Jul 01 2008

PRC Cyber Space Capabilities

Published by at 6:08 pm under US attacks

Very interesting testimony before the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission on PRC cyber space capabilities. The commission broke the talks down into three major sections, with some congressional persepective and admin thrown in for good measure. The primary topics were space capabilities, cyber capabilities and proliferation. Only panel three spoke on cyber issues but a typo in the contents section says panel two also spoke on it. Panel two actually talked about space capabilities.

The three people called to testify before the panel were Colonel McAlum, Mr. Thomas and Dr. Mulvenon. All three gave very good presentations. If you don’t want to search through the whole document, the cyber section begins on page 45.

I would also point out on this slide that it’s really important to get the lexicon right. In the open source media and other forums, you hear the term “cyber attack” used rather liberally, and you won’t hear anyone in the Department of Defense use that term in the context of cyber reconnaissance or network intrusions. What we are seeing today are network intrusions.

Really glad to finally hear someone clarify the difference between cyber attack and intrusion. Words really do make a difference.

The rest of the report on PRC cyber space capabilities found here….

5 responses so far

5 Responses to “PRC Cyber Space Capabilities”

  1. jumperon 02 Jul 2008 at 10:34 am


    Do you know where we can get the Technolytics report “China Cyber Warfare Capabilities Estimate” that COL McAlum talked about? I can’t find it on Technolytics’ website (or google).


  2. Heikeon 02 Jul 2008 at 11:52 am

    Hey boss,

    Did a quick look and difficult to tell…but might be a combination of reports:





    Defense Tech

  3. feintangelon 14 Jul 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Have you seen Shawn Harris’ article from National Journal Magazine?


    I just showed up in “The Strategy Newspaper” today:


  4. jumperon 14 Jul 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Oh yeah. Everyone has seen that article. It isn’t exactly a shining example of objective journalism. The author has two sources that he says corroborate each other. Neither of the two sources are primary sources. Readers aren’t able to judge if the second (or third) hand information is reliable or not. I don’t trust the author enough to decide on my behalf.

    This story sounds like RUMINT.

    The intelligence community has water-coolers too.

  5. Heikeon 14 Jul 2008 at 5:50 pm


    Have to agree with Jumper’s opinion about this article. Would like to have seen some sourcing or something. Seemed a little weak on supporting their argument.