Close Menu
  • Home
  • Life Insurance
  • Auto Insurance
  • Home Insurance
  • Health Insurance
  • Business Insurance
  • Travel Insurance
  • Specialized Insurance
  • Insurance Tips & Guides
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Insure GenZInsure GenZ Saturday, February 21
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Subscribe
  • Home
  • Life Insurance
  • Auto Insurance
  • Home Insurance
  • Health Insurance
  • Business Insurance
  • Travel Insurance
  • Specialized Insurance
  • Insurance Tips & Guides
Insure GenZInsure GenZ
Home»Business Insurance»Palo Alto Chose Not to Tie China to Hacking Campaign on Retaliation Fear: Sources
Business Insurance

Palo Alto Chose Not to Tie China to Hacking Campaign on Retaliation Fear: Sources

AwaisBy AwaisFebruary 13, 2026No Comments5 Mins Read0 Views
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Telegram LinkedIn Tumblr Copy Link Email
Follow Us
Google News Flipboard
Palo Alto Chose Not to Tie China to Hacking Campaign on Retaliation Fear: Sources
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email Copy Link

Palo Alto Networks opted not to tie China to a global cyberespionage campaign the firm exposed last week over concerns that the cybersecurity company or its clients could face retaliation from Beijing, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The sources said that Palo Alto’s findings that China was tied to the sprawling hacking spree were dialed back following last month’s news, first reported by Reuters, that Palo Alto was one of about 15 U.S. and Israeli cybersecurity companies whose software had been banned by Chinese authorities on national security grounds.

A draft version of the report by Palo Alto’s Unit 42, the company’s threat intelligence arm, said that the prolific hackers – dubbed “TGR-STA-1030” in a report published on Thursday of last week – were connected to Beijing, the two people said. The finished report instead described the hacking group more vaguely as a “state-aligned group that operates out of Asia.”

Attributing sophisticated hacks is notoriously difficult and debates over how best to assign blame for digital intrusions are common among cybersecurity researchers. But Palo Alto has attributed hacks to China in the past, including as recently as this past September, and the sources told Reuters that Unit 42’s researchers were confident, based on a wealth of forensic clues, that the newly uncovered hacking campaign was tied to China too.

The change, the sources said, was ordered by Palo Alto executives because they were concerned by the software ban and feared drawing retaliation from Chinese authorities, either against the company’s personnel in China or its clients elsewhere.

The sources did not identify which executives made the decision to soften the report’s conclusions or provide the precise language that had been in the report ahead of the change. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Asked to comment on the allegedly softened language, Palo Alto issued a statement to Reuters that said in part: “Attribution is irrelevant.”

Palo Alto’s vice president of global communications, Nicole Hockin, said in subsequent emails to Reuters that the statement was meant to communicate that the lack of attribution in Palo Alto’s report was not correlated with “procurement regulations in China” and that any suggestion otherwise was “speculative and false.” She said the choice of language in Palo Alto’s report reflected “how to best inform and protect governments about this widespread campaign.”

The Chinese Embassy in Washington said it opposes “all forms of cyberattacks.” It added that attributing hacks was “a complex technical issue” and that it hoped “relevant parties will adopt a professional and responsible attitude, basing their characterization of cyber incidents on sufficient evidence, rather than unfounded speculation and accusations.”

‘THE SHADOW CAMPAIGNS’

Palo Alto first detected the hacking group TGR-STA-1030 in early 2025, according to the report. In a wide-ranging effort that Palo Alto dubbed “The Shadow Campaigns,” the spies allegedly conducted reconnaissance against nearly every country in the world and successfully broke into government and critical infrastructure organizations in 37 countries.

Although China was not mentioned by name, close readers of Palo Alto’s report might still come away with the impression that Beijing was involved. For example, the researchers noted that the hackers’ activity aligned with the GMT+8 time zone, which includes China, and that the hackers appeared to focus on Czechia’s government infrastructure following an August meeting between Czechia’s president and the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader whom Beijing has long regarded as a thorn in its side. The report also noted that the hackers targeted Thailand on November 5 ahead of a diplomatic “visit.” The details of the trip were not provided in the report, but the following week marked a reigning Thai king’s first state visit to Beijing.

Outside researchers who reviewed Palo Alto’s report said they had seen similar activity that they attributed to Chinese state-sponsored espionage operations.

“Our assessment is that this is part of a broader pattern of global campaigns linked to China that seek intelligence and persistent internal access to organizations of interest to” Beijing, said Tom Hegel, a senior threat researcher with SentinelOne.

Palo Alto says on its website that it has five offices in China, including locations in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. The professional networking site LinkedIn lists more than 70 self-identified Palo Alto employees across China, including engineers and account managers.

One academic said the incident illustrates the trade-offs cybersecurity companies – especially ones with global footprints – often face when they consider whether to call out state-sponsored cyberespionage campaigns. On the one hand, exposing foreign spies can draw industry plaudits and positive publicity. On the other hand, tangling with a foreign intelligence service can trigger reprisals.

“People have always taken risks by naming names,” said Thomas Rid, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who has studied the history of cyber attribution. “It was always unpleasant and if you have people on the ground, like large companies do, that’s an additional consideration. Are you putting your own people – your local staff – at risk?”

Topics
Cyber
China

Interested in Cyber?

Get automatic alerts for this topic.

Alto Campaign China Chose Fear Hacking Palo Retaliation Sources Tie
Follow on Google News Follow on Flipboard
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Telegram Email Copy Link
Awais
  • Website

Related Posts

Allstate books $175 million loss in January

February 21, 2026

Fairfax Financial closes 2025 with record underwriting profit as catastrophe costs climb

February 21, 2026

Taking on hard markets and soft markets

February 21, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Our Latest Blogs

QBE lowers catastrophe reinsurance retentions again, now almost 40% lower in two years

February 21, 2026

Lender sues First American Title for allegedly ignoring accepted claims

February 21, 2026

Allstate books $175 million loss in January

February 21, 2026

Slide secures its largest cat bond yet, as $320m Purple Re 2026-1 issuance priced

February 21, 2026
Recent Posts
  • QBE lowers catastrophe reinsurance retentions again, now almost 40% lower in two years
  • Lender sues First American Title for allegedly ignoring accepted claims
  • Allstate books $175 million loss in January
  • Slide secures its largest cat bond yet, as $320m Purple Re 2026-1 issuance priced
  • Financial results round-up: Lemonade, Verisk, Jackson, Ategrity, FNF

Subscribe to Updates

Insure Genz is a modern insurance blog built for the next generation. Subscribe it for more updates.

Insure Genz is a modern insurance blog built for the next generation. We break down complex topics across categories like Auto, Health, Business, Life, and Travel Insurance — making them simple, useful, and easy to understand. Whether you're just getting started or looking for expert tips and guides, we've got you covered with clear, reliable content.

Our Picks

QBE lowers catastrophe reinsurance retentions again, now almost 40% lower in two years

February 21, 2026

Lender sues First American Title for allegedly ignoring accepted claims

February 21, 2026

Allstate books $175 million loss in January

February 21, 2026

Slide secures its largest cat bond yet, as $320m Purple Re 2026-1 issuance priced

February 21, 2026
Most Popular

QBE lowers catastrophe reinsurance retentions again, now almost 40% lower in two years

February 21, 2026

Lender sues First American Title for allegedly ignoring accepted claims

February 21, 2026

Allstate books $175 million loss in January

February 21, 2026

Slide secures its largest cat bond yet, as $320m Purple Re 2026-1 issuance priced

February 21, 2026
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
© 2026 Insure GenZ. Designed by Insure GenZ.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.