Live data from Hacker News

US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks

arstechnica.com

41–50 of 296 posts

Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks

#41

A question to Europeans reading this- If you had to assume that U.S. 5G equipment manufacturers would provide backdoors to U.S. officials, and Chinese 5G equipment manufacturers would provide backdoors to Chinese officials, and Europeans had to use one or the other, which would you choose?

The question is insufficiently precise.

Some European agencies want the US government to spy on European citizens because it is illegal for them to do it themselves but it's not illegal for them to obtain information about European citizens from US spies. Whether the European citizens want to be spied on is another matter.

If you're a European citizen or company you might well prefer to be spied on by the Chinese because there's little danger of the Chinese getting you kidnapped/extradited. Also, if your competitors and business contacts are more US than Chinese then the possibility of Chinese commercial espionage is perhaps less worrying than the possibility of US commercial espionage. It seems likely that US agencies sometimes provide information to Boeing to help them compete against Airbus, for example. I'm thinking more of contract negotiations than technological secrets, of course.

Getting equipment from several suppliers seems like the best plan, generally. You can then play them off against each other not just for price but also for openness and forcing the supplier to allow security audits. I've heard that Huawei has been very helpful in that respect, because of the pressure they're under.

Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is you choose the one which is the closer ally. Which, given the lack of US 5G manufacturers, is exactly the choice the US has already made.

The closer ally is likely to have SIGINT sharing agreements with your government. FVEY exists so that the UK or Canada can legally spy on my communications and turn that data over to my government - which couldn’t otherwise get it without warrants and other pesky civil rights protections. I think I’d rather take my chances with an adversarial government. I know they’d be spying but their ability to act on it is far m…

I think you are suggesting a false dilemma. Do you think those sharing agreements will vanish if AT&T hangs some Huawei radios on their poles?

Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks

#43
I don't hate that someone is investing in tools & research in this.

I'd certainly pay a 20% premium on my hardware for verifiable protection from phone-home. I'd probably pay that premium for the manufacturer to claim that the device doesn't phone home.

Obv different situation for infrastructure hardware where the end-user (me) isn't the same as the buyer (german telecoms, apparently). But I suspect some of the verification / testing tools will be similar.

I'm happy these topics are getting press, whoever the players are.

Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is you choose the one which is the closer ally. Which, given the lack of US 5G manufacturers, is exactly the choice the US has already made.

At one time, Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia all made GSM/UMTS cellular infrastructure. Are any of them still? Other than Huawei, what other manufacturers are there?

Just cross off Motorola from your list, and there's all of your 5G options as a network provider.

Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks

#45
post #30
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Crypto doesn't discriminate on whether you have a warrant or not. Okay, let's say the telecom equipment doesn't have a backdoor for lawful intercept. What happens if the telecom is served with a warrant? Are you expecting that the telecoms will refuse to cooperate with the authorities?

They shouldn't refuse, but they should be allowed to be unable to cooperate.

[deleted]

Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closer ally is likely to have SIGINT sharing agreements with your government. FVEY exists so that the UK or Canada can legally spy on my communications and turn that data over to my government - which couldn’t otherwise get it without warrants and other pesky civil rights protections. I think I’d rather take my chances with an adversarial government. I know they’d be spying but their ability to act on it is far m…

I think you are suggesting a false dilemma. Do you think those sharing agreements will vanish if AT&T hangs some Huawei radios on their poles?

No. But I regard my biggest threat as my own government, and if my choice per the GPs hypothetical is “less information to my government and some information to a foreign power” or “all collected data to my government and none to a foreign power”, the first choice is best for me.

Now, it may be fair to argue that the information collected from a 5G radio doesn’t mean much at all to my government. But I’d still rather depend on defense in depth.

Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks

#47
post #32

> Telecom-equipment makers who sell products to carriers "are required by law to build into their hardware ways for authorities to access the networks for lawful purposes," but they "are also required to build equipment in such a way that the manufacturer can't get access without the consent of the network operator," the Journal wrote. I love this quote. The US is essentially complaining that Huawei has access to the…

>The US is essentially complaining that Huawei has access to the backdoor channels that only the US government was supposed to have. How is surprising? The defining characteristic of a nation state is that it has a monopoly on violence within its borders. Having a monopoly on intercepting telecom traffic is a logical consequence of that. For other countries though, yeah I'd prefer if neither China nor US have backdoo…

"I'd prefer if neither China nor US have backdoor access."

So would I, but having lived in both countries, one of the two governments is decidedly more evil than the other.

Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks

#49
post #7

Reminder: US intelligence lies. They are not unique in this but it's worth repeating. They might be right about Huawei or they might not, either way saying "we totally have proof!" without providing proof is effectively meaningless.

If they had proof they would have showed it already. Nothing would help their rhetoric more than cold hard facts. If they haven't done it, it means: a) there isn't any backdoor, or b) exposing their backdoors would expose their own backdoors. I'm betting on b.

Alternatives:

- Revealing how the backdoor works would show methods the US agencies are also using.

- There are multiple backdoors, or there might be, and they don't want to tip their hand.

Re: US says it can prove Huawei has backdoor access to mobile-phone networks

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had proof they would have showed it already. Nothing would help their rhetoric more than cold hard facts. If they haven't done it, it means: a) there isn't any backdoor, or b) exposing their backdoors would expose their own backdoors. I'm betting on b.

c. They have sources saying as such but have not discovered the backdoor itself. d. Admitting how they found the backdoor would reveal other issues (a source in the pipeline, or their own backdoor in something Huawei made use of). And probably e-z too.

Yeah exactly - providing proof publicly could in fact burn the sources/methods used to get that proof.
Post reply on HN