Intel Admits Major Cyber Attack Targeted Them, Too

Dennis Faas's picture

It appears as if Google was telling the truth when they announced that several other US companies had been targeted alongside their China-based attack last month. At the time, Google declined to name the other American companies.

Computer chip giant Intel Corp. has now come forward in the wake of the Google fiasco to announce that it too was the victim of a cyberattack last month. More specifically, the Intel attack was performed around the same time as the Google hack.

Hacking is the "Norm" at Intel

According to a corporate spokesperson, "We regularly face attempts by others to gain unauthorized access through the Internet to our information technology systems by, for example, masquerading as authorized users or surreptitious introduction of software. One recent and sophisticated incident occurred in January 2010 around the same time as the recently publicized security incident reported by Google." (Source:

An Intel spokesman declined to provide further details concerning the attacks, though in keeping with a diplomatic stance the company (in a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission) did refuse to publicly link the "sophisticated" attacks on its computers to those reported by Google. However, this may have been done to keep up appearances on the global stage.

It was also last month that Google promised to stop appeasing Internet censors in China in the midst of sophisticated cyberattacks geared towards their source code and the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists around the world.

Chinese Influence Continues to Grow

Stacy Smith, chief financial officer at Intel, also weighed in on the issue, claiming that the unpleasant situation does not negate the fact that China remains the company's second-largest market.

Smith went on to speak of the possibility of a growing Chinese influence, saying "I expect it (China) to become our largest market relatively soon, in two or three or four years." (Source:

| Tags:
Rate this article: 
No votes yet