back to article Security experts split on whether China is breaking no-hack pact

Security intelligence firm CrowdStrike has released a report alleging that Chinese hacking crews which they claim are likely state-sponsored are still attacking the US despite a anti-economic espionage pact agreed just a month ago when the Chinese president visited the US. In a blog post, CrowdStrike states that it has seen no …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "DIPLOMATS LIE GLIBLY SHOCKER!"

  2. Grikath

    or.....

    Given that the Chinese have always had a healthy subterranean trade in industrial and government related information it need not be State Sponsored at all. "Plausible Deniability" is not something unique to the US.

    Within chinese society there's a number of organisations who are perfectly placed in society to make a profit on exactly this line of "trade".

    1. TeeCee Gold badge
      Meh

      Re: or.....

      The trouble with that is that for your "deniability" to be even remotely "plausible", you first need a government with a light enough touch on teh intahtoobes locally that things like this could go on continually without their knowledge.

      I find it terribly difficult to believe that they don't know exactly what's passing through the Great Firewall and who's responsible for it.

      At the very least it requires tacit complicity (i.e. not being arsed to bother looking into it).

      1. Grikath

        Re: or.....

        You mean like the practices of the Five Eyes in the "western world" ? It's pot-kettle work, really.

  3. alain williams Silver badge

    What did anyone expect ?

    China carefully looks at where its citizens are visiting - that is what their Great Firewall is all about. So, of course they know what is happening.

    Pretty much the same as the NSA is trying to spook machines in China.

    The announcement of a truce was for Daily Mail readers & Fox News viewers.

  4. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Common Sense Prevails Occasionally

    ...where the primary benefit of the intrusions seems clearly aligned to facilitate theft of intellectual property and trade secrets, rather than to conduct traditional national-security related intelligence collection which the Cyber agreement does not prohibit.

    So, all sides agree that hacking each others national-security related intelligence collection is perfectly acceptable, for it is not prohibited. Brilliant.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The trouble with the agrement is...

    That the Chinese government has for many decades considered the acquisition of foreign intellectual property, by whatever means necessary, to be a matter of national policy. Consequently, ALL of their espionage/hacking/theft of trade secrets is counted as a national-security effort. No problem agreeing to this pact; they've just agreed to avoid a set of actions they happen to define as a NULL set.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021