UK Cyber Security Centre advises review of risk posed by Russian tech The UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has advised users of Russian technology products to reassess the risks it presents. In advice that builds on 2017 guidance about technology supply chains that include links to hostile states, NCSC technical director Ian Levy stated that the agency has not found evidence "that the …
Bravo, NCSC technical director Ian Levy, speculative FUD and SNAFUBAR par excellence. Creating further bottlenecks and problems to attribute to another enemy or competitor is an old analogue play and novel virtual ploy too, nowadays.
Gotta keep the show rolling along, eh?
All states are hostile if they be providers of military hardware and dodgy software and fungible disposable assets mindlessly programmed for foreign invasion and alien occupation ...... and all states invariably are to a greater or lesser extent.
Just like America, EU, China and Russia we in the Uk need our own hi tech companies that can compete on the global scale.
The likes of BT & ARM should always have some domestic majority share interest to ensure they are not manoeuvred into doing things against the security interests of this nation.
Having would leaders (in tech) ensures global influence and conversation instead of 1 side trying to dominate another.
I know BT used to do a lot of R&D, but do they still do much now apart (Apart from some trials of broadband products which seem industry standard I havent seen much) from rebading items with BT badges on them (Including Fibre GBics which one of our service providers engineer found comical).
The likes of BT & ARM should always have some domestic majority share interest to ensure they are not manoeuvred into doing things against the security interests of this nation. ...... tip pc
Such manoeuvres are easily copied and thwarted, for they invariably always follow the same ages old, tried and well tested and very simplest of methodologies, which has stashes of virtual cash being transferred to a receptive market vehicle whose sole job is to try and reflect an increased market value for a product because of the interest which may or may not be anywhere near as realistic as such markets need to invent greater currency churn and enliven a struggling to make obscene profit quarter.
Keep it simple, stupid. If Johnny Rotten Foreigner is offering an attractive gazillion pesos for something the home team have worthwhile having, simply have home team management gazump the foreign invader and offer a more attractive gazillion pesos prize.
IT isn't rocket science ..... Unicorn Creation for the Stabilisation of Ponzi Stocks and Derivative Share Markets, it is much more explosively volatile than that and thus something not to be trifled with and left with the unwary and ignorant tendering vacuous absent abilities and facilities for command and control.
>The likes of BT & ARM should always have some domestic majority
By which logic no other country should risk using ARM.
Going to be tricky to do computers if everybody is only going to be allowed to use domestic architectures, made in domestic fabs and running domestic apps on domestic OSs. It's going to be good for innovation when we have 192 competing computer designs again.
By which logic no other country should risk using ARM.
Your missing the point.
We readily and happily use hardware and software that’s under the control of foreign companies, intel, AMD , Qualcomm etc etc. we should have a domestic vendor who competes with those giants ARM is an equivalent. BT as a national carrier used to have the strategic role of ensuring domestic comms during a nuclear war (not to everyone but select locations, google “uk ECN”).
Every top order country has at least 1 large domestic comms provider, some have multiple.
ARM is HQ’d in the uk and has a UK history.
ARM don’t make chips, they sell chip designs for others to amend and implement.
If we keep a UK interest in ARM then we can be sure to trust their designs, or quietly ask them to put back doors in place to hack those systems.
There really are fairies at the bottom of my garden, and secret microchips in the vaccines they gave me.
The precautionary principle: A justification for spending enormous sums of other people's money on something that doesn't exist, and never will.
Cui Bono? Is that man warning you about this, a purveyor of a solution perhaps?
MSNBC reminds us of Russia doing the exact same tactics back in 1995 (were we all too caught up in Windows 95 to take notice?)
Russia attacking Chechnya the first time, 1995:
https://youtu.be/SF8RX6y18cg
Yeah, I have not trusted Kaspersky with any kind of root access for at least a decade.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
