洛克希德-马丁公司的官方网站会不做物理隔离？美国人真 ...

洛克希德-马丁公司的官方网站会不做物理隔离？美国人真的这么傻吗？


除去某些欠发达 技术上过于落后的国家，世界上稍微成气候的各国政府网站. 企业网站都会把内部网与公共网做 「物理隔离」，你可以在某军火厂商的对外官网上看到其企业新闻 .产品展示.甚至图片视频下载，但任何一个企业都不会傻乎乎的把商业机密/技术机密放在连接公共网的所谓「公司官方网站」上让你有机可乘，那些商业机密/技术机密/产品设计图只会存放在内部网加密数据库里。在此，我们不禁要问，美国人真的这么傻吗？堂堂超级军火巨头洛克希德-马丁公司的公司官网会不做物理隔离，这可能吗？

美国长期以来一再诬称中国早在2009年或更早就通过网络攻击洛克希德-马丁公司而弄到了制造F-35的蓝图。几天前的华尔街日报与两天前TechWorld网站上又老调重弹。个人认为美国人这种论调缺乏可信证据，美国人在搞的实际上是一种国际舆论宣传战，   “其使命是要贬低中国.抹黑中国在航空科技上所取得的进步 与 抹煞中国在新一代战机研制获得的成果”。

物理隔离包含--隔离 网闸技术 、 物理隔离卡。
　　1. 隔离 网闸，它创建一个这样的环境，内、外网物理断开，但逻辑地相连。就是在这两个网络之间创建了一个物理隔断，这意味着网络数据包不能从一个网络流向另外一个网络，并且 可信网络上的计算机和不可信网络上的计算机从不会有实际的连接。
　　2. 所谓“物理隔离”是指 内部网不得直接或间接地连接公共网。物理隔离的目的是保护 路由器、 工作站、各种 网络服务器等硬件实体和通信链路免受自然灾害、人为破坏和搭线 窃听攻击。
　　3. 在每台电脑中通过 主板插槽安装 物理隔离卡，把一台普通计算机分成两台 虚拟计算机，实现真正的物理隔离。
　　也就是说，只有使 内部网和公共网物理隔离，才能真正保证内部信息网络不受来自互联网的 黑客攻击。此外，物理隔离也为 内部网划定了明确的安全边界，使得网络的可控性增强，便于内部管理。
　　所谓“物理隔离”是指 内部网不直接或间接地连接公共网。物理安全的目的是保护 路由器、 工作站、 网络服务器等硬件实体和通信链路免受自然灾害、人为破坏和搭线窃听攻击。只有使 内部网和公共网物理隔离，才能真正保证政府机关与企业的内部信息网络不受来自互联网的 黑客攻击。此外，物理隔离也为政府 内部网划定了明确的安全边界，使得网络的可控性增强，便于内部管理。

物理隔离技术之争

　　最早在2000年的时候物理隔离领域出现的单 硬盘隔离卡和 双硬盘隔离卡，就引发出了一个谁是物理隔离的争议，由于单硬盘隔离卡，在安装时只需要加一块隔离卡，然后对原有的硬盘采用软件技术上的处理。所以成本相对来讲比较低一些。而双硬盘隔离卡在安装时除了需要加一块隔离卡，还需要新加一块硬盘。但是对于原来的硬盘不需要任何的处理，只需要在新装的硬盘上安装操作系统即可。在2000年北京国家保密会议上图文明确提出了 双硬盘隔离是物理隔离，单硬盘隔离不是物理隔离是逻辑 隔离卡的观点。此观点引起学术界的强烈反弹。随着时间的推移，单硬盘隔离卡逐渐退出了市场，也证明了 双硬盘是物理隔离的观点。


************************************************************************************
链接http://www.techworld.com/blogs/w ... -deception-3586248/

China's 'knock-off' J-31 fighter - cyberwar spoils or an an example of its self-deception?

By John E. Dunn | Published: 13:54, 17 November 2014

The Chinese Government has been accused of numerous military-industrial cyber-attacks against the US, the direct effects of which are almost impossible to gauge. The contentious case of China’s J-31 'Shenyang' stealth fighter, formally unveiled at the Zhuhai Air Show last week, might turn out to be a fascinating exception to this rule.

Put bluntly, the J-31 bears an unmistakable similarity to the pioneering F-35 US stealth fighter, and there don’t appear to be many experts who doubt that the later Chinese machine is a direct copy from its eerily-identical silhouette to many of its surface details.


Copying in this case is an insincere form of flattery because, it is claimed, the Chinese got hold of the blueprints to build the J-35 during a cyber-espionage attack on Lockheed Martin dating back at to 2009, or possibly earlier.  In 2013, during a senate sub-committee hearing the US Government admitted that the F-35 plans and many other projects had been pilfered, although China wasn’t mentioned as the perpetrator.

This wasn’t a classic case of cyber-espionage – most of the plans are believed to have been siphoned off and sold by an insider working for a contractor rather than an external hack – but the end result is the same. The US defence industry now look like clots for allowing the secrets behind one of their most advanced aircraft designs to slip into the hands of the country’s superpower rival. If such a thing had happened during the Cold War, it’s hard not far-fetched to think that it would have engendered a major crisis.

Ironically, while during the Cold War, both sides devoted huge efforts to gathering intelligence of this kind they were secretive about letting the enemy know that a compromise had happened. The idea of the Soviets building an obvious replica of a US aircraft type would have been unthinkable, not least because it would have implied that its own engineers were behind the US.

The exception was possibly the ill-fated TU-144, a 1970's supersonic Soviet jet airliner meant to rival the Anglo-French Concorde, which many people to this day believe were too similar to one another for that to be a coincidence. Whatever the truth, underneath the skin they turned out to be very different machines and that perhaps is a pointer to the moral of the J-31 story.

Assuming the Chinese did base the J-31 on the F-35’s airframe that doesn’t mean that their knock-off is the same aircraft. The engines will be different, as will the materials, avionics, pilot systems, manufacturing and testing data. As the world’s terrorist Ghostbusters, the US pilots also get to use their machines more often these days. At 35,000 feet, a duel depends on small differences and you’d bet heavily on the US aircraft having the edge.

The Chinese don’t seem to care that the US knows that it is building a military aircraft industry on the back of their ideas, indeed they seem to revel in pointing this out as a symbolic humiliation. Perhaps this is unwise. If the J-31 really does fly like an F-35 there is only one nation that will know what compromises were made to get it into the air and what small hidden weaknesses may lurk inside its specification.

Industrial espionage and cyber-hacking are all very well but they don’t necessarily translate into a real-world advantage if executed in a clumsy way. Personally I think the proud, wily Soviets were far more sophisticated. Build your own stuff, preserve the engineering mystique and always beware the notion that 'catching up' is the same as 'being in the lead'.


据TechWorld网站11月17日报道，中国一直被指责通过网络攻击美国军事工业，造成了几乎无可估量的影响。据信上周在珠海航展上正式亮相的歼-31隐形战机就是F-35战机的复制品。但这并不意味着他们的“冒牌货”会与F-35一样。两者发动机、材料、电子设备、引航系统、制造技术和测试数据都会不一样。而且，这段时间以来美国飞行员也得到了更多的战机飞行训练。在3万5千英尺的高空，细节决定着成败，美国战机肯定占据优势。

　　坦率地讲，歼-31明显类似于美国的F-35隐形战机，许多专家都质疑歼-31复制了F-35的许多细节设计。事实上，说歼-31复制F-35都略显恭维，因为据称中国早在2009年或更早就通过网络攻击洛克希德-马丁公司而弄到了制造F-35的蓝图。2013年，美国政府承认F-35战机和许多项目在参议院分委会的听证会上遭盗窃，但并未提到中国就是作案人。

　　这并不是一次典型的网络间谍案——据信大部分情报是由承包商的内部人员卖出的，而并非遭到外部黑客的攻击——但结果都一样。美国国防工业将最先进的飞机设计机密拱手让与自己的超级对手，看起来是昏了头。如果这种事发生在冷战时期，很难不让人联想到将会引发一场重大危机。

　　讽刺的是，在冷战时期，双方都在不遗余力地搜集情报，避免让敌人知道自己已采取了妥协措施。在那时，如果苏联仿制美国战机这是不可想象的，因为这暗示着他们自己的工程师投靠了美国。

　　命运多舛的图-144可能是个例外，这是上世纪70年代的一款苏联超音速喷气式客机，其主要竞争对手是英美的协和客机，今天许多人认为这两款飞机过于相似，不可能是巧合。不管真相如何，这两款飞机外表之下的内部机械迥然不同，这也许暗示歼-31也可能是这样。

　　假设中国真的按照F-35的机身设计了歼-31，这并不意味着他们的“冒牌货”就能和F-35一样。发动机、材料、电子设备、引航系统、制造技术和测试数据都会不一样。而且，这段时间以来，美国飞行员也得到了更多的战机飞行训练。在3万5千英尺的高空，细节决定着成败，美国战机肯定占据优势。

　　中国人似乎并不关心美国人已经知道其军用战机工业是根据美国的理念而建设的，事实上他们对这种象征性的耻辱感到洋洋得意。洛克希德-马丁公司的官方网站会不做物理隔离？美国人真的这么傻吗？


除去某些欠发达 技术上过于落后的国家，世界上稍微成气候的各国政府网站. 企业网站都会把内部网与公共网做 「物理隔离」，你可以在某军火厂商的对外官网上看到其企业新闻 .产品展示.甚至图片视频下载，但任何一个企业都不会傻乎乎的把商业机密/技术机密放在连接公共网的所谓「公司官方网站」上让你有机可乘，那些商业机密/技术机密/产品设计图只会存放在内部网加密数据库里。在此，我们不禁要问，美国人真的这么傻吗？堂堂超级军火巨头洛克希德-马丁公司的公司官网会不做物理隔离，这可能吗？

美国长期以来一再诬称中国早在2009年或更早就通过网络攻击洛克希德-马丁公司而弄到了制造F-35的蓝图。几天前的华尔街日报与两天前TechWorld网站上又老调重弹。个人认为美国人这种论调缺乏可信证据，美国人在搞的实际上是一种国际舆论宣传战，   “其使命是要贬低中国.抹黑中国在航空科技上所取得的进步 与 抹煞中国在新一代战机研制获得的成果”。

物理隔离包含--隔离 网闸技术 、 物理隔离卡。
　　1. 隔离 网闸，它创建一个这样的环境，内、外网物理断开，但逻辑地相连。就是在这两个网络之间创建了一个物理隔断，这意味着网络数据包不能从一个网络流向另外一个网络，并且 可信网络上的计算机和不可信网络上的计算机从不会有实际的连接。
　　2. 所谓“物理隔离”是指 内部网不得直接或间接地连接公共网。物理隔离的目的是保护 路由器、 工作站、各种 网络服务器等硬件实体和通信链路免受自然灾害、人为破坏和搭线 窃听攻击。
　　3. 在每台电脑中通过 主板插槽安装 物理隔离卡，把一台普通计算机分成两台 虚拟计算机，实现真正的物理隔离。
　　也就是说，只有使 内部网和公共网物理隔离，才能真正保证内部信息网络不受来自互联网的 黑客攻击。此外，物理隔离也为 内部网划定了明确的安全边界，使得网络的可控性增强，便于内部管理。
　　所谓“物理隔离”是指 内部网不直接或间接地连接公共网。物理安全的目的是保护 路由器、 工作站、 网络服务器等硬件实体和通信链路免受自然灾害、人为破坏和搭线窃听攻击。只有使 内部网和公共网物理隔离，才能真正保证政府机关与企业的内部信息网络不受来自互联网的 黑客攻击。此外，物理隔离也为政府 内部网划定了明确的安全边界，使得网络的可控性增强，便于内部管理。

物理隔离技术之争

　　最早在2000年的时候物理隔离领域出现的单 硬盘隔离卡和 双硬盘隔离卡，就引发出了一个谁是物理隔离的争议，由于单硬盘隔离卡，在安装时只需要加一块隔离卡，然后对原有的硬盘采用软件技术上的处理。所以成本相对来讲比较低一些。而双硬盘隔离卡在安装时除了需要加一块隔离卡，还需要新加一块硬盘。但是对于原来的硬盘不需要任何的处理，只需要在新装的硬盘上安装操作系统即可。在2000年北京国家保密会议上图文明确提出了 双硬盘隔离是物理隔离，单硬盘隔离不是物理隔离是逻辑 隔离卡的观点。此观点引起学术界的强烈反弹。随着时间的推移，单硬盘隔离卡逐渐退出了市场，也证明了 双硬盘是物理隔离的观点。


************************************************************************************
链接http://www.techworld.com/blogs/w ... -deception-3586248/

China's 'knock-off' J-31 fighter - cyberwar spoils or an an example of its self-deception?

By John E. Dunn | Published: 13:54, 17 November 2014

The Chinese Government has been accused of numerous military-industrial cyber-attacks against the US, the direct effects of which are almost impossible to gauge. The contentious case of China’s J-31 'Shenyang' stealth fighter, formally unveiled at the Zhuhai Air Show last week, might turn out to be a fascinating exception to this rule.

Put bluntly, the J-31 bears an unmistakable similarity to the pioneering F-35 US stealth fighter, and there don’t appear to be many experts who doubt that the later Chinese machine is a direct copy from its eerily-identical silhouette to many of its surface details.


Copying in this case is an insincere form of flattery because, it is claimed, the Chinese got hold of the blueprints to build the J-35 during a cyber-espionage attack on Lockheed Martin dating back at to 2009, or possibly earlier.  In 2013, during a senate sub-committee hearing the US Government admitted that the F-35 plans and many other projects had been pilfered, although China wasn’t mentioned as the perpetrator.

This wasn’t a classic case of cyber-espionage – most of the plans are believed to have been siphoned off and sold by an insider working for a contractor rather than an external hack – but the end result is the same. The US defence industry now look like clots for allowing the secrets behind one of their most advanced aircraft designs to slip into the hands of the country’s superpower rival. If such a thing had happened during the Cold War, it’s hard not far-fetched to think that it would have engendered a major crisis.

Ironically, while during the Cold War, both sides devoted huge efforts to gathering intelligence of this kind they were secretive about letting the enemy know that a compromise had happened. The idea of the Soviets building an obvious replica of a US aircraft type would have been unthinkable, not least because it would have implied that its own engineers were behind the US.

The exception was possibly the ill-fated TU-144, a 1970's supersonic Soviet jet airliner meant to rival the Anglo-French Concorde, which many people to this day believe were too similar to one another for that to be a coincidence. Whatever the truth, underneath the skin they turned out to be very different machines and that perhaps is a pointer to the moral of the J-31 story.

Assuming the Chinese did base the J-31 on the F-35’s airframe that doesn’t mean that their knock-off is the same aircraft. The engines will be different, as will the materials, avionics, pilot systems, manufacturing and testing data. As the world’s terrorist Ghostbusters, the US pilots also get to use their machines more often these days. At 35,000 feet, a duel depends on small differences and you’d bet heavily on the US aircraft having the edge.

The Chinese don’t seem to care that the US knows that it is building a military aircraft industry on the back of their ideas, indeed they seem to revel in pointing this out as a symbolic humiliation. Perhaps this is unwise. If the J-31 really does fly like an F-35 there is only one nation that will know what compromises were made to get it into the air and what small hidden weaknesses may lurk inside its specification.

Industrial espionage and cyber-hacking are all very well but they don’t necessarily translate into a real-world advantage if executed in a clumsy way. Personally I think the proud, wily Soviets were far more sophisticated. Build your own stuff, preserve the engineering mystique and always beware the notion that 'catching up' is the same as 'being in the lead'.


据TechWorld网站11月17日报道，中国一直被指责通过网络攻击美国军事工业，造成了几乎无可估量的影响。据信上周在珠海航展上正式亮相的歼-31隐形战机就是F-35战机的复制品。但这并不意味着他们的“冒牌货”会与F-35一样。两者发动机、材料、电子设备、引航系统、制造技术和测试数据都会不一样。而且，这段时间以来美国飞行员也得到了更多的战机飞行训练。在3万5千英尺的高空，细节决定着成败，美国战机肯定占据优势。

　　坦率地讲，歼-31明显类似于美国的F-35隐形战机，许多专家都质疑歼-31复制了F-35的许多细节设计。事实上，说歼-31复制F-35都略显恭维，因为据称中国早在2009年或更早就通过网络攻击洛克希德-马丁公司而弄到了制造F-35的蓝图。2013年，美国政府承认F-35战机和许多项目在参议院分委会的听证会上遭盗窃，但并未提到中国就是作案人。

　　这并不是一次典型的网络间谍案——据信大部分情报是由承包商的内部人员卖出的，而并非遭到外部黑客的攻击——但结果都一样。美国国防工业将最先进的飞机设计机密拱手让与自己的超级对手，看起来是昏了头。如果这种事发生在冷战时期，很难不让人联想到将会引发一场重大危机。

　　讽刺的是，在冷战时期，双方都在不遗余力地搜集情报，避免让敌人知道自己已采取了妥协措施。在那时，如果苏联仿制美国战机这是不可想象的，因为这暗示着他们自己的工程师投靠了美国。

　　命运多舛的图-144可能是个例外，这是上世纪70年代的一款苏联超音速喷气式客机，其主要竞争对手是英美的协和客机，今天许多人认为这两款飞机过于相似，不可能是巧合。不管真相如何，这两款飞机外表之下的内部机械迥然不同，这也许暗示歼-31也可能是这样。

　　假设中国真的按照F-35的机身设计了歼-31，这并不意味着他们的“冒牌货”就能和F-35一样。发动机、材料、电子设备、引航系统、制造技术和测试数据都会不一样。而且，这段时间以来，美国飞行员也得到了更多的战机飞行训练。在3万5千英尺的高空，细节决定着成败，美国战机肯定占据优势。

　　中国人似乎并不关心美国人已经知道其军用战机工业是根据美国的理念而建设的，事实上他们对这种象征性的耻辱感到洋洋得意。