3 ms·
It should be the final nail in the coffin of Huawei's international telecoms business.
by stickfigure 2y ago
It should be the final nail in the coffin of Huawei's international telecoms business.
- Shank 2y agoI personally don't see how these actions are logically correlated, and moreover, I don't think it does anything to harden US critical infrastructure to beat the Huawei dead horse again. The primary concern should be the fact that we've built infrastructure that is easily eavesdropped on by foreign adversaries. Heck, assuming these users weren't on DSN, we already have a solution: DSN. We also have mobile solutions, like asking politically vulnerable people to use Signal, or developing secure technology for these users to use.
- lazyeye 2y ago[flagged]
- conductr 2y agoAbout as silly as buying all your telecom equipment in competitor country’s manufacturing chain and expecting it to come not having something embedded
- gottorf 2y agoPlease keep to the HN guidelines[0]: > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- piva00 2y agoA bit one-sided since this event also shows how filled with backdoors American telecom equipment is, no? To the point an adversary used them, other nations should be afraid of their American equipment also getting compromised.
- mu53 2y agoIgnoring the geopolitical implications of your comment. They used unpatched exploits in EOL network gear made by linksys that were several years past their expiration date to get into this system and then moved laterally. The root cause is a lack of investment in backbone security. I would like the actual problem be fixed instead of a scapegoat this time.