6/7/2023 0 Comments Cyber espionageState B denies all of State A's allegations and, in turn, declares the same number of State A diplomats in State B as personae non gratae. State A also indicts several members of State B’s military unit who were reportedly involved in it. An insider in one of the victim companies, who is a State B national and who was found to be working for State B’s APT operation, is indicted and taken into custody. As stated, one of them was allegedly directly involved in the cyber espionage operation, while others are merely suspected of other activities against the interests of State A that are unrelated to the APT operation. State A decides to declare several diplomats of State B in State A as personae non gratae. After a meticulous investigation that lasts for over a year, State A determines that the operation was conducted by a military unit subordinated to State B’s Armed Forces' General Staff and that, additionally, one diplomat at State B’s embassy accredited to State A and physically located in State A also took part in the operation under authorization of State B. In the course of the operation, the unknown actors exfiltrated hundreds of terabytes of technical data about the companies’ products and services, emails of the companies’ employees, internal memos, and other documents. The goal of the APT operation is to obtain trade secrets and other intellectual property from the companies’ computers and networks. State A learns that several hi-tech companies incorporated and having headquarters in its territory are subject to an advanced persistent threat (APT) operation by unknown actors. Scenario Keywords Īdvanced persistent threat, economic cyber espionage, sovereignty, diplomatic and consular law, premises of the mission, persona non grata, countermeasures 2.2.3 Violation of a potential rule in international law forbidding economic cyber espionage.2.2.2 Obligation to respect the sovereignty of other States.2.2.1 Violation of diplomatic law by misusing the premises of the mission.2.2 Breach of an international obligation by State B.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |