An advocacy group that allows Internet users in China branch blocks the content censored that he suffers from a denial-of-service attack disrupt its operations.
US subsidized Greatfire.org said the attack started two days ago and the traffic is 2,500 times higher than normal. It affected “mirror”, or duplicate, websites that set up via encoded web services offered by companies like Amazon.
Greatfire.org said the attack interfered with site visitors, including Boxun.com, which discloses allegations of corruption and human rights violations in China, German supplier Deutsche Welle, and Google.
The statement of a co-founder of the group, who goes by the alias Charlie Smith, said he does not know who is behind the attack, but it coincides with increased pressure on the organization in recent months and public criticism of the Chinese authorities.
The Chinese government blocks thousands of websites to avoid what he considers politically sensitive information from reaching Chinese users, a force dubbed the “Great Firewall”.
According to Freedom House free expression watchdog, since the end of 2013 Greatfire.org hosted content on areas owned by Amazon and other large companies, that officials can not risk due to censorship their large business presence in China.
Smith said that the current denial of service attack that floods mirror sites cost the group up to $ 30,000 per day in bandwidth.
Greatfire.org said he is funded from various sources, including individuals and organizations within China. The Fund for Open Technologies, a US government backed initiative to support Internet freedom, says on its website it provided Greatfire.org with $ 114,000 in 2014.
Here explained the whole saga.
What Google has done?
In a post official blog Wednesday, Google said its Chrome browser and other products will not recognize safety certificates issued by the China Internet Information Center (CNNIC),China SEO the authority of the Internet in China.
This means that when users try to visit a website via China Google Chrome that is certified by CNNIC, they will be presented with a warning message on the site security. However, users can choose to ignore it and go instead.
Getty Images, SEO china
“To help customers affected by this decision, for a limited time, we will allow existing certificates of CNNIC continue to be marked as trustworthy in Chrome by using a whitelist publicly disclosed,” he Google said on its blog.
What is a security certificate?
A security certificate is a digital document used to prove that the domain name of a website does in fact belong to this society which claims to possess.
Sometimes, users see a padlock in the corner of the web address bar. This means that communication with the site is secured and encrypted and has been certified by a known Certificate Authority (CA).
CNNIC is such an organization dealing with Chinese sites.
What’s the problem with Google’s SEO?
Last week, Google accused MCS Holding, CA contracted by CNNIC, issuing unauthorized security certificates for multiple Google domains.
This led to a security breach where there was a possibility of a so-called attack man-in-the-middle. This is when a hacker intercepts communication between a site and the information is sent to the server. If the digital certificate on a Web site is not authorized, this means that encryption is lax and let the site user who opened their details stolen.
There is no evidence that users of Google’s Chinese operations were affected.
Who was to blame?
MCS Holding argues that the lack of security was a “human error”.
Google said that it was “in harmony with the fact” but that CNNIC “yet their substantial authority delegated to an organization that has not been able to keep.”
War of words
The search giant US was conciliatory to CNNIC. “We applaud their proactive CNNIC, and welcome to reapply technical and procedural controls are in place appropriate time,” Google said on its official blog.
CNNIC however, criticized the move of Google.
“The decision that Google has done is unacceptable and incomprehensible to the CNNIC,” the authority said in a statement on its website.
Once Google is pleased that CNNIC has improved its processes, they could reapply for security certificates – which makes these secure sites again.
recent reports that China has imposed new restrictions on Gmail, Google’s flagship messaging service, should not really come as a surprise. While Chinese users were unable to access the Gmail site for several years now, they were still able to use much of its functionality, through third-party services such as Outlook or Apple Mail.
This gap was closed (albeit temporarily – some of the new restrictions appear to have been mysteriously already up), which means that Chinese users had determined to turn to more advanced circumvention tools. Those who can not or will not perform all these stunts can simply switch to a service managed by a national Chinese company – which is precisely what the Chinese government wants them to do.
This short-term and long-term disruptions to Gmail connections are part of the longstanding efforts of China to protect its technological sovereignty by reducing dependence of citizens on US-term communication services. After North Korea saw its blackened internet access temporarily in the interview brouhaha – with little evidence that the country has actually nothing to do with the massive hacking Sony – the concept of technological sovereignty is fast becoming the one of the most important and controversial doctrines 2015.
And it’s not just the Chinese: the Russian government is pursuing a similar program. A new law that took effect last summer requires all Internet companies to store the data of Russian citizens on servers inside the country. This has already led Google to close its engineering operations in Moscow. Kremlin’s recent success in getting Facebook to block a page calling for protests in solidarity with the activist Alexey Navalny charged indicates that the government is to restore control over the digital activities of its citizens.
But it is hardly a global defeat for Google: the company is still expanding Furthermore, the construction of communications infrastructure that extends well beyond simple messaging services. Thus, as the South American countries were exploring plans to counter the NSA surveillance with a fiber optic network of their own that would reduce their dependence on the US, Google has opened its coffers to finance submarine cable linking $ 60 million Brazil to Florida.
The objective was to ensure that Google’s own services work better for users in Brazil, but it is a powerful reminder that free himself from the grip of the American empire of technology requires a multidimensional strategy in line with the fact that Google today is not just a search company and e-mail – it also works on devices, operating systems, and even connectivity itself.
Since Russia and China are not known for their commitment to freedom of expression and assembly, it is tempting to see their quest for sovereignty of information as another stab at censorship and control . In fact, although much milder government of Brazil was playing with the idea of forcing American companies to store data of the local user – an idea, he finally gave up – it was widely accused of draconian overreach.
However, Russia, China and Brazil are simply the extremely aggressive tactics adopted by none other than the United States. Typically, however, America is completely unaware of his own actions, believing that there is such thing as a neutral and cosmopolitan internet every effort to move away from lead to the “Balkanization”. But for many countries, it is not balkanization of all, simply de-Americanization.
US companies have played an ambiguous role in this project. On the one hand, they build an efficient and highly functional infrastructure that locks in other countries, creating long-term dependencies that are very messy and costly to repair. They are the true vehicles for the rest of the agenda of the overall modernization of America. On the other hand, companies can not be regarded as mere agents for the American empire. Especially after Edward Snowden revelations have clearly demonstrated the comfortable alliances between business and the state interests of America, these companies need to constantly assert their independence – occasionally taking their own government to court – even if, in reality, most of their interests are perfectly aligned with those of Washington.
This explains why Silicon Valley has been vocal in demanding that the Obama administration to do something about the privacy of the internet and monitoring: if the Internet companies have been considered the compromise parts here, their business would collapse. Just look at Verizon’s woes in 2014: uncertain of sharing measurement data between Verizon and the NSA, the German government abandoned its contract with the US company for Deutsche Telekom. A spokesman for the German government said at the time: “The federal government wants to reclaim sovereignty over technology, and therefore prefers to work with German companies.”
However, to grasp the full measure of the hypocrisy of America on the issue of sovereignty of the information, we must look beyond the quarrel going on between Microsoft and the US government. It concerns a part of the mail content – relevant to an investigation – stored on Microsoft servers in Ireland. US prosecutors insist they can get such content from Microsoft simply by serving a term – as if it makes no difference that the email is stored in a foreign country.
To get it, Washington would normally need to go through a complicated legal process involving bilateral treaties between the governments involved. But now he wants to avoid completely and process the processing of such data as a purely local issue without international implications. The data resides in cyberspace – and cyberspace knows no borders!
In opposing the efforts of other countries to recover a minimum of technological sovereignty, Washington is likely to encounter a problem, it has already met while promoting his nebulous agenda “of Internet freedom”: his actions are more eloquent than his words. Rhetorically, it is very difficult to resist digital surveillance run by the government and online spin in Russia, China or Iran, when the US government probably did more to him than all these countries combined.
Whatever motivates the desire of Russia and China to exert more control over their digital properties – and the naive would believe that they are not motivated by concerns over civil unrest – their shares are proportional to the aggressive efforts Washington to exploit the fact that so much of the world’s communication infrastructure is managed by the Silicon Valley. The freedom of the internet One man is the Internet imperialism of another man.
The government’s rationale is that the storage is immaterial; what is relevant is where the content is available – and it can be accessed by Microsoft employees in the United States. Microsoft and other technology giants are now fighting the US government in the courts, with little success so far, while the Irish government and a handful of European politicians argue Microsoft.
In short, the US government insists that it should have access to data regardless of where it is stored as long as it is handled by American companies. Imagine the outcry if the Chinese government to require access to data that passes through devices manufactured by Chinese companies – Xiaomi, for example, or Lenovo – regardless of whether their users are in London, New York or Tokyo. Note the crucial difference: Russia and China want to be able to access data generated by their citizens on their own soil, while the US wants access to the data generated by anyone anywhere as US companies hold.