'Aurora' Code Circulated for Years on English Sites
Updated An error-checking algorithm found in software used to attack Google and other large companies circulated for years on English-
speakinglanguage books and websites, casting doubt on claims it provided strong evidence that the malware was written by someone inside the People's Republic of China.
The smoking gun said to tie Chinese-speaking programmers to the
Hydraq trojan that penetrated Google's defenses was a cyclic redundancy check routine that used a table of only 16 constants. Security researcher Joe Stewart said the algorithm "seems to be virtually unknown outside of China," a finding he used to conclude that the code behind the attacks dubbed Aurora "originated with someone who is comfortable reading simplified Chinese."
/*
Doubt is now being cast upon the assumption that someone within China was behind the attacks. I still have my suspicions.
*/
In fact, the implementation is common among English-speaking programmers of microcontrollers and other devices where memory is limited. In 2007, hardware designer Michael Karas discussed an almost identical algorithm here. Undated source code published here also bears more than a striking resemblance.
...
"Digging this a little deeper though, the algorithm is a variation of calculating CRC using a nibble (4 bits) instead of a byte," programmer and Reg reader Steve L. wrote in an email. "This is widely used in single-chip computers in the embedded world, as it seems. I'd hardly call this a new algorithm, or [an] obscure one, either."
/*
Gee, where are nearly all microchips/microcontrollers fabricated these days?
China.
*/
Two weeks ago, Google said it was the victim of highly sophisticated attacks originating from China that targeted intellectual property and the Gmail accounts of human rights advocates. The company said similar attacks hit 20 other companies in the internet, finance, technology, media and chemical industries. Independent security researchers quickly raised the number of compromised companies to 34.
/*
Targeting the human-rights advocates kind of seals-the-deal in my mind. We've got three major parts of the world where the vast majority of malware originates; eastern Europe, Russia, and China. Let's see, who has the most atrocious human-rights abuses of the three?
China.
*/
One of the only other reported links between China and the attacks is that they were launched from at least six internet addresses located in Taiwan, which James Mulvenenon, the director of the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis at Defense Group, told The Wall Street Journal is a common strategy used by Chinese hackers to mask their origin. But it just as easily could be the strategy of those trying to make the attacks appear to have originated in China.
/*
This is a valid point; it could be someone wishing to make it appear that the Chinese were behind the attack. I'd have to admit, the Chinese hackers and malware authors are generally smart enough to cover their tracks, so for the attacks to originate in a favored part of the world for the Chinese does seem a little short-sighted.
*/
The lack of evidence is important. Google's accusations have already had a
dramatic effect on
US-China relations. If proof beyond a reasonable doubt is good enough in courts of law, shouldn't it be good enough for relations between two of the world's most powerful countries?
/*
I would like to see something a little more
definitive before saying I'm
certain that the Chinese were behind the attacks; but so far, we've got a "smoking gun" (the exploit code contained in the targeted phishing attacks), but have yet to identify any "fingerprints." Applying "Occam's razor," as I'm wont to do, it would appear that
someone in China was behind this.
I whole-heartedly support Google on their threat to pull out of China. With Wal-Mart already selling this country out from under us every day, I don't like to see
any U.S.-based company doing business with China. Unfortunately, in this situation, it appears that the Chinese citizens will really be the ones that lose.
*/