4 ms·

Another subtle post I see... Existing Huawei equipment should be removed. Sunken cost fallacy is well...a fallacy. You mentioned Trump to ellicit political em

Another subtle post I see... Existing Huawei equipment should be removed. Sunken cost fallacy is well...a fallacy. You mentioned Trump to ellicit political emotions but oppositiin to Huawei by US started during Obama's era and had bipartisan support. GCHQ and the UK can indeed plan "for shit" as you put it, possibly more than you CCP fellas. Whether they use this a bargaining chip or not does not change China's hostilities. And last but far from least!!!!! It does not matter if their equipment is on the edge, do you want HN readers to suspend all knowledge of networking? Even if their equipment is purely layer2 and will only see encrypted traffic: 1) this still lets them be poisitoned to exploit and track arbitrary devices. 2) this still let's be in a position where they can abuse trust with the core or exploit the core. 3) this still lets them be in a position where they can cripple UK's communication infrastructure (DOS),which if they're smart,that's the primary vulnerability they will exploit in case of an invasion/war/pre-kinetic-war

KaiserPro 7y ago
> Existing Huawei equipment should be removed. Sunken cost fallacy is well...a fallacy. I've not called for it to be removed, I pointed out that Openreach's decision (backed up by government) killed the only domestic player. Hence my comments on not being able to plan. Also, being in my current position I work closely with policy maker and those who advise. The level of dysfunction, piss poor office politics and general incompetence, is all too depressing > Whether they use this a bargaining chip or not does not change China's hostilities. This is orthogonal to what a bargaining chip is for. Its not about hostilities, its about who is in control. As now small player, shopping loyalties is the last great choice Britain has. (EU/US/other) Think Israel in the 50s/60s. They played a blinder. > 1) this still lets them be poisitoned to exploit and track arbitrary devices. yes and no. They still require access. If we ignore that the entire backhaul touches huawei kit, nominally the control plane is going to be separated from the data plane, whilst they could in theory collect this data, they'd still need to get it out. > 2) this still let's be in a position where they can abuse trust with the core or exploit the core. if the control plane is on the same network then yes. But as you well know control planes needs to be isolated to stop all sorts of failure types. > 3) this still lets them be in a position where they can cripple UK's communication infrastructure (DOS),which if they're smart,that's the primary vulnerability they will exploit in case of an invasion/war/pre-kinetic-war THe same goes for all the backdoors in present kit. Just because a country "owns" a manufacturer it doesn't mean that they own the backdoors. But all of this supposes that every telecom use the same kit. Unlike landline, which is monopolised by openreach, there are still four mobile networks. of course its possible to launch a DOS on all of them using technical means, but its far simpler, cheaper and quicker to bribe a few NOC operators. I personally don't think we should be using huawei kit, marconi shouldn't have been killed. but politics is politics.

KaiserPro 7y ago

> Existing Huawei equipment should be removed. Sunken cost fallacy is well...a fallacy. I've not called for it to be removed, I pointed out that Openreach's decision (backed up by government) killed the only domestic player. Hence my comments on not being able to plan. Also, being in my current position I work closely with policy maker and those who advise. The level of dysfunction, piss poor office politics and general incompetence, is all too depressing > Whether they use this a bargaining chip or not does not change China's hostilities. This is orthogonal to what a bargaining chip is for. Its not about hostilities, its about who is in control. As now small player, shopping loyalties is the last great choice Britain has. (EU/US/other) Think Israel in the 50s/60s. They played a blinder. > 1) this still lets them be poisitoned to exploit and track arbitrary devices. yes and no. They still require access. If we ignore that the entire backhaul touches huawei kit, nominally the control plane is going to be separated from the data plane, whilst they could in theory collect this data, they'd still need to get it out. > 2) this still let's be in a position where they can abuse trust with the core or exploit the core. if the control plane is on the same network then yes. But as you well know control planes needs to be isolated to stop all sorts of failure types. > 3) this still lets them be in a position where they can cripple UK's communication infrastructure (DOS),which if they're smart,that's the primary vulnerability they will exploit in case of an invasion/war/pre-kinetic-war THe same goes for all the backdoors in present kit. Just because a country "owns" a manufacturer it doesn't mean that they own the backdoors. But all of this supposes that every telecom use the same kit. Unlike landline, which is monopolised by openreach, there are still four mobile networks. of course its possible to launch a DOS on all of them using technical means, but its far simpler, cheaper and quicker to bribe a few NOC operators. I personally don't think we should be using huawei kit, marconi shouldn't have been killed. but politics is politics.