61–70 of 412 posts
Has anyone published the evidence of Huawei being an "arm of the PRC surveillance state"? I've seen a lot of claims and a lot of out-of-court-settled lawsuits, but nothing really showing that they're using their devices or software infrastructure for surveillance.
I am beyond disgusted at my government. This Republican administration has been an unprecedented disaster on every front.
Has anyone published the evidence of Huawei being an "arm of the PRC surveillance state"? I've seen a lot of claims and a lot of out-of-court-settled lawsuits, but nothing really showing that they're using their devices or software infrastructure for surveillance.
One other point of concern from Western governments is that Chinese law compels Huawei to cooperate with Chinese intelligence services, which presents a vulnerability whether that law has been taken advantage of or not. This is much different than say, Apple, which has refused (or it has been simply impossible due to E2E) for them to cooperate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Huawei#Espionage_...
Has anyone published the evidence of Huawei being an "arm of the PRC surveillance state"? I've seen a lot of claims and a lot of out-of-court-settled lawsuits, but nothing really showing that they're using their devices or software infrastructure for surveillance.
Has anyone published the evidence of Huawei being an "arm of the PRC surveillance state"? I've seen a lot of claims and a lot of out-of-court-settled lawsuits, but nothing really showing that they're using their devices or software infrastructure for surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a bunch of different measures discussed, but they all seem to remove some attack surface that we have seen exploited. Securing the routers and network cables removes the means for man in the middle attacks (or at least makes them preventable with router security). Not connecting to telecos does the same (because of bgp highjacking and the like). Removing chinese apps and not storing data on Chinese servers ma…
> This doesn't fix all security problems, but it removes some of China's current advantages in cyberwarfare. How? It makes attacks slightly more expensive (because you need to use infrastructure in a "clean" country), but it doesn't stop anyone that's dedicated and has money to spend. Want your spy-app on the app store? Don't register your company in China, just do it in the US. Voila, you're "clean."
Like, we want clean networks free of foreign influence and sruveillance, full stop. Or are they implying that Five Eyes surveillance is good and OK?
We now have our own "Great Firewall"
> We now have our own "Great Firewall" I don’t see anything about content filtering. Just transport integrity. The closest we come to that is the prohibition on apps, but that’s still an ocean away from censoring text messages mentioning the Tiananmen massacre.
Isn't it ridiculously easy to set up attacks from within a "clean" network? It probably does increase costs marginally (you have to fly people to "clean" countries, set up ISP access with third parties, etc) but are there any public estimates how much it does that vs the increased costs to run this network? I would think it's marginal. Seeing the partner list this seems like more of a ploy by telecoms to attack tech…
There's a bunch of different measures discussed, but they all seem to remove some attack surface that we have seen exploited. Securing the routers and network cables removes the means for man in the middle attacks (or at least makes them preventable with router security). Not connecting to telecos does the same (because of bgp highjacking and the like). Removing chinese apps and not storing data on Chinese servers ma…
This just feels like an attempt to control who is the middleman spying on data, not actually securing Americans data. Which makes sense, coming from the government and whatnot - but i'm just trying to make sense of if there's an actual reason i should like this "Clean Network" (which is to say, my comment is an honest question, not an attack on the proposal).
Perhaps i'm just biased because of my (pet) passion for distributed systems. I don't trust any MITM, so i think i struggle to understand the concern for _who_ is in the middle.
I'd be far more interested in this type of pitch if it came with heavy support for encryption, distribution, etc.