There's also the problem with door openings as they may not be high enough :)
(which reminds me of that cartoon with a chin-up bar fitted in a door frame and an unconscious person on the floor :) ).
2944 posts • joined 9 Jun 2009
Play back a speech by Enver Hoxha and any other confusing rubbish you can think off. Horror movies, cop shows, a Trump speech, you name it. Any old rubbish will do.
Intercepts become much more fun when you know it takes place, and as there's no camera yet (IMHO guaranteed to be in the next hardware release) the device will have a hard time picking up something useful. Create credible deniability from the start.
It has ceased to be..
Ironically that reminds me more of the fantastic rib the Not The Nine O'Clock News crew pulled on the Pythons in the days of the "Life of Brian" controversy (which was IMHO indeed as idiotic as a clearly frustrated John Cleese was considering it).
Despite the DO NOT SWITCH OFF label on the socket and DO NOT DISCONNECT on the plug
That's just about the surest method I know to achieve the opposite. This could be a worthy attempt at an Ig Noble prize: checking what would happen if you used a label "KEEP THIS OFF, absolutely DO NOT LEAVE CONNECTED". I suspect it would peel off from old age before anyone touched that.
They are the only telecoms vendor who have had their code inspected in this way.
.. as opposed to, say, 100% of US sourced gear. I find the disparity more revealing than anything else and it suggests it has really zip to do with security, more of protection of another kind.
The kind we really can do without.
That Microsoft et al have convoluted and possibly conflicting privacy statements doesn't surprise me. I would like to refer you to this rather excellent Freefall cartoon which describes the situation beautifully IMHO.
That said, when it comes to confusion I still think that Adobe remains a strong number one regarding complicating the access to legal statements. What they cooked up is award winning as requires *serious* effort to find the bit of data that applies to you - I'm assuming the idea is to make people give up halfway through their search.
If you're interested in these matters I would suggest a visit to Google's archive of previous statements, because it allows you to see which words Marketing has changed to more benign appearing texts. The words "into perpetuity", for instance, have been replaced with text that means the same, but appearing more benign.
Yes, it's the same story.
In a nutshell: Swiss company Crypto AG wasn't as clean as Swiss manufactured gear normally is, it had been backdoored by the Americans.
This is why you cannot trust gear whose manufacturer does not expose themselves to public testing and validation - which is what Huawei has done, but Cisco not. Hence the amused snorts heard from security specialists worldwide when US people declared Huawei to be unsafe and that the world should use US gear.
Caveat: those evaluations have a limited lifespan, though, you're but one unevaluated update away from a backdoor and you only have to look at the entries for the obfuscated C contest to see what evaluators are up against. It's a job for people far more persistent than I will ever be :).
The problem really lies on the US side (no surprise there, sorry): although the Privacy Shield agreement is mainly a tool to stop an all out trade war (or, to be precise, a mechanism by which US companies can continue to make vast profits off the private details of EU citizens), there is no actual legal match between the two entities.
US law has at federal level so many backdoors (they seem to love them over there) that privacy protection for even US citizens is but a vague and as yet unsubstantiated rumour, which is wholly at odds with the EU situation. As that gap is unlikely to be addressed (because, you know, profit), any attempt to pretend it's all fixed is just marketing and, to be frank, the same BS we were served even befoe Safe Harbor died.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020