Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Huawei was able to eavesdrop on Dutch mobile network KPN: Report

nltimes.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 148 posts

Re: Huawei was able to eavesdrop on Dutch mobile network KPN: Report

#61

Post by namenotrequired »

Ironlink wrote: post #35
boomboomsubban wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though I can't read the actual report, this article does not support your claims. >Apparently also a list of numbers under surveillance by Dutch intelligence was found in possession of Huawei. Which was clearly well beyond those boundaries Wouldn't the ones running the network need to know which numbers were under surveillance to provide the intelligence agency access?

The article says: > The company gained unauthorized access to the heart of the mobile network from China. ... but then, in the very next sentence: > How often that happened is not clear because it was not recorded anywhere. This wording is a bit unclear. The first sentence states as a matter of fact that there was unauthorized access, while the second states that there are no records.

I read it as meaning they had access (i.e. they could access it), but we don't know if they did access it.

Re: Huawei was able to eavesdrop on Dutch mobile network KPN: Report

#62

Post by geofft »

varispeed wrote: post #38
ajross wrote: post #5

The spin on this situation is dumb. What it amounts to is that KPN hired Huawei on a contract basis to administer its equipment, and as a result those contract administrators had... administrator privileges on the Huawei equipment. Now, obviously telco equipment can be used for spying, but there's absolutely no allegation of wrongdoing here at all. If there is any finger to point, it's at KPN for hiring an untrusted…

Your comment sound kind of like victim blaming.

If there was no actual spying, then there's no victim.

If someone gets pickpocketed on the subway, saying "You should have protected yourself better" is victim blaming, sure. But if someone doesn't get pickpocketed and then points out how there was a foreigner sitting right next to them who could, theoretically, have pickpocketed them, should they have chosen, and while the foreigner didn't pickpocket them this time, you know how those foreigners are... then "Why didn't you just get up and sit somewhere else if he bothered you" is a particularly polite form of what you perhaps ought to tell them.

Re: Huawei was able to eavesdrop on Dutch mobile network KPN: Report

#63

Post by jryle70 »

1cvmask wrote: post #10

So there is no story, but a potential story on a potential (fill in the blanks) So you outsourced some services as many companies do and failed to keep tabs on it, just like many companies do. Forgetting to audit outsourced work is extremely prevalent. A report by Capgemini, a leading Western supplier for outsourced personnel to telecommuncations companies. No conflict of interest there.

We have another thread actively discusses potential issues with Google's FloC [0], which is only a proposal at this time, no harm done yet. Do you think Huawei/China is less of a potential thread than Google? If not why do you think there is no story here?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26854073

Re: Huawei was able to eavesdrop on Dutch mobile network KPN: Report

#65

Post by hansjorg »

AlphaSite wrote: post #31
boomboomsubban wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though I can't read the actual report, this article does not support your claims. >Apparently also a list of numbers under surveillance by Dutch intelligence was found in possession of Huawei. Which was clearly well beyond those boundaries Wouldn't the ones running the network need to know which numbers were under surveillance to provide the intelligence agency access?

It could be done at arms length through an API. Then it would become an issue of reading data they shouldn’t be.

Could also be possession of database with intent to select.

Re: Huawei was able to eavesdrop on Dutch mobile network KPN: Report

#66

Post by ncann »

emodendroket wrote: post #17
ajross wrote: post #5

The spin on this situation is dumb. What it amounts to is that KPN hired Huawei on a contract basis to administer its equipment, and as a result those contract administrators had... administrator privileges on the Huawei equipment. Now, obviously telco equipment can be used for spying, but there's absolutely no allegation of wrongdoing here at all. If there is any finger to point, it's at KPN for hiring an untrusted…

I feel we need to read all these stories with a skeptical eye because, frankly, Huawei's become a political football, and there is a very strong motivation to cast events in the most unfavorable light possible by officials who are working backwards from the conclusion. Perhaps they do have some kind of spying master plan but I have found a lot of the fanfare for these stories hasn't held up to scrutiny.

This is something that irks me as well. Every time Huawei is mentioned in a conversation, the topic of spying is inevitably brought up, but as far as I know there has been no concrete case found that they did indeed do any kind of spying act through their equipment. If someone can actually link me something that can prove this claim I would be very interested to read it.

Re: Huawei was able to eavesdrop on Dutch mobile network KPN: Report

#67

Post by ipaddr »

geofft wrote: post #57
kube-system wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US and the Netherlands are both allied members of NATO. That's why Huawei is a different story.

Are you saying it's worse for China to (be granted sufficient access by the Netherlands that, in theory, if they wished to abuse that access, they could) spy on communications in the Netherlands than for the US to spy on communications in the US?

From a NATO point of view yes. China spying on the Netherlands would be worse than the US spying on itself.

Re: Huawei was able to eavesdrop on Dutch mobile network KPN: Report

#68

Post by justicezyx »

In China's South Song dynasty, a military leader by the name Yue Fei (岳飞) [1], was sentenced to death by his political enemy Qin Hui (秦桧) [2] on false accusations.

What made this event particularly memorable, in addition to the fact that Yue Fei was considered a patriot; was that Qin Hui had blatantly responded to questions of how can you prove your accusations?

Qin Hui's reply: Yue Fei, when given, the right power, probably would commit those wrongdoings.

This is called 莫须有 [3].

You know why Chinese are not as angry as an American could be on Huawei's situations? Because everyone understand this is a political conflict. For this type of conflicts, only true power and strength can get any answer. Talking is not only futile, it's countereffective.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yue_Fei

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Hui

[3] https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%8E%AB%E9%A0%88%E6%9C%89

Re: Huawei was able to eavesdrop on Dutch mobile network KPN: Report

#69

Post by [deleted] »

geofft wrote: post #62
varispeed wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment sound kind of like victim blaming.

If there was no actual spying, then there's no victim. If someone gets pickpocketed on the subway, saying "You should have protected yourself better" is victim blaming, sure. But if someone doesn't get pickpocketed and then points out how there was a foreigner sitting right next to them who could, theoretically, have pickpocketed them, should they have chosen, and while the foreigner didn't pickpocket them this time,…

[deleted]

Re: Huawei was able to eavesdrop on Dutch mobile network KPN: Report

#70

Post by inopinatus »

namenotrequired wrote: post #61
Ironlink wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says: > The company gained unauthorized access to the heart of the mobile network from China. ... but then, in the very next sentence: > How often that happened is not clear because it was not recorded anywhere. This wording is a bit unclear. The first sentence states as a matter of fact that there was unauthorized access, while the second states that there are no records.

I read it as meaning they had access (i.e. they could access it), but we don't know if they did access it.

You'd be better advised to read it as: journalists have no idea what they're describing, and mash together words without nuanced regard to what the facts may be.

c.f. the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

Post reply on HN