Cyber Espionage Clash: Contrasting the US and China Perspectives
Introduction:
This Op-ed sheds light on the perspectives of the US and China regarding cyber espionage. Additionally, it seeks to analyze China's response to the US accusation regarding cyber espionage.
What is Cyber espionage?
Cyber espionage or cyber spying is the act of obtaining personal, sensitive, or proprietary information from individuals without their knowledge or consent. In an increasingly transparent and technological society, the ability to control the private information an individual reveals on the Internet and the ability of others to access that information are a growing concern. This includes storage and retrieval of e-mail by third parties, social media, search engines, data mining, GPS tracking, the explosion of smartphone usage, and many other technology considerations. In the age of big data, there is a growing concern for privacy issues surrounding the storage and misuse of personal data and non-consensual mining of private information by companies, criminals, and governments.
Cyber espionage aims for economic, political, and technological gain. Fox example Stuxnet (2010) cyber-attack by the US and its allies Israel against Iran’s Nuclear facilities. Three espionage tools were discovered connected to Stuxnet, such as Gauss, FLAME and DuQu, for stealing data such as passwords, screenshots, Bluetooth, Skype functions, etc.
Cyber espionage is one of the most significant and intriguing international challenges globally. Many nations and international bodies, such as the US and China, have created their definitions and have always struggled over cyber espionage norms.
The US Perspective
In 2009, US officials (along with other allied countries) mentioned that cyber espionage was acceptable if it safeguarded national security, although they condemned economically motivated cyber espionage. Even the Director of National Intelligence said in 2013 that foreign intelligence capabilities cannot steal foreign companies' trade secrets to benefit their firms. This stance is consistent with the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996, particularly Section 1831, which prohibits economic espionage. This includes the theft of a trade secret that "will benefit any foreign government, foreign agent or foreign instrumentality.
Second, the US advocates for cybersecurity market standards and strongly opposes transferring personal data extracted from the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to cybercrime markets. Furthermore, China has been reported to sell OPM data on illicit markets. It became a grave concern for the US government when the Chinese government managed to acquire sensitive details of 22.1 million US government workers through cyber intrusions in 2014.
Third, Cyber-espionage is acceptable unless it’s utilized for Doxing, which involves disclosing personal information about someone online without their consent and using it as a tool for political influence operations. However, Western academics and scholars have endeavoured to distinguish between doxing and whistleblowing. They argue that whistleblowing, exemplified by events like the Snowden Leaks and Vault 7 disclosures, serves the interests of US citizens. In the US, being regarded as an open society, certain disclosures are not promoted but rather required by mandate.
Fourth, the US argues that there is no cyber espionage against critical infrastructure during peacetime. According to the US, there are 16 critical infrastructure sectors, including chemical, nuclear, energy, defence, food, water, and so on. These sectors are considered essential to the US, and any disruption or harm would impact security, national public health and national economic security.
The US concern regarding China’s cyber espionage
According to James Lewis (a senior vice president at the Center for US-China Economic and Security Review Commission), the US faces losses between $ 20 billion and $30 billion annually due to China’s cyberespionage. The 2018 U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Section 301 report highlighted instances, where the Chinese government and executives from Chinese companies engaged in clandestine cyber intrusions to obtaining commercially valuable information from the U.S. businesses, such as in 2018 where officials from China’s Ministry of State Security, stole trade from General Electric aviation and other aerospace companies.
China's response to the US accusations of cyber espionage
China's perspective on cyber espionage is outlined by its 2014 anti-espionage law, which was revised in 2023. Article 1 of this legislation is formulated to prevent, halt, and punish espionage actions to maintain national security. Article 4 addresses the act of espionage and does not differentiate between state-sponsored cyber espionage for economic purposes and state-sponsored cyber espionage for national security purposes. However, China doesn't make a clear difference between government-to-government hacking (spying) and government-to-corporate sector hacking, unlike the US. This distinction is less apparent in China due to its strong state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector. However, military spying is considered part of the national interest in the US, while corporate spying is considered a crime.
China asserts that the US has established cyber norms concerning cyber espionage to normalize public attribution as acceptable conduct. This is achieved by targeting China for cyber operations, imposing sanctions on accused Chinese individuals, and making political accusations, such as blaming China and Russia for meddling in US elections. Despite all this, Washington D.C has never taken responsibility for the infamous Flame and Stuxnet cyber operations, which were widely recognized as part of a broader collaborative initiative known as Operation Olympic Games between the US and Israel. Additionally, the US takes the lead in surveillance activities conducted against China, Russia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, and several French presidents. Surveillance programs such as Irritant Horn, Stellar Wind, Bvp47, the Hive, and PRISM are recognized as tools used by the US to monitor both allies and adversaries to maintain global hegemony.
China urges the US to cease its smear campaign associated with Volt Typhoon’s cyberattack for cyber espionage, citing the publication of a report titled “Volt Typhoon: A Conspiratorial Swindling Campaign Targets with U.S. Congress and Taxpayers Conducted by U.S. Intelligence Community” by China's National Computer Virus Emergency Response Centre and the 360 Digital Security Group on 15 April. According to the report, 'Volt Typhoon' is a ransomware cyber criminal group self-identified as the 'Dark Power' and is not affiliated with any state or region. Multiple cybersecurity authorities in the US collaborated to fabricate this story just for more budgets from Congress. In the meantime, Microsoft and other U.S. cybersecurity firms are seeking more big contracts from US cybersecurity authorities. The reality behind “Volt Typhoon '' is a conspiratorial swindling campaign to achieve two objectives by amplifying the "China threat theory" and cheating money from the U.S. Congress and taxpayers.
Beijing condemned the US claims of cyber espionage without any solid evidence. China also blames the US for economic espionage by citing the European Parliament report that the National Security Agency (NSA) was also involved in assisting Boeing in beating Airbus for a multi-billion dollar contract. Furthermore, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff also accused the US authorities of spying against the state-owned oil company “Petrobras” for economic reasons.
Conclusion
In 2015, the US and China marked a milestone as both President Xi Jinping and Barack Obama signed an agreement, committing that neither country's government would conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of trade secrets, intellectual property, or other confidential business information to grant competitive advantages to firms or commercial sectors. However, the China Cybersecurity Industry Alliance (CCIA) published a report titled 'US Threats and Sabotage to the Security and Development of Global Cyberspace' in 2024, highlighting the US escalating cyber-attack and espionage activities against China and other nations. Additionally, there has been a considerable increase in the volume and sophistication of Chinese hacking since 2016. According to a survey by the Center for International and Strategic Studies, out of 224 cyber espionage incidents reported since 2000, 69% occurred after Xi assumed office. Therefore, China and the US must address cybersecurity issues through dialogue and cooperation, utilizing bilateral and multilateral agreements.
Related Blogs
Introduction
The Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-in) is a nodal agency of the government established and appointed as a national agency in respect of cyber incidents and cyber security incidents in terms of the provisions of section 70B of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. CERT-In has issued a cautionary note to Microsoft Edge, Adobe and Google Chrome users. Users have been alerted to many vulnerabilities by the government's cybersecurity agency, which hackers might use to obtain private data and run arbitrary code on the targeted machine. Users are advised by CERT-In to apply a security update right away in order to guard against the problem.
Vulnerability note
Vulnerability notes CIVN-2023-0361, CIVN-2023-0362 and CIVN-2023-0364 for Google Chrome for Desktop, Microsoft Edge and Adobe respectively, include more information on the alert. The problems have been categorized as high-severity issues by CERT-In, which suggests applying a security upgrade right now. According to the warning, there is a security risk if you use Google Chrome versions earlier than v120.0.6099.62 on Linux and Mac, or earlier than 120.0.6099.62/.63 on Windows. Similar to this, the vulnerability may also impact users of Microsoft Edge browser versions earlier than 120.0.2210.61.
Cause of the Problem
These vulnerabilities are caused by "Use after release in Media Stream, Side Panel Search, and Media Capture; Inappropriate implementation in Autofill and Web Browser UI, “according to the explanation in the issue note on the CERT-In website. The alert further warns that individuals who use the susceptible Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome browsers could end up being targeted by a remote attacker using these vulnerabilities to send a specially crafted request.” Once these vulnerabilities are effectively exploited, hackers may obtain higher privileges, obtain sensitive data, and run arbitrary code on the system of interest.
High-security issues: consequences
CERT-In has brought attention to vulnerabilities in Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Adobe that might have serious repercussions and put users and their systems at risk. The vulnerabilities found in widely used browsers, like Adobe, Microsoft Edge, and Google Chrome, present serious dangers that might result in data breaches, unauthorized code execution, privilege escalation, and remote attacks. If these vulnerabilities are taken advantage of, private information may be violated, money may be lost, and reputational harm may result.
Additionally, the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive information may be compromised. The danger also includes the potential to interfere with services, cause outages, reduce productivity, and raise the possibility of phishing and social engineering assaults. Users may become less trusting of the impacted software as a result of the urgent requirement for security upgrades, which might make them hesitant to utilize these platforms until guarantees of thorough security procedures are provided.
Advisory
- Users should update their Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Adobe software as soon as possible to protect themselves against the vulnerabilities that have been found. These updates are supplied by the individual software makers. Furthermore, use caution when browsing and refrain from downloading things from unidentified sites or clicking on dubious links.
- Make use of reliable ad-blockers and strong, often updated antivirus and anti-malware software. Maintain regular backups of critical data to reduce possible losses in the event of an attack, and keep up with best practices for cybersecurity. Maintaining current security measures with vigilance and proactiveness can greatly lower the likelihood of becoming a target for prospective vulnerabilities.
References
Introduction
Phone farms refer to setups or systems using multiple phones collectively. Phone farms are often for deceptive purposes, to create repeated actions in high numbers quickly, or to achieve goals. These can include faking popularity through increasing views, likes, and comments and growing the number of followers. It can also include creating the illusion of legitimate activity through actions like automatic app downloads, ad views, clicks, registrations, installations and in-app engagement.
A phone farm is a network where cybercriminals exploit mobile incentive programs by using multiple phones to perform the same actions repeatedly. This can lead to misattributions and increased marketing spends. Phone farming involves exploiting paid-to-watch apps or other incentive-based programs over dozens of phones to increase the total amount earned. It can also be applied to operations that orchestrate dozens or hundreds of phones to create a certain outcome, such as improving restaurant ratings or App Store Optimization(ASO). Companies constantly update their platforms to combat phone farming, but it is nearly impossible to prevent people from exploiting such services for their own benefit.
How Do Phone Farms Work?
Phone farms are a collection of connected smartphones or mobile devices used for automated tasks, often remotely controlled by software programs. These devices are often used for advertising, monetization, and artificially inflating app ratings or social media engagement. The software used in phone farms is typically a bot or script that interacts with the operating system and installed apps. The phone farm operator connects the devices to the Internet via wired or wireless networks, VPNs, or other remote access software. Once the software is installed, the operator can use a web-based interface or command-line tool to schedule and monitor tasks, setting specific schedules or monitoring device status for proper operation.
Modus Operandi Behind Phone Farms
Phone farms have gained popularity due to the growing popularity and scope of the Internet and the presence of bots. Phone farmers use multiple phones simultaneously to perform illegitimate activity and mimic high numbers. The applications can range from ‘watching’ movie trailers and clicking on ads to giving fake ratings and creating false engagements. When phone farms drive up ‘engagement actions’ on social media through numerous likes and post shares, they help perpetuate a false narrative. Through phone click farms, bad actors also earn on each ad or video watched. Phone farmers claim to use this as a side hustle, as a means of making more money. Click farms can be modeled as companies providing digital engagement services or as individual corporations to multiply clicks for various objectives. They are operated on a much larger scale, with thousands of employees and billions of daily clicks, impressions, and engagements.
The Legality of Phone Farms
The question about the legality of phone farms presents a conundrum. It is notable that phone farms are also used for legitimate application in software development and market research, enabling developers to test applications across various devices and operating systems simultaneously. However, they are typically employed for more dubious purposes, such as social media manipulation, generatiing fake clicks on online ads, spamming, spreading misinformation, and facilitating cyberattacks, and such use cases classify as illegal and unethical behaviour.
The use of the technology to misrepresent information for nefarious intents is illegitimate and unethical. Phone farms are famed for violating the terms of the apps they use to make money by simulating clicks, creating multiple fake accounts and other activities through multiple phones, which can be illegal.
Furthermore, should any entity misrepresent its image/product/services through fake reviews/ratings obtained through bots and phone farms and create deliberately-false impressions for consumers, it is to be considered an unfair trade practice and may attract liabilities.
CyberPeace Policy Recommendations
CyberPeace advocates for truthful and responsible consumption of technology and the Internet. Businesses are encouraged to refrain from using such unethical methods to gain a business advantage and mimic fake popularity online. Businesses must be mindful to avoid any actions that may misrepresent information and/ or cause injury to consumers, including online users. The ethical implications of phone farms cannot be ignored, as they can erode public trust in digital platforms and contribute to a climate of online deception. Law enforcement agencies and regulators are encouraged to keep a check on any illegal use of mobile devices by cybercriminals to commit cyber crimes. Tech and social media platforms must implement monitoring and detection systems to analyse any unusual behaviour/activity on their platforms, looking for suspicious bot activity or phone farming groups. To stay protected from sophisticated threats and to ensure a secure online experience, netizens are encouraged to follow cybersecurity best practices and verify all information from authentic sources.
Final Words
Phone farms have the ability to generate massive amounts of social media interactions, capable of performing repetitive tasks such as clicking, scrolling, downloading, and more in very high volumes in very short periods of time. The potential for misuse of phone farms is higher than the legitimate uses they can be put to. As technology continues to evolve, the challenge lies in finding a balance between innovation and ethical use, ensuring that technology is harnessed responsibly.
References
- https://www.branch.io/glossary/phone-farm/
- https://clickpatrol.com/phone-farms/
- https://www.airbridge.io/glossary/phone-farms#:~:text=A%20phone%20farm%20is%20a,monitor%20the%20tasks%20being%20performed
- https://innovation-village.com/phone-farms-exposed-the-sneaky-tech-behind-fake-likes-clicks-and-more/
Executive Summary:
A viral video has circulated on social media, wrongly showing lawbreakers surrendering to the Indian Army. However, the verification performed shows that the video is of a group surrendering to the Bangladesh Army and is not related to India. The claim that it is related to the Indian Army is false and misleading.
Claims:
A viral video falsely claims that a group of lawbreakers is surrendering to the Indian Army, linking the footage to recent events in India.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the viral posts, we analysed the keyframes of the video through Google Lens search. The search directed us to credible news sources in Bangladesh, which confirmed that the video was filmed during a surrender event involving criminals in Bangladesh, not India.
We further verified the video by cross-referencing it with official military and news reports from India. None of the sources supported the claim that the video involved the Indian Army. Instead, the video was linked to another similar Bangladesh Media covering the news.
No evidence was found in any credible Indian news media outlets that covered the video. The viral video was clearly taken out of context and misrepresented to mislead viewers.
Conclusion:
The viral video claiming to show lawbreakers surrendering to the Indian Army is footage from Bangladesh. The CyberPeace Research Team confirms that the video is falsely attributed to India, misleading the claim.
- Claim: The video shows miscreants surrendering to the Indian Army.
- Claimed on: Facebook, X, YouTube
- Fact Check: False & Misleading
