What real impact does a cyber operations treaty have on state-sponsored hacking?

[Mark_P]

I just saw the news about the new international treaty on cyber operations being signed, and I’m trying to understand what it actually means for state-sponsored hacking. Does this agreement have any real teeth, or is it mostly symbolic given how hard attribution is?

[Samuel24]

Saw the headlines about the new treaty on cyber operations. It feels like more of a norms push than a real enforcement regime, and I’m skeptical about who actually enforces it.

[JoshuaXG]

I’ve been thinking about attribution. Even with signatures, proving who did what in cyberspace is messy, and sanctions often hinge on who you can name publicly.

[Brandon.M]

In our team we watched a couple of incidents that were pitched as state sponsored, and the timelines for reporting under the agreement didn’t line up with what we saw in the logs. We didn’t rush to blame anyone, we just paused.

[Jerry5]

Does this actually deter anyone, or is it mostly optics that keep diplomats busy and journalists fed?