4 ms·

Trump declares emergency over IT threats

33 points by jfk13 7y ago

marsrover 7y ago
This is great news. The lack of the government seeming to care about national IT security has been bothering me for years now.
- jfk13 7y ago
  Are you sure it's about national IT security, and not just about sticking it to China because we're in a trade war with them?
  - shdh 7y ago
    Huawei has set a historical precedent of being a bad actor in regards to corporate espionage. How outlandish is it to think that they would also be participating in national espionage for the Chinese government?
    - lostmsu 7y ago
      Can you point to a specific example? Why was banning not done via the standard arbitrage?
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    How sure are you of a framing which separates information security from economic conflict?
- joeleisner 7y ago
  I remember watching a video about how old/antiquated the technology used by the IRS is (i.e. a behemoth computer system built in the 60's)... Our government's IT infrastructure needs a massive overhaul.
CryoLogic 7y ago
Does this include russian vote hacking?
- supergirl 7y ago
  you need to ban facebook for that
- Eleopteryx 7y ago
  It doesn't really seem like it
tempsolution 7y ago
Sounds good. In reality this likely means Trump will abuse this power for some absurd changes and surveillance.
Leary 7y ago
Who's gonna build real 5G in the US?
- kingosticks 7y ago
  I'd like to know this too. Presumably both Ericsson and Nokia are also foreign telecoms companies, so who does that leave?
  - Shelnutt2 7y ago
    Samsung is Korean, Alcatel-Lucent was French but now is part of Nokia. Nortel was acquired by Ericsson. Cisco makes some backbone equipment. They were trying hard to sell a LTE "virtualized" core when I previously worked at $wireless_telco, but cisco does not make RAN components. The only US based company I know of that is has licensed products in production use by a major telcom is Airspan [1] [1] https://www.airspan.com/ https://www.airspan.com/
  - sdinsn 7y ago
    Just to be clear, since the article isn't: the EO does not ban products from all foreign companies, only foreign companies who "poses an undue risk of sabotage to or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology or services in the United States" (Direct quote from EO). So Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, etc. will not be affected.
    - kingosticks 7y ago
      Ahh OK thanks for clarifying that. So by 'foreign' they really mean 'Chinese', and it becomes a little less crazy.
- Zenst 7y ago
  I've always been supprised that Qualcomm is not more active in this field. Though they recently had some home hotspot 5G coverage kit, and do a lot of work with Nokia. So who knows.
Zenst 7y ago
"The president signed an executive order effectively barring US companies from using foreign telecoms believed to pose a security risk to the country." "Mr Trump does not name any company specifically in the order." I'm guessing they are called emergencies as they await for the threat to emerge. Which kinda seems at odds with my definition of emergencies - which would be a defined clear-cut issue that needs addressing. All this effectively does is hurt and curtail legit business with fair and good foreign telecom providers who have now been bundeled via red-tape into the same collection as those unnamed less fair and good foreign telecom providers. Expect a fall-out of how this will hurt and impact legit businesses over the coming days and weeks. Let alone touch upon the possible impact upon Americans using their provider SIM and roaming abroad.
Someone1234 7y ago
> The president signed an executive order effectively barring US companies from using foreign telecoms believed to pose a security risk to the country. So let's just back up a little: A Chinese equipment manufacturer left a telnet daemon running on a single version of a single device and a national emergency is declared, Cisco leaves SSH credentials (public and private keys leaked) hard coded into multiple generations of routers over several years and not a peep..? When is the US going to tell us what these Chinese manufacturers are up to? Heck when are they going to tell the UK's own security services? Just telling us why we should be concerned seems far more productive and effective than their current strategy that is marred by accusations of protectionism. I'm not even saying the US are wrong. I am saying the lack of specific technical information undercuts their whole position.
- 0xDEFC0DE 7y ago
  This is most likely just a political action to put pressure on China. They don't really care if it's hypocritical.
- jplayer01 7y ago
  I've repeatedly seen a lack of interest in geopolitical issues on HN. This whole thing is akin to "Should the US be reliant on a hardware manufacturer that can be considered a non-independent subsidiary of the Chinese government?" Replace Chinese with Russian, Iranian, North Korean, Saudi Arabian, etc. These are all countries, like China, that would love to have that kind of potential leverage and power over US infrastructure and political processes because of the benefits these would bestow. I've said in a recent comment: It doesn't matter if Huawei is entirely innocent right now. China is a major competitor to the US as a global power - militarily. politically, economically. If people think they wouldn't at some point in the future use Huawei's ties deep into cellular infrastructure to serve China's needs, they're incredibly naive. Hell, none of this is unprecedented. The whole debacle with all the ties between Republican representatives or people in Trump's campaign and Russia alone should give pause. Or Russia's meddling in the US election. Or Russia's meddling in Eastern Europe (Ukraine wishes somebody would give a geopolitical shit right now). And somehow Huawei, and by extension China, are supposed to be impartial and innocent and not a potential threat? Really?
supergirl 7y ago
is he banning every electronic that is made in china? pretty sure even if huawei is banned, chinese made equipment is still used in 5G.
- Leary 7y ago
  I'm throwing out my PC now.
koube 7y ago
The title (written by the BBC) seems to be ambiguous. This is not about hardening US computer systems, this is about banning US companies from using Huawei 5G technology. The United States has been lobbying other countries to not use Chinese 5G technology for a while now, while it doesn't seem like there are currently any viable alternatives. This makes it a nation-wide ban.
rst 7y ago
Text of the EO, from whitehouse.gov: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-securing-information-communications-technology-services-supply-chain/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...
basicplus2 7y ago
Every country should design and manufacture its own internet infrastructure (and be owned and controlled by its gov) as a free, level, secure playing field for the benefit of all of its citizens.
drivingmenuts 7y ago
A whole bunch a sound and fury, signifying nothing.

33 points by jfk13 7y ago

This is great news. The lack of the government seeming to care about national IT security has been bothering me for years now.

jfk13 7y ago
Are you sure it's about national IT security, and not just about sticking it to China because we're in a trade war with them?
- shdh 7y ago
  Huawei has set a historical precedent of being a bad actor in regards to corporate espionage. How outlandish is it to think that they would also be participating in national espionage for the Chinese government?
  - lostmsu 7y ago
    Can you point to a specific example? Why was banning not done via the standard arbitrage?
- threatofrain 7y ago
  How sure are you of a framing which separates information security from economic conflict?
joeleisner 7y ago
I remember watching a video about how old/antiquated the technology used by the IRS is (i.e. a behemoth computer system built in the 60's)... Our government's IT infrastructure needs a massive overhaul.

CryoLogic 7y ago

Does this include russian vote hacking?

supergirl 7y ago
you need to ban facebook for that
Eleopteryx 7y ago
It doesn't really seem like it

tempsolution 7y ago

Sounds good. In reality this likely means Trump will abuse this power for some absurd changes and surveillance.

Leary 7y ago

Who's gonna build real 5G in the US?

kingosticks 7y ago
I'd like to know this too. Presumably both Ericsson and Nokia are also foreign telecoms companies, so who does that leave?
- Shelnutt2 7y ago
  Samsung is Korean, Alcatel-Lucent was French but now is part of Nokia. Nortel was acquired by Ericsson. Cisco makes some backbone equipment. They were trying hard to sell a LTE "virtualized" core when I previously worked at $wireless_telco, but cisco does not make RAN components. The only US based company I know of that is has licensed products in production use by a major telcom is Airspan [1] [1] https://www.airspan.com/ https://www.airspan.com/
- sdinsn 7y ago
  Just to be clear, since the article isn't: the EO does not ban products from all foreign companies, only foreign companies who "poses an undue risk of sabotage to or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology or services in the United States" (Direct quote from EO). So Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, etc. will not be affected.
  - kingosticks 7y ago
    Ahh OK thanks for clarifying that. So by 'foreign' they really mean 'Chinese', and it becomes a little less crazy.
Zenst 7y ago
I've always been supprised that Qualcomm is not more active in this field. Though they recently had some home hotspot 5G coverage kit, and do a lot of work with Nokia. So who knows.

Zenst 7y ago

"The president signed an executive order effectively barring US companies from using foreign telecoms believed to pose a security risk to the country." "Mr Trump does not name any company specifically in the order." I'm guessing they are called emergencies as they await for the threat to emerge. Which kinda seems at odds with my definition of emergencies - which would be a defined clear-cut issue that needs addressing. All this effectively does is hurt and curtail legit business with fair and good foreign telecom providers who have now been bundeled via red-tape into the same collection as those unnamed less fair and good foreign telecom providers. Expect a fall-out of how this will hurt and impact legit businesses over the coming days and weeks. Let alone touch upon the possible impact upon Americans using their provider SIM and roaming abroad.

Someone1234 7y ago

> The president signed an executive order effectively barring US companies from using foreign telecoms believed to pose a security risk to the country. So let's just back up a little: A Chinese equipment manufacturer left a telnet daemon running on a single version of a single device and a national emergency is declared, Cisco leaves SSH credentials (public and private keys leaked) hard coded into multiple generations of routers over several years and not a peep..? When is the US going to tell us what these Chinese manufacturers are up to? Heck when are they going to tell the UK's own security services? Just telling us why we should be concerned seems far more productive and effective than their current strategy that is marred by accusations of protectionism. I'm not even saying the US are wrong. I am saying the lack of specific technical information undercuts their whole position.

0xDEFC0DE 7y ago
This is most likely just a political action to put pressure on China. They don't really care if it's hypocritical.
jplayer01 7y ago
I've repeatedly seen a lack of interest in geopolitical issues on HN. This whole thing is akin to "Should the US be reliant on a hardware manufacturer that can be considered a non-independent subsidiary of the Chinese government?" Replace Chinese with Russian, Iranian, North Korean, Saudi Arabian, etc. These are all countries, like China, that would love to have that kind of potential leverage and power over US infrastructure and political processes because of the benefits these would bestow. I've said in a recent comment: It doesn't matter if Huawei is entirely innocent right now. China is a major competitor to the US as a global power - militarily. politically, economically. If people think they wouldn't at some point in the future use Huawei's ties deep into cellular infrastructure to serve China's needs, they're incredibly naive. Hell, none of this is unprecedented. The whole debacle with all the ties between Republican representatives or people in Trump's campaign and Russia alone should give pause. Or Russia's meddling in the US election. Or Russia's meddling in Eastern Europe (Ukraine wishes somebody would give a geopolitical shit right now). And somehow Huawei, and by extension China, are supposed to be impartial and innocent and not a potential threat? Really?

supergirl 7y ago

is he banning every electronic that is made in china? pretty sure even if huawei is banned, chinese made equipment is still used in 5G.

Leary 7y ago
I'm throwing out my PC now.

koube 7y ago

The title (written by the BBC) seems to be ambiguous. This is not about hardening US computer systems, this is about banning US companies from using Huawei 5G technology. The United States has been lobbying other countries to not use Chinese 5G technology for a while now, while it doesn't seem like there are currently any viable alternatives. This makes it a nation-wide ban.

rst 7y ago

Text of the EO, from whitehouse.gov: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-securing-information-communications-technology-services-supply-chain/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...

basicplus2 7y ago

Every country should design and manufacture its own internet infrastructure (and be owned and controlled by its gov) as a free, level, secure playing field for the benefit of all of its citizens.

drivingmenuts 7y ago

A whole bunch a sound and fury, signifying nothing.