Li agreement had initially led to a significant reduction in cyber espionage from China. 
The US experienced a comparable drop-off in attacks after former President Barack Obama struck a similar agreement with Chinese dictator Xi Jinping in 2015.
A former senior Government official familiar with the cyber security agreement said: “The way these things usually go with the Chinese is they behave themselves for a while before they go back to being bad”.

Chinese empty promises -- "Australia and China agreed that neither country would conduct or support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets or confidential business information with the intent of obtaining competitive advantage," the Prime Minister's office said in a brief statement.

The attacks on Australian firms since the start of this year, including Cloud Hopper activity, showed the bilateral agreement was being ignored.
Security officials and cyber experts, including Mike Sentonas a vice president at US firm CrowdStrike, have linked the Cloud Hopper hackers to the Ministry of State Security.
“We noticed a significant increase in attacks in the first six months of this year. The activity is mainly from China and it's targeting all sectors,” he said.
“There’s no doubt the gloves are off.”
Dr Nish from BAE, who has published the most comprehensive report on Cloud Hopper, said he discovered that attacks on multiple clients appeared to be part of the same campaign of “espionage activity”.
“It was clear it was a much bigger campaign,” Dr Nish said.
BAE referred it to the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, who referred it to their Australian counterparts at ASD. 
While Dr Nish declined to confirm the Cloud Hopper attack was directed by Chinese intelligence services, he said there was “no reason to doubt” those who claimed it was.
He said that while outsourcing IT functions was a sensible business decision, Australian firms needed to ask “tough questions” of managed service providers. 
Some providers offered cheaper IT services because they scrimped on their own security, effectively allowing a backdoor into their clients' IT systems.
In October, the US Department of Justice provided a case study on Chinese hacking within a 21-page indictment naming the MSS and accusing the MSS and its provincial counterparts of hacking an Australian domain name provider in order to access computer systems at aviation companies in the United States and Europe.
Under direction from the MSS, the hackers are accused of either creating fake domain names or redirecting existing domain names to malicious addresses.
The MSS is headquartered in Beijing but has extensive provincial operations and is regarded by western intelligence services as a sophisticated outfit able to combine human intelligence with the advanced cyber capabilities.
Previously, Unit 61398 of the People’s Liberation Army was viewed as the main vehicle for China’s efforts to steal commercial secrets after being named by cyber security firm Mandiant in 2014.
But since a reorganisation of China’s armed forces in 2015, the PLA cyber units are believed to have refocused on military and political intelligence, leaving commercial espionage to the MSS.

vendredi 12 octobre 2018

HOW THE US FORCED CHINA TO TEMPORARILY QUIT STEALING—USING A CHINESE SPY

For years, China has systematically looted American trade secrets. Here's the messy inside story of how DC got Beijing to clean up its act for a while.
By Garrett M. Graff
Chinese spy Su Bin

KEVIN AND JULIA Garratt had spent nearly all of their adult lives in China.
A devout Christian couple in their fifties with an entrepreneurial streak, they operated a café called Peter’s Coffee House, a popular destination in the city of Dandong, according to Trip­Advisor.
Dandong is a sprawling border town that sits just across the Yalu River from North Korea. 
For tourists and expats, the Garratts’ coffee shop—just a short walk from the Sino-­Korean Friendship Bridge—was a hub of Western conversation and comfort food. 
“After time in North Korea a decent cup of coffee was one of those things I was really looking forward to,” one Australian tourist wrote in early 2014. 
“Peter’s was a perfect place.”
The Garratts had come to China from Canada in the 1980s as English teachers. 
They lived in six different Chinese cities over the years, raising four children along the way, before settling in Dandong. 
From their perch near the border, they helped provide aid and food to North Korea, supporting an orphanage there and doing volunteer work around Dandong itself. 
The Garratts had a strong social network in the city, so it didn’t seem odd to either of them when they were invited out to dinner by Chinese acquaintances of a friend who wanted advice on how their daughter could apply to college in Canada.
The meal itself, on August 4, 2014, was formal but not unusual. 
After dinner, the Garratts got into an elevator that took them from the restaurant down to a lobby. 
The doors opened onto a swarm of bright lights and people with video cameras. 
The Garratts initially thought they’d stumbled into a party of some kind, maybe a wedding. 
But then some men grabbed the couple, separated them, and hustled them toward waiting cars. Everything happened fast, and very little made sense. 
As the vehicles pulled away, neither Kevin nor Julia had any idea that it was the last they’d see of one another for three months.
It wasn’t until the two arrived at a police facility that they each realized they were in real trouble. 
And it wasn’t until much later still that the couple would understand why they had been taken into custody. 
After all, before their detainment, they’d never even heard of a Chinese expat living in Canada named Su Bin.

WHEN THE GARRATTS first arrived in China, in 1984, the country was still transitioning away from collective farms.
Shanghai had only just opened up to foreign investment; the future megacity Shenzhen still had just a few hundred thousand inhabitants.
Over the ensuing three decades, the couple would watch as China hurtled from eighth-largest economy in the world to second-largest, powered, famously, by mass migrations of people into new industrial cities and the erection of a vast manufacturing and export sector.
But especially in the later years of the Garratts’ career as expats, the country’s growth was also propelled by a more invisible force: a truly epic amount of cheating.
China has become one of the world’s most advanced economies overnight through the rampant, state-sponsored theft of intellectual property from other countries. 
This extended campaign of commercial espionage has raided every highly developed economy. (British inventor James Dyson has complained publicly about Chinese theft of designs for his eponymous high-end vacuums.)
But far and away its biggest targets have been the trade and military secrets of the United States. From US companies, Chinese hackers and spies have purloined everything from details of wind turbines and solar panels to computer chips and even DuPont’s patented formula for the color white. 
When American companies have sued Chinese firms for copyright infringement, Chinese hackers have turned around and broken into their law firms’ computer systems to steal details about the plaintiffs’ legal strategy.
Each theft has allowed Chinese companies to bypass untold years of precious time and R&D, effectively dropping them into the marathon of global competition at the 20th mile. 
China’s military has gotten a leg up too.
Coordinated campaigns by China’s Ministry of State Security and the People’s Liberation Army have helped steal the design details of countless pieces of American military hardware, from fighter jets to ground vehicles to robots. 
In 2012, National Security Agency director Keith Alexander called it the “greatest transfer of wealth in history,” a phrase he has regularly repeated since.
And yet, despite a great deal of restlessness in the ranks of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the United States was, for years, all but paralyzed in its response to Chinese hacking.
China simply denied any hand in the thefts, professing to take great umbrage at the idea.
American diplomats were skittish about upsetting a sensitive bilateral relationship. 
And American companies, in turn, were often inclined to play dumb and look the other way: Even as they were being robbed silly, they didn’t want to jeopardize their access to China’s nearly 1.4 billion consumers.
John Carlin, who served as assistant attorney general for national security during the Obama administration, recalls one meeting with executives from a West Coast company whose intellectual property was being stolen by Chinese hackers.
The executives even projected that, in seven or eight years, the stolen IP would kill their business model; by that point, a Chinese competitor would be able to undercut them completely with a copycat product.
But the company’s general counsel still didn’t want the government to step in and take action.
“We are going to be coming back to you and complaining,” the general counsel said.
“But we’re not there yet.”
Finally, between 2011 and 2013, the US began to reach a breaking point.
Private cybersecurity firms released a string of damning investigative reports on China’s patterns of economic espionage; the US government started to talk more publicly about bringing charges against the country’s hackers.
But it was far from clear how any government or company might successfully turn back the tide of Chinese incursions.
Obama pressed the issue of cyberthefts in his first meeting with Xi Jinping in 2013, only to be met with more denials.
This is the story of how the US finally achieved some leverage over China to bring a stop to more than a decade of rampant cybertheft, how a Canadian couple became bargaining chips in China’s desperate countermove, and how the game ended happily—only to start up again in recent months with more rancor and new players.

ON MONDAY, MAY 19, 2014, nearly three months before the Garratts were whisked away into the Dandong night, the US Justice Department called a press conference at its headquarters in Washington, DC.
Attorney general Eric Holder took the podium to announce charges against five hackers for breaking into the systems of several US companies, including U.S. Steel, Westinghouse, and a renewable-energy outfit called SolarWorld.
The FBI had mocked up a bunch of “Wanted” posters, which made it strikingly clear that the hackers all shared an employer: the Chinese army.
Two of the men were even pictured in their crisp dress uniforms.
The press conference marked the first time the US had ever indicted individual foreign agents for cyber intrusions.
It made front-page headlines across the country, instantly bumping the issue of Chinese economic espionage off the back burner of public consciousness.
But the news came with an inevitable caveat: “The move by the Justice Department was almost certainly symbolic,” The New York Times wrote, “since there is virtually no chance that the Chinese would turn over the five People’s Liberation Army members named in the indictment.”
A few days later, Carlin and a Justice Department prosecutor named Adam Hickey were flying back from a meeting with the victims of the PLA hackers.
At the Pittsburgh airport, Carlin lamented the obvious: None of the hackers would face a US courtroom anytime soon.
Everyone at the Justice Department knew it would take more than a single “name and shame” campaign to change the calculus of Chinese behavior; the US needed to apply pressure on multiple fronts, perhaps building up to a threat of sanctions.
Now that they’d made their opening gambit, prosecutors needed a next move, preferably one that would actually put someone in handcuffs.
Sitting in the terminal Carlin said, “The next case, we need a body.”
Hickey smiled. “Actually, I’ve got a case I want to talk to you about,” he said.

Kevin and Julia Garratt

THE FBI REMAINS cagey today about where and how the conspirators first appeared on the agency’s radar.
The bureau will say only that it opened its investigation after seeing emails between them.
Reading between the lines, the case likely began with intercepts from the NSA, passed through the intelligence community from Fort Meade to the FBI.
Eventually, in late summer 2012, a trove of emails between three Chinese agents landed on the desk of supervisory special agent Justin Vallese, who runs a squad of cyber agents in the FBI’s Los Angeles field office.
“From day one, we knew it was bad,” Vallese says.
“The contents of those emails are pretty explosive.”
One message, which bore an attachment entitled “C-17 Project Reconnaissance Summary,” appeared to suggest a broad outline of the project therein: a successful, long-term effort by hackers to steal the design secrets of one of America’s most advanced cargo aircraft, the C-17 military transport.
A $202 million-per-unit craft developed by Boeing, the C-17 had been one of the most expensive military planes ever developed by the US Air Force, costing more than $31 billion to create in the 1980s and ’90s.
Since its completion, the C-17 had become a key means of delivering troops, vehicles, and supplies to the front lines of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as delivering humanitarian supplies the world over.
It’s also used to transport the president’s armored limousines around the globe.
American intelligence agencies knew that, for years, the Chinese had been struggling to build their own large cargo plane, a necessary tool for any modern military that wants to project its power over a large area.
Now Beijing was evidently making some headway—by raiding Boeing’s trade secrets to build what was essentially a Chinese version of the C-17.
Right away, the FBI alerted Boeing to the intrusions. (Boeing declined to comment on this story.) After that, agents in Los Angeles began wading through encrypted attachments and translating each message from Chinese.
The emails would ultimately give them an incredibly detailed picture of the inner workings of a Chinese espionage operation.
Not only that, they realized, it might also give them a chance to actually arrest someone.
Two of the conspirators—the ones who did the actual hacking—were out of reach in China.
But the third was a successful businessman named Su Bin, and he was based right here in North America, just a three-hour flight from the agents’ offices in LA.
Su, who in the West went by Stephen, owned an 80-employee Chinese aviation-technology firm called Lode-Tech and, according to The Globe and Mail, had a comfortable $2 million house in Richmond, British Columbia.
He had two kids, both born in Canada; his wife had been a gynecologist, and his oldest son went to college in Switzerland.
In 2012, he was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal as part of a story about wealthy Chinese decamping for the West.
He said he was the son of an army officer and that he had made millions as an aerospace entrepreneur.
He told the Journal that he found the rules of the West less restrictive.
“Regulations [in China] mean that businessmen have to do a lot of illegal things,” Su said at the time.
From what the agents could reconstruct, the hacking conspiracy had begun as early as 2009. 
Su’s contributions as a spy, the agents realized, were intimately tied to his work as an entrepreneur. 
“Su Bin was what we’d call in the traditional espionage world a spotter—someone who would tee up targets for a nation-state,” explains Luke Dembosky, one of the prosecutors overseeing the case.
Through Lode-Tech, Su had a deep network of industry contacts, and his team’s espionage began with mining his knowledge of the field: He would direct his hacker colleagues toward particularly interesting engineers and corporate personnel in the aerospace industry. 
Then the hackers likely used basic techniques—standard phishing emails—to attempt to penetrate company executives’ email accounts and, from there, access restricted corporate networks.
According to court records, once the hackers got inside a network—through “painstaking labor and slow groping,” as they put it—they went back to Su Bin. 
They would send him lists of the files they’d uncovered; he would then highlight in yellow the most valuable documents that they should exfiltrate, guiding them through what they were uncovering. (Investigators came to enjoy the secret irony in Lode-Tech’s tagline, printed in big letters on its website: “We will track the world’s aviation advanced technology.”)
It was tedious work.
Some of the file directories ran to thousands of pages; in one dump of nearly 1,500 pages, Su meticulously highlighted 142 files that seemed most likely to be useful to his Chinese Army contacts—files with names like C17Hangar Requirements 112399.pdf and Critical Safety Item(CSI) Report_Sep2006.pdf.
In another 6,000-page ­directory, he picked out the 22 most promising file folders—hitting on one that FBI agents later calculated contained more than 2,000 files related to the C-17.

ALL TOLD, ACCORDING to their own accounting, Su and his two Chinese partners stole 630,000 files related to the C-17, totaling about 65 GB of data. 
“We safely, smoothly accomplished the entrusted mission in one year, making important contributions to our national defense scientific research development and receiving unanimous favorable comments,” the team wrote.
The C-17 wasn’t the hacker’s only target; they filched information about other aircraft as well. Investigators believe they pillaged 220 MB of data related to the F-22 Raptor, as well as files related to the F-35, including its flight test protocols, which Su carefully translated into Chinese. 
The thefts would be critical to helping the Chinese understand—and copy—the world’s most advanced multirole fighter plane, which had cost $11 billion to develop.
The more they dug, the more the agents realized what a uniquely valuable conspirator Su Bin was, perhaps even sui generis as a spy. 
He was conversant with the aerospace community, and he spoke English, Chinese, and the technical jargon of aviation in both languages, able to translate the complex world of industrial design schematics, plans, and handbooks.
“I don’t know how many Su Bins there are,” Vallese says.
Su’s hacking effort provided a staggering return on investment for the Chinese government: According to court documents, the operation cost China around $1 million—an absolute pittance compared to the decades of engineering knowledge, military technology, and construction details that Su and his team were able to steal from Boeing and the US Air Force. 
The team’s overseers ran such a tight ship that Su griped in an email about the difficulty of getting ­reimbursed for expenses.
According to court documents, the hackers covered their tracks by pinballing stolen files through a sophisticated international server network, with machines planted in the US, Singapore, and Korea. 
They carefully disguised documents as they stole them, so as to circumvent the internal intrusion alarms at Boeing.
Then they were careful to move their digital contraband through at least three foreign countries, ensuring that at least one had unfriendly relations with the United States, to throw pursuers off China’s scent.
Ultimately, the files would be deposited on machines near Hong Kong and Macau.
There, officials would pick them up and transfer them back to China—in person, further covering all tracks between the United States and China.
But the evidence the FBI had collected left no doubt that the ultimate customer was the Chinese military—and that Su Bin’s partners were members of the military themselves. 
While the two hackers in China have not been charged publicly, the US government knows who they are; according to court records, investigators intercepted an email that one of the hackers had received with a copy of his own ID card, which included his photo, name, and date of birth.
Similarly, emails the FBI traced to the other hacker, one with the subject line “boss,” included photos of both men in Chinese military uniforms.
By late spring 2014, around the time Carlin was sitting in the Pittsburgh airport with Hickey, the FBI had assembled everything it needed to make a case against Su Bin; as it happened, the timing coincided with the Justice Department’s newfound desire to charge someone with Chinese espionage. “We were fortunate to get Su into a place where there was an interest and an appetite for an arrest,” Vallese says.
“We had the right subject and had the ability to put hands on him.”
To actually arrest Su, the FBI needed the cooperation of Canadian authorities.
Once again, timing may have worked in the case’s favor.
Around the same time when the FBI was asking for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s help in detaining Su Bin, according to The Globe and Mail, Canada was responding to a massive attack by state-sponsored Chinese hackers who had penetrated the network of its National Research Council, which leads the country’s research and development efforts.
Given the chance to help break up a Chinese hacking ring, authorities north of the border were perhaps unusually motivated to help.
In any case, they said yes.
By June 2014, the investigative teams knew that Su Bin was planning to leave the country for China—though no one knew for how long.
They decided that now was the time to act.
A few days before his scheduled trip, Canadian authorities pulled Su Bin over and arrested him.
Right away, China knew that one of its most valuable intelligence assets had been caught.
While the “Wanted” posters and Eric Holder’s indictment of five military hackers had certainly made an impression on Beijing, Carlin says that the follow-up case against Su Bin—which actually brought a spy into custody—helped shape the Chinese response even further.
“The Su Bin case, all but unnoticed by the public, had a large impact on Chinese thinking,” says Carlin, who has coauthored with me a new history of the government’s approach to cyberthreats.
“In the space of barely a month, the United States had taken overt steps against two major Chinese economic espionage operations.”
Vallese says the FBI expected it would be an ordeal to get Su Bin back from Canada.
International extraditions, even from close partners and allies, are always complicated.
“We weren’t under any impression this was going to be easy,” Vallese says.
As Su Bin prepared for his initial court appearances, China quickly decided to send a not-so-subtle message to Canada.
To make America’s northern neighbor think twice about allowing the extradition of Su Bin to the United States, it appears the Ministry of State Security had Kevin and Julia Garratt invited to dinner in Dandong.

AFTER THEIR DETENTION, the Garratts found themselves caught in China’s Kafkaesque justice system, interrogated regularly but with nothing to confess.
Their family retained James Zimmerman, an American lawyer with the firm Perkins Coie, who had spent nearly two decades working in Beijing.
He began to piece together the case against the couple.
The Chinese government, he realized, was leveling charges against Kevin Garratt that were almost a mirror image of the US charges against Su Bin.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry told The New York Times that the Garratts were being investigated for stealing intelligence “about Chinese military targets and important national defense research projects, and engaging in activities threatening to Chinese national security.”
As if that weren’t menacing enough, on February 19, 2016, China amended the indictment against Kevin to include more serious charges.
The “evidence” against Kevin, though, appeared mainly to be that he had a history of taking fairly unremarkable photographs in public places—going to Tiananmen Square, say, and filming the soldiers marching around and raising the flag, Zimmerman says.
“Getting caught up with China’s politically driven criminal justice system can be a bleak, depressing experience,” Zimmerman says.
“Due process in China is a different animal than in most Western judicial systems. While the investigators are not allowed to torture the suspects, mistreatment is a matter of definition.”
He spent months shuttling back and forth between meetings with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Commerce, and Canadian embassy officials.
“My goal was to plead to them that this case was not good for China given the dearth of evidence and the potential for a public backlash.”
Later, Kevin Garratt would precisely recall the outline of the cell he shared with as many as 14 prisoners in China: “About 12 paces by five and a half.”
But even if the diplomatic aftermath of Su Bin’s hacking operation was spinning wildly out of control, the operation’s military objective was just coming to fruition.
In November 2014, while Su Bin and the Garratts sat behind bars, the Chinese rolled out their own knockoff military cargo plane at an annual air show in Zhuhai.
At the show, the Xi'an Y-20—codenamed Kunpeng after a mythical ancient Chinese bird capable of flying long distances—was parked across the tarmac from an American C-17.
Aviation enthusiasts noted how similar the two planes looked, right down to the design of their tail fins.
The Chinese plane had met its American doppelgänger, just feet apart.

TO ANYONE MONITORING the traffic of Chinese cyberthefts, the one-two punch of the PLA indictments and the Su Bin arrest seemed to make a real difference.
“Since mid-2014, we have seen a notable decline in China-based groups’ overall intrusion activity against entities in the US and 25 other countries,” the cybersecurity firm FireEye concluded in one report.
Many inside the government had worried that the Justice Department’s newly aggressive stance would backfire.
But as it turned out, it was the Garratts who suffered the negative repercussions; otherwise the indictments and Su Bin’s arrest seemed to have compelled China to put the brakes on its hacking.
Because the sky hadn’t fallen, the Obama administration felt emboldened to keep pushing harder. China, they figured, saw its economic espionage—like all espionage—via the lens of cost-benefit analysis.
With the indictment and arrest of Su Bin, the Americans felt that they had begun to change one side of that equation—and now it was time for them to up the ante.
Xi Jinping was scheduled to make his first state visit to Washington at the end of September 2015.
In the weeks leading up to the visit, the Obama administration set out to bring the tensions between the two nations to a head.
In August 2015, The Washington Post ran an article warning that the US government was getting ready to issue sanctions targeting China for its hacking.
In September, Obama addressed a group of business leaders: “We are preparing a number of measures that will indicate to the Chinese that this is not just a matter of us being mildly upset but is something that will put significant strains on the bilateral relationship if not resolved. We are prepared to take some countervailing actions in order to get their attention.”
Other officials, including national security adviser Susan Rice, pressed the message behind closed doors: China’s behavior had to change.
The warnings, both public and private, got through.
Just days before Xi’s visit, Beijing dispatched a large, high-level delegation to Washington.
“The Chinese saw they had a big potential embarrassment brewing,” Justice Department deputy assistant attorney general Luke Dembosky recalls.
No one on the Chinese side wanted Xi’s first state visit to become a showdown over cybersecurity. “They had to let the air out of the balloon.”
The conversations, which included Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson and White House cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel, began with a firm message from the Americans: Don’t even bother denying this is your typical behavior. Let’s move past that.
For days, the negotiations were tense and stilted.
But finally, on the night before the delegation was set to return home, the Chinese called the White House for a final set of talks.
“I was all set to go home, and I got a call at 6:30: ‘Can you be at the White House at 8?’ ” Dembosky recalls.
It turned out to be too late to arrange access to the White House, so the groups met at the Omni Shoreham Hotel instead, perched on the edge of Rock Creek Park.
Aides from the White House, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department, among others, talked through the night with the much-larger Chinese delegation. All of them were aware that the Chinese had a deadline to make their 7:30 am flight home.
“It was one of the most constructive dialogs I’ve ever been part of. For a brief moment, the stars were aligned. They were highly motivated to do the right thing,” Dembosky says.
By morning, they’d worked out an agreement for the two presidents to sign later in Washington.
A few days later, on September 25, 2015, Barack Obama and Xi Jinping met privately.
As Obama recapped the meeting to the press, he said he had “raised once again our very serious concerns about growing cyberthreats to American companies and American citizens. I indicated that it has to stop. The United States government does not engage in cyber-economic espionage for commercial gain.”
Then the president made an announcement in the Rose Garden that many US leaders had never thought they’d hear: “Today, I can announce that our two countries have reached a common understanding on the way forward. We’ve agreed that neither the US or the Chinese government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information for commercial advantage. In addition, we’ll work together, and with other nations, to promote international rules of the road for appropriate conduct in cyberspace.”

THE WORLD’S TWO largest superpowers had broken new ground, but the travails of the Garratts and Su Bin dragged on.
Julia had been released on bail but was ordered to stay in China, and in January 2016 the Chinese government announced it would try Kevin for espionage.
“Chinese authorities also found evidence that implicates Garratt in accepting tasks from Canadian espionage agencies to gather intelligence in China,” the Xinhua news agency reported.
Behind the scenes, though, the Chinese acknowledged that the charges were absurd—and that there was an easy path for the Garratts’ release, says the couple’s lawyer.
As Zimmerman told The New York Times, “The Chinese made it clear that the Garratt case was designed to pressure Canada to block Su Bin’s extradition to the US.”

STOLEN SECRETS
The C-17 isn't the only product to have its design lifted by hackers. 
Over the past decade, Chinese economic espionage has affected thousands of businesses worldwide, from vacuum-makers to paint manufacturers. —Andrea Powell

  • Dyson: Since 2011, British inventor James Dyson has been accusing China of hacking the trade secrets of his eponymous fan and vacuum empire.
  • DuPont: In 2014, a man in California was convicted of stealing DuPont’s formula for titanium dioxide—a white pigment used in everything from paint to Oreos—on behalf of the Chinese government.
  • American Superconductor: This maker of wind turbines lost more than a billion dollars after its Chinese partner company, Sinovel, used a spy to steal source codes for the machines.
  • Westinghouse: In 2010, while Westinghouse was building a few power plants in China, a hacker stole specs for how the company designs and routes the pipes running through its generation facilities.
  • Military Projects: In addition to helping Chinese hackers steal plans for the C-17, Chinese-Canadian businessman Su Bin was also charged with pilfering specs for the F-22 stealth fighter plane.


But in February 2016, Su Bin himself foiled China’s bargaining position.
He waived extradition, deciding he would go freely to the US to face charges.
His lawyer later told a US court that Su Bin knew that his extradition proceedings might last longer than the time he’d serve in a US prison.
FBI agents flew to Vancouver and prepared to take custody of Su; Vallese and several colleagues waited next to the FBI’s Gulfstream jet as a Canadian police motorcade pulled onto the tarmac.
“Su was in the backseat of the SUV, sandwiched between two Canadian law enforcement officers,” Vallese recalls.
“All of us got chills.”
On the flight back to California, Vallese says the talk among the agents and Su turned to aviation.
He complimented the FBI’s plane.
Making chitchat, one of the agents asked him if he had a favorite jet.
“Not the C-17,” Su deadpanned.
On March 22, 2016, Su Bin pleaded guilty.
His 35-page agreement was perhaps the most detailed firsthand explanation of China’s spying apparatus ever released in public.
“It was the first time we’d had that kind of success—the first time we’d had someone owning their part in an intrusion like this,” Vallese says.
Su Bin declined to speak publicly, though, in court: “I lost my words now,” he said at his sentencing, where a judge handed him 46 months in federal prison and ordered him to pay a $10,000 fine.
With time served, he was released in October 2017.
The case against the Garratts rapidly unraveled in the wake of Su Bin’s decision to waive extradition. Julia was able to leave China in May 2016, and Kevin was released that September, though he had to pay nearly $20,000 in fines and penalties—money that had been partly designated for a North Korean orphanage project and other aid work.
This spring, FBI director Christopher Wray stated in public what people in cybersecurity circles had been seeing for a while: China is back to its old tricks. 
It is once again infiltrating US computer systems and stealing information at a massive scale. 
“There’s no country that’s even close,” Wray told NBC News in March this year.
“We’re talking about big damages,” President Trump recently told Reuters.
“We’re talking about numbers that you haven’t even thought about.”
“There’s been a massive pickup in the last year and a half,” says Dmitri Alperovitch, cofounder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
For a variety of reasons, the 2015 truce between China and the United States didn’t hold—in a way, it’s because both countries have ceased to acknowledge it.
President Donald Trump’s trade war against China has largely been couched as a way to punish China for its years of rampant intellectual property theft. 
“After years of unsuccessful US-China dialogs, the United States is taking action to confront China,” wrote the US Trade Representative’s office.
Between 2005 and 2014, the main force behind China’s campaign of cybertheft was the People’s Liberation Army.
In turn, after the outing of the five PLA soldiers in 2014, that agency bore most of the embarrassment and blame for China’s weakened hand in negotiations with the US.
Since 2016, for a host of reasons, the army has had its wings clipped politically by Xi Jinping, both through a reorganization and through anticorruption drives that have seen numerous government officials sidelined, imprisoned, and, in at least one case, even sentenced to death.
Into the vacuum left behind by the PLA, the Chinese Ministry of State Security—a powerful agency that combines elements of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA—has apparently stepped in and become China’s new central office for cybertheft.
“The PLA have stepped back significantly, but the MSS and their affiliated contractors have stepped into that void,” Alperovitch says.
These new hackers with the Ministry of State Security have evidently learned from the PLA’s mistakes.
“They’ve gotten steadily better,” Alperovitch says.
“They’re thinking much harder about how to be more stealthy.”
After all, no Chinese hacker wants to be the next one splashed across an FBI “Wanted” poster.

Adapted from Dawn of the Code War: Inside America’s Battle Against Russia, China, and the Rising Global Cyber Threat, by John P. Carlin, with Garrett M. Graff (PublicAffairs), published October 2018.