4 ms·

Interesting how this 3 day old story is getting twisted more and more. Can we stick to the facts? Huawei was used for outsourcing, Huawei obviously has root ac

Interesting how this 3 day old story is getting twisted more and more. Can we stick to the facts? Huawei was used for outsourcing, Huawei obviously has root access. If you outsource your IT to a company with known ties to a foreign government you can't complain about them having sensitive access.

justicezyx 6y ago
Now it's not only "true", it's sufficient to be the evidence of national threats (again) https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/30/huawei-china-business-risk/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/30/huawei-china-business-r...
NicoJuicy 6y ago
Huawei had employees onsite in the netherlands for access. Unauthorized full network access happened from China. I do agree it's again here and shouldn't be anymore. But don't claim it's normal, the audit reported it as not. KPN even hid the report for 10 years, because it was afraid of it's contents to go public. Ps. Yes, i speak dutch, so I read the original article on Volkskrant.nl . More information is probably getting out soon as it's being inquired currently by their government.
varispeed 6y ago
Just because you have a root access, it doesn't mean you can just make yourself at home and grab any data you want.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  And it doesn't mean that they did.
  - Boywithhalo 6y ago
    Capgemini report states that unchecked and unauthorized from China happened after October 28 2009; as reported by the journalist that broke this news: https://twitter.com/huibmodderkolk/status/1383350588654592001 https://twitter.com/huibmodderkolk/status/138335058865459200...
    - multiverce 6y ago
      So if anyone accessed from China, it must be huawei? You do know China has 1.4B people. And hackers often use zombie machines to attack. But clearly didn't matter to you.
      - NicoJuicy 6y ago
        Huawei was the only one that circumvented the password policy from KPN, which is the telecom provider of > 50% of phone infrastructure in the Netherlands ( including government). The audit was from 2009 and was an internal security audit that got leaked. It's specifically about Huawei.
        throwaway4good 6y ago
        Just because a policy on passwords or root access was broken, it doesn't mean that it was nefarious (as implied here - eavesdropping etc.).
        NicoJuicy 6y ago
        It's explicitly forbidden when working with a large telecom provider in the EU
      - Boywithhalo 6y ago
        You're ascribing conclusions to me that I didn't draw; its the Capgemini report that states it was Huawei. I'm just the messenger.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
mc32 6y ago
Yeah I guess this is like having Kaspersky and then complaining that data was exfiltrated to the FSB or something. Or you know, know who you are dealing with when you outsource.
contravariant 6y ago
I don't think the people complaining are the ones who chose to give root access to a company with known ties to a foreign government.
- amaccuish 6y ago
  Then why do they spin it as if Huawei abused their access? Surely they could just make their opposition known without all the wink wink going on.
  - Boywithhalo 6y ago
    Who is the 'they' in your comment? The Capgemini report underlying all this, in no unclear terms, states that Huawei abused their access; with unmonitored and unauthorized access from China. Additionally, it concludes that Dutch telecom act was violated by Huawei by being able to access the numbers being tapped by Dutch security services. All statements in the original news article are backed up by the Capgemini report. Of course this report could be wrong, but then it's curious why KPN decided to keep this report a secret, apart from sharing the results with Dutch intelligence (AIVD). Either way, I have a hard time seeing how any of this is 'spin'.
  - contravariant 6y ago
    I don't need to spin anything. I hereby oppose Huawei having this kind of unlimited and unchecked access in past present and future. The only part that is unclear, and may never be clear, is whether this authority has been abused. However I oppose them (or anyone) having the authority in the first place.

justicezyx 6y ago

Now it's not only "true", it's sufficient to be the evidence of national threats (again) https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/30/huawei-china-business-risk/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/30/huawei-china-business-r...

NicoJuicy 6y ago

Huawei had employees onsite in the netherlands for access. Unauthorized full network access happened from China. I do agree it's again here and shouldn't be anymore. But don't claim it's normal, the audit reported it as not. KPN even hid the report for 10 years, because it was afraid of it's contents to go public. Ps. Yes, i speak dutch, so I read the original article on Volkskrant.nl . More information is probably getting out soon as it's being inquired currently by their government.

varispeed 6y ago

Just because you have a root access, it doesn't mean you can just make yourself at home and grab any data you want.

throwaway4good 6y ago
And it doesn't mean that they did.
- Boywithhalo 6y ago
  Capgemini report states that unchecked and unauthorized from China happened after October 28 2009; as reported by the journalist that broke this news: https://twitter.com/huibmodderkolk/status/1383350588654592001 https://twitter.com/huibmodderkolk/status/138335058865459200...
  - multiverce 6y ago
    So if anyone accessed from China, it must be huawei? You do know China has 1.4B people. And hackers often use zombie machines to attack. But clearly didn't matter to you.
    - NicoJuicy 6y ago
      Huawei was the only one that circumvented the password policy from KPN, which is the telecom provider of > 50% of phone infrastructure in the Netherlands ( including government). The audit was from 2009 and was an internal security audit that got leaked. It's specifically about Huawei.
      - throwaway4good 6y ago
        Just because a policy on passwords or root access was broken, it doesn't mean that it was nefarious (as implied here - eavesdropping etc.).
        NicoJuicy 6y ago
        It's explicitly forbidden when working with a large telecom provider in the EU
    - Boywithhalo 6y ago
      You're ascribing conclusions to me that I didn't draw; its the Capgemini report that states it was Huawei. I'm just the messenger.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

mc32 6y ago

Yeah I guess this is like having Kaspersky and then complaining that data was exfiltrated to the FSB or something. Or you know, know who you are dealing with when you outsource.

contravariant 6y ago

I don't think the people complaining are the ones who chose to give root access to a company with known ties to a foreign government.

amaccuish 6y ago
Then why do they spin it as if Huawei abused their access? Surely they could just make their opposition known without all the wink wink going on.
- Boywithhalo 6y ago
  Who is the 'they' in your comment? The Capgemini report underlying all this, in no unclear terms, states that Huawei abused their access; with unmonitored and unauthorized access from China. Additionally, it concludes that Dutch telecom act was violated by Huawei by being able to access the numbers being tapped by Dutch security services. All statements in the original news article are backed up by the Capgemini report. Of course this report could be wrong, but then it's curious why KPN decided to keep this report a secret, apart from sharing the results with Dutch intelligence (AIVD). Either way, I have a hard time seeing how any of this is 'spin'.
- contravariant 6y ago
  I don't need to spin anything. I hereby oppose Huawei having this kind of unlimited and unchecked access in past present and future. The only part that is unclear, and may never be clear, is whether this authority has been abused. However I oppose them (or anyone) having the authority in the first place.