Huawei - Yeeha or Boohoo or to who do you kowtow to? Bompy™

mr_goo

coopster_the_1st said:

pinno said:

Most of this stuff is over my head so can someone do '5G and Huawei implications for Dummies' please?

It simply comes down to 'do you trust the Chinese regime?'.

Imagine if things got slightly rocky in the relationship between the UK & China, eg say over Hong Kong, I'm sure the Chinese would have the security backdoors to disable the Huawei built 5G equipment and thus almost immediately create huge problems in the UK.

Don't fall for the hype that we need warships and boots on the ground, if there is a future major war it will be fought digitally.

This.
Goo Jnr is genned up with this and reckons it's not good. Huawai are obliged to release any information that it holds or gathers to the Chinese intelligence community, just like all Chinese companies.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Fair enough.

It's still one superpower telling the UK what it can and can't do because of what the other superpower represents.

And I wasn't really referring to leaving the EU, more a recognition that the UK is a minnow in all of this.

As I said upthread, exactly the same thing happened with AIIB. In that case, as soon as the UK said yes, Japan and Korea did too, so there was still some influence around the world. The US ended up isolated.

Pross

mr_goo said:

coopster_the_1st said:

pinno said:

Most of this stuff is over my head so can someone do '5G and Huawei implications for Dummies' please?

It simply comes down to 'do you trust the Chinese regime?'.

Imagine if things got slightly rocky in the relationship between the UK & China, eg say over Hong Kong, I'm sure the Chinese would have the security backdoors to disable the Huawei built 5G equipment and thus almost immediately create huge problems in the UK.

Don't fall for the hype that we need warships and boots on the ground, if there is a future major war it will be fought digitally.

This.
Goo Jnr is genned up with this and reckons it's not good. Huawai are obliged to release any information that it holds or gathers to the Chinese intelligence community, just like all Chinese companies.

Isn't the decision basically that Huawei won't be allowed to provide anything that puts them in a position that their kit can gather any useful information? As others have said, this had been reviewed by our own security experts and they are happy that there isn't a security risk. We're pretty good at this sort of thing from what I've read, I doubt that all the kit used by GCHQ was designed and manufactured in the UK. This whole thing with Huawei seems to have come out of Trump's protectionism policies rather than a genuine concern for security.

rjsterry

Not quite. They have concluded that the risk is manageable and that alternatives also present risks.

In related news, BT are having to strip out 5G kit already installed for the EE network, as this breaches the 35% quota set by the government. Reported costs are £500million.

mr_goo

It may be the case that Huawai don't have a technical bridge to the UKs most sensitive infrastructure. But that doesn't mean they won't have one to more public areas.
As with many decisions taken by HM Gov and their recent track history on MoD acquisition I'm still sceptical as to whether there was some leaning and ignoring of the advisors all in the name of not wanting to upset the Chinese government... trade talks etc etc.

All very complex.

step83

This all boils down to a few different things

US and China trade war/general tensions and distrust

UK wanting to keep options open in trade deals with both parties

Risk mitigation

We could argue the first two points but theres plenty on that, the third I do know a bit about, I have had dealings with MoD sites etc in the last decade, they are all classed as core and as such theres no HRV kit on site, there is though a mix of suppliers, this is partially fininancial and also reduces risk, say transmitter X is found to have an exploit, you still have transmitter Y which is for A N other vendor which is risk free.

Perfect example the current Intel security vulnerabilities, AMD thus far have missed all of them.

There's a very good point early into the article,


"if your network design means that you need to run really sensitive functions processing really sensitive data (i.e. core functions) on an edge access device on top of a bus stop, your choice of vendor is the least of your worries and you probably shouldn’t be designing critical national infrastructure."

This is very true, a secure (in fact any) network is only as its weakest link, so you shunt important/sensitive data via the Core network, not the edge, an thats quite easy the MOD etc have secure systems for this.

We are in an awkward situation, networks are obliged to use two suppliers on a RaN for resilience, pretty much everyone is going to plump for Huawei as its actually the cheapest, then you have either Nokia, or Ericsson, both expensive and more annoyingly they don't always work well you get geographical and even weather can really hamper the function/range.

End of the day all vendors are a risk of forms but not all fall into the special measures, the supplied monitoring software is not being used (why trust the code from a company you don't trust) there is resilience in edge network as in another transmitter supplier, and the HRV has a limited amount they are even able to deploy. An they are not able to interact with the core, worst case is going to be some localised network outage so the kids will have to resort to playing with gravel again.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Fair enough.

It's still one superpower telling the UK what it can and can't do because of what the other superpower represents.

And I wasn't really referring to leaving the EU, more a recognition that the UK is a minnow in all of this.

As I said upthread, exactly the same thing happened with AIIB. In that case, as soon as the UK said yes, Japan and Korea did too, so there was still some influence around the world. The US ended up isolated.

Aside from the point that this isn't really Brexit related, some people want to think we are just getting pushed around rather than looking at it objectively.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Fair enough.

It's still one superpower telling the UK what it can and can't do because of what the other superpower represents.

And I wasn't really referring to leaving the EU, more a recognition that the UK is a minnow in all of this.

As I said upthread, exactly the same thing happened with AIIB. In that case, as soon as the UK said yes, Japan and Korea did too, so there was still some influence around the world. The US ended up isolated.

Aside from the point that this isn't really Brexit related, some people want to think we are just getting pushed around rather than looking at it objectively.

One might suggest this is partly a consequence of ministers suggesting that we've had enough of experts, not to mention frequently overruling the expert advice they have themselves commissioned.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Fair enough.

It's still one superpower telling the UK what it can and can't do because of what the other superpower represents.

And I wasn't really referring to leaving the EU, more a recognition that the UK is a minnow in all of this.

As I said upthread, exactly the same thing happened with AIIB. In that case, as soon as the UK said yes, Japan and Korea did too, so there was still some influence around the world. The US ended up isolated.

Aside from the point that this isn't really Brexit related, some people want to think we are just getting pushed around rather than looking at it objectively.

One might suggest this is partly a consequence of ministers suggesting that we've had enough of experts, not to mention frequently overruling the expert advice they have themselves commissioned.

You can certainly suggest. Depends on what any expert evidence says.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Fair enough.

It's still one superpower telling the UK what it can and can't do because of what the other superpower represents.

And I wasn't really referring to leaving the EU, more a recognition that the UK is a minnow in all of this.

As I said upthread, exactly the same thing happened with AIIB. In that case, as soon as the UK said yes, Japan and Korea did too, so there was still some influence around the world. The US ended up isolated.

Aside from the point that this isn't really Brexit related, some people want to think we are just getting pushed around rather than looking at it objectively.

One might suggest this is partly a consequence of ministers suggesting that we've had enough of experts, not to mention frequently overruling the expert advice they have themselves commissioned.

I think it just shows that US influence is declining. Or Chinese influence is increasing.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Fair enough.

It's still one superpower telling the UK what it can and can't do because of what the other superpower represents.

And I wasn't really referring to leaving the EU, more a recognition that the UK is a minnow in all of this.

As I said upthread, exactly the same thing happened with AIIB. In that case, as soon as the UK said yes, Japan and Korea did too, so there was still some influence around the world. The US ended up isolated.

Aside from the point that this isn't really Brexit related, some people want to think we are just getting pushed around rather than looking at it objectively.

One might suggest this is partly a consequence of ministers suggesting that we've had enough of experts, not to mention frequently overruling the expert advice they have themselves commissioned.

You can certainly suggest. Depends on what any expert evidence says.

You think the constant disparaging or misrepresentation of any technical report on almost any subject isn't ultimately corrosive to public discourse?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Fair enough.

It's still one superpower telling the UK what it can and can't do because of what the other superpower represents.

And I wasn't really referring to leaving the EU, more a recognition that the UK is a minnow in all of this.

As I said upthread, exactly the same thing happened with AIIB. In that case, as soon as the UK said yes, Japan and Korea did too, so there was still some influence around the world. The US ended up isolated.

Aside from the point that this isn't really Brexit related, some people want to think we are just getting pushed around rather than looking at it objectively.

One might suggest this is partly a consequence of ministers suggesting that we've had enough of experts, not to mention frequently overruling the expert advice they have themselves commissioned.

You can certainly suggest. Depends on what any expert evidence says.

You think the constant disparaging or misrepresentation of any technical report on almost any subject isn't ultimately corrosive to public discourse?

Could well be be, but I'm talking about the specifics of this case.

rjsterry

In this case the expert advice seems pretty clear, yet we have a variety of politicians publicly ignoring key points of that advice, and a general level of suspicion on here that it's all about the UK's post-Brexit position in the world.

step83

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Fair enough.

It's still one superpower telling the UK what it can and can't do because of what the other superpower represents.

And I wasn't really referring to leaving the EU, more a recognition that the UK is a minnow in all of this.

As I said upthread, exactly the same thing happened with AIIB. In that case, as soon as the UK said yes, Japan and Korea did too, so there was still some influence around the world. The US ended up isolated.

Aside from the point that this isn't really Brexit related, some people want to think we are just getting pushed around rather than looking at it objectively.

One might suggest this is partly a consequence of ministers suggesting that we've had enough of experts, not to mention frequently overruling the expert advice they have themselves commissioned.

I think it just shows that US influence is declining. Or Chinese influence is increasing.

US influence is about the same as before, tough the direction of their foreign policy has changed.
More over China has become a far larger economy and spread its political wings so to speak, I think more a of a greater concern is the National Intelligence Law they brought in

https://www.lawfareblog.com/beijings-new-national-intelligence-law-defense-offense

Basically the Government or its officials can turn up to a company and demand and demand the company help them with what ever task they deem in the "Defence" of China. Now they are using this defence very loosely so it can be used as an offensive method aka, lets attack X using this companies IT as its handy.

Bascially its a very thinly veiled way of saying we can and will use private companies for our own gain and or espionage etc.

Pross

Does anyone believe that the US doesn't use their tech giants in a similar way? I'd be amazed if the NSA aren't getting in on the act.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

In this case the expert advice seems pretty clear, yet we have a variety of politicians publicly ignoring key points of that advice, and a general level of suspicion on here that it's all about the UK's post-Brexit position in the world.

If that's a reference to me I wasn't really referring to the UK post Brexit - but the fact it does not have a firm who provides its own solution is telling, is it not?

bompington

Pross said:

Does anyone believe that the US doesn't use their tech giants in a similar way? I'd be amazed if the NSA aren't getting in on the act.

TBF it's hard to imagine a Chinese company refusing to give the authorities access to locked phones in the way that Apple did.

In fact, think of cases like Google complying with Chinese censorship demands, compared to their employees refusing to cooperate with the US military...

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

In this case the expert advice seems pretty clear, yet we have a variety of politicians publicly ignoring key points of that advice, and a general level of suspicion on here that it's all about the UK's post-Brexit position in the world.

If that's a reference to me I wasn't really referring to the UK post Brexit - but the fact it does not have a firm who provides its own solution is telling, is it not?

Not specifically, but no, I don't think it is telling. Neither does anywhere except, Sweden (Ericsson), Finland (Nokia), South Korea (Samsung) or China (Huawei or ZTE).

step83

Pross said:

Does anyone believe that the US doesn't use their tech giants in a similar way? I'd be amazed if the NSA aren't getting in on the act.

Of course not, just the NSA do this in a more clandestine way using the shroud of National Security and Patriotism to hide behind.

Pross

bompington said:

Pross said:

Does anyone believe that the US doesn't use their tech giants in a similar way? I'd be amazed if the NSA aren't getting in on the act.

TBF it's hard to imagine a Chinese company refusing to give the authorities access to locked phones in the way that Apple did.

In fact, think of cases like Google complying with Chinese censorship demands, compared to their employees refusing to cooperate with the US military...

That's what 'they' want you to think

Jeremy.89

You don't necessarily need to supply the equipment to hack it.

You also don't need to supply anything to then use bots on twitter/facebook.

sungod

pinno said:

Most of this stuff is over my head so can someone do '5G and Huawei implications for Dummies' please?

just a pawn in trump's trade war with china

huawei has good 5g product and an awful lot a lot of clever and creative scientists and engineers, this is not 'copycat' stuff

primary issue is probably their iffy software quality, which will increase risk of compromise by anyone, not only the chinese state

other vendor's stuff is also vulnerable of course, on top of which telco/operator security can be so bad it's not even funny

is china a threat to uk security? yes
is the usa a threat to uk security? yes, as are russia and many others

the usa has long done what it says china could do, they're all at it

there're far easier ways to subvert things than via the manufacturer

the kerfuffle is about trade and long term market share

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

mr_goo said:

coopster_the_1st said:

pinno said:

Most of this stuff is over my head so can someone do '5G and Huawei implications for Dummies' please?

It simply comes down to 'do you trust the Chinese regime?'.

Imagine if things got slightly rocky in the relationship between the UK & China, eg say over Hong Kong, I'm sure the Chinese would have the security backdoors to disable the Huawei built 5G equipment and thus almost immediately create huge problems in the UK.

Don't fall for the hype that we need warships and boots on the ground, if there is a future major war it will be fought digitally.

This.
Goo Jnr is genned up with this and reckons it's not good. Huawai are obliged to release any information that it holds or gathers to the Chinese intelligence community, just like all Chinese companies.

Isn't the decision basically that Huawei won't be allowed to provide anything that puts them in a position that their kit can gather any useful information? As others have said, this had been reviewed by our own security experts and they are happy that there isn't a security risk. We're pretty good at this sort of thing from what I've read, I doubt that all the kit used by GCHQ was designed and manufactured in the UK. This whole thing with Huawei seems to have come out of Trump's protectionism policies rather than a genuine concern for security.

Are you seriously suggesting that UK security experts know as much as Goo Jnr?

thecycleclinic

Building wheels is simpler. It's one of these things I have a simple opinion on - I have no fucking idea what we should do. If not hair then what. Does the uk public want to pay more to ha e what exactly. Also if we are serious about having the best kit and it's not Huawei are we going to task BT and give them a nice bung to develop our own version?

Does anyone in the country really care about what trump thinks and his threats. If the usa were to drop intelligence sharing so easily it also means that we have nothing of value in which case they would not be sharing Intel with us anyway.

All networks are vulnerable to hacking. If the uk bought other kit or we made our own then that is also vunerable to hackers state backed or otherwise.

So we either buy Huawei kit or we make our own. Why should britain buy Nokia or erikson kit in preference over huawei. Also huawei use equipment made by western companies so it's all a big circle anyway.

As I said building wheels is simpler.

Of course this problem goes away if we uninvented the internet. We knew where we were with an impending nuclear winter (vaporised or dying a slow death while hiding under the stairs). Now it's the treat of digital armageddon and we cant make sense of that.

pinno

sungod said:

pinno said:

Most of this stuff is over my head so can someone do '5G and Huawei implications for Dummies' please?

just a pawn in trump's trade war with china

huawei has good 5g product and an awful lot a lot of clever and creative scientists and engineers, this is not 'copycat' stuff

primary issue is probably their iffy software quality, which will increase risk of compromise by anyone, not only the chinese state

other vendor's stuff is also vulnerable of course, on top of which telco/operator security can be so bad it's not even funny

is china a threat to uk security? yes
is the usa a threat to uk security? yes, as are russia and many others

the usa has long done what it says china could do, they're all at it

there're far easier ways to subvert things than via the manufacturer

the kerfuffle is about trade and long term market share

Why didn't you post this 2 pages ago, 1st reply?!!

awavey

mr_goo said:

coopster_the_1st said:

pinno said:

Most of this stuff is over my head so can someone do '5G and Huawei implications for Dummies' please?

It simply comes down to 'do you trust the Chinese regime?'.

Imagine if things got slightly rocky in the relationship between the UK & China, eg say over Hong Kong, I'm sure the Chinese would have the security backdoors to disable the Huawei built 5G equipment and thus almost immediately create huge problems in the UK.

Don't fall for the hype that we need warships and boots on the ground, if there is a future major war it will be fought digitally.

This.
Goo Jnr is genned up with this and reckons it's not good. Huawai are obliged to release any information that it holds or gathers to the Chinese intelligence community, just like all Chinese companies.

as are all American companies under US law, which is why the FBI are forever taking Apple to court to break their encryption codes on iPhones,even though most people suspect they already have broken them, they are just flexing what can be done under the law.

ask Goo jnr why no one uses a blackberry anymore ?

the whole thrust of the NSCS blog is there are no trusted suppliers anymore, all of them are beholden to their own government security interference and requests, infact even if the UK suddenly started to make this kit our own government would probably demand the exact same access and info as theyd just assume thats what everyone else was doing

the point is you treat any kit like this in a network as hostile and build your security environment around it by treating it as a not trusted domain and determing the ways people can break into it or use it nefariously and frankly if this stuff is sitting in a UK network and the circa 60,000 cyber security experts in the UK cant spot the odd packet disappering off to an unusual server in China (I accept it wouldnt be that obvious but these people are supposed to be looking for the non obvious), then they arent doing their job properly in the first place

sungod

pinno said:

sungod said:

pinno said:

Most of this stuff is over my head so can someone do '5G and Huawei implications for Dummies' please?

just a pawn in trump's trade war with china

huawei has good 5g product and an awful lot a lot of clever and creative scientists and engineers, this is not 'copycat' stuff

primary issue is probably their iffy software quality, which will increase risk of compromise by anyone, not only the chinese state

other vendor's stuff is also vulnerable of course, on top of which telco/operator security can be so bad it's not even funny

is china a threat to uk security? yes
is the usa a threat to uk security? yes, as are russia and many others

the usa has long done what it says china could do, they're all at it

there're far easier ways to subvert things than via the manufacturer

the kerfuffle is about trade and long term market share

Why didn't you post this 2 pages ago, 1st reply?!!

these days i rarely look outside bb, the site is too horrible

plus, given the number of agencies monitoring uk traffic, i was hoping someone might save me the trouble, guess they're too busy laughing at johnson's cached messages and pics

pinno

sungod said:

these days i rarely look outside bb, the site is too horrible

I was thinking more of having to trawl through all those previous posts.

mr_goo

I was speaking to someone this week who is UK manager for a European CCTV manufacturer. UK Gov has installed Chinese manufacturered CCTV Security and monitoring systems into our most sensitive establishments. The bids were uncompetitive as these companies (Hikvision) are subsidised, supported and part owned by Chinese Gov.
Most worryingly these systems have been proved to be accessible from outside said secure environments.

Ergo the Chinese government now have ability to see inside GCHQ and DSTL.

bompington

mr_goo said:

I was speaking to someone this week who is UK manager for a European CCTV manufacturer. UK Gov has installed Chinese manufacturered CCTV Security and monitoring systems into our most sensitive establishments. The bids were uncompetitive as these companies (Hikvision) are subsidised, supported and part owned by Chinese Gov.
Most worryingly these systems have been proved to be accessible from outside said secure environments.

Ergo the Chinese government now have ability to see inside GCHQ and DSTL.

Worrying if true. However, I would give more weight to what the management at GCHQ think is right to do than a salesman for a rival company