5 ms·

You're tldr; is a bit wrong. They had unauthorized access, which means they used it. It's not clear for what currently, that's why it describes the scope of ac

You're tldr; is a bit wrong. They had unauthorized access, which means they used it. It's not clear for what currently, that's why it describes the scope of access. They also found that the application can tap entire phone calls, which was forbidden. Edit: What do you think the following means ( Dutch is my native tongue, lol): > ‘Ongecontroleerde en ongeautoriseerde toegang vanuit China heeft na 28 oktober 2009 daadwerkelijk plaatsgevonden’, vermeldt het rapport in april 2010. Translation: Unchecked and unauthorized access has taken place from china after 28 October 2009. Original article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/huawei-kon-alle-gesprekken-van-mobiele-kpn-klanten-afluisteren-inclusief-die-van-de-premier~bd1aece1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...

nottorp 6y ago
It says they were doing the network maintenance, so my guess is they cut some corners and had their people in China do it fast.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  It doesn't say that ( I speak Dutch ). It says that they could tap phone-calls in KPN's network anytime and anywhere without anyone knowing. It's not what it states. It says that Huawei does the core of the mobile network ( eg. switches). If they want access, they have to ask it and they will generate a security code. > Als Huawei erbij wil, moet het bedrijf bij het Netwerk Operations Center van KPN een veiligheidscode aanvragen. Daarna bereiden technici van KPN de toegang voor. Alleen dan kan Huawei in het hart van het netwerk. But Huawei seems to get access from China outside of this procedure. > Maar het gaat toch verkeerd. 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. They found an additional serious breach. A program to listen to every phone call within the network of KPN. > zes Chinese medewerkers werken met een programma dat hen in staat stelt om elk telefoongesprek dat via KPN gaat mee te luisteren. Ook dat is in strijd met afspraken. Listening to an entire phone call is forbidden. > Huawei heeft contractueel de mogelijkheid om voor kwaliteitsdoeleinden een gesprek kortstondig – enkele seconden – te volgen, dat heet inluisteren. Het hele gesprek volgen – meeluisteren – is verboden. Source: the original article from the volkskrant: 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...
RyEgswuCsn 6y ago
I don't get it. Won't your logic imply that all locksmiths are trespassers now? Because, you know, they have unauthorized access to most premises secured by locks.
- throwaway4china 6y ago
  No, just the locksmiths with a bad reputation. Would you hire a locksmith if he had a record of stalking people?
  - RyEgswuCsn 6y ago
    I probably won't. Has this particular locksmith (Huawei) been shown to stalk people? Who are the people that accused the locksmith of stalking? Are they competitors? Should I trust their words?
    - throwaway4china 6y ago
      Huawei is a Chinese corporation. Legally it must report data to the CCP when requested. The CCP is known to commit human rights violations, especially against it's Uighurs population. Providing data to them is furthering these human rights violations. Yes you can say other countries spy on citizens, but what the country does with the data is an important distinction. Furthermore, there's usually a judicial process to request this data in other countries. A warrant is needed from a judge, and even still any action must go through the legal process. Such is not true for the CCP. From political dissent to being a minority can be your crime, there is no jury, there is no trial.
      - RyEgswuCsn 6y ago
        To be honest I do wonder what other countries' government do with the data they have gathered on their citizens as well as foreign personnel. I guess it must be that the justice league countries are using those data to protect their citizens and defend human rights across the globe.
amaccuish 6y ago
Two things wrong. > They had unauthorized access No it doesn't >which means they used it Does it? As per HN regs, "The article mentions that."
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  You are referencing the Guardian which is not the original source. I'm referencing the original report from Volkskrant, which has access to the Capgemini security audit. The Capgemini report stated: - They had accessed KPN's network without authorization and from China in 2009. They circumvented the default password policy from KPN - They could have eavesdropped, because they had an application that enabled it, which was forbidden. Also. The Dutch statement of KPN that the Guardian mentioned was not: "adding that none of its suppliers had “unauthorised, uncontrolled or unlimited access to our networks and systems”, as the article states. The literal statement was ( in dutch): > "Geen enkele leverancier van KPN heeft 'ongeautoriseerde, ongecontroleerde en ongelimiteerde' toegang tot de netwerken en systemen, of is in staat om KPN-klanten af te luisteren of tapinformatie in te zien." Which is misleading, since it means: "Currently, no supplier has 'unauthorized and uncontrolled and unlimited' access to our networks and systems." This can be true, because they changed a lot because of the security audit that got leaked. 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 if you want to translate it fyi) PS. I'm a native dutch speaker. There's a whole discussion about the misleading statement from KPN here: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/180642/tweede-kamer-wil-opnieuw-uitleg-over-rol-huawei-bij-kpn-netwerk.html https://tweakers.net/nieuws/180642/tweede-kamer-wil-opnieuw-...

nottorp 6y ago

It says they were doing the network maintenance, so my guess is they cut some corners and had their people in China do it fast.

NicoJuicy 6y ago
It doesn't say that ( I speak Dutch ). It says that they could tap phone-calls in KPN's network anytime and anywhere without anyone knowing. It's not what it states. It says that Huawei does the core of the mobile network ( eg. switches). If they want access, they have to ask it and they will generate a security code. > Als Huawei erbij wil, moet het bedrijf bij het Netwerk Operations Center van KPN een veiligheidscode aanvragen. Daarna bereiden technici van KPN de toegang voor. Alleen dan kan Huawei in het hart van het netwerk. But Huawei seems to get access from China outside of this procedure. > Maar het gaat toch verkeerd. 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. They found an additional serious breach. A program to listen to every phone call within the network of KPN. > zes Chinese medewerkers werken met een programma dat hen in staat stelt om elk telefoongesprek dat via KPN gaat mee te luisteren. Ook dat is in strijd met afspraken. Listening to an entire phone call is forbidden. > Huawei heeft contractueel de mogelijkheid om voor kwaliteitsdoeleinden een gesprek kortstondig – enkele seconden – te volgen, dat heet inluisteren. Het hele gesprek volgen – meeluisteren – is verboden. Source: the original article from the volkskrant: 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...

RyEgswuCsn 6y ago

I don't get it. Won't your logic imply that all locksmiths are trespassers now? Because, you know, they have unauthorized access to most premises secured by locks.

throwaway4china 6y ago
No, just the locksmiths with a bad reputation. Would you hire a locksmith if he had a record of stalking people?
- RyEgswuCsn 6y ago
  I probably won't. Has this particular locksmith (Huawei) been shown to stalk people? Who are the people that accused the locksmith of stalking? Are they competitors? Should I trust their words?
  - throwaway4china 6y ago
    Huawei is a Chinese corporation. Legally it must report data to the CCP when requested. The CCP is known to commit human rights violations, especially against it's Uighurs population. Providing data to them is furthering these human rights violations. Yes you can say other countries spy on citizens, but what the country does with the data is an important distinction. Furthermore, there's usually a judicial process to request this data in other countries. A warrant is needed from a judge, and even still any action must go through the legal process. Such is not true for the CCP. From political dissent to being a minority can be your crime, there is no jury, there is no trial.
    - RyEgswuCsn 6y ago
      To be honest I do wonder what other countries' government do with the data they have gathered on their citizens as well as foreign personnel. I guess it must be that the justice league countries are using those data to protect their citizens and defend human rights across the globe.

amaccuish 6y ago

Two things wrong. > They had unauthorized access No it doesn't >which means they used it Does it? As per HN regs, "The article mentions that."

NicoJuicy 6y ago
You are referencing the Guardian which is not the original source. I'm referencing the original report from Volkskrant, which has access to the Capgemini security audit. The Capgemini report stated: - They had accessed KPN's network without authorization and from China in 2009. They circumvented the default password policy from KPN - They could have eavesdropped, because they had an application that enabled it, which was forbidden. Also. The Dutch statement of KPN that the Guardian mentioned was not: "adding that none of its suppliers had “unauthorised, uncontrolled or unlimited access to our networks and systems”, as the article states. The literal statement was ( in dutch): > "Geen enkele leverancier van KPN heeft 'ongeautoriseerde, ongecontroleerde en ongelimiteerde' toegang tot de netwerken en systemen, of is in staat om KPN-klanten af te luisteren of tapinformatie in te zien." Which is misleading, since it means: "Currently, no supplier has 'unauthorized and uncontrolled and unlimited' access to our networks and systems." This can be true, because they changed a lot because of the security audit that got leaked. 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 if you want to translate it fyi) PS. I'm a native dutch speaker. There's a whole discussion about the misleading statement from KPN here: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/180642/tweede-kamer-wil-opnieuw-uitleg-over-rol-huawei-bij-kpn-netwerk.html https://tweakers.net/nieuws/180642/tweede-kamer-wil-opnieuw-...