8 ms·
The issue is probably availability. Assuming Huawei to be an adversary, if they have control of communications, they can decide to drop all packets (or slow or
by kop316 7y ago
The issue is probably availability. Assuming Huawei to be an adversary, if they have control of communications, they can decide to drop all packets (or slow or drop some, etc.). This would wreck plenty of havoc on communications.
- thinkling 7y agoIt seems wise for the US to ensure that they control major backbones and don't become dependent on critical backbone links owned by (potential) adversaries. Similarly, it's understandable that the Chinese want to start building their own backbone infrastructure so they're cannot be cut off from the world if they end up in a conflict with the U.S.. From that perspective, it makes sense that Huawei would start laying these cables. It can be seen as a defensive move. I've long been wondering whether the Chinese have subverted IP infrastructure hardware, which is all produced in China, often by Chinese companies like TP-Link. How much of that stuff has a kill switch in it that they can activate if a conflict with the West breaks out?
- neltnerb 7y agoI'm kind of skeptical that there's a real risk here too... seems like a simple enough matter to ensure stuff you're worried about security of stays on channels you control right? This doesn't seem like that big a challenge, it sounds like more of a defensive measure than a threat.
- dalore 7y agoBut if there is a kill switch in so many cheap devices then wouldn't someone would have found it by now? It's not like people aren't looking. It's not like these devices are super secure. Perhaps the higher end, non-consumer facing, equipment might have it. But for the cheap tp-link devices I highly doubt it.
- whenchamenia 7y agoWe still have no idea what the Intel ME microcode is, present on almost every pc manufactured. I think it is very possible, plausable, or even likely.
- dalore 7y agoAnd also the the software that runs embedded in the mobile phone chips (not the phone, but the chips for stuff like GSM/3G etc). And that's why the fight for 5g is important. All the more reason it's not in the cheap TP-Link routers but in the mobile phone chips which can't be examined so easily.
- the_duke 7y agoWhy is that? Won't 5G also have dedicated hardware?
- namibj 7y agoThere are multiple usable open-source LTE handset software implementations. They work with a suitable SDR like e.g. a LimeSDR or similar. AFAIK not even a single open-source UMTS software implementation works well enough for practical, day-to-day use. More than one of the LTE implementations archived that reliability. They all guzzle power though, IIRC. But that's the easy part (offload ping detection and FEC (de-)coding to an FPGA).
- ignoramous 7y agoAre there opensource impl for LTE baseband for smartphones? Which ones? I've heard of OsmocomBB and it is 2G only, IIRC. https://osmocom.org/projects https://osmocom.org/projects
- cedivad 7y agohttps://github.com/srsLTE/srsLTE https://github.com/srsLTE/srsLTE
- ceejayoz 7y ago> But if there is a kill switch in so many cheap devices then wouldn't someone would have found it by now? It's not like people aren't looking. It's not like these devices are super secure. Meltdown was only discovered last year, despite being a vulnerability in virtually all Intel CPUs made since 1995. I suspect there are substantially more eyeballs on Intel, too.
- lolc 7y agoTry building Meltdown on purpose! Who will know? How do they defend design choices to those who can't know? Nobody can afford this in breadth. Granted, you can manufacture a rigged batch and keep it secret. But you can't have a broad capability and expect it to remain secret for long.
- imglorp 7y agoSo... US now wants network neutrality?
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y agoYeowch. I guess they consider their own country to just be a large intranet, and the internet- the web between countries, is the thing they want neutral? Politics is not fun to deal with.
- cameronbrown 7y agoIt's networks all the way down
- lyrachord 7y agoThere is no assuming, and, on the contrary, what is known to the whole world is that USA does steal packets.
- mullingitover 7y ago> The issue is probably availability I imagine every undersea cable would be cut in the first week of a US-China conflict, regardless of who built it.
- jdsully 7y agoIt seems to me that the US-China conflict has already started as a slow but expanding series of limited engagements. Today these are economic and "cyber". However even if such a conflict were to go kinetic, it would likely be in a more limited sense - most likely at sea. An example of what limited conflict looks like is the Sino-Indian war which was kept confined to a limited geographic area. Its not a forgone conclusion that a conflict has to become "total".
- twoIfBySea 7y agomost likely at sea There's no way a threat to navies won't quickly jump to very serious warfare, of a kind that breaks open to involve lots more than just limited seaborne engagements. An oceanic conflict in the Pacific is going to ruin air traffic, and with both air and sea lanes compromised, you see the beginnings of blockades and economic business as usual encounters entanglements all over. If big expensive ships start sinking, and the projection of air power changes, everything else heats up very quickly, because replacing military fleets (and the sailors to match) is a slow process, and any major setback could prove permanent and lasting. Don't expect a naval limited war to stay limited for long.
- jdsully 7y agoThe most likely scenario would be one “freedom of navigation” cruise too many. In which case it would be a small number of vessels. It’s in neither countries interest to have all out warfare so it seems unlikely the skirmish would extend past the vessels involved.
- rusk 7y agoWell that's all good for the cables connecting USA and China but what about cables elsewhere? I guess in such a situation you wouldn't want you opponent to have control of critical infrastructure.