
Australia says it's under nation-state cyberattack - CalmStorm
https://thecyberwire.com/newsletters/daily-briefing/9/119
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569524](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569524)

------
dicomdan
Should the international laws be amended to consider state-led cyber attacks
an act of war in additional to traditional aggression? Seems like UN Security
Council should deal with these matters.

~~~
caymanjim
International law barely exists and is unenforceable. If a superpower--
especially a permanent Security Council member--wants to do something, there's
absolutely no recourse. Look at Russia and Crimea. That's the most egregious
violation of the notion of international law in recent history, and nothing of
consequence happened. The big powers can do whatever they want, and the worst
response will be token economic sanctions. China is so economically
intertwined with the world that nothing at all would happen unless they nuked
someone.

~~~
speeder
There are better examples than Russia and Crimea.

I am not Russian, and have nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine or whatever (I
am Brazillian, of Iberian descent).

Still, Crimea was not a "invasion" or "conquest".

Long story short:

Russia invaded Crimea in 1700s, taking it from Tartars.

When a Ukranian became leader of URSS, he "gave" Crimea to Ukraine, it was
only nominal, nothing changed in Crimea itself, the place still was basically
a navy base for Russia.

When URSS broke up, because of previous decision, it was decided Crimea was
Ukranian, except most of population there is Russian (including a huge amount
of Russian military), and their only warmwater seaport deep enough for the
good warships Russia had, was still there, to make this work, Russia "rented"
the place from Ukraine.

When Ukraine most recent revolution happened, do you think all the Russian
military personel families that live there since 1700s would want to leave?

Now... if you want to claim what is happening in Donbass is a invasion, then
that is more plausible.

~~~
8ytecoder
Is URSS a Brazilian way of saying USSR?

Edit: it’s an alternate spelling. I had not heard that before.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URSS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URSS)

------
trabant00
What a low effort article. Zero details. And the page is in huge part
advertising and unrelated stuff.

~~~
TedDoesntTalk
Agreed. I want my two minutes back.

------
ve55
Just as covid seemed to hit many with little warning and little preparation,
serious cyberattacks will at some point too.

Nations need to have more preparation, funding, and simulations, for potential
large future cyberattacks before one causes significant destruction.

~~~
cheez
They simulate all of them, still screw it up when it happens. 9/11 was
simulated, pandemic was simulated, etc.

------
wallacoloo
So the attacker is using “open-source code exploits” followed by phishing. To
what effect? DoS of govt services? Ransoms? Something more ambitious?

------
yumraj
China is going rogue again. Cyberattacks against Australia, bullying in South
China Sea, border fights against India and so on.

We need a unified world approach.

~~~
nix23
Can you please give me a proof that it's China and not someone else...or
nothing at all?

I always hear cyber-attack's from Russia, North Korea or China, but never from
Israel or the US, are they just so bad in covering up or is maybe something
else behind it?

~~~
bawolff
Well tbf, stuxnet & flame are probably the two cyber-attacks that can actually
beyond all doubt be called cyber warfare.

Most everything else seems more about finding a scapegoat to blame.

~~~
nix23
Yes your right, i am not saying cyber-warfare does no exist, i just don't see
often good point's for the origin of the attack...often its like HAHA we found
the timezone of Peking in a file....as if a professional agency is that stupid
(well sometimes they are)

------
adventured
Not just cyber attack, Australia is also under economic attack [1] for the
same reason. And China just suddenly decided to sentence an Australian to
death (same move they made against Canada), after five years of sitting on the
case [2]. It's all about intimidation and leverage. China will press until
Australia capitulates. Fortunately the Australians have backbone.

As a superpower capable of standing off with China, the US should be stepping
in and offering very public political and economic support to Australia. It's
the only approach that will work when dealing with China's new era of extreme
belligerence. If the US were currently being led by a wiser politician, they
would be rallying allies old and new (such as India) at China's expense.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2020/may/21/austr...](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2020/may/21/australias-iron-ore-exports-hit-by-rule-change-as-china-
escalates-war-of-words)

[2] [https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/13/china/australian-drug-
smuggli...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/13/china/australian-drug-smuggling-
sentence-china-intl-hnk/index.html)

~~~
fit2rule
Why is it the US' problem? If _AUSTRALIA_ were currently being led by a wiser
politician, or indeed had in the last .. 20 years .. been led by wise
politicians .. it wouldn't be in this mess right now in the first place.

Its only because Australia kowtows with fluidity every time the US snaps its
fingers that its in this mess right now. Australians need to stop being the
lapdogs to the American empire, and start thinking about their own future.
Australias future isn't white American: it is multi-cultural and mostly Asian.

~~~
jacquesm
Because Australians have been led to believe that the US and Australia are
allies, resulting in Australia punching _way_ above its weight in giving the
USA cover whenever it went abroad, for instance in Iraq, Afghanistan and so
on.

The usual understanding is that such loyalty is a two-way street. Not that the
current US government cares about such pesky details but that's where it
stands.

------
microcolonel
Every time PRC turns up the heat, we should get closer with Taiwan.

------
m0zg
I'm old enough to remember everyone here shitting on Trump for suggesting
Huawei 5G is a national security threat. This opinion is now so
uncontroversial that even Eric Schmidt agrees:
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/06/18/huawei-
pos...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/06/18/huawei-poses-
national-security-risk-warns-ex-google-boss-eric/)

~~~
dane-pgp
> everyone here

That's an interesting claim to test, actually. Could you provide links to one
or more discussions on this site where the overwhelming consensus was that
Huawei 5G would not be a national security threat to the US?

~~~
slacka
Below are the top stories. No consensus, let alone overwhelming.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21757097](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21757097)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19954673](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19954673)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23191055](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23191055)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19923655](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19923655)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20279227](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20279227)

~~~
m0zg
Now do the following: search the threads you provided for "Trump". The
decision might have been "right", but easily 90% of posters say that Trump was
"wrong" to make it somehow, because saying he was right at anything is
socially unacceptable here.

Note that I did not say HN disagreed with the decision necessarily. I was just
saying it was shitting on Trump for making it.

~~~
dane-pgp
> Now do the following: search the threads you provided for "Trump".

Okay then. The first two links have 8 occurrences of the string "Trump":

1\. "Meaning while Trump is trying to make other country buy more Boeing
planes?" I don't think this person is complaining that Trump is trying to
support American businesses, but in any case they aren't saying that he
shouldn't have opposed Huawei.

2\. "... Trump only says pleasant words [about trade] which is completely
legal in both countries?" This seems to be a defence of Trump.

3\. "Trump considered [purchasing Greenland]." A criticism of a different
Trump policy (in the context of an article about the Faroese prime minister).

4\. "I think that Trump's move with banning Huawei is bad for the US in the
mid and long run." An actual criticism of Trump's Huawei decision, based on
fear of retaliation from China. Two child comments support Trump, while one
supports the criticism.

5\. "Trump's trade war with China, as many contract manufacturer move out of
China, will prove none of that supply chain myth is true within a year or
two." A comment supporting Trump's approach.

6\. "These things, and I'm not passing judgment on them, are simply pushing
the Chinese to be self-sufficient on everything. Stroke of the Trump pen and X
chip for your hardware is denied." A comment trying to look at the long term
consequences without being critical of Trump.

7\. "I'm sure that the EU/australia/the west is breathing a sigh of relief
that Trump did this instead of forcing them to make up some more draconian
law..." A comment supportive of Trump.

8\. "FYI: Trump says U.S. "wants to be the leader' in 5G development" A
comment potentially trying to explain Trump's actions, but not critical of
them.

If that is an accurate analysis of a random sample of comments, I would say
that most posters agree with Trump about Huawei. I don't know where you get
your "easily 90%" statistic from.

------
AngeloAnolin
I am pretty sure that nations with the resources are pretty much doing some
stealth cyber attack to nations they consider a threat - whether by economic
or defence policies.

Likely the scale of the attack happening is something that may have surprised
the victim nation that they are calling out the attacks in the hope that it
would at least calm down the intruder or even have the government intervene.

On a side note, reading the article in a mobile device was a big PITA. Lots of
ads and unnecessary information included. And they had the temerity to tell me
that I am using n/3 free articles. I think I would pass from subscribing if on
the limited free version and the reading experience was just worst.

