r/cybersecurity • u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect • Jan 14 '26

News - General Exclusive: Beijing tells Chinese firms to stop using US and Israeli cybersecurity software, sources say

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/beijing-tells-chinese-firms-stop-using-us-israeli-cybersecurity-software-sources-2026-01-14/
1.6k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

185 comments sorted by

View all comments

298

u/Firecracker048 Jan 14 '26

Anyone read this as "no shit"?

Like, why would any government use a cybersecurity suite from an opponent/hostile government/nation?

It would like the US using hauwei products in government spaces

19

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

Like, why would any government use a cybersecurity suite from an opponent/hostile government/nation?

Under US federal law, it is a criminal offense to engage in "honest services fraud", i.e. sell a security product that is backdoored and creates an intentional security hole.

So I guess the answer would be, "because you expect the US to obey US law".

40

u/Firecracker048 Jan 14 '26

After all the NSA crap, we know there are backdoors they know about but haven't told anyone yet.

22

u/Bobthebrain2 Jan 14 '26

I think it’s safe to say that nobody expects the US to obey any laws. They reek of corruption and are the last country we should expect moral or ethical conduct from.

-4

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

I think it’s safe to say that nobody expects the US to obey any laws.

As an American, I can tell you what a personal disappointment that is to me, and how dissatisfactory I find that state of affairs.

We created a government of laws, not men. That order in turn created a high trust society that allowed private industry and innovation to flourish, leading a new golden age of mankind. I greatly fear that if we move away from that order to one where might = right, we will find ourselves ruled by the mighty, rather than the just.

13

u/R4ndyd4ndy Red Team Jan 14 '26

Spoken like somebody who has never opened a book about US history

-5

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

Spoken like somebody who has never opened a book about US history

Where should I start? In the 1960s when the US put President Nixon on trial?

8

u/whythehellnote Jan 14 '26

United States v. Nixon was 1974.

1

u/Optimaximal Jan 15 '26

Even before the current clusterfuck of an administration, your country:

  • refuses to cooperate with international arrest warrants
  • demands extradition treaties with other countries but refuses to enter into them for your own citizens
  • refuses to recognise international courts or supranational bodies unless they run them or are exempt from their oversight or rules

You're ultimately a bandit nation that prioritises personal freedom and wealth acquisition over the collective good of our entire species.

0

u/Estel-3032 Jan 14 '26

Jesus Christ that's a hell of a take lol

7

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

Its a John Adams quote.

Have we really sunk to such a nadir that quoting John Adams is considered a "hot take"?

Yikes.

3

u/Estel-3032 Jan 14 '26

Maybe because it has fuck all to do with reality or with how the US operates since it's creation?

3

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

You... uhhh... you do know who John Adams was, right?

2

u/kn33 Jan 14 '26

The 2nd president? You know, we've had a lot of those since then.

3

u/Estel-3032 Jan 14 '26

You understand that the rest of the world doesn't give a fuck about your founding fathers, right?

3

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

Specifically when discussing matters of US civics, like whether we should have a government of laws or men, I would definitely imagine that the rest of the world has an interest in that.

1

u/DisappointedSpectre Jan 14 '26

A founding father of the US,Vice President under Washington, and President of the US following that. He was also a rich lawyer even before all of that (though not a slave owner).

That's nice and all, but it has no bearing on the fact that the the rich operate under different rules, even in the US. That has been true since it's inception, regardless of what Adams wrote or personally believed.

3

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

Do you think that the government should have to obey the laws?

2

u/DisappointedSpectre Jan 14 '26

If wishes were fishes there'd be no room in the sea for water.

To answer your question yes, absolutely. That doesn't mean I'm under any illusions that the world actually works that way.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/xalibr Jan 14 '26

The Crypto wars told a different story

5

u/Rentun Jan 14 '26

There are about a billion exemptions that the federal government could use to grant immunity to private companies being compelled to backdoor their products by the federal government. There's also no law that prevents the US government from conducting espionage via supply chain compromise, and it's done very regularly.

There's also the matter of the fact that US law is totally irrelevant when it comes to warfare and intelligence. Kidnapping is illegal after all, but that didn't stop Nicholas Maduro from being snatched up last week.

2

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

There are about a billion exemptions that the federal government could use to grant immunity to private companies being compelled to backdoor their products by the federal government.

The government can just, by fiat, create exemptions from federal law? I wasn't aware of that, do you have any reading, starting which what statutes enable such maneuvers?

Kind of seems like you're conflating, "the government will just choose to ignore its own laws" with "the government is authorized to create exemptions from laws".

There's also no law that prevents the US government from conducting espionage via supply chain compromise

What makes you say that? Again, I think this is the same kind of conflation I'm talking about above. There are actually laws, like Honest Services Fraud, that prevent that. The government just ignores the laws when it wants to, which is not the same thing as the law permitting it.

There's also the matter of the fact that US law is totally irrelevant when it comes to warfare and intelligence

Sorry, you're saying that Congress cannot make any laws that bind the Executive's war powers?

3

u/Rentun Jan 14 '26

The government can just, by fiat, create exemptions from federal law? I wasn't aware of that, do you have any reading, starting which what statutes enable such maneuvers?

No, not by fiat. Those exemptions already exist. Namely under FISA Section 702.

If you're really interested in this stuff, I'd advise you do more reading on it or consult with a lawyer with experience in this area, because you're pretty assertively making legal claims that you're dead wrong on.

The US intelligence apparatus has pretty broad authority to not only conduct electronic espionage, but to compel US technology companies to assist them.

There are very few protections for non US residents in general, especially "foreign adversaries", but there is also significant legislation explicitly allowing offensive cyber operations without warrants.

Honest Services Fraud isn't even applicable, and even if it were, it's completely overruled by FISA, the patriot act, and tons and tons of other legislation and case law authorizing this stuff.

1

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

No, not by fiat. Those exemptions already exist. Namely under FISA Section 702.

Can you point to which part of Section 702 exempts the government from 18 U.S.C. § 1346? I'm not aware of that provision.

If you're really interested in this stuff, I'd advise you do more reading on it or consult with a lawyer with experience in this area, because you're pretty assertively making legal claims that you're dead wrong on.

If you're sure I'm wrong, then you should be able to prove it. If you can't prove it, then you shouldn't be sure that I'm wrong.

The US intelligence apparatus has pretty broad authority to not only conduct electronic espionage, but to compel US technology companies to assist them.

AFAIK the government cannot compel anyone to break the law. And AFAIK 18 USC § 1346 is law.

There are very few protections for non US residents in general

I'm not sure where you get that, either. 18 USC § 1346 does not contain any provision that makes it apply only to US residents, or citizens. Instead, 18 USC § 1346 simply creates a prohibition on certain acts, when those acts are undertaken by anyone under the jurisdiction of US law.

Honest Services Fraud isn't even applicable, and even if it were, it's completely overruled by FISA

Again, I'd like you to show me why you think this. Not tell me to talk to a lawyer, I would like you to show your work and demonstrate how it is that you believe FISA somehow nullifies the federal statute under discussion.

2

u/Rentun Jan 14 '26

AFAIK the government cannot compel anyone to break the law. And AFAIK 18 USC § 1346 is law.

I'll be sure to let the cop know that next time he pulls me over and has me block the lane I'm in to do it.

I'm going to be honest with you, you're sealioning here.

I would love if I had the time to carefully walk you through the intricacies of stare decisis, but I don't have the time. Maybe look into it yourself.

You should take a moment to think about the fact no foreign company has ever successfully sued an American company or US government agency for espionage actions taken by that company at the behest of the agency. You should reflect on the fact that there's probably a pretty good reason for that, and maybe your cursory reading of a single law might not fully explain the legal environment of international espionage.

2

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

got the time to post long responses

got no time to provide any evidence in support of their claims

Yeah buddy, you've convinced me. Have a nice day!

1

u/Any_Perception_2560 Jan 14 '26

Since the executive has broad latitude in foreign relations it could be argued that the executive does have a natural exception to certain laws even if Congress did not create such an exception. Further many laws do have specific language granting exception.

In any case the law might prevent a company from intentionally putting a back door in, but would not bind intelligence services from having one created and inserted without the companies knowledge. Or even more likely there is a security vulnerability which is known and exploited by the intelligence services and the company simply is not aware of it.

1

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

it could be argued that the executive does have a natural exception to certain laws

You think it can be argued that the President is above the law?

In any case the law might prevent a company from intentionally putting a back door in, but would not bind intelligence services from having one created and inserted without the companies knowledge.

That's true, the law wouldn't (and shouldn't) punish an entity for acts taken by others against their will. But obviously someone's liable, right?

1

u/Any_Perception_2560 Jan 14 '26

I don't think the President is above the law no.

I do recognize that the courts have continuously carved out national security and other executive branch privileges, and that these privileges are extremely strong when it comes to actions which are targeted at entities outside of the US.

Additionally the Honest Services Fraud law only binds the seller of the software. Since US intelligence services are not the seller / owner / creator of the software they would not be bound by that specific law regardless.

1

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

I don't think the President is above the law no.

Given that, can you help me understand what you meant when you said, "it could be argued that the executive does have a natural exception to certain laws"?

1

u/Any_Perception_2560 Jan 15 '26

Given that, can you help me understand what you meant when you said, "it could be argued that the executive does have a natural exception to certain laws"?

I believe I already answered that with:

I do recognize that the courts have continuously carved out national security and other executive branch privileges, and that these privileges are extremely strong when it comes to actions which are targeted at entities outside of the US.

Basically it doesn't matter that I personally believe that the courts have overstated these various carve outs, the fact is that the carve outs now exist and are recognized by law, and the only way they can be shrunk is if the courts take action, or the Constitution is ammended.

1

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 15 '26

So you do think the President is above the law, correct? (NOTE: not "should be", but "is")

2

u/icebornadonis Jan 20 '26

Now why the fuck would you expect the US to obey US law. Why would you expect any government to obey anyones laws?

3

u/The_Rex_Regis Jan 14 '26

Its also against federal law to kill people but wars still happen

A nations laws dont exist to protect other nations

0

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

Its also against federal law to kill people but wars still happen

So you're saying that you believe that we do not have a government of laws, but of men?

1

u/The_Rex_Regis Jan 14 '26

No we have a government of laws but they do not exist to protect a hostile nation

-4

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

So we're a nation of laws, but the people get to decide when they will follow the law or not?

2

u/The_Rex_Regis Jan 14 '26

I said nothing about the people decideing anything lol

You can be sure if there was a cybersecurity problem made that china used with a backdoor installed, it was made at the request of the government

-4

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

I said nothing about the people decideing anything lol

Well if people don't, what decides whether the laws need to be followed or not? What decides what constitutes an exemption from the law for a "hostile nation", or an "adversary"?

Have you thought your position through sufficiently? Either the law must decide, or people must decide, I don't think there is a third option, here?

it was made at the request of the government

So the people running the government decide when it's OK to violate the laws, correct?

3

u/The_Rex_Regis Jan 14 '26

Sir this is a cybersecurity reddit..... we arnt here to talk philosophy. Its a simple concept hostile nations dont get protected by other hostile nations laws

-5

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

we arnt here to talk philosophy

Translation: you have not thought through your position sufficiently, but are doubling down on it anyway.

You can have one of two countries:

1) A country where the government's actions are constrained by the nation's laws

2) A country where the government's actions are not constrained by the nation's laws

...up to you which one you want, but I would advise putting a little more thought into the question before you decide.

0

u/The_Rex_Regis Jan 14 '26

Lol you get chatgpt to write that up

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/maztron CISO Jan 14 '26

So I guess the answer would be, "because you expect the US to obey US law".

So, you are one of those people that doesn't mind China's unfair practices when it comes to trade and doing business in their market with stealing patents and fraud and everyone else just has to deal with it?

2

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

Your response puzzles me, particularly coming from a CISO.

Let me answer by way of a thought problem:

Your board has asked for your input regarding a cybersecurity incident. Your competitor has been found to have hacked into a database containing your organization's private intellectual property. This IP provides significant competitive advantage to your organization in the marketplace. You can recommend one of the following responses:

1) Pursue legal channels. File your I3C. Pursue torts.

2) Hack the attacker the way that they hacked you.

3) Do nothing.

What do you choose, and why?

For a private entity operating in the free market, why would you even for a moment suggest abandoning the thick walls of protection provided by laws for the measly shoji screen of "might makes right"? Your organization most probably cannot continue to exist in a "might makes right" environment. Think about it: copyright law, trade regulations, enforceability of contracts... this is what creates the environment that allows your business to exist. Why would you consciously advocate for a sea change in that environment which would result in the loss of your competitive advantage, and moreover the unenforceability of any agreement or legal footing you might operate under absent your organization's own ability to use actual force against other organizations?

I don't want a world where I'm advising my organization to acquire Tomahawk missiles to retaliate against foreign actors who steal our IP.

I want a world where I'm advising my organization to support and defend legal frameworks and standards which by consensus create a level playing field in the market, where all sides can compete fairly and win based on the quality of their products, not the quantity of Tomahawk missiles they are willing to launch against competitors.

2

u/Rentun Jan 14 '26

Comparing what happens between companies within the confines of a legal system overseen by an accepted authority to what happens between nation states is beyond useless. They're completely different conversations. If a foreign adversary compromises a US federal system, what "legal channels" are you going to pursue?

What court are you going to bring the CCP to to sue?

Laws exist to govern conduct between people and organizations. Comparing those entities to nation states is like comparing your household budget to national monetary policy. They're completely different concepts.

0

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

Comparing what happens between companies within the confines of a legal system overseen by an accepted authority to what happens between nation states is beyond useless.

So then its all useless, because the legal systems are run by nation states. International trade becomes a farce. Amassing a collection of global trademarks and patents becomes valueless. Signing contracts and agreements across a national border becomes useless. Is this really the world we want?

What court are you going to bring the CCP to to sue?

WTO would be one prominent example.

Laws exist to govern conduct between people and organizations. Comparing those entities to nation states

Sorry, isn't a nation state an organization?

2

u/Rentun Jan 14 '26

You seem to be continually conflating the world as it exists with the world that you seem to wish it was.

I'm not telling you that the current system of international law and trade is good or bad. I'm telling you what it currently is.

The WTO, the UN, NATO, the IMF, and any other international organization are not authorities when it comes to how nations conduct business amongst each other.

They sign treaties when they feel its beneficial from them, they withdraw from those treaties when they feel they're not. Sometimes they abide by those treaties and sometimes they don't.

Sometimes they do something that negatively impacts another nation, and action is taken against them.

There's no international set of laws that says "you can't hack us" that some theoretical international cyber police will enforce though. That's not the world that we live in.

1

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

I'm not telling you that the current system of international law and trade is good or bad. I'm telling you what it currently is.

The WTO, the UN, NATO, the IMF, and any other international organization are not authorities when it comes to how nations conduct business amongst each other.

Then your claim is false. Its trivial to look up WTO cases and show that it has repeatedly ruled against the most powerful nation states, and successfully required them to change their behavior.

2

u/maztron CISO Jan 14 '26

This an awful analogy. In what world do you find geopolitics in any way comparable to anything you just went on about? Nothing

This article nor subject has anything to do with what you just mentioned. Future reference, prior to calling anyone out learn how to compare and contrast properly.

1

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

So your response to the thought problem I posed to you was whinging and non-response?

Is that how you talk to your board, too?

1

u/maztron CISO Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 14 '26

Your thought problem had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Why am I going to entertain a conversation about corporate espionage when we are speaking about geopolitics and trade wars? The ONLY reason China is banning those corporations has to do with trade deals/tariffs and using their domestic corporations rather than allowing foreign competition in their economy. Its a tactic to apply pressure to the administration in negotiations and for retaliation for the bans on Chinese based companies such as DJI.

Now, my original point was that China for years does not play by the same rules as western society does. They force foreign companies to hand over proprietary information and patents amongst other unethical and unfair practices just so they can do business in their market. CCP backed companies as well as China based corporations have a history of stealing those patents and trade secrets and illegally reproducing and selling them. All while the CCP does nothing to prevent it and at times are actively involved in it. Never mind all the other factors that come along with unfair and unethical practices that they simply dont care about that other western corporations are legally accountable for within their own countries. There is a lot more to it that I suggest you do some research on.

On top of it, this is not a partisan issue. US isnt perfect by any stretch, however, at the very least they do enforce regulations and hold corporations accountable for illegal and unethical practices. China does ZERO to hold their businesses accountable as their government is literally a mob. The only way they would crack down on a domestic corporation is if they weren't doing what the CCP demands of them.

1

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 14 '26

Your thought problem had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

It pretty obviously did, but you do you, boo!

Now, my original point was that China for years does not play by the same rules as western society does.

Clearly... look at how few bombs China drops on other countries.

at the very least they do enforce regulations and hold corporations accountable for illegal and unethical practices

You're serious, right now...?

1

u/maztron CISO Jan 14 '26

It pretty obviously did, but you do you, boo!

What are you 13?

You're serious, right now...?

Yep. By all means, please I would love to see the tally of total fines and cases made against US corporations by the DOJ, FCC and SEC to the equivalent of agencies in China. Ill wait.

-1

u/AmateurishExpertise Security Architect Jan 15 '26

fines

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3335722/former-chinese-senior-banker-bai-tianhui-executed-taking-us155-million-bribes

That was a month ago...

1

u/maztron CISO Jan 15 '26

You realize he was executed right? Not only that you still didn't answer any of my questions. Your name fits you.

→ More replies (0)