Sep 30 2008

Nice…Chinese hackers may soon have their own Aegis Class Destroyer

Published by at 4:24 pm under Chinese Malware,Other attacks

There are the normal reports, providing vague references to Chinese hackers gaining access to sensitive information at some unnamed installation or organization and then there is this report from Korea. Besides the name of the company involved, it also gives fairly specific details about the type of sensitive information contained on the company’s computer system.

The research institute suspects the culprits are Chinese or North Korean hackers but doesn’t know specifically what information they stole. In the worst case, the blueprints of missiles and Aegis ship could have been stolen.

It’s shocking that our major defense industries are open to attacks from hackers and that our missiles are vulnerable to theft by cyber terrorists. A general review of our cyber security system is needed.

Really, a review of your cyber security system you say?  Read why someday, Chinese hackers may be able to construct their own Aegis class destroyer.   Duly noted that that the article states it could also be North Korean hackers.  How about, both?

5 responses so far

5 Responses to “Nice…Chinese hackers may soon have their own Aegis Class Destroyer”

  1. CBRP1R8on 01 Oct 2008 at 2:14 pm

    Being familiar with Aegis I’d like to say…wut were dey thinkin’?

    Number 1, why does a South Korean defense contractor even have plans or access to plans for an Aegis Destroyer, or SK as a country for that matter. Yeah we’re friends and all, w/ SK but still, why are we giving/selling some of our decent weapons technology to 3rd world countries? This really needs congressional oversight to see why, how and who signed off on it, I know I didn’t as an American tax payer but some where in that boggle-head of a collection of nitwits in DC someone had to have signed off on that. They should be held accountable, where’s the lynch mob line start?

    Number 2, being that I did a number of years in defense contracting, post military service, I again refer to the 2nd part of number 1. Did this defense contract get sub-contracted out to SK’s contractors for work. If so there is accountability in subcontracting laws which governs work considered national secret technology that CAN and should be held accountable for. These slack jawed defense contracting companies today are only slightly worse then the most poorly planned and budgeted government entity I have worked for in the past.

    The take to many easy-way outs, putting all their 1st year profits into getting the contract. They then recuperate their losses in year over year (5yr w/ yearly renewals) reviews, by bumping up cost estimates and cutting staff/overheads. Contractors have no qualms whatsoever of doing things the cheapest, dirtiest way possilble to get by and barely (if able to) meet the bare bottom minimum requirements of the contract. It’s how they make money.

    Another reason I no longer could stomach working for the low down dirty cheats known as defense contractors, and that statement is ALL INCLUSIVE, IMHO.

    But seeings as how Aegis, for us is somewhat dated technology, maybe this is just a business deal gone bad, i.e. we can except the loss to China/NK as we have better stuff, (AKA The stealth boats) or the Cobra system ships, which is 90′s vice 70′s technology. I did see a lot of this sloppiness across the board though and its not just SK, you can count Israel, Saudi/Other Mid-east countries and many other nations directly in there w/ SK. This buck’s gotta stop somewhere. We’re the worlds’ number 1 arms dealer but this stuff has gotta stop.

  2. Concerned2on 01 Oct 2008 at 5:02 pm

    I think your comments as an insider put the spot light on the gaping wholes that lie within the Defense Contractors shabby world.
    As more and more US weapons technology ends up in the hands of China, NK, and the middle east….the need for accountability comes to the forefront. I hope this story serves as an alarm clock for the Senate and House intelligence Committee..
    wake up…..

  3. jumperon 01 Oct 2008 at 5:26 pm


    South Korea (not at all a third world country, btw) built their Aegis on one of their own platforms.

    A lot of countries have Aegis. Japan has six. Australia and Spain also have multiple Aegis ships.

    Maybe some of our low down dirty cheating readers can comment on your other statement…

  4. CBRP1R8on 03 Oct 2008 at 7:37 am

    South Korea (not at all a third world country, btw) built their Aegis on one of their own platforms.

    A lot of countries have Aegis. Japan has six. Australia and Spain also have multiple Aegis ships.

    -Only my personal opinion of course in that 3rd world regard.

    Still the big issue here is we are selling the technology out from under ourselves and it does not stop at just these countries you and I have listed. There’s still the singular problem of the threat of loss of technology across the board. There’s no defense that can withstand this type of loss, if other countries we sell to are just going to turn around and give (asin have no access control standards it appears) the tech to china, NK, Russia or any other number of possible hostile intent.

    Now that I understand a little more the details on the SK vessel, Thanks for the link, I can tell that the technology was sold to them and they built their own using our technology and not so much the contractor issue, except within SK itself. There’s still the underlying problem though of us selling away the defense industry, which brings me back to the accountability issue and the boggle heads.

  5. jumperon 03 Oct 2008 at 8:19 am


    I understand what you mean but I see this quite differently. It isn’t simply a matter of turning a profit on old US weapons. The US sells these high-tech arms to enable allied nations to defend themselves. US arms sales usually come with agreements that the nation will not sell the arms to specific third parties e.g., Span -> Venezuela. There will always be a risk that the tech will be compromised or even that the allied nation changes alignment (the Islamic revolution in Iran, for example). I think this is the reason that not all arms are freely sold. There have been requests from allied nations to purchase F22′s but the US has declined.

    An allied nation that has the arms and capability to either defend itself or deter aggression does not require a significant US troop presence. I don’t really see this as selling away the defense industry.