Talk:Operation Aurora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merging Illegal flower tribute to Operation Aurora[edit]


No consensus OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest merging this into the reaction part of Operation Aurora. Andareed (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

--Givesaved (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    • Oppose merge: Google Results 1 - 10 of about 610,000 for Illegal flower tribute. (0.32 seconds)

Like Grass Mud Horse and Jia Junpeng and other internet memes, in time Illegal flower tribute will become a popular internet catch phrase. In fact, Jia Junpeng like Grass Mud Horse are both non-existence in real life. If these two articles can have stay as wiki, so can Illegal flower tribute. Arilang talk 21:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In time is the key phrase here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or some type of "you heard it here first" website. GraYoshi2x►talk 22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support' merge: I think this article is too small and exclusive.
  • Support Merge: Does not warrant it's own article, it ties in directly to Operation Aurora, the cyberattacks that originated in China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • No this doesn't tie in directly to Operation Aurora. It has become synonymous to "anything that is deemed illegal by the Chinese authority" or "anything that reflects the spontaneous wishes from ordinary citizens" [2][3][4][5][6][7]. --Givesaved (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support merge - Non-notable topic and relies extensively on WP:OR. This isn't even a meme yet; there's a difference between it and a fad. GraYoshi2x►talk 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • How is it "non-notable"? And proof for "this isn't even a meme yet"? --Givesaved (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - More than enough examples exist in both English and Chinese to establish "Illegal Flower Tribute" as a stable and relevant meme. --Xero (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Can someone with more knowledge than me fix the introduction? Particularly is not clear, that

  • Google was attacked as well. (In the introduction is written: "Google disclosed the attack" that doesn't mean automatically that it was a victim as well)
  • What are the correlation between the attack, the IE vulnerability and Google departure from China.

Reading the introduction they seems to me three independent facts. Possibly because I don't have any other background information beside what is written in the article. --Dia^ (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The weaknesses exploited had been around in IE for many years, but they required some work (by the Chinese hackers) to be made useful. It seems some of the deficiencies (all major software that's being updated will contain weaknesses, that's simply inevitable: the main reason we don't see thousands of Linux exploits and viruses is because hacking Linux is considered much less prestigious among the guys specializing in malicious code) had been around since 1993, Microsoft admitted that much, and thus they predate any version of Explorer. That could imply the weakness was inherent in the Windows kernel code, or a layer close to it., Though of course MS deny that. Strausszek (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
One belligerent was certainly Communist China. But I am not at all sure that the other side was the USA. This was an operation against various companies, and people within China. It appears to have been a combined attack on domestic dissidents and an foreign intelligence operation. It was certainly not an operation solely against the USA, as the intro suggests. (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Schneier's comments[edit]

Schneider, Bruce (January 23, 2010). "U.S. enables Chinese hacking of Google". 

This source should be incorporated into the article. If necessary, I'll do it myself when I get to it. -- (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Response and aftermath[edit]

"On February 19th 2010, a security expert investigating the cyber-attack on Google, has claimed that the people behind the attack were also responsible for the cyber-attacks made on several Fortune 100 companies in the past one and a half years. They have also tracked the attack back to it's point of origin, which seems to be two Chinese schools.As highlighted by The New York Times, both these schools have ties with the Chinese search engine Baidu, a rival of Google China.[32]"
1. Is the source itproportal a good source?
2. I performed a google news search: "james mulvenon google attack fortune 100", and the only result is "itproportal". It's seems it's not widely reported. Most other news sources I checked do not mention "the people behind the attack were also responsible for the cyber-attacks made on several Fortune 100 companies".Now wiki (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore... The theory put up by this source seems rather compelling to me:

Since I find it a bit odd that the second school mentioned, a vocational school, has any ties to Baidu or the government?

I cant even seem to be able to find a link to or even that article at all in New York Times stating that "As highlighted by The New York Times, both these schools have ties with the Chinese search engine Baidu, a rival of Google China.[33]" (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Managed to find the New York Times article mentioned: The current link in the article does not link to the NY Times. The actual source should be a better link?

Though the counter arguments mentioned in the source I posted first could be worth adding to the article? (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Interested to read the following: Researchers have created attack code that exploits the vulnerability in Internet Explorer 7 (IE7) as well as in the newest IE8—even when Microsoft's recommended defensive measure (Data Execution Prevention (DEP)) is turned on. This piece of information proves that IE6 isn't the only version that is vulnerable and that upgrading to IE7 or IE8 could prove to be futile especially if one is running XP or only upgrading to IE7.

Note the lack of any reference confirming this "prrof". Apart from that, this blurs the facts making it sounds as though all versions of IE on all platforms could have been exploited by the Aurora attack. Unless I remember incorrectly the only versions vulnerable to Aurora were IE6 on XP. There is enough misinformation out there on security already without adding to it like this. I would suggest the paragraph should be removed unless it is corrected with supporting references, and clarified as to levels of vulnerability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The German, Australian, and French governments consider all versions of Internet Explorer vulnerable or potentially vulnerable.[28][29] <--- Australia is not mentioned in either of those articles. Why does this sentence therefore mention Australia without a reference that says that? --1337Garda (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

More Press Contradicting NYT's Aurora Claim[edit]

I would like to add these contrarian facts sourced from The Register (The Aurora code origin) and The Inquirer (Lanxiang Vocational), if no one object:

Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are not facts. Those are articles. What specific details do you wish to add? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks Embassy Cables[edit]

Unfortunately, I am currently at work and so cannot add this to the article, but according to wikileaks, it is confirmed that china was behind this attack. Details can be found at New York Times article: Herboso 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Resource from Operation Shady RAT ...[edit]

There is more on Talk:Multinational_corporation#Resource_Vanity_Fair_September_2011_.... (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Added by a block evader, but it may be relevant, nonetheless. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Part of the Cold War[edit]

Why does the infox box say this is part of the Cold War, when it is far more recent than the end of the cold war. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)