1. Summary

The emergence and subsequent security crisis surrounding DeepSeek, a Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) startup, serves as a pivotal case study for the rapidly evolving AI landscape. DeepSeek garnered global attention in late 2024 and early 2025 by releasing powerful large language models (LLMs), notably DeepSeek-V3 and the reasoning model DeepSeek-R1, which rivaled established Western competitors like OpenAI’s GPT-4 and o1 in performance but were reportedly developed at a fraction of the cost.¹ This achievement, hailed by some as an “AI Sputnik moment,” challenged prevailing assumptions about the capital-intensive nature of cutting-edge AI development.¹

However, DeepSeek’s ascent was quickly overshadowed by a series of significant security failures and data privacy concerns. In late January 2025, cybersecurity firm Wiz Research discovered a publicly accessible ClickHouse database belonging to DeepSeek, left open without authentication.⁴ This critical misconfiguration exposed over one million lines of sensitive log data, including plaintext user chat histories, API keys, backend system details, and other operational metadata, allowing potential attackers full control over the database.⁴ While DeepSeek promptly secured the database upon notification, the incident highlighted fundamental gaps in its security posture.⁴ Further investigations revealed other vulnerabilities, including insecure coding practices in its mobile app, potential supply chain risks, and notably weak AI safety guardrails compared to competitors.⁵

The repercussions were swift and multi-faceted. DeepSeek faced operational disruptions, including Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks, and significant reputational damage.⁵ The incident triggered intense regulatory scrutiny globally. Italy temporarily banned the DeepSeek app, citing violations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), while South Korea suspended downloads due to unauthorized cross-border data transfers involving user prompts and metadata.¹¹ Critically, investigations by cybersecurity firm Feroot Security uncovered hidden code linking DeepSeek’s web infrastructure to China Mobile, a state-owned enterprise designated as a Chinese Military Company by the U.S. government.¹⁴ This, combined with DeepSeek’s policy of storing user data in China, ignited significant U.S. national security concerns, leading to bans on government devices and calls for stricter regulations.¹⁵

For digital marketing professionals and the broader business community, the DeepSeek saga offers critical lessons. It underscores the imperative of rigorous due diligence when selecting and deploying AI tools, looking beyond performance metrics and cost to evaluate security practices, data privacy policies, and compliance frameworks. The incident highlights the tangible risks of “Shadow AI”—employees using unvetted tools—exposing sensitive corporate data. Furthermore, it reinforces data privacy not merely as a compliance checkbox but as a cornerstone of brand trust in an increasingly AI-driven world. The root cause, a basic cloud misconfiguration, serves as a stark reminder that even advanced technology providers can falter on security fundamentals. Ultimately, the DeepSeek case emphasizes the need for robust AI governance, layered security defenses, and a cautious, security-first approach to harnessing the power of artificial intelligence.

2. The DeepSeek Disruption: Rise of a New AI Contender

The rapid emergence of DeepSeek onto the global AI stage in late 2023 and early 2025 represented a significant disruption, challenging established players and questioning long-held assumptions about AI development.

2.1 DeepSeek’s Origins and Ambitions

Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Basic Technology Research Co., Ltd., doing business as DeepSeek, was founded in July 2023 in Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.³ It was established by Liang Wenfeng, the co-founder of High-Flyer, a prominent Chinese hedge fund known for its focus on AI-driven quantitative trading.³ DeepSeek operates as an independent entity spun off from a High-Flyer AI research lab, with High-Flyer remaining its principal investor and backer.¹ Liang serves as CEO for both companies.¹⁹

DeepSeek’s stated mission centers on advancing artificial general intelligence (AGI) through the development of powerful, open-source (or more accurately, “open-weight”) large language models.¹⁹ This open approach, releasing model weights under permissive licenses like MIT for some models, positioned DeepSeek as a challenger to the predominantly closed-source models offered by Western giants like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic, aiming to democratize access to high-performance AI.¹

The company pursued an aggressive development and release schedule, launching its first model, DeepSeek Coder, in November 2023, followed by the DeepSeek-LLM series, MoE (Mixture-of-Experts) models, and Math models throughout late 2023 and early 2024.¹⁹ Its recruitment strategy reportedly focused on attracting top talent from Chinese universities, prioritizing skills over extensive experience and hiring individuals from diverse fields beyond computer science to broaden model capabilities.¹⁹ Amidst its rapid rise, reports surfaced in early 2025 suggesting DeepSeek was seeking significant external funding, attracting interest from major players like Alibaba and state-backed entities, indicating both its perceived potential and the resource demands of scaling its operations.²⁰

2.2 The “Sputnik Moment”: Cost-Efficiency and Open Models (V3, R1)

DeepSeek truly captured global attention with the launch of its advanced models, particularly DeepSeek-V3 and the reasoning-focused DeepSeek-R1, alongside its chatbot interface in January 2025.² These models demonstrated performance comparable to leading systems like OpenAI’s GPT-4 and o1, and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 on various benchmarks.²

What set DeepSeek apart was its claim of achieving this state-of-the-art performance with dramatically lower resources. The company reported training its V3 model for approximately $5.6-6 million USD, a stark contrast to the estimated $100 million+ cost for OpenAI’s GPT-4.¹ Furthermore, DeepSeek claimed to have used significantly less computing power, potentially utilizing around 2,000 specialized Nvidia H800 GPUs (a less powerful, export-compliant chip compared to the restricted A100/H100) – perhaps only one-tenth the compute consumed by Meta’s Llama 3.1.²

This remarkable efficiency was attributed to several technical innovations ¹:

• Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) Architecture: Models like V3 (reportedly 671B total parameters) activate only a subset of parameters (e.g., 37B or 78B active per token) for any given task, significantly reducing computational load during inference compared to dense models.
• Multi-Head Latent Attention (MLA): A novel attention mechanism designed to compress the model’s key-value cache, improving inference efficiency without sacrificing performance.
• Reinforcement Learning (RL) for Reasoning: The R1 model reportedly used RL techniques to enhance reasoning capabilities, potentially reducing the need for extensive and costly supervised fine-tuning (SFT).
• Optimized Training Techniques: Use of FP8 mixed-precision training to reduce memory usage and speed up computations, alongside advanced programming techniques like PTX to maximize performance on available hardware.

The release of these powerful, efficient, and partially open models triggered significant market reactions, described by venture capitalist Marc Andreessen as “AI’s Sputnik moment”.¹ This suggests a potential shift where algorithmic innovation and architectural efficiency could become key competitive differentiators, potentially lowering barriers to entry in the high-stakes AI race, provided security and ethical considerations are adequately addressed. The open-weight strategy, allowing developers globally to access and build upon these models ², further amplified its disruptive potential.

2.3 Challenging the AI Establishment

DeepSeek’s chatbot quickly climbed app store rankings, even temporarily surpassing ChatGPT in downloads in some markets, fueled by public curiosity and industry buzz.³ This rapid adoption, coupled with the cost-efficiency claims, sent ripples through the financial markets, causing volatility in AI-related stocks, most notably a significant dip in Nvidia’s share price, as investors questioned the necessity of massive capital expenditures previously assumed essential for AI leadership.²

The development challenged the narrative of Western dominance in AI and raised questions about the long-term viability of business models reliant on high-cost, proprietary LLMs.¹ The availability of cheaper, high-performance models like DeepSeek’s was seen as potentially beneficial for AI application startups, enabling them to leverage powerful AI capabilities at lower costs.²⁰ The speed and impact of this disruption from a relatively young, non-Western company underscored the accelerating pace and global nature of AI competition. This dynamic environment pressures established players to continually innovate not only technologically but also commercially (e.g., pricing) and strategically regarding their ecosystem approach (open vs. closed models).¹ DeepSeek’s use of open-source components like the ClickHouse database ⁴ while releasing its own open-weight models ² also highlighted the complex dynamics within the open-source community, where collaboration and competition often intertwine, sometimes leading to ethical and IP-related tensions, as later allegations would suggest.³⁶

3. Unpacking the Breach: A Multi-Layered Security Failure

Despite its technological advancements, DeepSeek’s rapid rise was quickly marred by significant security incidents that exposed fundamental weaknesses in its operational practices. These failures went beyond typical software bugs, revealing critical lapses in infrastructure security and data handling.

3.1 Timeline of the Incident

The security crisis surrounding DeepSeek unfolded over several weeks in early 2025, involving multiple distinct events:

Date	Event	Key Sources / Details
Jan 6, 2025	Earliest timestamp found in leaked logs from the exposed database.	4
Jan 20, 2025	DeepSeek launches its chatbot app based on R1/V3 models.	19
Jan 27-28, 2025	DeepSeek reports experiencing “large-scale malicious attacks” (potentially DDoS), halts new user registrations due to service disruption.	5
Jan 29, 2025	Wiz Research discovers publicly accessible, unauthenticated ClickHouse database instances (oauth2callback.deepseek.com:9000, dev.deepseek.com:9000).	4
Jan 29, 2025	Wiz Research responsibly discloses the vulnerability to DeepSeek.	4
Jan 29, 2025	DeepSeek secures the exposed database promptly (reportedly within an hour of notification).	4
Jan/Feb 2025 (Late)	Reports emerge of attackers exploiting DeepSeek’s popularity by uploading fake libraries to PyPI (Python Package Index), indicating supply chain attack concerns.	5
Feb 2025	South Korea’s PIPC suspends new downloads of the DeepSeek app due to unauthorized cross-border data transfers (discovered earlier).	11
Feb 2025	Feroot Security reports uncovering hidden code in DeepSeek’s web login page linking backend infrastructure to China Mobile (CMPassport.com).	14
Feb 2025	Truffle Security publishes research finding ~12,000 live API keys/passwords in Common Crawl data (Dec 2024 archive), a dataset likely used for training LLMs like DeepSeek.	44
Feb/Mar 2025	Regulatory investigations intensify: Italy’s Garante bans the app; Ireland’s DPC and other EU authorities (France, Germany, EDPB) launch inquiries over GDPR.	5
Feb/Mar 2025	Multiple security firms (Cisco, LatticeFlow, Qualys, AppSOC, Adversa AI, Enkrypt AI) publish test results showing DeepSeek models have significant safety flaws.	7
Apr 29, 2025	DeepSeek app becomes available for download again in South Korea after addressing some regulatory recommendations.	11

This timeline provides a chronological overview of the complex sequence of events, helping to understand how different aspects of the DeepSeek crisis unfolded.

3.2 The Exposed ClickHouse Database: What Was Leaked?

The most significant and widely reported security failure was the discovery by Wiz Research of two publicly accessible ClickHouse database instances associated with DeepSeek domains (oauth2callback.deepseek.com:9000 and dev.deepseek.com:9000).⁴ These databases were left completely open to the internet, requiring no authentication for access.⁴ ClickHouse is an open-source columnar database management system often used for large-scale analytics and log storage.⁴

The exposure contained a vast amount of highly sensitive information, primarily within a table named log_stream, which held over one million log entries dating back to at least January 6, 2025.⁴ The specific types of data leaked included:

• User Chat Histories: Plaintext logs of conversations users had with the DeepSeek AI assistant, potentially including personal, confidential, or proprietary information entered as prompts.⁴
• API Keys and Secrets: Credentials used by backend systems to authenticate with various services, potentially allowing attackers to exploit these services.⁴
• Backend System Details: Information about internal DeepSeek API endpoints, service names, directory structures, and other operational metadata that could aid attackers in understanding and compromising the infrastructure.⁴
• Secret Access Tokens: Other forms of credentials potentially exposed.⁵

Crucially, the misconfiguration didn’t just allow read access; it granted full control over the database operations via ClickHouse’s HTTP interface (/play path).⁴ Attackers could execute arbitrary SQL queries, potentially modify or delete data, and even attempt privilege escalation within DeepSeek’s environment. Depending on the specific ClickHouse configuration, it might have been possible to exfiltrate plaintext passwords or local server files using specific SQL commands like SELECT * FROM file(‘filename’).⁴ The sheer volume and sensitivity of this data, particularly the plaintext chat logs containing potentially private user inputs, made this leak exceptionally damaging, highlighting the unique privacy risks inherent in generative AI tools where users might input information they consider confidential.⁵⁰

3.3 Discovery and Initial Response

Wiz Research discovered the exposed database “within minutes” of starting their assessment of DeepSeek’s external security posture.⁴ Their methodology involved standard reconnaissance techniques: mapping publicly accessible subdomains and then scanning beyond standard web ports (HTTP 80/443) to identify unusual open ports, which led them to the ClickHouse instances on ports 8123 and 9000.⁴

Following responsible disclosure practices, Wiz immediately notified DeepSeek of the critical vulnerability.⁴ DeepSeek’s response was notably swift; the company acknowledged the issue and secured the exposed databases, restricting public access, reportedly within an hour of being alerted.⁴

While DeepSeek’s rapid remediation demonstrated technical capability once alerted, the ease with which the vulnerability was found raised concerns. Wiz researchers and other commentators noted that due to the simplicity of the discovery, it was plausible, if not likely, that other parties, potentially malicious actors, had already found and possibly exploited the exposed database before it was secured.⁶ The existence of such a fundamental flaw, easily discoverable through basic scanning, pointed towards potential deficiencies in DeepSeek’s security testing or deployment processes prior to the incident.

4. Root Cause Analysis: Why Did This Happen?

The DeepSeek security crisis stemmed from a confluence of factors, primarily rooted in fundamental security oversights rather than sophisticated AI-specific exploits. Analyzing the causes reveals critical lessons about the risks associated with rapid technological development when not matched by mature security practices.

4.1 Critical Cloud Misconfiguration: The Open Door

The direct cause of the massive data leak was a critical misconfiguration of DeepSeek’s ClickHouse database instances.⁴ These databases, containing highly sensitive operational logs and user data, were left exposed to the public internet without requiring any authentication for access. This represents a failure of basic cloud security hygiene and configuration management, not an advanced attack exploiting novel vulnerabilities.⁴

Interestingly, standard ClickHouse configurations typically do not allow external connections by default.²⁹ This suggests the exposure might have resulted from either an intentional but flawed configuration decision made during setup or deployment, or potentially as a consequence of a separate compromise (like the reported DDoS attacks) that led to security settings being altered.²⁹ Regardless of the specific path, the outcome was a fundamental breakdown in securing critical data infrastructure.

4.2 Beyond the Database: Other Contributing Security Lapses

While the exposed database was the most damaging single failure, investigations and analyses revealed other security weaknesses across DeepSeek’s ecosystem, contributing to the overall risk profile:

• Weak Authentication Controls: The reported success of DDoS attacks and analysis by security experts suggested potential weaknesses in authentication mechanisms, possibly including a lack of robust multi-factor authentication (MFA), ineffective rate-limiting, or missing CAPTCHA protections that could have mitigated brute-force login attempts.⁵²
• Insecure Coding Practices (iOS App): Mobile security firm NowSecure conducted a teardown of the DeepSeek iOS app and reported several alarming practices.⁸ These included the use of hard-coded encryption keys with a deprecated algorithm (3DES), the disabling of iOS’s default App Transport Security (allowing sensitive device data to be sent unencrypted), and extensive collection of device fingerprinting information. Separately, Feroot Security reported finding heavily obfuscated code in the web login page containing hardcoded links connecting to China Mobile’s infrastructure (CMPassport.com), raising data transmission concerns.¹⁴
• Potential Training Data Issues: Research by Truffle Security highlighted a systemic risk potentially affecting DeepSeek and other LLMs.⁴⁴ They scanned a large Common Crawl dataset (a common source for LLM training) and found approximately 12,000 “live” hardcoded secrets, such as API keys and passwords, within the web data. LLMs trained on such data might inadvertently learn and replicate these insecure practices in their code generation outputs or potentially even leak embedded secrets. This points to a vulnerability in the data supply chain for AI development.
• Supply Chain Risks: The DeepSeek incident also involved reports of attackers exploiting the platform’s popularity by uploading malicious fake libraries mimicking DeepSeek to the Python Package Index (PyPI).⁵ This underscores the vulnerability of relying on third-party software repositories and the need for rigorous dependency scanning.
• Lack of Robust Safety Guardrails: Extensive adversarial testing by multiple independent security firms (including Cisco, LatticeFlow, Qualys, AppSOC, Adversa AI, and Enkrypt AI) consistently found DeepSeek’s R1 model to be significantly more vulnerable to manipulation than competing models from OpenAI and Anthropic.⁷ The model exhibited high failure rates in tests involving jailbreaking (bypassing safety controls), prompt injection (tricking the model into unintended actions), responding to harmful prompts (e.g., generating malware instructions, promoting illegal activities, displaying bias), and preventing data leakage. Testing on Microsoft Azure revealed that platform-level content filters provided only limited mitigation for these inherent model weaknesses, suggesting security needs to be built into the model itself.⁴⁶

This combination of failures across infrastructure configuration, application coding, AI model safety, and data handling paints a picture of systemic security immaturity. The drive for rapid innovation and cost efficiency, hallmarks of DeepSeek’s market entry ¹, may have come at the expense of investing in robust, multi-layered security and safety measures.

4.3 The Perils of Rapid Growth vs. Security Maturity

The DeepSeek case exemplifies a common tension in the fast-paced technology sector, particularly acute in the AI race: the pressure to innovate, scale, and capture market share quickly can lead startups to prioritize performance and features over foundational cybersecurity and data protection practices.⁴ The rapid adoption of new AI services by organizations and individuals, often without a full understanding of the underlying security posture or data handling policies, inherently introduces risk.⁴ DeepSeek’s experience serves as a stark warning that neglecting security fundamentals, even while achieving technological breakthroughs, can lead to severe consequences that undermine initial successes.

5. Consequences and Industry Tremors

The security failures at DeepSeek triggered a cascade of negative consequences, impacting the company directly, its users, the broader AI industry, international regulators, and U.S. national security interests.

5.1 Impact on DeepSeek: Operational, Financial, and Reputational

DeepSeek faced immediate operational challenges, including service disruptions caused by reported DDoS attacks and the temporary halting of new user registrations.⁵ Remediating the security flaws and dealing with regulatory fallout required significant resources and attention, potentially impacting development roadmaps and API availability or pricing.²⁶

The reputational damage was substantial. The exposure of sensitive user data, coupled with findings of weak security practices and concerning data transmission links to China, severely eroded user trust.⁵ The company’s image shifted from disruptive innovator to a potential privacy and security risk, particularly given the association with potential Chinese state surveillance.¹⁴

Financially, while DeepSeek’s emergence initially caused volatility in competitor stocks like Nvidia ³, the subsequent security issues raised questions about the sustainability of its low-cost model if significant security investments were needed. While some analysts believed the long-term AI investment trajectory remained unchanged ³², the incident likely impacted investor confidence in DeepSeek itself, despite earlier reports of strong funding interest.²⁰

5.2 User Data Exposure and Privacy Violations

The most direct consequence for users was the exposure of their potentially sensitive information contained within the leaked database, including plaintext chat logs and API keys.⁴ This breach violated user privacy and created risks of identity theft, phishing attacks (as leaked data often fuels such scams), and the exposure of confidential personal or business information shared with the chatbot.⁴⁹ Beyond the immediate victims, the incident likely increased public awareness and skepticism regarding the data privacy practices of AI tools in general.⁵

5.3 AI & Tech Sector Reactions

The DeepSeek failures prompted heightened scrutiny of AI security and safety across the industry. Numerous cybersecurity firms independently investigated DeepSeek, publishing findings that confirmed the database leak and documented additional vulnerabilities in the app and AI models.⁴

Competitors also reacted. OpenAI and Microsoft launched investigations into whether DeepSeek had improperly used OpenAI’s API via “distillation” – training its models on the outputs of ChatGPT – to accelerate its development at lower cost.³⁶ OpenAI subsequently blocked accounts believed to be associated with this activity.⁵⁵ This highlighted not only competitive tensions but also significant intellectual property concerns unique to the AI field, where proving illicit training based on model outputs is challenging.³⁷

Comparative safety testing consistently showed DeepSeek’s models lagging behind competitors.

Table: Comparative AI Model Safety/Security Test Results (Illustrative Synthesis)

Testing Firm / Study	Metric / Test Type	DeepSeek R1 Result	Comparative Results (e.g., OpenAI o1, Anthropic Claude 3.5)	Source(s)
Cisco / UPenn	Harmful Prompt Attack Success Rate	100% (Failed to block any)	OpenAI o1: 26%, Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 36%	9
LatticeFlow AI	Cybersecurity Compliance (Overall)	Ranked lowest among leading systems	Higher rankings for models from Meta, Alibaba, OpenAI, etc.	7
LatticeFlow AI	Goal Hijacking / Prompt Leakage	Especially vulnerable	Implied better performance from competitors	7
Adversa AI	Jailbreaking	“Completely insecure”	OpenAI/Anthropic reasoning models “much safer”	7
Qualys TotalAI	Jailbreak Attempts Failure Rate	58% (Failed 58% of 885 attempts)	Not directly compared, but indicates high susceptibility	47
Qualys TotalAI	Knowledge Base (KB) Testing Failure	61% (Failed 61% of 891 assessments)	Worst performance in “Misalignment” category	47
AppSOC	Aggregated Risk Score (on Azure)	8.3/10 (High Risk)	Not directly compared, deemed “unsuitable for enterprise”	46
AppSOC	Malware Generation Failure Rate	93.8% (with Azure filters)	Deemed “dangerously high”	46
AppSOC	Prompt Injection Failure Rate	40% (with Azure filters)	Deemed “unacceptable for enterprise use”	46
Enkrypt AI	Harmful Output Generation	11x more likely than OpenAI’s o1	OpenAI o1 significantly better	9

This table synthesizes findings from multiple security assessments, providing quantifiable evidence of DeepSeek R1’s safety shortcomings relative to its peers across various vulnerability types.

5.4 Regulatory Backlash: GDPR, Italy, South Korea, and Global Scrutiny

The privacy and security issues triggered significant regulatory action worldwide:

• European Union (GDPR): DeepSeek’s assertion that GDPR did not apply to its operations was strongly contested by EU authorities.¹³ Italy’s Garante led the charge, launching an investigation into DeepSeek’s data collection, legal basis, storage practices (particularly regarding transfers to China), and transparency.⁵ Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC) and authorities in France and Germany also initiated inquiries.¹³ The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) signaled potential further actions, including substantial fines (up to 4% of global annual revenue or €20 million) and operational restrictions under GDPR.⁵⁸
• Italy: Following DeepSeek’s insufficient responses to inquiries, Garante imposed an emergency ban, ordering the blocking of the R1 app in Italian app stores due to perceived serious privacy risks.⁵ This preemptive action, taken before a confirmed breach impacting Italians was fully detailed, set a precedent for AI regulation under GDPR.¹² The situation drew parallels to Italy’s previous temporary ban and subsequent fining (€15 million) of OpenAI’s ChatGPT.¹³
• South Korea: The Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) found DeepSeek had transferred user data (including AI prompts and device metadata) to entities in China (including a ByteDance subsidiary and potentially China Mobile-linked entities) without required user consent, violating local data protection laws.¹¹ The PIPC suspended new app downloads in February 2025, ordered data deletion, and mandated corrective measures. While the app later reappeared after DeepSeek made changes to its privacy policy and data handling ¹¹, the incident prompted reviews of South Korea’s AI privacy laws.⁴¹
• Other Jurisdictions: Australia banned the use of DeepSeek on all government devices citing national security risks, and Taiwan restricted its use in the public sector.³⁷

This multi-pronged regulatory response, encompassing technical security flaws, privacy violations under GDPR, specific local data transfer laws, and national security concerns, demonstrates the complex legal and geopolitical environment AI companies must navigate. The differing priorities and enforcement actions across regions (EU privacy focus vs. US security focus vs. Korean data transfer rules) highlight a potential fragmentation of global AI governance, creating significant compliance challenges.¹²

5.5 US National Security Dimensions

The DeepSeek incident resonated strongly within the U.S. national security community due to several factors:

• Data Sovereignty and Chinese Law: DeepSeek’s explicit policy of storing user data on servers located in China immediately raised red flags.¹⁴ Under China’s National Intelligence Law and Cybersecurity Law, companies operating in China can be compelled to share data with state intelligence and security authorities.¹⁵ This created fears that sensitive data from American users—individuals and corporations—could be accessed by the Chinese government for espionage, intellectual property theft, or other purposes detrimental to U.S. interests.¹⁵
• Connection to China Mobile: The discovery by Feroot Security of hardcoded links in DeepSeek’s web login infrastructure connecting to CMPassport.com, associated with China Mobile, was particularly alarming.¹⁴ China Mobile is not only state-owned but has been designated a “Chinese Military Company” by the U.S. Department of Defense and was banned from operating in the U.S. by the FCC in 2019 due to national security risks.¹⁴ This direct technical link amplified concerns about data pipelines flowing to entities considered security threats by the U.S. government.
• U.S. Government Response: The White House acknowledged that U.S. officials were examining the national security implications.¹⁷ Several federal agencies, including NASA, the Navy, and the Pentagon, banned the use of DeepSeek on government-issued devices.¹⁴ Several states, including Virginia, Texas, and New York, followed suit for state systems.¹⁸ The House Select Committee on the CCP launched an investigation, sending letters demanding information from DeepSeek and urging the administration to consider export controls on relevant AI chips (like Nvidia’s H20) and updates to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) to prohibit federal procurement of AI systems based on PRC models like DeepSeek.¹⁵ Comparisons were frequently drawn to the security risks associated with TikTok, another Chinese-linked app facing U.S. scrutiny.¹⁴ These concerns were contextualized by ongoing FBI and CISA warnings about PRC-affiliated actors targeting U.S. telecommunications infrastructure for cyber espionage.⁶⁰

The convergence of technical vulnerabilities, questionable data handling practices, and direct links to entities flagged by the U.S. government solidified DeepSeek as a significant national security concern, moving the discussion beyond typical software security issues into the realm of geopolitical technology competition and cyber defense.

6. A Digital Marketer’s Playbook: Navigating the AI Frontier Post-DeepSeek

From a digital marketing perspective, the DeepSeek incident is more than just a tech news story; it’s a critical case study with profound implications for strategy, tool adoption, brand reputation, and customer trust. Navigating the AI landscape requires a new level of diligence and strategic foresight.

6.1 The Imperative of AI Tool Due Diligence: Beyond the Hype

The allure of powerful, cost-effective AI tools like DeepSeek is undeniable for marketers seeking efficiency gains in areas like content creation, personalization, analytics, and customer service.⁶⁴ However, the DeepSeek saga starkly illustrates the dangers of adopting tools based solely on performance claims or low cost.⁸ Marketers must now integrate rigorous security, privacy, and compliance vetting into their AI tool selection process, especially when these tools will handle sensitive data such as customer information, campaign strategies, internal communications, or proprietary marketing content.⁵¹

The specific risks highlighted by DeepSeek – data leaks exposing user inputs and API keys, weak application security, potential non-compliance with regulations like GDPR, questionable data storage locations (China), and unclear data usage rights – must become key evaluation criteria.⁵ Essential due diligence questions should include:

• Where is user data processed and stored? Is it subject to regulations like GDPR or potentially accessible under foreign government surveillance laws?¹²
• What security certifications or standards does the provider adhere to? What are their data encryption practices?³⁸
• What rights does the provider retain over user inputs and AI-generated outputs? Can confidential inputs be used for model training?⁵⁹
• Does the provider offer any indemnification against potential IP infringement or other liabilities arising from the AI’s output?⁵⁹
• What is the provider’s track record regarding security incidents and responsible disclosure?

This level of scrutiny forces a critical reassessment of the risk/reward calculation. The potential for catastrophic security failures, regulatory fines, and brand damage associated with an improperly vetted tool may outweigh the perceived benefits of lower cost or cutting-edge features, potentially favoring more established providers with proven security track records, even if they are more expensive or less “open”.⁵¹

6.2 Data Privacy as a Brand Pillar: Compliance and Customer Trust

The DeepSeek incident underscores that data privacy in the AI era is not just a legal obligation but a fundamental component of brand integrity and customer trust.⁵ A significant data breach or privacy violation involving an AI tool used by a brand can severely damage reputation and erode customer loyalty, potentially more so than traditional breaches due to the often personal or confidential nature of data shared with AI.⁵

Marketing leaders must champion a culture where data privacy is paramount. This includes ensuring compliance with regulations like GDPR when using AI tools that process EU resident data.¹² It also involves being transparent with customers about how AI technologies are used with their data, explaining the benefits while assuring them of robust safeguards.⁵⁴ Proactively communicating a commitment to responsible AI use and data protection can become a competitive differentiator, building trust in an environment increasingly wary of AI’s potential downsides.

6.3 Shadow AI: Mitigating Risks from Unsanctioned Tool Usage

The accessibility and perceived utility of free or low-cost AI tools like DeepSeek fuel the phenomenon of “Shadow AI” – employees using unapproved applications for work-related tasks without IT or security oversight.⁵³ This poses a significant risk for marketing departments and the entire organization. Employees might inadvertently upload sensitive customer lists, confidential campaign plans, proprietary marketing analytics, internal documents, or even source code into these tools.¹⁷

If the tool lacks adequate security (like DeepSeek’s exposed database) or operates under unfavorable data policies (like storing data in China accessible to the government), this unsanctioned usage can lead to data breaches, compliance violations (e.g., GDPR), intellectual property leakage, and the introduction of censored or biased information into business processes.¹⁵

Marketing leadership, in collaboration with IT and security teams, must address Shadow AI proactively. This requires establishing clear policies on acceptable AI tool usage, providing training on the associated risks, promoting approved and vetted alternatives, and potentially implementing technical controls to monitor or block access to high-risk applications on corporate devices or networks.¹⁷ Ignoring Shadow AI creates a hidden attack surface and undermines organizational control over sensitive data.

6.4 Learning from Failure: Security Fundamentals in the Age of AI

A crucial takeaway for marketers is that the core DeepSeek data leak stemmed from a failure of basic IT security hygiene – the misconfigured database – rather than a complex attack targeting the AI model itself.⁴ This reinforces the need to ensure that fundamental security practices are consistently applied across all technologies used in marketing, including the infrastructure supporting AI tools.⁴ Marketing teams cannot assume that AI vendors, especially newer or less established ones, have these basics covered. Collaboration with internal security teams or external experts is vital to assess and ensure the security of the entire MarTech stack, including AI components.

6.5 Impact on MarTech Innovation and Adoption

The DeepSeek incident and similar future events could have a dual effect on MarTech. On one hand, heightened awareness of security and privacy risks might lead to increased caution and slower adoption cycles for certain AI tools, particularly within larger enterprises wary of reputational damage and regulatory penalties.⁷ The need for thorough vetting adds friction to the adoption process.

On the other hand, these concerns could spur innovation in developing more secure, privacy-preserving AI solutions specifically tailored for marketing use cases.⁴¹ Vendors who can demonstrably offer robust security, transparent data handling, and verifiable compliance may gain a competitive advantage. The demand for secure implementations will likely increase across various marketing functions leveraging AI, from hyper-personalization engines and content generators to customer data platforms and analytics tools.⁶⁴ Ultimately, the DeepSeek saga may accelerate the maturation of the AI MarTech landscape, pushing it towards greater responsibility and trustworthiness.

7. Fortifying Defenses: Prevention and Best Practices

The DeepSeek incident provides clear, actionable lessons for preventing similar security failures, applicable not only to AI developers but also to organizations adopting AI technologies. A multi-layered defense strategy encompassing infrastructure, applications, data, and governance is essential.

7.1 Securing Cloud Infrastructure and Databases

The most glaring failure at DeepSeek was the publicly exposed, unauthenticated ClickHouse database.⁴ This underscores a fundamental principle: databases containing sensitive information, whether traditional or used for AI logs/operations, should never be directly exposed to the public internet without stringent authentication and network access controls (e.g., firewall rules, private subnets).

Best Practices:

• Default Deny: Configure cloud resources, especially databases and storage, with private access by default. Only allow connections from explicitly authorized sources.
• Authentication & Authorization: Implement strong authentication mechanisms for all database access. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce least privilege.
• Regular Audits & Scanning: Conduct frequent cloud security posture management (CSPM) audits and vulnerability scans to detect misconfigurations, open ports, or publicly exposed resources.⁵
• Encryption: Encrypt sensitive data both at rest (within the database/storage) and in transit (during communication).³⁸

7.2 Robust API Security and Credential Management

The DeepSeek leak reportedly exposed API keys and secrets stored in logs, highlighting the critical need for secure credential management.⁴ Furthermore, the allegations of API abuse (distillation) by OpenAI underscore the importance of securing API endpoints themselves.³⁷

Best Practices:

• Treat Credentials as Secrets: API keys, tokens, and passwords must be treated as highly sensitive data. Avoid embedding them in code, configuration files, or logs in plaintext.⁵ Use secure secret management solutions.
• Secure Logging: Configure logging carefully to avoid capturing sensitive credentials or excessive personal data.
• API Gateway Security: Implement API gateways to manage authentication, authorization, rate limiting, and traffic monitoring for all API endpoints.⁵²
• Monitor API Usage: Track API usage patterns to detect anomalies indicative of abuse, such as data scraping, credential stuffing, or unauthorized access attempts.⁵⁵ Implement appropriate rate limits to prevent large-scale data exfiltration.⁵²

7.3 Importance of VAPT and Continuous Monitoring

Proactive security testing and ongoing monitoring are crucial for identifying and responding to threats before they cause significant damage. DeepSeek’s vulnerabilities, particularly the exposed database and potential authentication weaknesses, could likely have been identified through routine Vulnerability Assessment and Penetration Testing (VAPT).⁵²

Best Practices:

• Regular VAPT: Conduct periodic VAPT exercises simulating real-world attacks to uncover vulnerabilities in infrastructure, applications, and APIs.⁵²
• Continuous Monitoring: Implement real-time monitoring of systems, networks, and logs, often through a Security Operations Center (SOC), to detect suspicious activities, intrusions, or policy violations promptly.⁴⁷
• Incident Response Plan: Develop and regularly test an incident response plan to ensure swift containment, eradication, and recovery in the event of a breach. DeepSeek’s relatively slow 48-hour response time to the DDoS attack, compared to Anthropic’s reported 4 hours in a separate context, highlights the importance of efficient response capabilities.¹⁰

7.4 Developing Responsible AI Governance Frameworks

Beyond technical controls, effective AI security requires robust governance frameworks that address the unique challenges posed by AI systems.⁴

Best Practices:

• AI Use Policy: Establish clear organizational policies defining acceptable use of AI tools, data handling requirements, approved vendors, and processes for vetting new AI applications.⁵³
• Third-Party Risk Management: Integrate AI provider vetting into existing third-party risk management programs, focusing on security posture, data privacy compliance (e.g., GDPR), data residency, and contractual terms.⁵⁰
• Secure AI Development Lifecycle: For organizations developing AI, incorporate security and safety testing throughout the model development lifecycle. This includes data validation, bias detection and mitigation, adversarial testing (jailbreaking, prompt injection), and implementing robust safety guardrails within the model itself.⁷
• Supply Chain Security: Implement measures to verify the integrity and security of third-party software dependencies, including libraries and base models used in AI development.⁵
• Transparency and Accountability: Foster transparency about AI usage and data practices, both internally and externally, to build trust.⁵⁴ Establish clear lines of accountability for AI security and ethical considerations.

Implementing these best practices requires a holistic approach, combining strong foundational IT security with AI-specific considerations. The DeepSeek incident serves as a potent reminder that neglecting any layer of this defense strategy can expose organizations to significant risk in the age of AI. Furthermore, demonstrable adherence to such governance principles is becoming crucial not just for mitigating internal risk but also for building and maintaining the external trust necessary to operate successfully in a market increasingly scrutinized by customers, partners, and regulators.⁵⁰

8. Conclusion: Key Takeaways and Engaging the Conversation

The DeepSeek saga, encompassing its rapid technological rise, subsequent security failures, and the ensuing global fallout, offers invaluable lessons for anyone involved in developing, deploying, or utilizing artificial intelligence. It serves as a stark reminder that groundbreaking innovation, particularly when pursued at breakneck speed and with a focus on cost reduction, must be rigorously balanced with foundational security, data privacy, and ethical considerations.

Key Takeaways:

1. Security Fundamentals Remain Paramount: The core data leak stemmed not from an exotic AI exploit but from a basic cloud misconfiguration. This highlights that even the most advanced AI companies are vulnerable if they neglect fundamental cybersecurity hygiene in their infrastructure and applications.
2. AI Amplifies Privacy Risks: The nature of data processed by AI tools, especially generative models handling user prompts, makes data breaches potentially far more damaging than traditional leaks. Protecting user input and ensuring transparent, compliant data handling is critical for trust.
3. Due Diligence is Non-Negotiable: The allure of powerful, low-cost AI cannot overshadow the need for thorough vetting. Organizations must look beyond performance and evaluate vendors based on security practices, data privacy policies, regulatory compliance (like GDPR), data residency, and contractual safeguards.
4. Shadow AI Poses a Significant Threat: The accessibility of tools like DeepSeek increases the risk of employees using unapproved AI for work, potentially exposing sensitive corporate data. Clear policies, training, and governance are essential to manage this risk.
5. AI Governance is Foundational: Establishing comprehensive AI governance frameworks—covering tool selection, data usage, security standards, ethical guidelines, and compliance—is crucial for internal risk management and building external trust with customers and regulators.
6. Geopolitics and AI are Intertwined: DeepSeek’s Chinese origins, data storage policies, and alleged links to state-controlled entities immediately placed it within a complex geopolitical context, triggering national security concerns and regulatory actions distinct from purely technical or privacy issues. This intersection will likely shape the future of global AI development and deployment.
7. Cost vs. Risk Trade-off: DeepSeek’s claimed cost efficiency may have been achieved partly by underinvesting in security and safety measures, as evidenced by multiple vulnerabilities. This forces a critical evaluation of the true cost of AI adoption, factoring in potential security and compliance liabilities.

For digital marketing professionals, the DeepSeek incident is a call to action. It demands a shift towards a more security-conscious and privacy-aware approach to leveraging AI. It means championing responsible AI adoption within organizations, ensuring that the tools used align with brand values and customer expectations regarding data protection. It requires moving beyond the hype to ask critical questions about the technologies shaping the future of marketing.

Engaging the Conversation:

The DeepSeek story raises crucial questions that warrant ongoing discussion within the tech, business, and marketing communities. Consider these points for reflection and engagement:

• How can organizations effectively balance the competitive pressure for rapid AI adoption with the critical need for robust security, privacy, and ethical vetting?
• What criteria should be non-negotiable when evaluating third-party AI tools, particularly those handling customer or proprietary business data?
• Beyond technical controls and policies, how can organizational culture foster responsible AI usage and mitigate the risks of Shadow AI?
• Has the DeepSeek incident, and the associated geopolitical concerns, influenced your organization’s strategy regarding the use of AI tools developed in different regulatory or national jurisdictions?
• What collective actions should the AI industry, regulators, and adopters take to improve AI system safety, enhance transparency, and build sustainable user trust?

By engaging with these questions and learning from incidents like DeepSeek’s, the industry can strive to harness the transformative potential of AI more responsibly, ensuring that innovation proceeds hand-in-hand with security, privacy, and ethical integrity.

Works cited

1. What is DeepSeek AI? Unveiling China’s Groundbreaking Open-Source Revolution in Artificial Intelligence, accessed April 29, 2025, https://deepseek.ai/what-is-deepseek-ai
2. DeepSeek: How a small Chinese AI company is shaking up US tech heavyweights – The University of Sydney, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2025/01/29/deepseek-ai-china-us-tech.html
3. What is DeepSeek, the Chinese AI company upending the stock market?, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/what-is-deepseek-the-chinese-ai-company-upending-the-stock-market/
4. Wiz Research Uncovers Exposed DeepSeek Database Leaking Sensitive Information, Including Chat History, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.wiz.io/blog/wiz-research-uncovers-exposed-deepseek-database-leak
5. DeepSeek Cyber Attack: Timeline, Impact, and Lessons Learned, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.cm-alliance.com/cybersecurity-blog/deepseek-cyber-attack-timeline-impact-and-lessons-learned
6. DeepSeek ‘leaking’ sensitive data: cybersecurity company says “within minutes, we found…” – The Times of India, accessed April 29, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/deepseek-leaking-sensitive-data-cybersecurity-company-says-within-minutes-we-found/articleshow/117744155.cms
7. The DeepSeek AI revolution has a security problem – The Japan Times, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2025/02/18/world/deepseek-security-problem/
8. Experts Flag Security, Privacy Risks in DeepSeek AI App, accessed April 29, 2025, https://krebsonsecurity.com/2025/02/experts-flag-security-privacy-risks-in-deepseek-ai-app/
9. DeepSeek failed all safety tests, responding to harmful prompts, Cisco data reveals, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.capacitymedia.com/article/2edcrn4naj9lx8nruelts/news/article-deepseek-failed-all-safety-tests-responding-to-harmful-prompts-cisco
10. How Deepseek’s security failures shape the future of cyber defense on AI | Cybernews, accessed April 29, 2025, https://cybernews.com/editorial/how-deepseeks-security-failures-shape-the-future-of-cyber-defense/
11. DeepSeek available to download again in South Korea – iTnews, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.itnews.com.au/news/deepseek-available-to-download-again-in-south-korea-616823
12. DeepSeek Blocked in Italy Due to Privacy Risks – Setting a Significant Precedent | HIMSS, accessed April 29, 2025, https://legacy.himss.org/news/deepseek-blocked-italy-due-privacy-risks-setting-significant-precedent
13. EU regulators scrutinize DeepSeek for data privacy violations – Usercentrics, accessed April 29, 2025, https://usercentrics.com/knowledge-hub/eu-regulators-scrutinize-deepseek-for-data-privacy-violations/
14. The Independent: Feroot Security Uncovers DeepSeek’s Hidden Code Sending User Data to China, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.feroot.com/news/the-independent-feroot-security-uncovers-deepseeks-hidden-code-sending-user-data-to-china/
15. DeepSeek Final.pdf – Select Committee on the CCP |, accessed April 29, 2025, https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/DeepSeek%20Final.pdf
16. AP News: Feroot Finds DeepSeek’s Link to China Mobile, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.feroot.com/news/ap-news-feroot-research-uncovers-deepseeks-connection-to-chinese-state-owned-telecom/
17. DeepSeek surge hits companies, posing security risks | Cybersecurity Dive, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.cybersecuritydive.com/news/deepseek-companies-security-risks/739308/
18. Chinese AI Firm DeepSeek Triggers a Wide U.S. Policy Response – Wiley Rein, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.wiley.law/wiley-connect/Chinese-AI-Firm-DeepSeek-Triggers-a-Wide-US-Policy-Response
19. DeepSeek – Wikipedia, accessed April 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepSeek
20. DeepSeek 2025 Company Profile: Valuation, Funding & Investors – PitchBook, accessed April 29, 2025, https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/606456-91
21. Overview of Deepseek AI: A Challenger to US AI dominance – PROS Digital Marketing Agency, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.internetsearchinc.com/overview-of-deepseek-ai-a-challenger-to-us-ai-dominance/
22. deepseek-ai (DeepSeek) – Hugging Face, accessed April 29, 2025, https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai
23. Everything About DeepSeek: Key Features, Usage, and Technical Advantages – PopAi, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.popai.pro/resources/everything-about-deepseek/
24. What is DeepSeek, the Chinese AI company upending the stock market? – NBC Bay Area, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/what-is-deepseek-chinese-ai-company-stock-market/3772951/
25. How Deepseek is Changing the AI Landscape – Georgia State University News – Press Releases, Robinson College of Business -, accessed April 29, 2025, https://news.gsu.edu/2025/02/04/how-deepseek-is-changing-the-a-i-landscape/
26. DeepSeek seeks funding, attracts Alibaba, state investors – Tech in Asia, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.techinasia.com/news/deepseek-seeks-funding-attracts-alibaba-state-investors
27. DeepSeek company information, funding & investors – Dealroom.co, accessed April 29, 2025, https://app.dealroom.co/companies/deepseek
28. Into the unknown – DeepSeek, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.deepseek.com/en
29. DeepSeek Database Leaking Sensitive Information Highlights AI Security Risks – InfoQ, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/02/deepsek-exposed-database/
30. The DeepSeek Crash: What It Means for AI Investors – Kiplinger, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/stocks/the-deepseek-crash-what-it-means-for-ai-investors
31. DeepSeek R2 leaks : r/OpenAI – Reddit, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1k8jv03/deepseek_r2_leaks/
32. Why DeepSeek won’t change the trajectory of AI investment – Schroders, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.schroders.com/en/nordics/professional/insights/why-deepseek-won-t-change-the-trajectory-of-ai-investment/
33. Why DeepSeek won’t change the trajectory of AI investment – Schroders, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.schroders.com/en-us/us/individual/insights/why-deepseek-won-t-change-the-trajectory-of-ai-investment/
34. Will DeepSeek Burst VC’s AI Bubble? – Crunchbase News, accessed April 29, 2025, https://news.crunchbase.com/ai/chinas-deepseek-tech-openai-nvda/
35. DeepSeek Shakes Up AI Landscape But US Still Dominated Venture Funding In January, accessed April 29, 2025, https://news.crunchbase.com/venture/ai-healthcare-deepseek-january-2025-funding-recap/
36. DeepSeek AI Database Exposed: Over 1 Million Log Lines, Secret Keys Leaked, accessed April 29, 2025, https://thehackernews.com/2025/01/deepseek-ai-database-exposed-over-1.html
37. Is DeepSeek in Trouble? The Legal and Regulatory Challenges Ahead – Consentmo, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.consentmo.com/blog-posts/is-deepseek-in-trouble-the-legal-and-regulatory-challenges-ahead
38. DeepSeek Data Breach Of One Million Records Exposes AI Security Vulnerabilities, accessed April 29, 2025, https://sentrybay.com/deepseek-data-breach-of-one-million-records-exposes-ai-security-vulnerabilities/
39. DeepSeek Locked Down Public Database Access That Exposed Chat History, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.techrepublic.com/article/deepseek-wiz-research-database-leak/
40. DeepSeek database left user data, chat histories exposed for anyone to see | Security researchers say they discovered a database containing sensitive information ‘within minutes.’ : r/privacy – Reddit, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/1idv0el/deepseek_database_left_user_data_chat_histories/
41. DeepSeek Data Scandal Sparks Global Privacy Fears and Regulatory Shifts – AInvest, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.ainvest.com/news/deepseek-data-scandal-sparks-global-privacy-fears-regulatory-shifts-2504/
42. DeepSeek, ByteDance, and Data Leaks: Is AI Becoming a National Security Risk? – 1950.ai, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.1950.ai/post/deepseek-bytedance-and-data-leaks-is-ai-becoming-a-national-security-risk
43. Ivan Tsarynny on CNBC: DeepSeek’s Security Risks and Data Exposure to China Mobile, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.feroot.com/news/ivan-tsarynny-on-cnbc-deepseeks-security-risks-and-data-exposure-to-china-mobile/
44. Research finds 12,000 ‘Live’ API Keys and Passwords in DeepSeek’s Training Data Truffle Security Co., accessed April 29, 2025, https://trufflesecurity.com/blog/research-finds-12-000-live-api-keys-and-passwords-in-deepseek-s-training-data
45. Italian Garante Investigates DeepSeek’s Data Practices – Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-information-security-law/italian-garante-investigates-deepseeks-data-practices
46. AppSOC Research Labs Delivers Damning Verdict On DeepSeek-R1, accessed April 29, 2025, https://informationsecuritybuzz.com/appsoc-research-verdict-on-deepseek-r1/
47. Qualys Report Raises Red Flags In DeepSeek-RI Security, accessed April 29, 2025, https://informationsecuritybuzz.com/qualys-report-red-flags-deepseek-secur/
48. DeepSeek Failed Over Half of the Jailbreak Tests by Qualys TotalAI, accessed April 29, 2025, https://blog.qualys.com/vulnerabilities-threat-research/2025/01/31/deepseek-failed-over-half-of-the-jailbreak-tests-by-qualys-totalai
49. What Is DeepSeek AI? Understanding the DeepSeek Leak and OpenAI Breach Claims, accessed April 29, 2025, https://news.trendmicro.com/2025/02/14/deepseek-ai-leak-openai-breach/
50. When Innovation Meets Regulation: The DeepSeek Privacy Controversy and Its Compliance Fallout – ComplexDiscovery, accessed April 29, 2025, https://complexdiscovery.com/when-innovation-meets-regulation-the-deepseek-privacy-controversy-and-its-compliance-fallout/
51. AI Privacy Risks: Is DeepSeek Safe for Your Business Data? – Vendict, accessed April 29, 2025, https://vendict.com/blog/ai-privacy-risks-is-deepseek-safe-for-your-business-data
52. The DeepSeek Cyberattack: A Critical Lesson in Infrastructure Security and the Need for VAPT – [UPDATED: 2025] – CyberSapiens, accessed April 29, 2025, https://cybersapiens.com.au/cyber-awareness/learnings-from-the-deepseek-cyberattack/
53. Are Your Employees Using DeepSeek? Top Shadow AI Security Concerns – Reco, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.reco.ai/blog/are-your-employees-using-deepseek-top-shadow-ai-security-concerns
54. Ethical Considerations in the Deployment of DeepSeek AI in Fintech, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.fintechweekly.com/magazine/articles/deepseek-in-fintech-ethical-considerations
55. API Security Is At the Center of OpenAI vs. DeepSeek Allegations, accessed April 29, 2025, https://securityboulevard.com/2025/01/api-security-is-at-the-center-of-openai-vs-deepseek-allegations/
56. OpenAI Accuses Chinese AI Firm DeepSeek of Tech Theft: A New AI Cold War?, accessed April 29, 2025, https://opentools.ai/news/openai-accuses-chinese-ai-firm-deepseek-of-tech-theft-a-new-ai-cold-war
57. AI-to-AI Risks: How Ignored Warnings Led to the DeepSeek Incident – Community, accessed April 29, 2025, https://community.openai.com/t/ai-to-ai-risks-how-ignored-warnings-led-to-the-deepseek-incident/1107964
58. DeepSeek May Face Further Regulatory Actions, EU Privacy Watchdog Says – TechsterHub, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.techsterhub.com/news/deepseek-may-face-further-regulatory-actions-eu-privacy-watchdog-says/
59. DeepSeek: Legal Considerations for Enterprise Users | Insights | Ropes & Gray LLP, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/01/deepseek-legal-considerations-for-enterprise-users
60. Joint Statement from FBI and CISA on the People’s Republic of China Targeting of Commercial Telecommunications Infrastructure, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/joint-statement-from-fbi-and-cisa-on-the-peoples-republic-of-china-targeting-of-commercial-telecommunications-infrastructure
61. Joint Statement from FBI and CISA on the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Targeting of Commercial Telecommunications Infrastructure, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/joint-statement-fbi-and-cisa-peoples-republic-china-prc-targeting-commercial-telecommunications
62. FBI and CISA warn of continued cyberattacks on US telecoms – SC Media, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.scworld.com/news/fbi-and-cisa-warn-of-continued-cyberattacks-on-us-telecoms
63. Report: Chinese hackers used telecom access to go after phones of Trump, Vance, accessed April 29, 2025, https://cyberscoop.com/report-chinese-hackers-used-telecom-access-to-go-after-phones-of-trump-vance/
64. DeepSeek AI in Banking: Smarter, Faster, and Safer Solutions – Itexus, accessed April 29, 2025, https://itexus.com/deepseek-ai-in-banking-smarter-faster-and-safer-solutions/
65. Ultimate Guide to the Exploration of Deepseek AI Solutions, accessed April 29, 2025, https://www.internetsearchinc.com/ultimate-guide-to-the-exploration-of-deepseek-ai-solutions/
66. http://sheridantech.io/