US Will Rethink Cooperation With Allies Who Use Huawei (reuters.com) 230
Washington does not see any distinction between core and non-core parts of 5G networks and will reassess sharing information with any allies which use equipment made by China's Huawei, a U.S. cybersecurity official said on Monday. From a report: "It is the United States' position that putting Huawei or any other untrustworthy vendor in any part of the 5G telecommunications network is a risk," said Robert Strayer, deputy assistant secretary for cyber, international communications and information policy at the State Department. "If other countries insert and allow untrusted vendors to build out and become the vendors for their 5G networks we will have to reassess the ability for us to share information and be connected with them in the ways that we are today," he said. Further reading: UK To Let Huawei Firm Help Build 5G Network.
Is the problem that it's missing a NSA backdoor? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Is the problem that it's missing a NSA backdoo (Score:1)
I am curious why we are so butthurt with Huawei when we have facebook, google and all of these breaches.
Sure its one thing to protect national security and the nation. Oh wait that is the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Ron_ivi is apparently a moron. (Score:1, Insightful)
Huawei is a known-guilty spying tentacle wholly owned and operated by the Communist Party of China. You have to be some kind of intentional retard to think that is somehow not the real reason the US and other nations see it as a threat.
(You're a moron.)
Re:Ron_ivi is apparently a moron. (Score:4, Interesting)
The key word is "known".
If anything was actually known, it would be easy to kick Huawei from public tenders. So please CIA, NSA, FBI and whoever, if you have anything that could be used as evidence - please go ahead and present it. Lots of countries would be glad if they had something that could be used to lock out chinese competition so please... we are waiting.
[crickets]
Hmmm... guess it's just hearsay then.
And as a friendly reminder: The telco equipment that is actually known to have put a backdoor into their equipment is.. (drumroll): Cisco
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it is not known to you, doesn't mean it is not known. Revealing the information may compromise the source of the information.
The three-letter agencies may want to keep milking that cow, and they aren't beholden to YOU to understand. They only need elected officials that control their budgets and authorization to understand.
Feel free to press on those elected officials to explain it to you, as they are ultimately accountable.
Re:Ron_ivi is apparently a moron. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Above this one, meaning it came out after this one. I saw that too and thought "finally". After only beating around the bush for months.
According to news even the five eyes did not "know" about that, they "have been told" with no supporting material. (made the news over here as we just auctioned of the 5g frequencies)
Re: (Score:2)
And above that a denial of that report. And that report is basically yes we found issues and they were fixed as requested.
The denial: " It would not have been accessible from the internet. Bloomberg is incorrect in saying that this 'could have given Huawei unauthorised access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy.' In addition, we have no evidence of any unauthorised access. This was nothing more than a failure to remove a diagnostic function after development.""
Now, I'm gonna need you to provide som
Re: (Score:2)
There is literally an article above this one right now about how Vodaphone found backdoors in Hauwei equipment.
The article literally above that one says Vodafone Denies Bloomberg Report on Security Flaws in Huawei Equipment. It was a telnet port. I've had a HP printer with a telnet port "accidentally" left open until I updated the firmware. In this case, it's there for a reason... it's obvious it's there... and it's simple to block if it was a concern. Non-issue. Seriously!
Re: (Score:2)
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
You know if you want to lock out Chinese vendors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So please CIA, NSA, FBI and whoever, if you have anything that could be used as evidence - please go ahead and present it.
Be careful what you wish for bro. The last time there was a call for "hidden answers" we got planes thrown into some buildings kicking off more than a decade of war that is still ongoing.
To elucidate: Bill Clinton, in August of 1998, sent a fuckload of Tomohawk missiles into Afghanistan. There was international outrage over the incident and everyone demanded to know the actual intel and how the US Government got it.
Well, the pressure grew and grew and eventually, it came out that the NSA was spying on the s
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I kinda have to agree with you here, but unfortunately I have to agree most with the "be careful what you wish for" part.
You are basically OK with country A lauchning a military attack with "a fuckload of Tomohawk missiles" onto country B and ask every other country to hold their feet. Are you really OK with that or only if country A happens to be the US? Because then it can't be bad? Is it legal if "the president does it"?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Ron_ivi is apparently a moron. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do they not have google where you live, Huawei apologists? Snowden exposed US spying. What he did not expose is the US stealing trade secrets and giving those to US companies to sell infringing products to China.
Comparing US spying to Chinese spying also requires you look at what they DO with that. China imprisons 1 million + uighurs for their ethnicity or audacity in having any religion that isn't Party Kleptocracy.
When the US disappears the head of Interpol for 60 days without telling the world he's even in custody, you'll have a comparative point of note.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The US can request companies like Google to turn over any information (that include shit such as trade secret) through a gag order. A company can either comply in secret or cease its operations like Lavabit I heard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit
So you are right, Google may not be a wholly owned subsidiary of the US gov but what's the difference? So I am so proud that you have access to Google.
BTW, your accusation that Huawei is wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese government also seems to be just a
Re: (Score:1)
That's some awesome apologist thinking, except for where the chinese consider basically all of Asia to be chinese.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
ROT-13 still works.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't done through an NSA backdoor. The technique is widely known and used by many nations. It's why Obama needed a special iPhone to prevent it. Any call made on any interesting person's cellphone in the DC area is routinely tapped by the Russians, Chinese, British, French, Germans, Saudis, Israelis, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I think they have a point this time. Countries should not be using suspect foreign technology which they have no ability to independently audit.
Therefore the UK should immediately ban Cisco hardware from all its networks, and instead only work with companies that allow code audits and aren't known to be working with foreign intelligence agencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I think they have a point this time. Countries should not be using suspect foreign technology which they have no ability to independently audit.
Therefore the UK should immediately ban Cisco hardware from all its networks, and instead only work with companies that allow code audits and aren't known to be working with foreign intelligence agencies.
The UK should then also ban Samsung, Nokia, and Ericsson, who are all foreign to the US.
So then: which UK-based OEM the UK companies buy from?
The US has no issues with building out with gear from the above non-US companies--it's just concern with China-based ones.
Nope. Of those only Cisco has been PROVEN to have installed hostile government backdoors in their hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help but feel that's one of the reasons why. There have been articles floating around, I've posted one before from zero hedge that claimed that the NSA approached huawei years ago, to implement a backdoor, but huawei said no.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-19/5g-huawei-and-us-america-hates-competition [zerohedge.com]
The competition angle is nothing new though. It has been practiced for decades. I suspect that ultimately this decision to ban huawei was pretty simple, it's of no benefit to the USA, while pro
Re: (Score:1)
A stingray antenna is not a "backdoor" and the eavesdropping on Merkel was done with cooperation from some in German intelligence. It was a political scandal because of the optics, not because it was unauthorized.
Conflating that with "backdoors" is as retarded as calling KAV a "Russian backdoor" even if the Kremlin did use it for their purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
If the cell phone trusts it as an authentic tower, then it's a backdoor.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, a stingray is not a backdoor, it's a man-in-the-middle attack.
Re: (Score:2)
If your phone already trusts it....Look, maybe we can agree to call it a frontdoor attack. We've had cell phones for how many years now and there is no tower verification by the phone? That's man in the middle only if you don't consider phone vendors and carriers culpable.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why any decent software doesn't have backdoors, they are HUGE security holes.
Of course state controlled stuff like the chinese hardware is automatically under question, but if they have a backdoor in their hardware, somebody in this country already knows about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
At this point I don't think anyone has any intelligence. The information-wars are in full swing and everyone is tapping everyone else for as much access to as much as they possibly can. We've got US companies on US soil that are essentially committing treason at this point. We've got employees embedded in companies shipping tech back to China. The goal is to build the first fully autonomous machine. Not the machine that solves world problems, but the one that kills as many people on the other side as possib
Re: (Score:2)
Makes you wonder why the US is so sure that they have got better intelligence, doesn't it?
They are sharing their intelligence with the UK. So the two countries drawn made different conclusions on the SAME intelligence.
Thats ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the US wants to rethink sharing data with the UK, then I'm sure the UK will rethink giving US agencies access to such places as:
- RAF Menwith Hill, one of the largest ECHELON SIGINT capturing sites, with over 600 US staff
- GCHQ Bude, a facility the NSA paid £15Million to upgrade as recently as 2010
- RAF Fylingdales, a key site in the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning System
So go ahead, US, this could get interesting...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Its amazing how people spin shit like that to fit their own agendas... How did you come to that conclusion?
Re: (Score:2)
Everything the US allows the UK to use is still under full US control
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, thats a myth - the UK has independent launch ability, we don't have to go ask the US for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a US system that gets looked after by the USA every time a UK sub returns to port.
Again something the US can totally withdraw support for
Should the UK upset the US, the next time the sub returns to port, the US removes that "independent launch ability"
That what happens when a nation like the UK buys into very complex US systems over decades. The US always kept to
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Every step of the way the UK had to seek US permission.
What the UK was asked to pay for, the US can remove support for at any time AC.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has done that globally. Nations have their US sites removed. Other nations get new US support.
AC re " both parties"
Its US systems, network, collection and access. No "both parties" in part of anything the US grants access to AC
The UK understood this and still wont support the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
AC "jointly owned and managed" is for the site. Not for the US installed spying networks. That belongs to the USA as it was what the US installed.
AC "UK does support the US" not when the US pays for the systems used and only allows the UK to see the results. The US c
Re: (Score:1)
The US would never let any one nation like the control UK have any ability to stop US collection.
The US world hard on the challenges of the past and ensured no nation like the UK would ever have "physical locations" to hold the US on.
The US is well past needing the UK for "visibility to the satellites". Having to trust the UK. Needing to stay in the UK.
Do you think the US would ever risk its collection methods by needing a nation like th
Re: (Score:2)
Buy such complex systems from another nation, your always under their full control.
The UK knew this every decade they went back to buy into another new US system.
The US always supported the UK in every request.
Now the UK shows its thanks for decades of full US support.
Re: (Score:2)
The US stopped nuclear cooperation before: in 1946.
So the UK went and built their own H-bomb, becoming the third nation to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Sites that the US can stop working with and then remove all US equipment.
The UK is then left with an empty building it calls a "base".
What the US gave the UK the US can remove. Just like US sites in West Germany that got returned to Germany
Re: Thats ok... (Score:2)
The US government didn't "give" these to the UK. These places exist because they have much more value to the the US government having them located in the UK rather than Stateside. Don't fool yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
The US gave the UK permission to upgrade and had to ensure shared UK sites would work with US systems and networks.
The US was not going to allow the UK to use it mil budget over decades on random non US junk products and services that would never work with US 5 eye networks.
5 eye is about sharing with the USA. No the UK using US tax payers money buying duplicate networks for UK use only.
What the US allowed the UK to
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "the US can no longer trust" the UK shows us how completely nutbar-out-to-lunch you are, you actual crazy person trying to pass yourself off as a defense researcher.
True. The US could never trust the UK, nor vice versa. Countries have their own interests, if you're going to trust them to do something, you should trust them to follow them.
He who can destroy a thing controls it, unless multiple people can destroy it. All three superpowers have the ability to render the planet essentially uninhabitable. The UK doesn't. The UK is thus dependent upon the US in any hypothetical future world war scenario... So we can trust it (as an institution) just a bit — but only th
Re: (Score:1)
The UK is one of the world's leading nuclear powers, has been since WW2, the third such country to develop nuclear weapons (after Russia and the US), one of only such five states to join the no-proliferation treaty,
It has an arsenal capable of "only" destroying the world several times over, from 12,000km away, and at least one permanently-submerged and hidden nuclear-launch-capable submarine at all times.
Tell me that you think many other much larger nations have such a capability. The UK isn't entirely dep
Re: (Score:2)
Try not to piss off a nation that owned over one-half of the world not a million years ago, ...
The British Empire was the largest the world has ever seen, but at its height controlled around 25% of the world's population and land area, not "over one-half".
By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time, and by 1920, it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi), 24% of the Earth's total land area [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
given that people like Osama bin Laden used to be a CIA operative, not sharing data with you is just an appetizer in the US revenge plan, if you refuse to be a puppet of the American spy and military industry complex.
Still zero evidence, all propaganda (Score:1)
The USA has it in for this company are are being right a-holes about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody believed that nutcase has blown his entire chem wad on a nomadic minority.
The military did find hidden chemical weapons in Iraq, but it took a while, by which time the media had mostly stopped caring.
So actually, he did have them and squirreled them away really well.
By the way, this is documented and available information.
I guess he just didn't expect to be shut down that hard and fast, so he never got a chance to retrieve
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, see Operation Avarice (declassified in 2015).
In which an unknown operative contacted the US and sold us various weapons? Whose identity is still allegedly unknown? There is not one whit of evidence that we didn't smuggle those weapons in there and sell them to ourselves, which is also a great way to secretly channel funding to black projects.
Huawei no threat. Not yet . (Score:3, Insightful)
Let Huawei make all the 5G stuff they want and sell it where they want. 5G is an illusion. Outside a few densely populated areas it will be useless. It will require hundreds of thousands of additional cell towers, spaced ten feet (~3 meters) apart. Most of those towers will be protested against by anti-vaxxers who are sure they are causing cancer and brain damage (as if they had one).
By 2023, when the world finally realizes that 5G is a hoax, Huawei will be promoting 6G, the Big One. The tech in there will far exceed our ability to comprehend. Look out for that USA and allies!
Re: (Score:1)
It's not 5G that anyone is actually worried about, it's Huawei's switches and software. 5G is a clusterfuck wrapped in a poorly thought out concept. Huawei having antennaes everywhere that secretly exfiltrate traffic, that's something else.
Re:Huawei no threat. Not yet . (Score:5, Informative)
5g works just fine on 700MHz with its improved protocols, dynamic bandwidth allocation and channel management, etc.
You're thinking of mmWave 5g which provides better aggregate bandwidth for large number of users in densely populated locations.
Re: (Score:2)
How odd! So those promises of 50Gb/sec were untrue? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked. Well I'm sure the Wall Street bankers will get those speeds for their high-speed trading and the White House will have high speed Tweets at hand. But you say that the rest of us will still have 4G? And we're expected to invest $1,000+ for a so-called 5G phone?
Anyway you are a party pooper and lack anything resembling a sense of humor. Go back into your basement and don't come out until you find one.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
5G is an illusion. Outside a few densely populated areas it will be useless. It will require hundreds of thousands of additional cell towers, spaced ten feet (~3 meters) apart.
5G does not require any additional cell towers compared to 4G, not unless you think 5G = OMG TEH FASTETS MEGABITS and completely ignore the myriad of other changes the technology brings, much of which can provide a really good improved feature set even if you use 700MHz or even lower frequencies with wider coverage.
Sorry for the reply, I have trouble telling trolling from true ignorance on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a good thing overall (Score:1)
If the unproven allegations about Huawei turn out to be true, the US will end up being ahead.
If not, the US wouldnhave lost both goodwill and friends for a trade war.
The fact is that whatever evidence Pompeo sent to Theresa, it wasn't compelling enough.
So, as you were, and let's see where it ends up in a year or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Removing all US nuclear support for UK subs.
Not having to pay for upgrades to UK shared sites anymore.
The US can take that support and give it to Canada, New Zealand, Taiwan, the real China.
Re: (Score:2)
"The US can take that support and give it to Canada, New Zealand, Taiwan, the real China." BS, Trump will just piss it off on more of his boondoggles. You forget he's already at odds with Canada, New Zealand is so small it doesn't count, and he won't really support Taiwan because, y'know, they are foreigners and would get in the way of his Big New Trade Deal with China.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the budget savings of not having to look after US sites and bases in the UK.
We have that stuff there so that we can monitor the situation in the area, and rapidly deploy troops if necessary. The US never wants to shut down military bases anywhere if it can help it.
Re: (Score:2)
Taiwan is the real China about as much as Canada is the real USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, same with Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, "Theresa May makes good decisions with regard to foriegn relations and alliances" is not a sentence anyone in Britain (or the world) is likely to ever utter.
strange. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly... the medium doesn't matter, because the protocols are expressly designed to form a trusted connection over an untrusted medium even if an attacker has access to every exchange byte of data.
But the problem is not one of security in terms of encryption. It's a matter of security, as in "national security", as in your 5G network not just switched off one day because you went to war with China.
In that respect, they have a point, but why they should impose upon their allies about who to use or not, wh
Allies rethinking cooperation with the US... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I know why the US is trying to block allies from using Huawei hardware.. It's too hard to hack for them and the US want it's allies have to use hardware from suppliers they already have forced to add backdoors in secrecy. It's all about being able to spy and control it's own allies.
The Trump administration is working very hard to dismantle every single alliance they US has built since 1776 so I don't think this is about allies. I also don't really think Huawei's gear is any harder to hack than any other equipment and the US has the resources to continue its spying without its allies, it will just have to spend a bit more and change tactics. The US has simply discovered that sitting with your thumb up your fundament, fighting a war on science secure in the knowledge that god almighty w
Re: (Score:2)
For Trump administration to "dismantle every single alliance", they'd have to recognize those alliances exist and hence spend no effort to maintain them. It simply doesn't rise to something important for the government to be doing. Now building the Great White Wall, that's a endeavor that really resonates with this crowd.
One thing to remember about the current U.S. administration, nothing is related to anything else. There's no grand strategy, there's no foresight, there's no calculating secondary effects,
Re: (Score:2)
For Trump administration to "dismantle every single alliance", they'd have to recognize those alliances exist and hence spend no effort to maintain them. It simply doesn't rise to something important for the government to be doing. Now building the Great White Wall, that's a endeavor that really resonates with this crowd.
One thing to remember about the current U.S. administration, nothing is related to anything else. There's no grand strategy, there's no foresight, there's no calculating secondary effects, there's no expert information flowing to the top where it will be acted upon. The administration is simply a doting parent who can stop trying to provide their 5 year old brat anything he wants.
Yup, the Trump Administration is basically a bunch of complete and utterly out of shape amateur couch potatoes, 'winging it' in a Football game against the New England Patriots.
Re: (Score:3)
Seeing as Americans have been getting ripped off by trade for decades, it's nice to see a change for the better. We pay for Europe's defense, give them massive subsidies in the form of lopsided trade agreements, and patrol the world's seas to protect their exports free-as-in-beer. All of it to wreck our own people. And the world hates us, utterly hates us in poll after poll. It's high time we pulled back and let them do it for themselves.
According to the US State Department, The United States has implemented 14 trade agreements with a total of 20 countries: Australia, Bahrain, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, Colombia, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Canada, Mexico (through the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA), Oman, Panama, Peru, Singapore, South Korea
https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tpn... [state.gov]
Please note that none of these countries are in Europe. There was supposed to be a free trade agr
Re: (Score:2)
US military policy is "full spectrum dominance". And that is a good thing compared to some other country, China, Russia, whatever, having "full spectrum dominance". The US is a liberal democracy, unlike all of the others (including the European Union).
Well, out of those three possible hegemons, I'll probably choose the US. Not because I necessarily like living under the overlordship of an imperial hegemon but simply because in my particular corner of the world the Americans are the least bad choice. Having said that, with Trump in charge, I'm seeing less and less of a difference between the US and China/Russia. I hope this is not a trend that will continue for the foreseeable future because if America starts treating everybody else as tribute paying vass
Re: (Score:2)
The electoral college that hasn't been rebalanced in around a century now makes the US something more timocratic than democratic - the votes of people don't matter so much as the amount of unoccupied land around those people.
And there's nothing liberal about Hungary these days in any sense of the word, they have a democratically elected authoritarian despot at best.
Re: (Score:2)
The fascinating thing about the US Government is that such cynicism is reasonable, but... the people in the US Government *still* actually want to do good things for people. So you are not wrong, but that is not the whole story. They may actually be trying to warn us about an actual danger too. (but you are still right!)
TL;DR, the issue is complex and no single answer suffices.
There are no trustworthy vendors (Score:2)
The US made sure of that a long time ago. Either do it with non-trustworthy vendors or do without 5G.
This is just a dishonest, anti-competitive attempt at market manipulation, nothing else.
Possibly a bit backwards (Score:3)
After all he disses allies, sucks up to enemies, breaks treaties, ignores international agreements, and basically treats everyone like shit.
Re: Possibly a bit backwards (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the border that is to prevent the C. Americans fleeing the results of America's appetite for drugs? That border?
The U.S. only was powerful because it had allies. The Soviet Union and its thug in succession, Russia, have no allies. Neither does China. They have vassals who'll stick a knife in their back if they turn around. Another few years of Trump and the U.S. will be in the same predicament.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he means the border that is to prevent the C. Americans fleeing the results of America's "generous" trade deals or cartoonish irresponsibility with firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a dumbass. This has nothing to do with Trump. Your hatred of Trump is unhinged. He doesn't have absolute control over everything just because he is President and many of his policies and ideas will be gone when he is. He just isn't THAT important, but that is all you can focus on. The word "insane" comes to mind.
It's not China exactly (Score:1)
Or in other words.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
China joined the WTO on Bill Cinton's watch. And he signed NAFTA. Damn, why do the Clintons hate American workers so much?
Re: Don't worry (Score:1)
Slick Willy Clinton took a suitcase full of money from a Chinese general's daughter, that's why. Mueller doesn't care about that though.
AE911Truth Org
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now stop trying to change the subject with your "but somebody else in the past" trash talk and get back to the subject at hand.
Re: Don't worry (Score:1)
...But pay no attention to what's in those packets going to Beijing.
Re: (Score:1)
Do what the US says and share in the 5 eye collection.
Dont stay secure and the USA can remove that nation from 5 eye sharing.
What the US gave access to, the US can stop giving.
Not a difficult option for the UK mil/gov to understand given decades of US support.
Since this is in the news AC, it looks like the UK gov does not seem to get just how much the US supports every advanced aspect of the UK mil/GCHQ.
T
Re: (Score:2)
The US can no longer trust the UK. In the past the US was able to support the UK to try and get past decades of UK security issues.
The result of trusted UK spies giving vast amounts of US secrets to the Soviet Union.
Why should the US keep on supporting a nation like the UK that totally fails keep US secrets again?
The US has the option to find nations that like and support the USA. That will actually keep US secrets and support t
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, a long litany of unsupported accusations. And if the U.S. were really interested in security, it wouldn't be trusting anyone in the current White House with security clearances, not when the Orange Man is convinced Russia is the U.S. friend for fear they'll dump their embarrassing info on his to the U.S. media.
Re: (Score:1)
Other 5 eye nations worked with the US as the US asked.
They will get still get full US support. They trusted the US, the US trusts them. Unlike the UK gov/mil/security services.
Welcome to 4 eyes. A new opening to fully replace the UK AC?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes that's the biggest take away from this...
Huawei equipment may well be untrustworthy, and ties to the chinese government may well be a concern.
But who's to say any other vendor is any more trustworthy?
Huawei were willing to share source code to many of their products with the UK government, which is more than most other vendors have done.
The result of the UK audit found lots of severe flaws in their code, but it was impossible to determine if these were intentional backdoors or just bugs...
China is not t
Re: (Score:2)
So my first thought is: A has added X successfully to their arsenal, and now it doesn't want B to get X working.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite obviously so.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not just state secrets that might be a concern.
How many CEOs, congressmen/senators and other important people make phone calls on their cellphones every day? How many of those people not only know how to use encrypted voice communications but only communicate with others who use encrypted voice communications? How many of those people share information over those phone calls that might be valuable to the Chinese?
And what about if the Chinese decide to use these hypothetical back doors not just to listen