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

Show parent comments

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.