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

Norway reviews cybersecurity after remote-access feature found in Chinese buses

scandasia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 235 posts

Re: Norway reviews cybersecurity after remote-access feature found in Chinese buses

#141

Post by hayd »

graeme wrote: post #95
adrianN wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The European champion would still be ten times smaller than the Chinese but would have factual monopoly in Europe. I don’t think blocking the merger was entirely unreasonable.

The parent comment is describing a scenario where the Chinese company may get a factual monopoly in Europe because it can outcompete the two European companies due to economies of scale.

Or outcompete because it's state-funded, and can inject things like remote access (that the state might like the option to use one day).

It's really confusing that the EU don't consider this "dumping". I thought that was this big thing that they cared about.

Re: Norway reviews cybersecurity after remote-access feature found in Chinese buses

#142

Post by XorNot »

beefnugs wrote: post #74
l5870uoo9y wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logistics in war is essential so it’s not a stretch. You can easily extend that line of thought to anything from drones to cars.

Yes easily, like how they use all the public transit buses at the frontlines of ukraine

Ukraine has been buying up every cheap car in Europe for use in miscellaneous service just behind the front or as low profile transportation at it, so I'm not sure what your point is?

Civilian transportation has numerous vital roles in supporting a nation during a war.

Re: Norway reviews cybersecurity after remote-access feature found in Chinese buses

#143

Post by bpt3 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #91
IAmBroom wrote: post #29

I work in rail safety. Two major non-Chinese train companies attempted to merge a few years ago, explicitly to build a company that could compete with China's national company, and provide safer alternatives to state-sponsored cyberhacking of Western rail. It fell down to an anti-monopoly decision by a single person in the EU ministry, who killed the proposal. Several attempts were made to streamline the merger, but…

The problem with "oh, but wait, this merger actually improves competition" is that mergers are a contagion. A large competitor's mere existence creates an economic imperative for more mergers. This happens both horizontally (across multiple firms) and vertically (up and down the supply chain). When you get big, you can start stripping your vendors' and customers' of their profit margin, which means they need to get b…

How do you confirm that a train controller or any other piece of hardware does not contain a backdoor using industry standard software tools?

You can write whatever you want into a contract, but if you have no way to validate it, it's meaningless.

Also, the state-owned (and subsidized) Chinese company that doesn't have to play by the West's antitrust rules doesn't need to worry about your "contagion" concerns.

Re: Norway reviews cybersecurity after remote-access feature found in Chinese buses

#144

Post by bpt3 »

maxglute wrote: post #127
avereveard wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad you asked 1929 – Sino-Soviet Conflict (Chinese Eastern Railway) — ROC authorities moved to seize the CER in Manchuria; the USSR responded militarily. (Initiation: ROC seizure.) 1954–1955 – First Taiwan Strait Crisis — PRC began large-scale shelling of Kinmen/Matsu and amphibious operations (e.g., Yijiangshan). (Initiation: PRC artillery/offensives.) 1958 – Second Taiwan Strait Crisis — PRC opened intense bombard…

Glad you listed, because that data shows apart from Sino Vietnamese almost half a century ago, PRC launched basically no wars of aggression, i.e. everything including SCS was territorial defense, i.e just. And if it was in chart form, the peace disease lull in last 30 years relative to PRC growth makes modern PRC rise the most unprescedently peaceful in modern history, borderline on absurdly serenity. Truly somehting…

Why don't you go see what the PRC's neighbors think about your "territorial defense" claims about these activities in the SCS?

And what's the going rate for posting this nonsense online?

Re: Norway reviews cybersecurity after remote-access feature found in Chinese buses

#145

Post by hnthrowaway0315 »

jayde2767 wrote: post #43
IAmBroom wrote: post #29

I work in rail safety. Two major non-Chinese train companies attempted to merge a few years ago, explicitly to build a company that could compete with China's national company, and provide safer alternatives to state-sponsored cyberhacking of Western rail. It fell down to an anti-monopoly decision by a single person in the EU ministry, who killed the proposal. Several attempts were made to streamline the merger, but…

Did anyone investigate this person to see if she’s being bought by any “Foreign” Gov’t?

I found it very hard to believe that a Chinese company has more influence than Alstrom + Siemens, in Europe. It might make sense if it's a US company, but I find it difficult to believe for a Chinese one, especially that the recent Netherland example shows that EU can do whatever they want using what excuses they can find, and execute very efficiently.

I'd like to post some questions for thought:

1. What is exactly the bidding process of that particular transaction the OP described?

2. What is exactly in the contract? Does it force the Chinese company to use a lot of local companies for sub-contracting, at the same time keeping a very low profit? In essence, this basically means the EU companies grabbed the biggest share while the Chinese company just got the job. I'm not saying this is the case, but I highly doubt it IS the case as I heard similar stories from other companies.

Re: Norway reviews cybersecurity after remote-access feature found in Chinese buses

#146

Post by marcosdumay »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #113
adrianN wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The European champion would still be ten times smaller than the Chinese but would have factual monopoly in Europe. I don’t think blocking the merger was entirely unreasonable.

So now you have a state-owned Chinese monopoly controlling your transportation.

Just don't buy from them. Do you think making a local monopoly in Europe will lower European prices?

Who the fuck invented that logic of "those companies prices are too high, we have to let them consolidate into a monopoly so they lower their prices"?

Re: Norway reviews cybersecurity after remote-access feature found in Chinese buses

#147

Post by thinkingtoilet »

marcosdumay wrote: post #146
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now you have a state-owned Chinese monopoly controlling your transportation.

Just don't buy from them. Do you think making a local monopoly in Europe will lower European prices? Who the fuck invented that logic of "those companies prices are too high, we have to let them consolidate into a monopoly so they lower their prices"?

How many companies do you think exist that make these types of machines?

Re: Norway reviews cybersecurity after remote-access feature found in Chinese buses

#148

Post by vintermann »

It's a bit of a non-issue if you ask me. This remote-access feature sounds like what we usually call a software update feature if it came from a country we weren't scared of.

China disabling our buses? Really? That would be insanely petty and useless. I think maybe we're straining at gnats and swallowing camels, considering virtually all our phones, computers, TVs etc. come with auto update features, usually giving someone in the US the theoretical capability to brick it. And considering what was done to Karim Khan, I'd say they're far more likely to actually use it.

Re: Norway reviews cybersecurity after remote-access feature found in Chinese buses

#149

Post by sharken »

IAmBroom wrote: post #29

I work in rail safety. Two major non-Chinese train companies attempted to merge a few years ago, explicitly to build a company that could compete with China's national company, and provide safer alternatives to state-sponsored cyberhacking of Western rail. It fell down to an anti-monopoly decision by a single person in the EU ministry, who killed the proposal. Several attempts were made to streamline the merger, but…

Not sure why there are no specifics, but for anyone interested this seems to the merger that was denied, along with the reasons why it was denied.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/es/ip_19_...

Re: Norway reviews cybersecurity after remote-access feature found in Chinese buses

#150

Post by tony69 »

buellerbueller wrote: post #133
izacus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the major, common and probably most destructive, theme is the ecosystem of specialised tender companies. I mostly know this from the software side, but if you start working on such projects, you'll quicky find out that there's a persistent ecosystem of companies which specialize for these tender signups. People employed there optimize for winning them (at any cost - quid-pro-quo agreements aren't rare in my experi…

It sounds like you are describing capitalism.

He is describing how bidding for publicly funded projects fails, because the bidding process designed to avoid corruption has been poorly designed (or corrupted by lobbying) such that it effectively sidelines honest and qualified bids. I would say this is a typical outcome with well meaning bureaucrats in a democracy, not capitalism
Post reply on HN