3 ms·
> This argument proves too much. By this reasoning, "Qualcomm-owned Cisco" is "injecting backdoors" into their chips as well.[1] I would not consider this to b
by wolfgke 7y ago
> This argument proves too much. By this reasoning, "Qualcomm-owned Cisco" is "injecting backdoors" into their chips as well.[1]
I would not consider this to be past my belief ...
- elipsey 7y agoI wouldn't either, but I'm gonna hold out for some evidence before I start telling people they are :) Edit: hey, while we're on the subject, what ever happened with that supermicro thing? Check's in the mail?
- DyslexicAtheist 7y agoCISCO has not only a long history of creating backdoors, but have also been marketing them as features. They even wrote an IETF proposal (RFC 2804) for a LI backdoor: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2804 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2804 https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-10/Cross_Tom/BlackHat-DC-2010-Cross-Attacking-LawfulI-Intercept-slides.pdf https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-10/Cross_Tom/Bl... Edit: Schneier wrote in 2018: "We don't know if this is error or deliberate action, but five backdoors have been discovered [in CISCO] already this year." and linking to this article: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cisco-backdoor-hardcoded-accounts-software,37480.html https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cisco-backdoor-hardcoded-a... (the final count went up to 7 actual backdoors discovered in 2018. From May 2019: https://www.scmagazineuk.com/cisco-firewalls-routers-switches-compromised-thrangrycat-just-dont-call-backdoor/article/1584822 https://www.scmagazineuk.com/cisco-firewalls-routers-switche...
- johnmaguire2013 7y agoThe IETF proposal you linked is not for a backdoor. It's IETF refusing to set rules on future IETF standards including, or not including wiretapping. i.e. It states that whether a standard includes a wiretap or not is irrelevant to it being an IETF standard.