Talk:Operation Aurora/Archive 1

Bruce Schneier's comments
This source should be incorporated into the article. If necessary, I'll do it myself when I get to it. --87.79.172.220 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging Illegal flower tribute to Operation Aurora
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)
 * Support merge. Not a topic that is worthy of it's own individual article; it can be placed within the Operation Aurora article. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Interestingly this phrase has become an important part of the 2010 Chinese Internet culture (see zh:中国网络流行语 Chinese Internet slangs) and definitely warrants its own article. A merger proposal in the Chinese Wikipedia has received an overwhelming amount of support for keeping the article the way it is . The phrase has certainly gained enough popularity here in China for it to be kept on Wikipedia, if not in the West. We have many other individual entries for Chinese Internet slangs that are as popular as this or even less popular, for example "Cao Ni Ma", "10 Mythical creatures", "was suicided" (zh:被自杀), "bullying honest horse" (欺实马), "doing push-up" (俯卧撑), "crab - harmony" (河蟹), "thunder" (雷), "getting soy sauce" (zh:打酱油), "囧", "Very good very mighty", "Very erotic very violent" etc.. --Givesaved (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: Your argument does not warrant. Clearly the Wikipedia policies on WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY outweigh the "need to have these wonderful memes in Wikipedia". As of now, there are zero sources in this article. A google run brings zero that can be considered as reliable. Policy states that blogs and forums are not WP:RS, they are 粪都不如. Without reliable sources, you cannot verify notability. Policy is policy, my friend. I have no idea how things work on Chinese Wikipedia, but policy is strictly enforced on this Wikipedia. Also not that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a DEMOCRACY, as stated by policy, and therefore your argument of consensus strictly based on numbers is null and void. Wikipedia does not revolve around !votes, but strict policy and sourced material. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 01:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just responding to your argument above that the topic is not "worthy", not that it's not "notable". Besides I was not utilising the "tyranny of the majority" either; stating that an overwhelming majority exists was simply for illustrating the point that many people do consider the topic to be "worthy" enough to be kept separate; by "many people" I mean many of the people who are actually living in that "environment". As for notability, this may not be as well-known in the English-language media as the Chinese media; Googling the Chinese phrase yields 200,000+ ghits (in a week!) many of which clearly satisfy the "reliable source" and "significant coverage" criteria.
 * 谷歌退出中国催生网络新词“非法献花” - Google's (possible) exit from China hastens the emergence of the new Internet slang "Illegal flower tribute"
 * 全球各地纷纷对 Google 进行“非法献花” - People from around the world voluntarily paying "illegal flower tribute" to Google (Google.org.cn)
 * Google退出中国 百度百科新增“非法献花”词条 - Google exits China; Baidu Baike recently adds "illegal flower tribute" entry
 * 网络新词“非法献花”诞生 迅速成热帖 - New Internet slang "illegal flower tribute" emerges and quickly becomes hot topic on the Internet
 * 赴谷歌中国献花遭驱逐 "非法献花"成网络热词 - (Well-wishers) at Google China expelled; "illegal flower tribute" becomes popular Internet meme
 * “非法献花” 网络新词诞生 - New Internet meme "Illegal flower tribute" comes into being
 * 最雷新词非法献花与google退出中国的关系 - The relationship between the most "thunder" new word "illegal flower tribute" and Google's exit from China
 * 全球各地纷纷对 Google 进行“非法献花” - People from around the world voluntarily paying "illegal flower tribute" to Google
 * Google退出中国 百度百科新增“非法献花”词条 - Google exits China; Baidu Baike recently adds "illegal flower tribute" entry
 * google退出 网络新词“非法献花”诞生 - Google exits; new Internet word "illegal flower tribute" emerges
 * 非法献花 - Illegal flower tribute
 * Comment: Well, by all means, apply them to the article, where fitting. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * Oppose merge: Google Results 1 - 10 of about 610,000 for Illegal flower tribute. (0.32 seconds)
 * 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 169.231.51.55 (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" . --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)


 * Oppose Good enough to be a stub. Outback the koala (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong support for merge on the the points made by GraYoshi2x. Flappychappy (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks Embassy Cables
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: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html &mdash; Eric Herboso 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

More Press Contradicting NYT's Aurora Claim
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:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/26/aurora_attack_origins/

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1592914/google-bought-chinese-hairdressers

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? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Resource from Operation Shady RAT ...

 * Gross, Michael Joseph, "Enter the Cyber-dragon", Vanity Fair, September 2011.

There is more on Talk:Multinational_corporation. 99.181.141.119 (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)

Response and aftermath
"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: http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2010/02/28/lanxiang-vocational%E2%80%99s-mistaken-identity-traced/

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]" 92.254.206.49 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Managed to find the New York Times article mentioned: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/technology/19china.html 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? 92.254.206.49 (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 131.107.0.75 (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)

Part of the Cold War
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)

Introduction
Can someone with more knowledge than me fix the introduction? Particularly is not clear, that 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)
 * 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.
 * 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.101.98.175.68 (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Start a New Page
Hi guys I just edited the APT Page. I would like to make a new page called Operation Cloud Hopper    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Personisgaming (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Google's Look back
I'm not yet completely through this series, but I think I've already seen enough to tell at least for the first half of the series that only the Episode 0 is a look back on this incident. So I'd say the advice "though the series primary focus was to reassure the Google-using public that measures are in place to counter hacking attempts." is a way too far off. I'd rewrite it to something like

On October 3rd, 2022 Google on YouTube released a six-episode series called "Hacking Google" and took a look back in their first episode. Kanjias (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)