×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

S. Korea Diverts Network From Huawei Networks

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the but-the-marines-are-always-saying-huawei dept.

China 76

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Verge: "The South Korean government has decided to route sensitive data away from networks operated by Huawei, amid longstanding fears from the U.S. that the Chinese company's infrastructure could be used to spy on communications. As the Wall Street Journal reports, the U.S. had been urging its South Korean allies to route government communications away from Huawei networks, claiming that the infrastructure could be used to spy on communications with American military bases there. As a result, Huawei equipment will not be used at any American military base in South Korea. The Obama administration denies playing a role in the decision, and South Korean officials have not commented. The Journal reports that the White House made a point of keeping the talks private because it didn't want to be seen as meddling in its ally's business affairs."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

76 comments

Who cares (3, Informative)

boorack (1345877) | about 2 months ago | (#46253479)

Thank tho Snowden we now know that Cisco is even worse in that regard. So the only thing one can choose is who will be sucking one's data - US or China. There best way to keep networks safe is to roll one's own equipment (eg. PC-based with OpenBSD or something, sourced from local vendor) but it has its own limitations.

Re:Who cares (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 2 months ago | (#46253527)

sourced from local vendor

... who just assembles chips and boards made by Chinese or US companies. Next try...

Re:Who cares (0)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#46255345)

A GP chip can't spy. The complexity to be able to do any useful spying in a "random" board would make it easily discovered.

That and the other thing missed here is Cisco has been proven to spy. Huawei hasn't. Yet companies are fleeing Huawei, but not Cisco, so it isn't as issue of spying, but racism (and yes, that term includes non-racial-based nationalism, and xenophobia).

Re: Who cares (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46259817)

You mean like the remote access features in Intel's newer chips, complete with internal cell modem? That totally never happened... (BTW, YOU said "can't". Next time, try harder to say what you mean instead of replying to this by moving the goalposts. "well, thats not spying..." "That cant be abused...")

Now fuck off, you 1% piece of shit troll.

Re: Who cares (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a month ago | (#46260385)

It's a 4G chip, not a random general purpose chip someone snuck a cell modem into. I said a "GP chip can't". A dedicated 4G chip isn't a GP chip, so no, you didn't catch me in a mistake. But keep stalking me to try. Maybe someday I'll actually be wrong. Of note, it's also an American chip, not a Chinese one.

Now fuck off, you 1% piece of shit troll.

1%? I'm not in the 1%. I'm barely in the top 10% (something every college graduate is easily capable of), the real question is, why aren't you? Too lazy, or too stupid?

Re:Who cares (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253621)

While communicating with the US, choose Cisco. While communicating with China, choose Huawei.

Re:Who cares (3, Funny)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 2 months ago | (#46253795)

While communicating with the US, choose Cisco. While communicating with China, choose Huawei.

Do it the other way round. That'll keep everybody extremely honest.

Use the right one for the job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253983)

Assuming you cannot deploy your own silicon and that you need the throughput that requires silicon-based packet forwarding/switching, you will have to use the right vendor for the job.

On anything the US might be interested in, use chinese. On anything the chinese would be intersted in, use US. And remember that all US network equipment is likely to be trojaned by the chinese anyway as most ASICs and FPGAs are made in china or taiwan (and even if the taiwan govenrment is not friends with the chinese, it is trivial for the chinese to subvert taiwan fabs through plants).

(interestingly enough, the captcha for this post was "futile")

LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46255009)

"most fpgas are made in Taiwan"

Do you want to try again?

LOL

I'll give you a hint. The mid to high end FPGAs that were manufactured in the past 18 months all have ITAR restrictions on them.

You'll take "I'll talk shit for $2000 alex"

Cisco? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46254065)

Thank tho Snowden we now know that Cisco is even worse in that regard.

[citation needed]

In what way? I am not aware of any backdoors being reported from the Snowden documents. I've seen Chinese media say that Cisco helped the NSA, but not any reports from Greenwald et al:

http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-media-snowden-says-cisco-090020241.html

There are reports of exploits against Cisco equipment by the NSA, but they've also attacked Juniper, Huawei, and many other vendors. So again: [citation needed].

So while I'm not a fan of Cisco gear for other reasons (primarily budget/value proposition), from a security POV there shouldn't be much of an issue AFAICT.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46256073)

Thank tho Snowden we now know that Cisco is even worse in that regard.

No "we" don't. No one has leaked any information about Huawei. Whatever you think you know is wrong.

Use Cisco instead... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253481)

Use Cisco instead... the NSA already has backdoors into those.

Re:Use Cisco instead... (2)

satuon (1822492) | about 2 months ago | (#46253507)

The US is an ally to South Korea, and since that equipment will be used to communicate to the American military bases anyway, I don't see why they need to worry if the NSA can spy on it.

Re:Use Cisco instead... (2)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 2 months ago | (#46253593)

because the US are not restricting themselves to military spying. Political, economic and LOVEINT spying of "allies" are par for the game, too.

Re:Use Cisco instead... (1)

satuon (1822492) | about 2 months ago | (#46253629)

Again, those communications are to the US military bases in South Korea. So why would you be worried that the NSA might be spying on your conversations with the US military?

Re: Use Cisco instead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253669)

They are doing this for political reasons only. Yo appease to the big bad USA.

USA spies. China spies. Bug difference this makes

Re:Use Cisco instead... (1)

Goaway (82658) | about 2 months ago | (#46254017)

What makes you think it will be used only for that?

Re:Use Cisco instead... (1)

satuon (1822492) | about 2 months ago | (#46254369)

claiming that the infrastructure could be used to spy on communications with American military bases there. As a result, Huawei equipment will not be used at any American military base in South Korea.

That's from the article. I admit it's rather ambiguous, so maybe I'm wrong. I understood it to mean that Huawei won't be used for communications between american military bases in South Korea, and the South Korean government.

Re:Use Cisco instead... (3, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | about 2 months ago | (#46253799)

Maybe the REAL reason that the US and its allies hate Huawei is because unlike Cisco or Juniper or HP or Ericsson or whoever, they cant put backdoors in the Huawei gear.

Re: Use Cisco instead... (4, Informative)

chill (34294) | about 2 months ago | (#46253857)

Uh, no. You just read the *headlines* on Snowden articles and not the details, didn't you?

Backdooring Cisco or Juniper equipment required physical access or someone to upload a Trojan firmware.

Huawei has a *remote upgrade* feature that allows remote firmware programming. They are very..."user" friendly.

Re: Use Cisco instead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253991)

Huawei firmware is not known for its quality. It has so many nasty bugs and security holes, the remote firmware programming interface is just a safer way to do it.

Cisco and Juniper are much better (at least their boxes crash or do idiotic things a lot less than Huawei boxes), but still not anywhere close to safe enough for the job, as one can easily check by hunting for C and J firmware exploits in several sites.

Re: Use Cisco instead... (4, Informative)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 2 months ago | (#46254169)

Huawei firmware is not known for its quality. It has so many nasty bugs and security holes, the remote firmware programming interface is just a safer way to do it.

Cisco and Juniper are much better (at least their boxes crash or do idiotic things a lot less than Huawei boxes), but still not anywhere close to safe enough for the job, as one can easily check by hunting for C and J firmware exploits in several sites.

I always point to this video when people ask what my big deal with Huawei is. The takeaway, they found early 1990s bugs and security everywhere, including all memory being world accessible and mapped read, write, execute. That means you just need an exploit, no privilege escalation necessary. Also, not only are these exploits easy to find, Huawei doesn't publish CVEs or changelogs for their new firmware. Combine that with most debugging features only being available in Chinese.... Yeah, I'll pass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Re: Use Cisco instead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46257727)

Yeah, I'll pass

So you're saying the US/NSA is making it tough for itself by urging people to use quality telecom gear?
Isn't this classic go fuck yourself?

Re: Use Cisco instead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46337483)

They've got enough exploits and leverage to get into any switch made by Cisco or Juniper whenever they want. They don't want China to be in there with them. Self-serving lies, not just for the enemy.

Re: Use Cisco instead... (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | about 2 months ago | (#46254995)

Lets face it, if you want security, its best to deliver your messages by hand or don't bother to communicate them at all. That said this should give a boost to Cisco as their business has suffered considerably in overseas markets as a result of NSA spying, not that they could do much about it. Cisco and many US manufacturers will probably now have to more heavily involve other country's IT professionals in the design, fabrication, and use of router and switch hardware to overcome fears of foreign consumers now. This of course, is a big loss to US IT personnel not to mention Cisco shareholders. In time, however, they should be OK as its not as if anyone can keep their hands clean, if governments want to be in the hacking business, so the spying just puts everyone at a disadvantage, since ultimately it costs everyone more to be part of the race to keep up.

Phyical access to network hardware (1)

Streetlight (1102081) | about 2 months ago | (#46255011)

You don't think the NSA doesn't have physical access to US network equipment manufacturing or on-site users of that equipment? Stealth NSA employees or bribed ones inserted there would do the job.

Re:Use Cisco instead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46254095)

Maybe the REAL reason that the US and its allies hate Huawei is because unlike Cisco or Juniper or HP or Ericsson or whoever, they cant put backdoors in the Huawei gear.

Interesting speculation... but... you obviously don't yet realize that Huawei stole network monitoring software from at least one US company and put the Huawei name on it. Even now, they're trying to sell this as a commercial package outside the US (where the afore-mentioned American company is working with three letter agencies to limit their losses). Any backdoors in the software are already known and exploitable.

This is silly (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#46253489)

If you want to keep your data secure over a network, encrypt it (and trust the other side). That's the only way.

This is silly stuff for the US to be worrying about. We should be generous with our friends in things that matter little, so when it comes to things that do matter, they will have confidence that we are negotiating in good faith. Why would you want to use protectionism to defend Verizon and Qualcomm? Really?

Re:This is silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253553)

It is not about economic protectionism. If there is ever a war between North and South Korea again, China will side with the North and the U.S. will side with the South. If the South has made a foolish move like hand all of its communication systems over to a Chinese company founded and operated by the Chinese army, then that battle will be skewed in the North's favor. If you are in control of your enemy's communication, you can a) spy on every step they plan to take to defend themselves, b) mislead your enemy with false communique, c) steal sensitive data, e.g. battle plans, technology, weapons specs, army sizes, etc. d) shut off their communications at a key moment as you invade preventing them from reacting in a timely fashion, etc.

Re:This is silly (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 months ago | (#46253723)

I'm not sure about that. It'll certainly be true during the saber-rattling preliminaries, but China's leadership is pragmatic. They know they've got more to lose from South Korea taking a beating than they do if North Korea goes down.

Certainly their first choice is for the current state of affairs to continue, though.

Oh yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46255049)

That's what goofball libs like you said about japan. "They're a practical people............they'll NEVER attack the US!!!111!!!1!!"

IDIOT

Re:This is silly (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 months ago | (#46253555)

Well normally I'd agree, except I've lived in the region for a bit. Some other /.er's could probably explain better if they're more recent live-ins', but usually when the governments in the region do something like this it has more to do with industrial espionage and fear of direct, or indirect attacks against national interests. Or that there's interest in "gaining" people by kidnapping. China, who uses N.Korea as a proxy to attack it's neighbors will happily disavow everything. And there's a very long history of people who've disappeared in S.Korea and Japan showing up in both countries as either sex slaves, concubines to the leadership, or forced into research positions/universities.

Re:This is silly (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#46253603)

That might be a reasonable explanation, if Korea had been truly doing it of their own volition. Clearly that's not what happened here, the US pushed them towards that. For some reason the US has been really anti-Huawei, not just in Korea, but in America too.

That is silly (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#46253607)

China, who uses N.Korea as a proxy to attack it's neighbors

After Chinese involvement in an attempted coup a couple of decades back they haven't gotten on very well. Of course nobody else will even talk to N.K. , let alone trade with a serious markup on everything.

The kidnapping etc has certainly been linked to N.K. on multiple occasions - but to China? I've never heard of that one so please provide an example.

I'm not defending China, merely pointing out that N.K. should take the blame for their own actions instead of using a stupid "Chinese puppet" conspiracy theory. I know some Chinese from just over the border who may have relatives in N.K. but they have no way of finding out if they are alive or dead. Their attitude, and it doesn't seem to be uncommon, is the best solution is to wait until the wind is blowing the right way and nuke the place. That's just one example of the strong feelings and how it's a different country.

Re:This is silly (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 2 months ago | (#46253595)

What, and miss an opportunity to sell Cisco hardware instead of Huawei ? You don't know who pays for politicians' campaigns do you ?

Re:This is silly (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 2 months ago | (#46254599)

When you are up against a superpower, encrypting your data is little, if any, protection. They have secret programs dedicated to finding weaknesses in commonly used crypto, and the money and motivation to build supercomputers to brute force your communications in reasonable time-frames, in combination with whatever weaknesses they've found.

In addition, that only helps keeping the content of messages safe. There's a lot to be learned from info like who is sending data to who, how much data, when, etc.

And it only gets worse from there... With control of the telcom backbone, you can jump onto private leased-lines. Even if those companies use encryption on their private links, that still means they've got a number of targets for exploitation (like SCADA systems) which would never be reacably via the public internet.

And finally, there's always the option of just turning everything OFF. If China or random hackers break-in, and reroute 911 calls, or reroute EVERYTHING so entire network links go down, people are going to die, businesses and markets will see major losses, etc. In general, that threat is well worth spending more money on, to get equipment that isn't known to have obscene numbers of exploitable bugs in the firmware.

Re:This is silly (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#46255169)

They have secret programs dedicated to finding weaknesses in commonly used crypto, and the money and motivation to build supercomputers to brute force your communications in reasonable time-frames, in combination with whatever weaknesses they've found.

Let's assume that your paranoia is reasonable, and somehow the NSA did find a weakness in the crypto. Then create a distribution system for a one-time pad. Unbreakable.

Re: This is silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46255323)

A one time pad is still vulnerable to statistical analysis.

Re: This is silly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46259843)

You failed basic math. It's a one time pad. The ONLY system with a perfect security PROOF, given you stick to the constraints. True random values, no correlation between bits, and only used to encrypt one message. Any other use (including transmitting the pad value in ANY way less provably secure) immediately breaks the security proof. However, a one time pad, used properly, is not vulnerable to ANY attack. Any ciphertext may decrypt to any plaintext of same or shorter length with equal likelihood, that being the CORE of the proof. Since the likelihood is absolutely the same for every single bit, and all bits are uncorrelated, how exactly do you propose to statistically analyze it? You can demonstrate this for yourself with a pad of paper and a pen and XOR.

Re:This is silly (2)

evilviper (135110) | about 2 months ago | (#46255565)

One-time pads are extremely cumbersome, and the "distribution system" of which you speak is inherently highly vulnerable to things like interception, whether of the high or low-tech sort.

How would you propose to integrate OTPs with IPSec VPNs for instance? It's a very hard problem that you're treating like a minor detail...

Re:This is silly (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#46255719)

One-time pads are extremely cumbersome, and the "distribution system" of which you speak is inherently highly vulnerable to things like interception, whether of the high or low-tech sort.

A lot of country's foreign departments already have a system in place for manually carrying encryption keys across the globe every month, so this is not a problem. (I don't know if a lot do that, but I know that some do it). Integrating it into VPN is just a software development problem, it's not something that couldn't be done.

Either way, Bruce Schneier correctly points out that the encryption algorithms we use are definitely not the weak link in the system. Even with OTP you can have your pad compromised by a mole, or your windows machine hacked.

Re:This is silly (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 2 months ago | (#46256919)

Hand-wave all you want, you still won't change the reality.

Re:This is silly (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#46256965)

lol that's like an elementary school argument. The reality that you think the NSA has broken the key algorithms? You're not one to be talking about reality, kiddo

Re:This is silly (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 2 months ago | (#46257151)

The reality that you think the NSA has broken the key algorithms? You're not one to be talking about reality, kiddo

There are publicly known vulnerabilities in any crypto you care to name. Combining issues like those, with obscene amounts of money, makes it possible to decrypt anything in a reasonable time-frame. If you don't know this, you shouldn't be offering your uneducated opinion on the subject. When you're talking about *governments* and multi-billion dollar trade-secrets, the rules are very different than when securing your gmail password. Crypto is good, but it's not the magic pixie dust you want it to be.

And acting like it's oh-so-very simple to manage gigabytes of OTPs every day, and feeding it into the low-level protocols never designed for such a thing, won't make it true.

And let's not forget that I mentioned FOUR different things that were utterly and undeniably wrong with your ridiculous stance on this issue. Yet you haven't argued with any of the other three show-stopping issues.

Re:This is silly (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#46257233)

There are publicly known vulnerabilities in any crypto you care to name.

SHA-2 and SHA-3 are still good.

And acting like it's oh-so-very simple to manage gigabytes of OTPs every day, and feeding it into the low-level protocols never designed for such a thing, won't make it true.

OTP would be easy to integrate into any low level encryption. That's not the problem; the problem is making sure the pad is secure. If it gets stolen, your encryption is over. Have you seen how many algorithms openSSL already integrates, for example? You probably don't know what you are talking about. Gigabytes are easy to transfer, do you know the size of hard drives these days?

Also, you should go read a book about cryptography. It will make you knowledgable.

And let's not forget that I mentioned FOUR different things that were utterly and undeniably wrong with your ridiculous stance on this issue. Yet you haven't argued with any of the other three show-stopping issues.

Yeap. You're having too much trouble understanding the first point, getting through all four of them would take forever. :) Furthermore, you fail at a basic principle of good thinking: you should try to find flaws in ideas you agree with, not in ideas you disagree with. That's basic science; as soon as you have a hypothesis, attack it to test it. You are failing to do that, I can tell by the style of your arguments.

IF you change and do that, it will make you smarter.

Translation: (2)

xiando (770382) | about 2 months ago | (#46253519)

The US government is using it's infrastructure and networks to spy on everyone so it naturally assumes that China is going this as well.

It is commercial spying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253537)

Korea and China have both huge commercial intrests in the global big business. Thay is why the Chineese are spying on Koreans. Korea cannot say this so they give the excuse of the American defence, which is a smokescreen. China wants to climb the technology ladder and uses any means availabe, moral or not.

Re:It is commercial spying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253625)

China wants to climb the technology ladder and uses any means availabe, moral or not.

The U.S. took technology from Europe without a second thought. Carnegie took the Bessemer process. One could argue that it's immoral to keep people in poverty by not sharing information. I wonder how many people die each year because patents.

Two sides (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#46253587)

Whether they are insecure or not a similar thing was part of a sales tactic that Cisco used in Australia a while ago. It's called bagging the opposition. Of course it takes an extremely unethical company to take it this far, but Cisco is developing a bit of reputation along those lines. It's no longer the company the Ciscos started. It's the company that ripped off the Ciscos and then sacked them from their own company.

Huawei sux... actually... (2)

ImOuttaHere (2996813) | about 2 months ago | (#46253677)

For anyone closely following China and their state-sponsored intellectual property theft activities, this comes as no surprise. The only thing I would change in the opening paragraph is "...infrastructure could be used to spy on communications... to ...infrastructure is used to spy on communications...

China's IP theft, how it happens, Hauwei's involvement, Chinese Liberation Army battalions devoted to network disruption and IP theft, US three letter agency involvement in trying to help US corporations protect themselves, is all open, public knowledge. Saying things like CISCO is worse is only avoiding the real and serious issues of western business competitiveness and military capabilities by posing a straw-man that, while the argument might feel good, is completely and utterly false. Do some research before claiming "we're no better than they are", please.

Re:Huawei sux... actually... (1)

jovius (974690) | about 2 months ago | (#46253791)

So how does it help when this east-west / us-them -construction is constantly strengthened and the separation thus deepened. The current paradigm needs to be changed. Adoring the ones that are selfish enough to gain power will only leave crumbles for the followers. In the end the ones that actually want to gain transparency are put into jails and opaqued - regardless of the culture and the political system, because the highest sphere shares the same view. The tribal power structure is build deep into the human psyche, but it's not the only way. There's an avenue of growth too.

Huawei sux because the US can't control them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253821)

> Do some research before claiming "we're no better than they are", please.

You're being laughable. If you're patriot and want to help the USA by lying further, at least be responsible and let someone more competent do the job.

"Intellectual Property"? Stop being stupid. Your corporations overpaid R&D that can be done for a thousand times less money in China or India? And you want to prevent the world from seeing inexpensive alternatives? Well, fsck your corporations!

The USA was since long a country based on Freedom and truth -- not in bs concepts like property of ideas.

Once expressed, ideas cannot be contained, but spread like fire. Get over it. Instead, use legal existing resources like copyright and patents, which are mostly worldwide recognized.

Re:Huawei sux... actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253853)

Security professionals are all unprofessional.
Any decent person would publish the known flaws - they are caught on flight recorders.
My bet is the technique is used on ALL brands, hence staying stum on what the alleged 'feature'.

Re:Huawei sux... actually... (1)

echnaton192 (1118591) | about 2 months ago | (#46253933)

The link from the other guy was not in a reply to your outrageous lies, so here it goes:
http://www.wired.com/wiredente... [wired.com]

Living in a surveillance state like china or the US is one thing. Denying it and accusing only the other country of being a fascistic surveillance state is ridiculous.

Re:Huawei sux... actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253989)

>"state-sponsored intellectual property theft activities"

If it's state sponsored it usually can't infringe intellectual property: IP is an agreement between a creator and the state, if the state chose not to offer such monopolies or to limit their offering then that's it, it's not a requirement of being a state and their is no real moral injunction for it. They may be reneging on international conventions they've ratified - but that's pretty much within the bounds of normal state operations. FWIW even the UK has provisions for the state to co-opt IP.

If it's intellectual property it can't be theft unless the original creators, or license owners, are denied use of it.

I'm not sure exactly what activities you're referring to but

Re:Huawei sux... actually... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#46255359)

I've done some research. We are no better than they are. There is proof that Cisco spied on foreign governments for the USA. Where's the proof that Huawei did the same for China? Oh, because we don't like them, we don't need no stinkin proof.

stupid koreans (0)

tleaf100 (2020038) | about 2 months ago | (#46253743)

and the yanks are still spouting the same shit again. what they mean is that huawei turned round and told the nsa to go shove it when the nsa insisted that huawei set up backdoors for the nsa. fucking lieing yanks are fucking everything for everyone else on the planet.fingers crossed a plague kills the fucking bunch of inbred failures. the average inteligence of the planet would go up a chunk overnight. they have had their chances,have shown everyone that they cannot hack it in an honest world,lets flash the stupid fuckers,starting with washington when all their politicos are there.

Thanks Snowden (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253955)

Thanks, what you did, took a lot of guts and woke us up.

Funny, ha ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253969)

Diverts to where? To networks spied by USA regime. How silly

Re:Funny, ha ha ha (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 2 months ago | (#46255159)

From S.Korea's viewpoint, that might be a reasonable decision, given the range of available options. But use encryption on anything sensitive, and enought things that aren't (including some noise). And if it's really sensitive, use a one-time pad system (and encrypt that, too, just to break their heads against). And avoid English even on trivial stuff. Korean with lots of current slang should require the use of limited resources to understand.

N.B.: This won't stop them, except the one-time pad. But it will raise the cost of snooping to the point where it will be limited.

Re: Funny, ha ha ha (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46259891)

Once you've solved the distribution effort for a one time pad (good luck) DON'T bother with extra layers. it's security theater at that point. If you argue that it isn't, then you clearly don't have your distribution system for your one time pad worked out, since you can't use another form of encryption to transmit a pad without violating the security proof and reducing the security of the pad to the distribution system. Since it IS theater, you're STILL weakening security by introducing a false layer of extra confidence... Put the extra security where it MATTERS, such as on bug sweeping and vetting couriers.

Re: Funny, ha ha ha (2)

HiThere (15173) | about a month ago | (#46262577)

The extra layers are so that it's not immediately obvious which messages are encoded with the one-time pad version. That can be important information, and delaying it's recognition can be an important plus. (And only a few messages should really require a one-time pad. For most a lighter level of security should suffice.)

VoTE FoR PEDRO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46253981)

Vote for Pedro!

He really whips the llamas ass

US trying to make allies chose to use US made gear (2)

Sigurd_Fafnersbane (674740) | about 2 months ago | (#46253995)

According to Snowden, NSA use vulnerabilities in both Huawei, Cisco and other manufacturers gear to spy on traffic but if the vulnerabilities in Cisco, Juniper and others are planted there by NSA they might suspect that other parties have bigger difficulties spying on Cisco gear. Most likely though it is more a question on wanting to favour American industry like when NSA did industrial espionage against Brazilian, German or other countries companies and share data with US companies.

Huawei suspected to spy Belgium too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46254103)

Note that the Belgium government suspects Huawei for spying citizens and ministers. Belgacom CEO being a former Huawei employee...

http://flashcritic.com/chinas-huawei-suspected-in-belgian-telecom/

Oh, the irony. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46254431)

I am amused.

What if it's the other way around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46254565)

What if the U.S. is afraid of Huawei kit because it DOESN'T spy on communications?

It would be exceedingly difficult for the NSA to insert a backdoor in a Chinese-made router developed by a Chinese company.

Re:What if it's the other way around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46254805)

Uh, well actually in late 90ies Huawei copied Cisco's router 1:1, even the manual so they copied the backdoor as well :-)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...