Posted February 6, 2020 Recently, it was reported that the UK was allowing Huawei to develop up to 35% of the UK's non-core 5G infrastructure. Some have questioned why the UK would allow an alleged security threat to develop any amount of its potentially-exploitable technology infrastructure. But security experts say the issue isn't specific to Huawei and the same risk can come from any 5G supplier, and so diversifying to mitigate dependency is a calculated tactic. UK security experts finally admit Huawei is not the only security concern Quote The risk of focusing too explicitly on one area, vendor or technology is a lack of attention elsewhere, but here, the National Cyber Security Centre seem to have finally admitted it’s not all about Huawei. This is the precarious position the UK is in. Many in the industry are focusing on the threat of Huawei due to indirect links to the Chinese Government, and seemingly not taking into consideration of the risks elsewhere. Huawei should be considered a risk when we are discussing critical infrastructure, but so should Nokia, Ericsson, Cisco and any other technology vendor. To date, most discussions have focused on whether exposure to Huawei or Chinese companies should be limited, but the real key to these discussions should be how to mitigate risk irrelevant as to where is comes from. “In other words, if this sort of disruption is possible via Huawei, then it’s possible in all sorts of other ways too that should also be of grave concern,” said Ciaran Martin, CEO of the NSCS. “And it means we’ve built the networks the wrong way. The technical job of the NCSC is to make sure they are built in the right way.” While it was reported widely that UK had approved Huawei for development of their 5G, what wasn't as widely reported is that Huawei has also recently been receiving approval or support for their involvement in 5G development in the EU and India. The European Commission's issued guidance on 5G roll-out did not ban Huawei but suggested that “high-risk” suppliers should be subject to “relevant restrictions”. EU defies US’ calls to ban Huawei, granting Chinese tech firm limited role in 5G rollout Some specific countries in the EU have voiced support for Huawei, including Italy and Germany - with Germany pointing out late last year that Germany didn't move to ban US tech companies after revelations that the NSA was spying on their Chancellor's private communications. Huawei should not be banned from 5G deployment in Italy – economic development minister ‘We did not boycott US firms during NSA scandal’: German minister defends move to include Huawei in country’s 5G network NSA tapped German Chancellery for decades, WikiLeaks claims And last December, Huawei was named as the 5G supplier of choice for O2's German infrastructure development. Mobile provider O2 chooses Huawei to build its German 5G network Huawei has also been given the go-ahead to commence 5G trials in India, which is the second-biggest mobile market in the world after China. ‘We have full confidence in Modi’s govt’: Huawei thanks New Delhi after being cleared for 5G trials It seems to me that most of the noise about Huawei's 5G comes from the US, while other countries are not nearly as polarized in their estimations of where the potential risks are. The US is no stranger to employing FUD to try to muscle its competitors out of influence and benefit, be it economic, technological, or geopolitical, while trying to move the US into a position of greater influence and benefit. In fact, from what I've seen, it's a routine tactic of the US. And so, when I hear the US decrying countries for considering or approving Huawei 5G, I can't but see it as self-serving hypocrisy considering that, according to leaked CIA documents branded by WikiLeaks as the Vault 7 documents, and also according to the information released in various public scandals, and the public statements by NSA whistleblower Snowden over the previous few years, the US state has hacked, backdoored, or infected: - most-all software - most-all cellphones - most-all routers - the government offices of many of its closest allies (for example, the NSA was eavesdropping on Germany's Chancellor for decades - and maybe still is) - a large number of the biggest harddrive manufacturers: Russian researchers expose breakthrough U.S. spying program And considering that the US state is responsible for Total Information Awareness, PRISM, XKeyscore, DARPA's Lifelog (AKA Facebook), and funds the NATO propaganda branch called Atlantic Council that oversees Facebook's content regulation, and that thousands of US tech companies swap data with the US state, while all US (and I think Canadian) internet traffic passes through NSA surveillance hubs that are spread across the US state. I also think of the fact that the US state intercepts and bugs server shipments before they reach their destinations, and that the US state pays tech companies to put backdoors into their hardware and software for the US state to exploit. And then there's Snowden comment NSA workers intercept and share people's sexts messages around the NSA offices. Edit: And now this: On 2/14/2020 at 10:01 AM, Delicieuxz said: Ironically, the US government's new charges against Huawei are heavily undermined by a major new scandal of not just mere allegations, but new factual revelations that the US government itself has been intensely spying, using hijacked tech, on over 120 countries, including its closest allies and rivals alike, for decades: How the CIA used Crypto AG encryption devices to spy on countries for decades Basically, the CIA, together with Germany's intelligence agency, BND, covertly purchased a Swedish cryptography company that supplied their machines to countries around the world, and had uncensored backdoor access to all the messages sent though the company's machines. The US and Germany were spying on all the most intimate communications of those countries' governments, militaries, and probably many corporations for decades. Though Germany ducked out of the project in the 1990s, the US continued to operate it on its own allegedly until 2018. ... Crypto CIA spy op revelations makes us see US’ Huawei objections in a new light So, when I hear US complaints about other countries approving Huawei 5G, I can't help but strongly suspect it's because the US doesn't want a potential competitor to its own spying and that the US is resenting not being able to set up more of its own covert spying technology in other countries. You own the software that you purchase - Understanding software licenses and EULAs "We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the american public believes is false" - William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted February 6, 2020 13 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said: It seems to me that most of the noise about Huawei's 5G comes from the US, while other countries are not nearly as polarized in their estimations of what where the potential risks are. but...but...muh China... honestly I don't care what country rolls out 5G first, as long as I can actually make out people's voices when I get a phone call. Enough bandwidth for intelligible voices is worth it at just about any cost. I WILL find your ITX build thread, and I WILL recommend the SIlverstone Sugo SG13B Primary PC: i7 8086k - EVGA Z370 Classified K - G.Skill Trident Z RGB - WD SN750 - Jedi Order Titan Xp - Hyper 212 Black (with RGB Riing flair) - EVGA G3 650W - dual booting Windows 10 and Linux - Black and green theme, Razer brainwashed me. Draws 400 watts under max load, for reference. How many watts do I need? ATX 3.0 & PCIe 5.0 spec, PSU misconceptions, protections explained, group reg is bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted February 6, 2020 35 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said: Their products work, prices are fine, researchers are awesome, but their image is pretty bad due to the lack of transparency. The whole story of being controlled by their own employees fund is an obvious scam. If Huawei really wanted to convince people they're not such a big threat, they should open up the company. Selling equity shares and receiving regular external audits requested by minority shareholders is a good way of improving their image. P.S.: As the OP said, a ton of US companies proven time and time again that they're just as bad or worse than a company ran by an authoritarian government. It's a shame shareholders won't kick the boards after those episodes, regulators won't punish them, cases are settled with bare minimum damage to the culprits, while everything ends up being forgotten. (e.g. Equifax leak) If only we could trust our government to not do shady shit. Magical Pineapples