Huawei - permitted to participate in 5G networks
Discussion
When the Chinese get up to this level of hardware hacking and general shenanigans: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04...
which can be replicated like this: https://securityledger.com/2019/01/more-questions-...
Then there is a real risk of China using ANY means to squirrel into all and any networks! I would have preferred them to be completely excluded.
which can be replicated like this: https://securityledger.com/2019/01/more-questions-...
Then there is a real risk of China using ANY means to squirrel into all and any networks! I would have preferred them to be completely excluded.
Our basically dumb elected officials have canvassed the view of some IT guys and have gone with the opinion of the most confident sounding guy. Nobody listens to the naysayer he's a buzzkill and his buddies are not heavily entrenched in some deals to get rich off 5g.
Its not so much the nefarious can eavesdrop as they can probably brick all the devices at will thanks to a hidden bit of code or flaw.
This is what an adversary would do in a conflict. 85-90% of the uk shutdown but thats ok as the 'core' bit is ok and boris can still look at the wall chart to check his holiday calender.
Its not so much the nefarious can eavesdrop as they can probably brick all the devices at will thanks to a hidden bit of code or flaw.
This is what an adversary would do in a conflict. 85-90% of the uk shutdown but thats ok as the 'core' bit is ok and boris can still look at the wall chart to check his holiday calender.
Any reasonably sized state could cripple or hack any other states domestic communication infrastructure if it really wanted.
Problem is the ramifications for the aggressor would be serious (no coms access outside their own tech / borders etc).
So we must assume - and Snowdon went some way to demonstrate, that nothing is secure.
That means this is a purely political decision. I'm happy we have both restricted AND told Trump to fro.
Problem is the ramifications for the aggressor would be serious (no coms access outside their own tech / borders etc).
So we must assume - and Snowdon went some way to demonstrate, that nothing is secure.
That means this is a purely political decision. I'm happy we have both restricted AND told Trump to fro.
Chimune said:
Any reasonably sized state could cripple or hack any other states domestic communication infrastructure if it really wanted.
Problem is the ramifications for the aggressor would be serious (no coms access outside their own tech / borders etc).
So we must assume - and Snowdon went some way to demonstrate, that nothing is secure.
That means this is a purely political decision. I'm happy we have both restricted AND told Trump to fro.
Very hard to prevent when it's a hardware hack as per my links above, though! Problem is the ramifications for the aggressor would be serious (no coms access outside their own tech / borders etc).
So we must assume - and Snowdon went some way to demonstrate, that nothing is secure.
That means this is a purely political decision. I'm happy we have both restricted AND told Trump to fro.
Chimune said:
.......
So we must assume - and Snowdon went some way to demonstrate, that nothing is secure.
....
The Chinese have managed to build the tech on a quantum level - that can send a message to one of their satellites - and forward it onto the end location - without the possibility of it being intercepted. ( Something techie changes at a quantum level if the data is intercepted, tapped into etc - so you immediately know it is compromised ).So we must assume - and Snowdon went some way to demonstrate, that nothing is secure.
....
The tech is beyond me... but start here
https://www.insidescience.org/news/china-leader-qu...
jshell said:
Chimune said:
Any reasonably sized state could cripple or hack any other states domestic communication infrastructure if it really wanted.
Problem is the ramifications for the aggressor would be serious (no coms access outside their own tech / borders etc).
So we must assume - and Snowdon went some way to demonstrate, that nothing is secure.
That means this is a purely political decision. I'm happy we have both restricted AND told Trump to fro.
Very hard to prevent when it's a hardware hack as per my links above, though! Problem is the ramifications for the aggressor would be serious (no coms access outside their own tech / borders etc).
So we must assume - and Snowdon went some way to demonstrate, that nothing is secure.
That means this is a purely political decision. I'm happy we have both restricted AND told Trump to fro.
The USA have been known to breech other nations networks and Russia has been doing it for years. They’ve both had the ability to cause major power disruptions and Russia has been suspected of actually doing it.
Back on topic networks are built with resilience and separation. There is no reason that at certain level Chinese technology can be cost effective but could not breech more secure areas.
We need to be able to stay friendly with both the East and West. In 50 years time China will likely be the premier power so better to stay reasonably friendly.
jshell said:
When the Chinese get up to this level of hardware hacking and general shenanigans: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04...
which can be replicated like this: https://securityledger.com/2019/01/more-questions-...
Then there is a real risk of China using ANY means to squirrel into all and any networks! I would have preferred them to be completely excluded.
The second one was a real demo but the original Bloomberg story has been discredited. A lot in the tech world no longer read Bloomberg as a result. Never made sense really, far easier to just backdoor the onboard management software on those server boards.which can be replicated like this: https://securityledger.com/2019/01/more-questions-...
Then there is a real risk of China using ANY means to squirrel into all and any networks! I would have preferred them to be completely excluded.
Telcos have been in a race to the bottom for pricing so Huawei were always getting in. Not sure any of the others are technically in a position to compete for 5g tech anyway.
wombleh said:
The second one was a real demo but the original Bloomberg story has been discredited. A lot in the tech world no longer read Bloomberg as a result. Never made sense really, far easier to just backdoor the onboard management software on those server boards.
Telcos have been in a race to the bottom for pricing so Huawei were always getting in. Not sure any of the others are technically in a position to compete for 5g tech anyway.
Ericcson Fella on R4 said they already have networks up and running. Who is building the other countries networks?Telcos have been in a race to the bottom for pricing so Huawei were always getting in. Not sure any of the others are technically in a position to compete for 5g tech anyway.
This entire debate has been brought to you by the same people that thought the UK Great Firewall of Porn was a good idea. No one in the HoC understands the first bit about the interwebs.
Some thoughts.
First rule of security - everything is hostile, nothing can be trusted. If you're transmitting sensitive information, then you encrypt it, carry it over a VPN or both. So it doesn't matter if the Communists are occupying the cell tower, they only get access to Instagram posts and cat videos. Whoooo.
Yes, the FBI can break encryption. With supercomputers. 16 tonnes of supercomputer would be a bit obvious in a cell tower, both from a size and power POV.
Given both of those things, if Huawei are going to take our data, they've invented something that can 1) break encryption at an arbitrary scale 2) filter the good stuff out and 3) manage to get the data back to Beijing without anyone noticing. If they can do all that, they already own us.
You could be worried about kill switches. Ever found one in the 4G network? Ever found one in Huawei gear at all? No. Why now, they already own the 4 G network.
So unless someone has some real, er, evidence, this looks to be a commercial stunt, or the Intelligence Agencies would rather we all used kit from rather more, ah, cooperative Western vendors
There is a perfectly good line that says they're repressive gits and we shouldn't be doing business with them, I have a fair bit of sympathy with that. But no one is saying that.
Some thoughts.
First rule of security - everything is hostile, nothing can be trusted. If you're transmitting sensitive information, then you encrypt it, carry it over a VPN or both. So it doesn't matter if the Communists are occupying the cell tower, they only get access to Instagram posts and cat videos. Whoooo.
Yes, the FBI can break encryption. With supercomputers. 16 tonnes of supercomputer would be a bit obvious in a cell tower, both from a size and power POV.
Given both of those things, if Huawei are going to take our data, they've invented something that can 1) break encryption at an arbitrary scale 2) filter the good stuff out and 3) manage to get the data back to Beijing without anyone noticing. If they can do all that, they already own us.
You could be worried about kill switches. Ever found one in the 4G network? Ever found one in Huawei gear at all? No. Why now, they already own the 4 G network.
So unless someone has some real, er, evidence, this looks to be a commercial stunt, or the Intelligence Agencies would rather we all used kit from rather more, ah, cooperative Western vendors
There is a perfectly good line that says they're repressive gits and we shouldn't be doing business with them, I have a fair bit of sympathy with that. But no one is saying that.
ash73 said:
I imagine other hardware providers do similar things to Huawei.
Can't businesses just treat all network devices as untrusted and encrypt everything?
Will our military be dependent on the public 5G network? If not, do we care?
If there's a genuine concern about availability, everything is redundant so use different vendors for primary and backup links.
Without knowing the details it sounds like a political decision not a technical one.
Re encryption, that boat is about to sail. I think they are up to 72 qbit quantum processors now. A 48 qbit processor managed to perform in 3 minutes and 20 seconds what the fastest trad supercomputer would need thousands of years. Coming soon.Can't businesses just treat all network devices as untrusted and encrypt everything?
Will our military be dependent on the public 5G network? If not, do we care?
If there's a genuine concern about availability, everything is redundant so use different vendors for primary and backup links.
Without knowing the details it sounds like a political decision not a technical one.
It’s interesting this. 100% out of the core. Limited to 35% of network traffic and base stations. Within 3 years.
I am on a 2 day course along with a couple of people from EE/BT. Huawei is 95% of their core.
They reckon the 35% is less of a hit, although Vodafone and BT/EE have both said they are over 35% in 4G base stations.
5G is not standalone at this time, but a bolt on to 4G equipment. I am unclear how they will add 5G from another vendor on top of Huawei 4G. My guess is those sites will get 4G swapped out at the same time.
This post is interesting reading, not least as they seem to be saying that they should have listened.... https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/the-future-of-te...
I am on a 2 day course along with a couple of people from EE/BT. Huawei is 95% of their core.
They reckon the 35% is less of a hit, although Vodafone and BT/EE have both said they are over 35% in 4G base stations.
5G is not standalone at this time, but a bolt on to 4G equipment. I am unclear how they will add 5G from another vendor on top of Huawei 4G. My guess is those sites will get 4G swapped out at the same time.
This post is interesting reading, not least as they seem to be saying that they should have listened.... https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/the-future-of-te...
ash73 said:
s2art said:
Re encryption, that boat is about to sail. I think they are up to 72 qbit quantum processors now. A 48 qbit processor managed to perform in 3 minutes and 20 seconds what the fastest trad supercomputer would need thousands of years. Coming soon.
Encryption algorithms will move on to keep ahead of quantum hardware, e.g. lattice cryptography.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff