4 ms·

The original source[0] definitely supports those claims. "Ongecontroleerde en ongeautoriseerde toegang vanuit China heeft na 28 oktober 2009 daadwerkelijk plaa

by crote 6y ago

The original source[0] definitely supports those claims. "Ongecontroleerde en ongeautoriseerde toegang vanuit China heeft na 28 oktober 2009 daadwerkelijk plaatsgevonden" which translates to "Uncontrolled and unauthorized access from China actually took place after October 28, 2009" > Wouldn't the ones running the network need to know which numbers were under surveillance to provide the intelligence agency access? No. That data should only be on a server within the KPN network. Huawei employees had an office in a KPN building. There is no need for that data to ever leave that network. [0]: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle-gesprekken-van-mobiele-kpn-klanten-afluisteren-inclusief-die-van-de-premier~bd1aece1/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle...

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Uncontrolled and unauthorized access from China actually took place after October 28, 2009" That does not state Huawei is responsible for that event, it could be the security testing team.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Hackers could always claim they were security testing :) If that would have been the case, it would have been the first thing they'd mention though.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    It was? Those words came from the report done by the security testing team.
    - NicoJuicy 6y ago
      Copy the lines + link that state that please. That's not my observation. Note: i'm a native dutch speaker. So no translation required.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        From the original link >The Capgemini report stated that Huawei staff, both from within KPN buildings and from China, could eavesdrop on unauthorized, uncontrolled, and unlimited KPN mobile numbers. That quote clearly comes from the security testing team's report. It's not clear from the quote provided to me who is responsible for the "Uncontrolled and unauthorized access," but we know there was an ongoing security audit at the time mentioned.
        NicoJuicy 6y ago
        Capgemini did the audit, not Huawei who had uncontrolled access. It should be clear that unauthorized access is not from those doing the audit, but from Huawei. Why is that so hard to understand? Lol
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Why should it be clear? What evidence do you have? I can't read the report, you could easily find where they say "Huawei was responsible for the unauthorized access" that for some reason the articles don't directly quote. Instead you're acting like I'm being dumb for not making baseless assumptions. The articles aren't titled "Huawei eavesdropped on KPN" for a reason.
        NicoJuicy 6y ago
        Unauthorized access was detected from China outside of the procedure. With that access they could have done anything ( eg. eavesdropping ). Follow up requests are currently happening by the Dutch government ( other related news from today). KPN also mentioned: currently they have no access. While the report states: they had access. KPN mentioned that Huawei's employees with access were employed by KPN. Wick could be correct, but it didn't explain access from China since those employees are employed in the netherlands. A bit of wordplay going around. That's true. -- Capgemini: Huawei blijkt zich buiten de procedure om vanuit China toegang tot de kern van het netwerk te verschaffen. Veiligheidsmensen van KPN weten dat dit gebeurt, maar doen niets. ‘Ongecontroleerde en ongeautoriseerde toegang vanuit China heeft na 28 oktober 2009 daadwerkelijk plaatsgevonden’, vermeldt het rapport in april 2010. [...] De onderzoekers [van Capgemini] vragen het Chinese bedrijf daarom wie bij de gegevens kan en hoe de versleuteling is geregeld. ‘Pas na lang aandringen’ is Huawei bereid ‘duidelijkheid te verschaffen’. Huawei blijkt een uiterst zwakke versleuteling toe te passen en zelf het sleutelbeheer te doen. Capgemini: ‘Daarmee zijn nummers die onder de tap staan bekend bij Huawei’. Edit: couldn't respond below. Source is the origin of all foreign news articles, it's the original newspaper that is in possession of the Capgemini report: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle-gesprekken-van-mobiele-kpn-klanten-afluisteren-inclusief-die-van-de-premier~bd1aece1/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle... ( Google cache is possible as a workaround fyi)
- sidlls 6y ago
  I work at a company that has a sister entity in China. We routinely have to defend against their deliberate, concerted efforts to breach the various firewalls we've erected to keep the networks separate. These are almost always billed as "security scans"--but there's no good reason for them.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    We're discussing a report from a team hired to do a security audit, that would certainly qualify as a good reason for them.
    - sidlls 6y ago
      Depends on the scope and intent. If they're anything like our China partner, the scope is far outside the contract and the intent is pretty clearly nefarious. They act like we're too stupid to understand or recognize what they're doing, too.

by crote 6y ago

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>Uncontrolled and unauthorized access from China actually took place after October 28, 2009" That does not state Huawei is responsible for that event, it could be the security testing team.

NicoJuicy 6y ago
Hackers could always claim they were security testing :) If that would have been the case, it would have been the first thing they'd mention though.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  It was? Those words came from the report done by the security testing team.
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    Copy the lines + link that state that please. That's not my observation. Note: i'm a native dutch speaker. So no translation required.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      From the original link >The Capgemini report stated that Huawei staff, both from within KPN buildings and from China, could eavesdrop on unauthorized, uncontrolled, and unlimited KPN mobile numbers. That quote clearly comes from the security testing team's report. It's not clear from the quote provided to me who is responsible for the "Uncontrolled and unauthorized access," but we know there was an ongoing security audit at the time mentioned.
      - NicoJuicy 6y ago
        Capgemini did the audit, not Huawei who had uncontrolled access. It should be clear that unauthorized access is not from those doing the audit, but from Huawei. Why is that so hard to understand? Lol
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Why should it be clear? What evidence do you have? I can't read the report, you could easily find where they say "Huawei was responsible for the unauthorized access" that for some reason the articles don't directly quote. Instead you're acting like I'm being dumb for not making baseless assumptions. The articles aren't titled "Huawei eavesdropped on KPN" for a reason.
        NicoJuicy 6y ago
        Unauthorized access was detected from China outside of the procedure. With that access they could have done anything ( eg. eavesdropping ). Follow up requests are currently happening by the Dutch government ( other related news from today). KPN also mentioned: currently they have no access. While the report states: they had access. KPN mentioned that Huawei's employees with access were employed by KPN. Wick could be correct, but it didn't explain access from China since those employees are employed in the netherlands. A bit of wordplay going around. That's true. -- Capgemini: Huawei blijkt zich buiten de procedure om vanuit China toegang tot de kern van het netwerk te verschaffen. Veiligheidsmensen van KPN weten dat dit gebeurt, maar doen niets. ‘Ongecontroleerde en ongeautoriseerde toegang vanuit China heeft na 28 oktober 2009 daadwerkelijk plaatsgevonden’, vermeldt het rapport in april 2010. [...] De onderzoekers [van Capgemini] vragen het Chinese bedrijf daarom wie bij de gegevens kan en hoe de versleuteling is geregeld. ‘Pas na lang aandringen’ is Huawei bereid ‘duidelijkheid te verschaffen’. Huawei blijkt een uiterst zwakke versleuteling toe te passen en zelf het sleutelbeheer te doen. Capgemini: ‘Daarmee zijn nummers die onder de tap staan bekend bij Huawei’. Edit: couldn't respond below. Source is the origin of all foreign news articles, it's the original newspaper that is in possession of the Capgemini report: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle-gesprekken-van-mobiele-kpn-klanten-afluisteren-inclusief-die-van-de-premier~bd1aece1/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle... ( Google cache is possible as a workaround fyi)
sidlls 6y ago
I work at a company that has a sister entity in China. We routinely have to defend against their deliberate, concerted efforts to breach the various firewalls we've erected to keep the networks separate. These are almost always billed as "security scans"--but there's no good reason for them.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  We're discussing a report from a team hired to do a security audit, that would certainly qualify as a good reason for them.
  - sidlls 6y ago
    Depends on the scope and intent. If they're anything like our China partner, the scope is far outside the contract and the intent is pretty clearly nefarious. They act like we're too stupid to understand or recognize what they're doing, too.