Why our lack of understanding on China may be the biggest risk

While China’s ability to wage cyber warfare is sure, the real risk to the U.S. may be its lack of understanding the eastern nation.

If you don’t understand the capabilities and motivations of your adversaries – you can’t expect to be very successful in managing your relationship with them, negotiating, or defending against their advancements.

This is especially true today when it comes to nation-state cyber threats, according to Lt. Col. (ret) William Hagestad II. Hagestad spoke as the opening keynote this week past weekend at the security conference BSides MSP, held just outside of Minneapolis.

If your organization doesn’t understand the nature of the information security and intellectual property threats that face enterprises today, and how to defend IT systems, data, and intellectual property – the years upcoming are liable to be very jarring.

While Hagestad is a widely known expert on Chinese cyber conflict capabilities, and has written two books on the subject, "21st Century Chinese Cyber Warfare” (2012) and "Operation Middle Kingdom: China's Use of Computers & Networks as a Weapon System” (2013) – his core message this week is that the U.S.’s lack of understanding of what or who China is and how to deal with the nation may actually be its biggest risk when it comes to the growing power.

[Related: How to secure a company's Chinese development]

His primary example of a botched policy occurred this May, when a grand jury in Pennsylvania indicted five Chinese military officials for computer hacking, economic espionage and other offenses they allegedly directed at Westinghouse, U.S. subsidiaries of SolarWorld, U.S. Steel, Allegheny Technologies Inc., the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union as well as and Alcoa.

That indictment asserts that the defendants conspired to gain unauthorized access to those organizations’ computers and to steal information that would be useful to their competitors in China. In some cases, the indictment alleges, the conspirators stole trade secrets. “This is a case alleging economic espionage by members of the Chinese military and represents the first ever charges against a state actor for this type of hacking,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement issued at the time of the indictment.

Hagestad didn’t mince words when criticizing the potential impact of charging five Chinese military officials with hacking crimes: “This is probably the worst thing we could have done, in my opinion,” he said. “Placing them on the same wanted posters as jihadists and terrorists. It says we don’t understand them and are out of ideas. And if there was any relationship building in place, it was castrated with this dumb action,” he said.

The result of that indictment, as well as the fallout from the Snowden revelations, has been a catalyst for the chilling of the relationship between the U.S. and the Chinese on many levels, including commercial, Hagestad contented. This is especially true among the technology sector, but also in other sectors, including automotive.

Companies such as GM, Audi, Volkswagen and others “are all now being investigated for fraud or malfeasance because of that [indictment] action,” he said. “Essentially, the Chinese feel justified in their beliefs, based on the revelations of Snowden, that any American or foreign company is not to be trusted,” he said.

Not that Chinese enterprises are to be trusted with intellectual property themselves, and Hagestad cited Nortel Networks Corporation as his case study. Following the beginning of a joint venture in 2001, members of Nortel’s technical staff identified what they believed to be Nortel’s technology appearing within Chinese markets in which Nortel did not compete. The team informed management, and was dismissed. “They were told not to worry about it. That they were too technical and that they didn’t understand the businesses,” Hagestad said.

Nine years after that joint venture the marketability and competitiveness of Nortel ceased to exist because Huawei had entered Nortel markets with Nortel intellectual property with pricing at levels Nortel couldn’t compete with, Hagestad said.

There’s little doubt that nation state-backed cybersecurity threats are only going to grow worse in the years ahead, according to Hagestad, so there should be little solace found in the fact that the U.S. and U.S.-based enterprises are probably not even China’s top target.

According to Hagestad, China is most concerned about nations within its immediate geographic reach. The US is not the number one target, he said. The number one targets are actually Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan.

This story, "Why our lack of understanding on China may be the biggest risk" was originally published by CSO.

Join the discussion
Be the first to comment on this article. Our Commenting Policies