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

101–110 of 148 posts

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

#101

Post by kube-system »

friedman23 wrote: post #95
kube-system wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...a threat to who, and for what? There are two main concerns at play here that are very different: consumer privacy and national security. The consumer privacy concerns are generally subject to regulation by law, but national security concerns often are extralegal in nature. This makes a big difference in the availability of tools to address the problems. Google will follow your laws or pay fines until they comply.…

>...a threat to who, and for what? I'm sorry, are you just completely ignorant of everything that's happening across the globe? If so, why are you even commenting? China routinely harasses, threatens, and then acts on threats given to human rights activists and expats. Chinese citizens that speak with reporters and human rights activists are put at severe risk because people like you are fine with letting Chinese tec…

You completely misinterpreted what I was suggesting.

The sentence you are quoting is not me questioning the importance of the issue, I am suggesting that there are two separate concerns at play which are both important.

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

#102

Post by justicezyx »

swordsmith wrote: post #99
justicezyx wrote: post #68

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,…

The difference here is Yue Fei has had a solid track record of being loyal to the emperor. In contrast with Huawei being CCP controlled, having poor track record of intellectual theft, and that CCP having clear conflicts of interest with the countries Huawei is doing business with.

> having poor track record of intellectual theft, and that CCP having clear conflicts of interest with the countries Huawei is doing business with.

You manage to generate completely nonsensical gibberish in very short sentence:

> having poor track record of intellectual theft

You are saying CCP did a poor job of stealing IP? Or you are saying CCP had done well in stealing IP?

If the latter, where is your evidence? CCP uses market coercion to force IP transfer, that's a well known practice. But where are the state sponsored IP theft?

> CCP having clear conflicts of interest with the countries Huawei is doing business with.

How so?

Obama called for G2 in [1], that's some serious recognition of the common interests between US and China. Right before Trump, you can find overwhelming official documents calling the sino us relationship being a overall positive one.

So suddenly, CCP becomes the bad guy because CCP had lots of conflicting interest?

And, for all the conflicting interests, other than the unfounded cyber security nonsense, what are the interests that huawei had a stake in?

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

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

#103

Post by justicezyx »

kube-system wrote: post #100
justicezyx wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> outsourced to China previously wrote off all these risks as unimportant and later cried foul when their IP was stolen Give me one concrete example from a reputable source. I'll PayPal you $20 (gift option) look my profile to get my contact information.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re challenging, or what is controversial about my statement. Counterfeiting and IP theft is a approaching (if not already, by some estimates) a trillion dollar industry. A lot of it is something as simply as “third shift/ghost shift” products, rejected manufacturing samples, QA rejects being sold out the back door, etc. If you want some articles about supply chain risk management in Chin…

I do not challenge.

I ask for a concrete example from reputable source.

If I trust online content. I might as well believe Trump is right about calling Chinese virus.

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

#104

Post by swiley »

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…

What's upsetting is that these organizations are given exclusive use of something that is essentially public (certain electronic sounds in the air) and they were very careless with it. It has nothing to do with Huawei and everything to do with KPN (and most other telcos) being negligent.

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

#106

Post by kube-system »

justicezyx wrote: post #103
kube-system wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re challenging, or what is controversial about my statement. Counterfeiting and IP theft is a approaching (if not already, by some estimates) a trillion dollar industry. A lot of it is something as simply as “third shift/ghost shift” products, rejected manufacturing samples, QA rejects being sold out the back door, etc. If you want some articles about supply chain risk management in Chin…

I do not challenge. I ask for a concrete example from reputable source. If I trust online content. I might as well believe Trump is right about calling Chinese virus.

Would you believe the words of Jack Ma himself?

"The problem is that the fake products today, they have better quality,a better price than the real product, than the real names," Ma said in a speech at Alibaba's investors day in the southern Chinese city of Hangzhou on Tuesday. "They're the same exact factories, the same exact raw materials, but they do not use that (brand) name," he added.

https://sg.style.yahoo.com/style/french-hit-alibaba-founder-...

Or maybe, a study from MIT, with a couple specific examples and a number of links to more detail?

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/protecting-intellectual-...

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

#107

Post by boomboomsubban »

crote wrote: post #93
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 original source[0] definitely supports those claims. "Ongecontroleerde en ongeautoriseerde toegang vanuit China heeft na 28 oktober 2009 daadwerkelijk plaatsgevonden" which translates to "Uncontrolled and unauthorized access from China actually took place after October 28, 2009" > Wouldn't the ones running the network need to know which numbers were under surveillance to provide the intelligence agency access? No…

>Uncontrolled and unauthorized access from China actually took place after October 28, 2009"

That does not state Huawei is responsible for that event, it could be the security testing team.

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

#108

Post by boomboomsubban »

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.

"The company" could refer to either Huawei or Capgemeni in that sentence, and Capgemeni makes the most sense given the following sentence.

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

#109

Post by BD829B01 »

justicezyx wrote: post #102
swordsmith wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here is Yue Fei has had a solid track record of being loyal to the emperor. In contrast with Huawei being CCP controlled, having poor track record of intellectual theft, and that CCP having clear conflicts of interest with the countries Huawei is doing business with.

> having poor track record of intellectual theft, and that CCP having clear conflicts of interest with the countries Huawei is doing business with. You manage to generate completely nonsensical gibberish in very short sentence: > having poor track record of intellectual theft You are saying CCP did a poor job of stealing IP? Or you are saying CCP had done well in stealing IP? If the latter, where is your evidence? CC…

> having poor track record of intellectual theft

You are saying CCP did a poor job of stealing IP? Or you are saying CCP had done well in stealing IP?

You cropped out the preceding bit where "In contrast with Huawei being CCP controlled, having poor track record of intellectual theft"

First and second clauses are dependent. OP is asserting Huawei has a track record of IP theft. A supporting reference here would be the Cisco lawsuits in 2002-2003 of copyright and patent violations.

Third clause is independent (the "and" is what separates them) and asserts the CCP has conflicts of interest with other countries. That's self-evident, I think -- all countries have some opposed interests.

> Obama called for G2 [1]

The linked page says:

"Former President Barack Obama and former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been very supportive of good relations between the two countries and more cooperation on more issues more often." This sentence has no sources. The following "However, Clinton has said that there is no G-2" does have a source, which dates to 2011, so during the Obama presidency the acting Secretary of State, who would be leading foreign relations. So... no, nobody called for G2. The source also says "the Obama administration is cultivating other allies across Asia to help it manage Beijing’s increasingly bold projection of military and economic power."

> So suddenly, CCP becomes the bad guy because CCP had lots of conflicting interest?

So, yeah, the CCP is the bad guy.

> what are the interests that huawei had a stake in?

Huawei is subject to the CCP, for example by the internal Party steering committee. Anything the CCP has a stake in, Huawei will, transitively. For example, the Party has an interest in the Hong Kong protesters who are seeking asylum in Europe. So Huawei does, too. And since we're talking about a European telecom...

Note that I'm specifically referring to the CCP. Conflation between "common interests between US and China" and the goals of the CCP helps the latter at the expense of the former.

> unfounded cyber security nonsense

Given:

1. contractor has more access than they should 2. contractor's use of that access of not logged and therefore in-auditable

That is the exact opposite of unfounded nonsense. The very fundamentals of security are Authentication, Authorization and Accounting. This completely violates two of those three.

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

#110

Post by [deleted] »

kube-system wrote: post #106
justicezyx wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not challenge. I ask for a concrete example from reputable source. If I trust online content. I might as well believe Trump is right about calling Chinese virus.

Would you believe the words of Jack Ma himself? "The problem is that the fake products today, they have better quality,a better price than the real product, than the real names," Ma said in a speech at Alibaba's investors day in the southern Chinese city of Hangzhou on Tuesday. "They're the same exact factories, the same exact raw materials, but they do not use that (brand) name," he added. https://sg.style.yahoo.com…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN