Hi. Sorry, we're still grinding Huawei at this: UK govt once again puts off decision to ban Chinese giant from 5G The British government has once again deferred an already postponed decision - this time its about whether or not to ban Huawei equipment from 5G networks in the UK. The non-announcement equates to further uncertainty for UK mobile network operators who have been demanding a decision since the first approval deadline was …
is that Huawei seems to be getting all the negative attention and warnings about unproven backdoors and/or malware when there are other manufacturers out there that have been proven to have ACTUAL malware and/or backdoors that are still being distributed to the public.
Unimax
BLU
TCL/Alcatel
ANS
Cisco
etc, etc
(methinks Huawei might be getting singled out for other reasons)
If you list Cisco amongst those with proven backdoors then you have to list Huawei too, since they were proven to have used stolen Cisco code in their devices - discovered because they were "bug for bug" compatible even with the nasty security holes some believe were deliberate backdoors.
Do you have full details on this or are you referring back to pre-2012 when Huawei admitted to using EIGRP code but other details were suspiciously dodgy. E.g Cisco basing most of their claim around STRCMP! That is as ridiculous as Oracle basing their Davlik/Java case around RANGECHECK.
Not heard about this bug-for-bug compatibility argument?
he means this one I expect. Note, this is from AFTER the stolen EIGRP code was removed, and is based around more than using the same c function to do a comparison. And it was strong enough for Huawei to settle the suit out of court to stop the publicity.
https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-correcting-the-record
Yes, 2003 case. Nothing about bug-for-bug and almost all of the rebuttal is about strcmp (try to do a page find and search for strcmp and you see that pretty much every line and every claim is about strcmp or could be about strcmp.
As this is Cisco clarifying the extent of the copying then the fact that they focus nearly all of it on details about strcmp makes me think this must be the largest perceived issue. strcmp is not a Cisco or even routing function and could very well be available from other sources (strcmp obviously is widely available however Cisco aren't saying whether theirs was special in any way).
If there was mass copying of all the code then I guarantee, comments about strcmp wouldn't have even be mentioned as an issue in that blog for that case.
"And it was strong enough for Huawei to settle the suit out of court to stop the publicity."
Really. Could you not say that after the expert code review Cisco dropped the case (presumably for lack of evidence). They did not get any settlement from Huawei and even had to pay their own costs. That, very much, looks like Cisco backing down. Huawei agreed to change their documentation and stop selling the product in question but this wasn't a case covering a large range of Huawei products. My point being you've apportioned guilt and implied that, by agreeing with the previous poster, there was a mass copying of a bug-for-bug in Huawei products. However Cisco dropped the case with prejudice, which would suggest that was not the case.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/29/cisco_huawei_case_ends
North Korea sets up shell companies in various countries who buy equipment then "smuggle" it in to North Korea. It is not the companies themselves that are doing business with North Korea.
This is how they were able to purchase components for their nuclear weapons. Set up a company in a country that allows anonymous ownership (many countries), that company sets up a fully owned subsidiary in a country where they are allowed to buy the components without suspicion and signs the various declarations that they do not do business with NK. Once the parts are delivered to the company they just mysteriously turn up inside NK. Company manufacturing the parts has no way of knowing that the company who bought the parts is affiliated with NK because the details are hidden behind layers of corporate indirection.
Huawei equipment might be used by the NK networks, however if you were able to trace the serial numbers you would probably find that they were delivered to a telecoms company in Africa.
Interesting that they're talking about 3G in NK. I wonder whether they're sticking with 3G because of the physical restrictions on terms of rolling out the infrastructure, or whether this is a Master Plan to make sure that your average Nork punter can't get too much bandwidth.
Its probably OK now in Trumps view to supply to North Korea as he has decided Kim Jong-un is now one of the 'good guys'
I suspect our government is waiting to see what Trump decides about the US export ban on companies dealing with Huawei before they make their decision on allowing it in their network.
After all if the ban is ongoing for a while Huawei may start to struggle in supplying kit as its stock pile of components from US companies begin to dry up.
Although no doubt Huawei already have some shell companies in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere setup which will be buying components from the US and having them shipped via several countries to Huawei factories.
Yep. Jolly exciting. I'm thrilled with the way we all got a say in that choice too.
Besides which, I don't blame the government for not making a decision on Huawei just now. I'm not actually convinced that we have a government at the moment, or at least one capable of deciding anything...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
