Big Web Crash in China: Experts Suspect Great Firewall
By NICOLE PERLROTH
Updated, 10:30 p.m. |
SAN FRANCISCO — The story behind what may
have been the biggest Internet failure in history involves an unlikely
cast of characters, including a little-known company in a drab building
in Wyoming and the world’s most elite army of Internet censors a
continent away in China.
On Tuesday, most of China’s 500 million
Internet users were unable to load websites for up to eight hours.
Nearly every Chinese user and Internet company, including major services
like Baidu and Sina.com, was affected.
Technology experts say China’s own Great
Firewall — the country’s vast collection of censors and snooping
technology used to control Internet traffic in and out of China — was
most likely to blame, mistakenly redirecting the country’s traffic to
several sites normally blocked inside China, some connected to a company
based in the Wyoming building.
The Chinese authorities put a premium on
control. Using the Great Firewall, they police the Internet to smother
any hint of antigovernment sentiment, sometimes jailing dissidents and
journalists; they blacklist major websites like Facebook and Twitter;
and they block access to media outlets like The New York Times and
Bloomberg News for unfavorable coverage of the country’s leaders.
But the strange story of Tuesday’s downtime shows that sometimes their efforts can backfire.
The China Internet Network Information
Center, a state-run agency that deals with Internet affairs, said it had
traced the problem to the country’s domain name system. One of China’s
biggest antivirus software vendors, Qihoo 360 Technology, said the
problems affected about three-quarters of the country’s domain-name
system servers.
“I have never seen a bigger outage,” said Heiko Specht, an Internet analyst at Compuware, a technology company based in Detroit. “Half of the world’s Internet users trying to access the Internet couldn’t.”
Those domain-name servers, which act like an
Internet switchboard, routed traffic from some of China’s most popular
sites to an Internet address that, according to records, is registered
to Sophidea, a company based, at least on paper, in that Wyoming
building, in Cheyenne. It is unclear where the company or its servers
are physically based, however.
With so much Internet traffic flooding
Sophidea’s Internet address, Mr. Specht said he believed it would have
taken less than a millisecond for the company’s servers to crash.
Until last year, Sophidea was based in a
1,700-square-foot brick house on a residential block of Cheyenne. The
house, and its former tenant, a business called Wyoming Corporate
Services, was the subject of a lengthy Reuters article
in 2011 that found that about 2,000 business entities had been
registered to the home. Among them were a company controlled by a jailed
former Ukraine prime minister, the owner of a company charged with
helping online poker operators evade online gambling bans, and one
entity that was banned from government contract work after selling
counterfeit truck parts to the Pentagon.
Wyoming Corporate Services, which helps
clients anywhere in the world create companies on paper and is
designated to receive lawsuits on their behalf, moved its headquarters
10 blocks from its former base last year. Gerald Pitts, the Wyoming
Corporate Services president, said in an interview on Wednesday that his
company acted as the registered agent for 8,000 businesses, including
Sophidea, though he did not know what the company did.
Technology experts say Sophidea appears to be
a service that reroutes Internet traffic from one website to another to
mask a person’s whereabouts, to make it easier to send spam for example
— or to evade a firewall, like the ones that Chinese censors erect.
Sophidea’s managers are not publicly listed.
Wyoming is light on business regulation. The state requires only that
companies file a short annual report disclosing assets that are
physically located in Wyoming and the name of one person submitting the
report. According to Wyoming state records, Sophidea’s director is Mark Chen, with no associated contact information.
Mr. Pitts, of Wyoming Corporate Services,
said he could not provide any further information for the company
without a legal order.
But for less than a millisecond on Tuesday,
the company’s operators may have been surprised to find that a huge
portion of the world’s Internet traffic was firing at their servers and
that their Internet address was the subject of much speculation within
the Chinese media. Several Chinese newspapers named Sophidea’s Internet
address as the “No. 1 suspect” in a cyberattack.
By late Tuesday, some technologists surmised
that the disruption might have been caused by Chinese Internet censors
who tried to block traffic to Sophidea’s websites because they could be
used to evade the Great Firewall and mistakenly redirected traffic to
the Internet address.
That theory was buttressed by the fact that a
separate wave of Chinese Internet traffic Tuesday was simultaneously
redirected to Internet addresses owned by Dynamic Internet Technology, a
company that helps people evade China’s Great Firewall, and is
typically blocked in China.
According to D.I.T.’s website, its clients include Epoch Times, a newspaper affiliated with the Falun Gong movement; Voice of America; Radio Free Asia; and Human Rights in China, an activist group based in New York.
Bill Xia, a Falun Gong adherent who founded
D.I.T. after emigrating to the United States, said in an email that the
problem could have been caused by a “misconfiguration” in the state’s
firewall, which controls traffic across multiple Internet service
providers in China. “Only the Great Firewall has this capability ready,”
he said.
Greatfire.org, an independent site that monitors censorship in China, echoed that theory in a blog post.
One thing is certain, said Mr. Specht of
Compuware: Chinese Internet users’ and companies’ trust in the Internet
has been shaken. “Already Chinese Internet users do not have too much
trust in the Internet,” he said.
Amy Qin contributed reporting from Beijing.
This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: January 22, 2014
An
earlier version of this post misstated where Chinese Internet traffic
was redirected. The physical location of the servers receiving the
traffic is not clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered