4 ms·

So, logically, it follows that Canada also is too unsophisticated to test and trust US equipement? Canada should ban all US devices. And, recent history tells

So, logically, it follows that Canada also is too unsophisticated to test and trust US equipement? Canada should ban all US devices. And, recent history tells us, the US does spy on its allies, its allies' governments and business. I've always taken the US alarmist position on chinese equipment to at least partially means that they fear not being able to bug the rest of the world as easily once everyone network are not filled with US gears.

writepub 8y ago
It's naive to assume allies don't spy on each other, Canada most definitely spies on the US. The more pertinent question is who the Canadians trust more, China or the US, given the possibility of undetectable backdoors in equipment sold by both. I'd bet on an ally against an adversary.
- yogthos 8y ago
  As a Canadian, I'd much rather take my chances with Chinese backdoors because China has a lot less influence on my and my country.
  - ishjoh 8y ago
    A backdoor into the communications of politicians and that could quickly change in China's favor ;)
    - yogthos 8y ago
      A backdoor into the communications of politicians and that could quickly change in USA's favor as well. Canada does roughly 80% of its trade with the states last I checked, so having US be privy to our private communications is far more damaging.
tivert 8y ago
> So, logically, it follows that Canada also is too unsophisticated to test and trust US equipement? IIRC, the US doesn't actually produce any 5G cellular equipment. The alternatives to Chinese equipment are European: Ericsson and Nokia.
- whytaka 8y ago
  How could the Americans have missed the boat on this completely? I find that hard to believe. EDIT: It appears Intel is working on 5G.
bassman9000 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes The Five Eyes, often abbreviated as FVEY, is an anglophone intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.
anfilt 8y ago
Main point everyone is unsophisticated to just rely on tests (read for justification) Perhaps not ban, but I would say testing can only tell you so much. It applies to pretty much to any digital system short of exhausting every possible state. Most modern devices can easily have more states than what is possible to test. Moreover most also run software so it's the same as claiming testing is a 100% sure fire way to create bug free software. Let alone a innocuous back-door. While testing increases the bar for anything malicious to slip by it does not eliminate it entirely. Really it comes down to trust. This applies to all hardware though and I would say everyone is unsophisticated enough to just rely on tests. Like VHDL was created so the Department of Defense could have something to check ASIC behavior against. I am not saying testing is useless. For instance a malicious actor better be certain that their backdoor can't be found, but they can't be a 100% certain that testing won't find it. It cuts both ways. Testing may not find things, but any adversary may not be sure that their back-door may not be found via testing.
rqs 8y ago
Still remember the Bugged Chip story from Bloomberg? One comment under the story tells me that it is very hard to test bugged hardwares. So I guess every country should just by default distrust any communication equipment regardless where the equipment came from.

writepub 8y ago

It's naive to assume allies don't spy on each other, Canada most definitely spies on the US. The more pertinent question is who the Canadians trust more, China or the US, given the possibility of undetectable backdoors in equipment sold by both. I'd bet on an ally against an adversary.

yogthos 8y ago
As a Canadian, I'd much rather take my chances with Chinese backdoors because China has a lot less influence on my and my country.
- ishjoh 8y ago
  A backdoor into the communications of politicians and that could quickly change in China's favor ;)
  - yogthos 8y ago
    A backdoor into the communications of politicians and that could quickly change in USA's favor as well. Canada does roughly 80% of its trade with the states last I checked, so having US be privy to our private communications is far more damaging.

tivert 8y ago

> So, logically, it follows that Canada also is too unsophisticated to test and trust US equipement? IIRC, the US doesn't actually produce any 5G cellular equipment. The alternatives to Chinese equipment are European: Ericsson and Nokia.

whytaka 8y ago
How could the Americans have missed the boat on this completely? I find that hard to believe. EDIT: It appears Intel is working on 5G.

bassman9000 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes The Five Eyes, often abbreviated as FVEY, is an anglophone intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.

anfilt 8y ago

Main point everyone is unsophisticated to just rely on tests (read for justification) Perhaps not ban, but I would say testing can only tell you so much. It applies to pretty much to any digital system short of exhausting every possible state. Most modern devices can easily have more states than what is possible to test. Moreover most also run software so it's the same as claiming testing is a 100% sure fire way to create bug free software. Let alone a innocuous back-door. While testing increases the bar for anything malicious to slip by it does not eliminate it entirely. Really it comes down to trust. This applies to all hardware though and I would say everyone is unsophisticated enough to just rely on tests. Like VHDL was created so the Department of Defense could have something to check ASIC behavior against. I am not saying testing is useless. For instance a malicious actor better be certain that their backdoor can't be found, but they can't be a 100% certain that testing won't find it. It cuts both ways. Testing may not find things, but any adversary may not be sure that their back-door may not be found via testing.

rqs 8y ago

Still remember the Bugged Chip story from Bloomberg? One comment under the story tells me that it is very hard to test bugged hardwares. So I guess every country should just by default distrust any communication equipment regardless where the equipment came from.