Talk:GhostNet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GhostNet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computer Security: Computing Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet Stub‑class

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving GhostNet was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 29 March 2009.

Wikipedia

infiltrated computers with malware

Why no mention that these 'computers' are almost always desktop machines running Microsoft Windows emacsuser (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because window is the most popular OS? --85.108.82.254 (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason it's not mentioned that they use electricity. 67.240.138.106 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

audio and video

this sounds very sensationalist: "The network possesses "Big Brother-style" capabilities, allowing it to turn on the camera and audio-recording functions of infected computers for in-room monitoring." If you infiltrate a computer, you can do anything you want with it, don't you? Open CD-Drive, print, and, ~~yet~~ yes, switch on cam and mike. To stress this fact for GhostNet sounds very much like disinformation to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe the phrase "Big Brother" is sensationalist, but the fact that the PC can be used for covert audiovisual surveillance is important to note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.185.96 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is surely an interesting feature, which was first widely noted in the coverage of GhostNet. But in my view, this seems to be a change in reporting, not a fundamental difference between GhostNet and other mal/spyware. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US computers

presumably no evidence of infiltration was found for any countries not on the list of 103, why is the US mentioned? Nickmuddle (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because most readers are American and they'll need that bit of extra reassurance... --can dle •wicke 13:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was taken from the New York Times article, verbatim. Also, many readers will probably be interested in knowing if American computers were affected, given the gravity of Sino-American relations. It's not a US-centric Wiki Cabal, jeez. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 13:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's taken verbatim from the NYT article then likely it's a copyvio. Incidentally, the version Nick was referring to was this [1] where it was taken from Reuters Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence was found that U.S. or U.K. government offices were infiltrated ===>> Proof of USA and UK spying operation! M Haoran (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware this article is being targeted by Chinese

There will be attempts to hijack or propagandize the article by Hong Kong-based Chinese agents, China apologists and pussyfooters. J.J35k (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

connection with conficker possible?

Is it possible that this ghostnet is responsible for the conficker virus? 75.166.97.83 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say the government is not involved?

How can you say the Chinese government is not involved when it was the Chinese government that acted on the stolen information, in the case of the Dalai Lama's emails??? Haiduc (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki community isn't stating the Chinese government is not involved. We're simply reiterating what the New York Times and The BBC are speculating, and quoting the Chinese response. It's more than possible that the Chinese government is behind this program; but it's far from definite; and untill that information is conclusive, it's best to represent all sides without assumptions. 92.13.134.192 (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]