The Morgan Doctrine: China's Huawei makes a smart move

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

China's Huawei makes a smart move

Today's Wall Street Journal reports, "China's Huawei Is Finalist at U.S. Cellular." The story also details several politicians who are opposed to the idea of letting Huawei into the U.S. infrastructure. I have previously opined on tactics that might help Huawei overcome the obstacles in such a way as to turn their affiliation with China and China's military into an incredible marketing asset. My comment to the WSJ story today is:

Huawei has actualy done a very smart move in partnering with Symantec to produce mid-range arrays. They might argue that a partner like Symantec would assure their honesty. That still gives them a big mountain to climb, and has risks for Symantec as well. But to their credit, these guys appear to be systematically working the problem. I have suggested that Huawei offer $1 million to anyone who can find back doors into their systems. Symantec could be the indemnifying entity. Well Symantec, the ball is in your court.

The specific story about Symantec and Huawei partnering to produce mid-range arrays is in yesterday's Computerworld. Yes, I've been critical of Symantec's and McAfee's security technology (Good thing Symantec and McAfee don't manufacture condoms) as I created attacks for and in behalf of former client BigFix (who has since been acquired by IBM). Lots of attacks, actually.

But notwithstanding my public criticism, my Cyber Privateer Fantasy League nominee Marc Benioff (Salesforce.com founder) assures me that Symantec CEO Enrique Salem is a "pretty good guy." I agree that Mr. Salem is no slouch, and that his joint venture with Huawei demonstrates elements of genius. But only if he follows through to help his partner turn a flat out liability into a spectacular asset.

So Mr. Salem, as I said in my WSJ comment, "…the ball is in your court." If you want a road map for execution, I suggest New York genius Steve Coltrin and his firm, who represented Huawei in the battle they won against Cisco's accusation that Huawei stole their intellectual property.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Implementation suggestions for THE MORGAN DOCTRINE are most welcome. What are the "Got'chas!"? What questions would some future Cyber Privateering Czar have to answer about this in a Senate confirmation hearing?

Background: Welcome black hats, white hats and cyber swashbucklers

The Revolutionary War was fought, financed, and pretty well WON by bonded privateers, legalized pirates who were given Letters of Marque and Reprisal by the Continental Congress and authorized to attack, capture and monetize British ships. The purpose of this site is to explore the possibility of a modern-day doctrine much like the Monroe Doctrine, by means of which the U.S. government could legally and, more importantly, effectively stop international hackers. Current cybercrime law is not only ineffective, but downright stupid. My Linux servers are attacked hundreds of times a day (mostly from China and former USSR domains), yet if I retaliate against those servers with some creative technology at my disposal (I know some VERY smart guys), then I am in violation of federal law and subject to some onerous penalties. We need more than a new law. We need a new international doctrine. I call it The Morgan Doctrine, named after Morgan Rapier, a fictional character I've created (hey, this is my way of establishing ownership of the concept, should it ever see the light of day).

Why a new international doctrine? Simply, nothing else will work. Introduced on December 2, 1823, the Monroe Doctrine told the world to keep their hands off the Americas. Combine this with current legal thinking on "hot pursuit" of fugitives. In 1917 the US Army went into Mexico after Pancho Villa. More recently, in 1960 Israeli Mossad agents abducted Adolf Eichmann from Argentina. Granted, much of the world regards the Eichmann adventure as a violation of international law. I don't share that opinion and therefore use it as the third leg of my Monroe-Pancho-Aldof platform for The Morgan Doctrine.

If someone comes into your home and attacks or attempts to rob you, you may shoot them dead. You may do so as long as they expire on your property. But what about cyber criminals? They attack you in your home from their homes. Retaliate in kind, and you go to jail. The Morgan Doctrine states simply that if you attack my computers (or my banking assets held in US-based computers), then under a certain set of well-defined conditions, a licensed and bonded "cyber privateer" may attack you in your home country and split the proceeds with the U.S. government. For the sake of argument, let's call it a 50-50 split (heh heh).

Right now, American law enforcement is completely unequipped to deal with the sheer number international cyber hackers. Sure, I could report each of the thousand daily attacks to the FBI, as could the millions of other attackees in the USA. But the volume of such reports would make any meaningful resolution laughable. Not to mention that the FBI has no jurisdiction outside the USA. Yet to make such "enforcement" profitable to recognized (ie, "bonded" "deputized") privateers, as Heath Ledger's Joker said in his last role, "Now you're talking!" You raid our bank accounts, we raid yours. You make money from off-shore child pornography, we're going to loot your bank accounts and, with some REALLY creative black hat operations, you will be taken off the grid worldwide to the extent that you'll not even complete a cell phone conversation for the remainder of your miserable depraved life. Okay, that last part probably won't fly, but you get my drift.

The purpose of this site is to explore the mechanics, legalities and practicality of The Morgan Doctrine.

And I will be the sole arbiter of whether or not your comments get posted. As Mel Brooks wrote, "It's good to be king."