we really should not be putting huawei kit into the backbone, there might be backdoors where they can spy on our traffic oh well, so much for that randy
I've always wondered about that....would you know that the Huawei is leaking data? On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
we really should not be putting huawei kit into the backbone, there might be backdoors where they can spy on our traffic
oh
well, so much for that
randy
-- Phil Fagan Denver, CO 970-480-7618
A local clec here in Canada just teamed up with this company to provide cell service to the north: http://cwta.ca/blog/2012/09/24/ice-wireless-iristel-and-huawei-partner-for-3... Scary.... N.
On Jun 13, 2013, at 12:18 , Nick Khamis <symack@gmail.com> wrote:
A local clec here in Canada just teamed up with this company to provide cell service to the north:
http://cwta.ca/blog/2012/09/24/ice-wireless-iristel-and-huawei-partner-for-3...
Scary....
Why? Do you think Huawei has a magic ability to transmit data without you noticing? If you don't want to use Hauwei because they stole code or did other nasty things, I'm right there with you. If you believe a router can somehow magically duplicate info and transport it back to China (ignoring CT/CU's inability to have congestion free links), I think you are confused. -- TTFN, patrick
On (2013-06-13 12:22 -0400), Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Do you think Huawei has a magic ability to transmit data without you noticing?
I always found it dubious that public sector can drop them from tender citing publicly about spying, when AFAIK Huawei hasn't never actually been to court about it much less found guilty of it. It's convenient way to devaluate one competitor. I'm just not sure if it's actually legal in $my_locale to invent reasons to exclude vendor in public sector RFQs. -- ++ytti
On 06/13/2013 09:31 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2013-06-13 12:22 -0400), Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Do you think Huawei has a magic ability to transmit data without you noticing? I always found it dubious that public sector can drop them from tender citing publicly about spying, when AFAIK Huawei hasn't never actually been to court about it much less found guilty of it.
It's convenient way to devaluate one competitor. I'm just not sure if it's actually legal in $my_locale to invent reasons to exclude vendor in public sector RFQs.
Er, um, there are more ways to spy than virtual wires back to the mothership... Mike
That was exact statement from the DoD, prior to them finding out they had a bunch of Chinese fake gear with real back doors built in. I can appreciate a difference of opinion, but anyone would installs the PRC's cellular solution is a fool. Never mind security, they just simply don't work. There are several of those Chinese network equipment manufacturers.. Tegra comes to mind too.. As a footnote, the Iranian government would have thought you were bat shit crazy if you told them there was a secret set of programs running on their centrifuge SCADA network, which was completely true. You don't need to relay data out to cause harm or watch over something, you simply have to visit more. ;) Sent from my Mobile Device. -------- Original message -------- From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> Date: 06/13/2013 9:24 AM (GMT-08:00) To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: huawei On Jun 13, 2013, at 12:18 , Nick Khamis <symack@gmail.com> wrote:
A local clec here in Canada just teamed up with this company to provide cell service to the north:
http://cwta.ca/blog/2012/09/24/ice-wireless-iristel-and-huawei-partner-for-3...
Scary....
Why? Do you think Huawei has a magic ability to transmit data without you noticing? If you don't want to use Hauwei because they stole code or did other nasty things, I'm right there with you. If you believe a router can somehow magically duplicate info and transport it back to China (ignoring CT/CU's inability to have congestion free links), I think you are confused. -- TTFN, patrick
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Phil Fagan wrote:
I've always wondered about that....would you know that the Huawei is leaking data?
the puddle on the floor isn't a giveaway? -- david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html drais@icantclick.org ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail http://www.asciiribbon.org/
Yeah, I can't imagine there is any real magic there...mystical protocol not seen over transport. On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org>wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Phil Fagan wrote:
I've always wondered about that....would you know that the Huawei is
leaking data?
the puddle on the floor isn't a giveaway?
-- david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/**news/learn2quote.html<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html> drais@icantclick.org ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail http://www.asciiribbon.org/
-- Phil Fagan Denver, CO 970-480-7618
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:34:28AM -0600, Phil Fagan wrote:
Yeah, I can't imagine there is any real magic there...mystical protocol not seen over transport.
Compromised NICs can leak info through side channels (timing) but it's too low bandwidth. For end user devices with backdoors (remote vulnerabilities are like sloppy backdoors) you could get away with 'it's just part of a botnet', perhaps.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugen Leitl" <eugen@leitl.org>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:34:28AM -0600, Phil Fagan wrote:
Yeah, I can't imagine there is any real magic there...mystical protocol not seen over transport.
Compromised NICs can leak info through side channels (timing) but it's too low bandwidth. For end user devices with backdoors (remote vulnerabilities are like sloppy backdoors) you could get away with 'it's just part of a botnet', perhaps.
And the scope can be pretty big... Oh, look! This VZW 4G hockey puck was made by... ZTE. And it has a GPS receiver in it. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:10:39PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
we really should not be putting huawei kit into the backbone, there might be backdoors where they can spy on our traffic
This paper may be relevant to the topic at hand (h/t to Rob Slade): http://www.scribd.com/doc/95282643/Backdoors-Embedded-in-DoD-Microchips-From... Abstract: This paper is a short summary of the first real world detection of a backdoor in a military grade FPGA. Using an innovative patented technique we were able to detect and analyse in the first documented case of its kind, a backdoor inserted into the Actel/Microsemi ProASIC3 chips. The backdoor was found to exist on the silicon itself, it was not present in any firmware loaded onto the chip. Using Pipeline Emission Analysis (PEA), a technique pioneered by our sponsor, we were able to extract the secret key to activate the backdoor. This way an attacker can disable all the security on the chip, reprogram crypto and access keys, modify low-level silicon features, access unencrypted configuration bitstream or permanently damage the device. Clearly this means the device is wide open to intellectual property theft, fraud, re-programming as well as reverse engineering of the design which allows the introduction of a new backdoor or Trojan. Most concerning, it is not possible to patch the backdoor in chips already deployed, meaning those using this family of chips have to accept the fact it can be easily compromised or it will have to be physically replaced after a redesign of the silicon itself. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear possible to download this paper without signing up for scribd. Perhaps it's available elsewhere without such onerous requirements. ---rsk
On Thursday 13 June 2013 15:30, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 06:10:39PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
we really should not be putting huawei kit into the backbone, there might be backdoors where they can spy on our traffic
This paper may be relevant to the topic at hand (h/t to Rob Slade):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/95282643/Backdoors-Embedded-in-DoD-Microchips-Fr om-China
Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary proof. http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2012/05/bogus-story-no-chinese-backdoor-in.htm... http://www.csoonline.com/article/707542/china-not-to-blame-for-backdoor-in-u... Adrian
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:55:24PM -0700, Adrian wrote:
Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary proof.
Thanks for the pointers; most enlightening. (And I say that even before coffee has taken full effect. I'll re-read once it has.) However, and perhaps I should have explained this in my original message, whether or not this was an oops! of leftover debugging, whether or not the Chinese actually did this, whether or not the chip meets military operational temperature requirements, etc., are all secondary to the point I was (poorly) trying to make. Let me try again. (1) There is often a presumption, when, let's say, a particularly sophisticated piece of malware is analyzed, or a large botnet is detected, or a security hole is uncovered in a piece of software, that it's the worst one -- because it's the worst one *publicly known to date*. But that's wishful thinking. There's probably a nastier piece of malware out there. There's probably a larger botnet. There's probably a bigger security hole in that piece of software. Whatever the severity distribution of these is (and I don't think that's knowable) it would be amazing if we just happened to hit on the one that's at the extreme end of the curve. Reality is usually not that convenient. Thus however bad these things are, and we can certainly debate that (and we have) (and we will), there's probably something worse that we're not debating because we don't know about it. (2) As Bruce Schneier has observed, attacks always get better. So even if, against the odds, we happen to be lucky enough to be looking at something that really, really is at the far end of the severity distribution -- tomorrow there will be something worse. ---rsk
participants (13)
-
Adrian -
david raistrick -
Eugen Leitl -
Jay Ashworth -
Michael Hallgren -
Michael Thomas -
Nick Khamis -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Phil Fagan -
Randy Bush -
Rich Kulawiec -
Saku Ytti -
Warren Bailey