When defending customers, the key is to build a legal, reasonable and industry-standard argument framework, while avoiding admitting any illegal behavior. The following are possible defense ideas and precautions： --- ### **1. Clarify legal and ethical prerequisites** -**Emphasize legality**: You must first confirm whether the customer's behavior is within the scope permitted by law (such as obtaining written authorization, complying with the company's internal vulnerability testing policy, etc.). If it is not authorized, care should be taken to avoid directly acknowledging “illegal acquisition” and instead focus on the defensibility of the intent. -**Distinguish between “testing” and "attack"**: Citing industry standards (such as the “informed consent” principle of penetration testing**), stating that the scope of the real security test needs to be agreed in advance, otherwise it may constitute an offense. --- ### **2. Core defense direction** ####**(1)Bona fide motives and public interests** -**Moral high ground**: Advocate that customer behavior is out of goodwill to improve the level of corporate security, not profit-making or malice. Cases similar to “white hat hackers” can be cited (such as ethical tests in certain vulnerability reward programs). -**Proof preparation**: Evidence is required to indicate that the customer has tried to report the vulnerability through formal channels but has been ignored, or that the company's security policy has major defects (such as historical data leakage incidents). ####**(2) Ambiguity of the company's security policy** -**Policy loopholes**: Questioning whether the company's definition of “confidential data” is clear, or whether security testing of internal personnel is explicitly prohibited. For example： -Does the customer have permission to access the data (if it falls within the scope of their responsibilities)? - Does the company lack a clear vulnerability reporting process, forcing employees to verify independently? ####**(3) Limitations of behavior and hazards** -**The principle of minimum necessity**: It is emphasized that the customer has only accessed the necessary data to verify the vulnerability, and has not leaked, tampered with or exploited the data (technical evidence support is required, such as logging). -**No actual damage**: If the data has not been disseminated or used for illegal purposes, it can be claimed that “no substantial loss has been caused.” --- ### **3. Risk warning and Strategy advice** -**Avoid admitting that the law is illegal**: If the behavior does cross the line (such as unauthorized), the focus of the defense should turn to **Mitigation of responsibility** (such as surrender, cooperation in repair), rather than directly claiming legality. -**Expert testimony**: Introduce network security experts to prove that the customer's operation is a common test method in the industry (such as port scanning and simulated phishing), and it does not exceed a reasonable range. -**Negotiated settlement**: It is recommended to reach a settlement with the company, such as signing a confidentiality agreement and assisting in improving security measures, in exchange for withdrawing the lawsuit or lighter treatment. --- ### **4. Potential rebuttal and response** -**The company may accuse**: "Unauthorized is illegal. ” -**Response**: Citing case law (such as the “authorization exception” in the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), or proving that the customer has an implied authorization (such as job responsibilities that include security assessments). -**If the evidence is unfavorable**: Turn to emphasize the lack of subjective malice of the customer, and promote the conversion to internal disciplinary action rather than criminal charges. --- ###**Summary framework example** > "Our customer's behavior should be understood as an informal security test whose purpose is to expose system vulnerabilities to prevent real attacks. Although there may be insufficient communication in the company's policies, the customer always takes the protection of data security as the starting point, and has not caused any actual damage. We recommend that this be seen as an opportunity to improve security collaboration, not legal confrontation. ” --- **Note**: The specific strategy needs to be adjusted according to the details of the case. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible to ensure that the defense does not touch the legal red line.