EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: MrMobodies on July 15, 2020, 11:49:31 pm
-
I heard on the news this morning about some Chinese minister announcing that it was "heart breaking" and will undermine trust between China and Britain.
https://www.techradar.com/news/huawei-banned-from-uk-5g-networks (https://www.techradar.com/news/huawei-banned-from-uk-5g-networks)
Huawei banned from UK 5G networks
By Steve McCaskill 15/07/20
Operators will be banned from buying Huawei 5G kit from the end of 2020, and all kit will be removed by 2027
UK mobile operators will be banned from buying telecoms equipment from Huawei by the end of the year and will also have to strip out existing 5G kit made by the company by 2027.
In a dramatic reversal of previous policy, the government said it expected the ruling to delay 5G rollout by up to three years and add £2 billion of additional costs to operators. This could mean higher bills for customers and will inevitably threaten the UK’s bid to be a leader in 5G, which had been boosted by early launches by EE, O2, Three and Vodafone. Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden did confirm, however, that existing 2G, 3G and 4G kit can remain in place until it must be replaced.
Huawei UK
Although Huawei has long been frozen out of the US market on national security grounds, the company has had a presence in the UK for two decades and is a supplier for all four operators. It had been expected that these relationships would continue into the 5G era despite the US government’s calls for its allies to follow its lead and ban Huawei from their mobile infrastructure.
The UK had resisted such calls and in January confirmed that although Huawei gear would be banned from 5G cores, operators could continue to use the firm’s radio gear – effectively preserving the status quo. However Washington’s ongoing hostilities towards Huawei and recent sanctions that affect its ability to source microchips appear to have finally turned the tide. The decision is a huge blow for Huawei which will now fear other Western governments might follow suit and exclude it from their 5G rollouts.
Ed Brewster, a spokesperson for Huawei UK, said:
"This disappointing decision is bad news for anyone in the UK with a mobile phone. It threatens to move Britain into the digital slow lane, push up bills and deepen the digital divide," said Ed Brewster, Huawei UK spokesperson. "Instead of ‘levelling up’ the government is levelling down and we urge them to reconsider. We remain confident that the new US restrictions would not have affected the resilience or security of the products we supply to the UK.
"Regrettably our future in the UK has become politicized, this is about US trade policy and not security. Over the past 20 years, Huawei has focused on building a better connected UK. As a responsible business, we will continue to support our customers as we have always done. "We will conduct a detailed review of what today’s announcement means for our business here and will work with the UK government to explain how we can continue to contribute to a better connected Britain."
Earlier in the day, Huawei UK chairman Lord Browne stepped down from his position ahead of the ruling. Operators had argued that a ban on Huawei kit would increase costs, reduce innovation, and cause serious disruption to 5G rollouts. An independent assessment from Assembly Research had suggested the a delay in roll out could cost the UK economy up to £6.8 billion and lead to delays of up to two years. However most carriers seemed resigned to the fact that a ban would be issued and more recently turned their attention to minimising the impact of any restrictions. Given that telecoms equipment has a limited shelf-life of less than a decade, it was hoped that any requirement to remove kit could be integrated into planned upgrade programmes, minimising costs and disruption.
Vodafone had claimed the bill for stripping out networking equipment could run into the billions, while BT CEO Philip Jansen had warned an accelerated timeframe could harm 5G and fibre rollouts, exacerbate potential security issues and even cause service interruptions. “If we get in a situation where things need to go very, very fast then you’re into a situation where potentially service for 24 million BT Group mobile customers is put into question,” he told BBC Radio 4. “Outages would be possible.”
Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden accepted the difficulties of an accelerated timetable and the additional cost and gave these as reasons for the 2027 deadline. Whether this explanation is enough to placate Tory backbenchers remains to be seen.
I also found this long article "Did a Chinese Hack Kill Canada’s Greatest Tech Company?" interesting about the demise of Nortel and accuses the Chinese government of copying their Intellectual property:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-01/did-china-steal-canada-s-edge-in-5g-from-nortel (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-01/did-china-steal-canada-s-edge-in-5g-from-nortel)
-
What I find funny, is "By 2027".
So they can potentially listen in for the next 7 years. Great! :-DD
I'm annoyed with China about this.
It is up to the UK, to decide what, if anything, we use for 5G. Not China!
I.e. We can't choose who supplies our 5G equipment, yet if we mention Hong Kong, China says something like "It is nothing to do with the UK, mind our own business!".
With what is going on in Hong Kong, I think, it could be the beginning of changes, to the way the rest of the world treats China.
In theory, it is the Electronics's (and probably computer) Industries (and other industries/consumers), that could see lots of disruption, when/if the Chinese relationship with the rest of the world, goes bad.
-
I'm annoyed with China about this.
It is up to the UK, to decide what, if anything, we use for 5G. Not China!
I.e. We can't choose who supplies our 5G equipment, yet if we mention Hong Kong, China says something like "It is nothing to do with the UK, mind our own business!".
We always could have, and did choose to use other suppliers for much of the equipment. China hasn't forced our hand here, Trump has.
-
We always could have, and did choose to use other suppliers for much of the equipment. China hasn't forced our hand here, Trump has.
It does seem to be Trump, I agree.
But, it should/is still our (UK) choice, to keep Trump happy, for possible future US relationships, such as UK/US trade deals.
China can be annoyed about it, fine. But, can't be allowed to dictate to the UK, about what we should and shouldn't do.
But you are right. Trump shouldn't be deciding what the UK, can and can't do, either. But in practice, I think the UK government, wants to keep Trump happy.
Edit: I'm speculating. But, behind the scenes, the UK is probably trying to negotiate a trade deal (or similar), between the UK and China (because of Brexit). Hence China know full well, they can easily lay on lots of pressure, and say such things at/against the UK.
In the knowledge, it might work, as the UK (in their eyes), needs such lucrative trade deals. Especially under these difficult times (economically, due to the virus).
Edit2: I wouldn't trust the US, either.
Not only may they be recording/monitoring everything and sending it back to the US. They could also, sooner or later, lose it to hackers, or their own contractors/employees, who could then sell the information and/or publish (embarrassing stuff), online somewhere.
As, has already happened, with stuff. E.g. WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and the sources they use, such as ex-US contractors etc.
-
From regan and thatcher, blair and bush or trumpton and doris, certainly mr president let me bend over,how far would you like to insert it?
-
From regan and thatcher, blair and bush or trumpton and doris, certainly mr president let me bend over,how far would you like to insert it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister)
'Yes Minister' and 'Yes, Prime Minister', happening in real life (again).
For anyone, not familiar with the UK, it is a past UK (BBC) comedy programme, all about things like this thread topic.
E.g. This one relates to Databases and spying on people, I think.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4vb5z6 (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4vb5z6)
-
We always could have, and did choose to use other suppliers for much of the equipment. China hasn't forced our hand here, Trump has.
It does seem to be Trump, I agree.
But, it should/is still our (UK) choice, to keep Trump happy, for possible future US relationships, such as UK/US trade deals.
...
...
I think the most important aspect (in the Trump administration's minds) is probably I5. Trade may have some impact, but I5 is far more important.
As seen in some of Trump's press conferences, Trump said something about reluctance of sharing intelligence -- multiple times. In my opinion, that point is valid -- You can't have 4 countries sharing national intelligence securely and then have the 5th one relaying such information "in the clear", so to speak.
-
Is politics, better stay clear. UK is much wiser than Canada and Australia on this. Is up to UK to decide on who to buy from? Likewise, is up to China to decide if UK products and services are security risk, anything can be security risk. Aircraft engine that phone home can be so. Of course, UK would want both US and China markets as she is trying to navigate her way there. 7 year is long time in the telecom world.
-
I think the most important aspect (in the Trump administration's minds) is probably I5. Trade may have some impact, but I5 is far more important.
As seen in some of Trump's press conferences, Trump said something about reluctance of sharing intelligence -- multiple times. In my opinion, that point is valid -- You can't have 4 countries sharing national intelligence securely and then have the 5th one relaying such information "in the clear", so to speak.
That makes sense.
It would be interesting, to know the full (secret) picture, with all the juicy details.
China seem to be especially angry about this, which makes me wonder why.
I.e. No smoke without fire, or No big noise, without something bigger to this story, as regards China.
China/Huawei just losing sales of some 5G equipment, shouldn't really bother China that much, I would have thought. Why all the fuss ?
-
China and US are both trying to collect neutral countries..
..{Shortened}
Hopefully things will get peaceful, as time goes on, between China and the US. Trump may not be around (in power), after the November election.
Otherwise there could be big supply issues as regards Electronic/computer stuff (along with the other huge range of items, that China is involved with).
-
You can't have 4 countries sharing national intelligence securely and then have the 5th one relaying such information "in the clear", so to speak.
Presumably no one is going to transmit clear text intelligence over the Internet. It's gotta be encrypted, and since Ethernet, which is the basis of modern Internet, or at least at the last mile, is not secure by design, anyone with any access to the same network can tap into your communication, so regardless intelligence must be encrypted peer to peer, and that encryption can be using a custom algorithm, rather than standard AES, making it harder to hack than the infrastructure-level encryption. So really, what is the point hacking switches and routers?
Telephone is another thing, it doesn't support peer to peer encryption. But that's already easy to tap, unless you encapsulate it over VOIP with a good cypher, which everyone does nowadays.
My "in the clear" is not intended to be taken literally. Nothing is unheckable with today's technology. Just by intercepting it, part of the job is done.
Beside, just the meta data can do a lot of good. More on that in my following reply to MK14 following.
I think the most important aspect (in the Trump administration's minds) is probably I5. Trade may have some impact, but I5 is far more important.
As seen in some of Trump's press conferences, Trump said something about reluctance of sharing intelligence -- multiple times. In my opinion, that point is valid -- You can't have 4 countries sharing national intelligence securely and then have the 5th one relaying such information "in the clear", so to speak.
That makes sense.
It would be interesting, to know the full (secret) picture, with all the juicy details.
China seem to be especially angry about this, which makes me wonder why.
I.e. No smoke without fire, or No big noise, without something bigger to this story, as regards China.
China/Huawei just losing sales of some 5G equipment, shouldn't really bother China that much, I would have thought. Why all the fuss ?
Same reason why China wants their own GPS , I suppose. As it is today, USA has the key to the GPS. We can deny access to GPS, or "adjust the accuracy" of GPS. Battle of Jutland might have came out very different had they know the real-time location of their varies fleets.
But unlike GPS, 5G would be a technology that can have development cost shared by customers.
Next war (diplomatic or shooting), knowing what the other guy is thinking will give you a tremendous advantage. Even just the meta-data would be very useful. Just by knowing who from and who to, Britain was able to work out rather accurately what the German strength was, even before breaking the unbreakable Enigma. That was what kicked off Bletchley Park - they show what they can do with just the meta-data and shown it to Churchill. Bletchley Park got the resources and transformed from tiny "side thing" of half-a-dozen people to a major operation. Hats off to the Bletchley Park folks really, pioneers of computers and in particular pioneer of data analysis.
Then again, it could simply be National Pride which is quite understandable, or just $$$ which is also quite understandable. There is a lot of money in being the "goto" guy for 5G.
-
What I find funny, is "By 2027".
So they can potentially listen in for the next 7 years. Great! :-DD
That is clearly business talk and strategy, nothing about political.
As the US's most remote 51th "state", the UK country state of UK is just buying time with that excuse, as once DT is gone, this pressure is gone too.
-
It would be interesting, to know the full (secret) picture, with all the juicy details.
China seem to be especially angry about this, which makes me wonder why.
I.e. No smoke without fire, or No big noise, without something bigger to this story, as regards China.
China/Huawei just losing sales of some 5G equipment, shouldn't really bother China that much, I would have thought. Why all the fuss ?
They've invested a huge amount of effort and money into an attempt to build a monopoly. It's not 'some' we're talking about here, it's supplying infrastructure on a global scale.
-
Same reason why China wants their own GPS , I suppose. As it is today, USA has the key to the GPS. We can deny access to GPS, or "adjust the accuracy" of GPS. Battle of Jutland might have came out very different had they know the real-time location of their varies fleets.
But unlike GPS, 5G would be a technology that can have development cost shared by customers.
Next war (diplomatic or shooting), knowing what the other guy is thinking will give you a tremendous advantage. Even just the meta-data would be very useful. Just by knowing who from and who to, Britain was able to work out rather accurately what the German strength was, even before breaking the unbreakable Enigma. That was what kicked off Bletchley Park - they show what they can do with just the meta-data and shown it to Churchill. Bletchley Park got the resources and transformed from tiny "side thing" of half-a-dozen people to a major operation. Hats off to the Bletchley Park folks really, pioneers of computers and in particular pioneer of data analysis.
Then again, it could simply be National Pride which is quite understandable, or just $$$ which is also quite understandable. There is a lot of money in being the "goto" guy for 5G.
Some very good points! That makes a lot of sense.
If there is a company China are interested in knowing about, e.g. in the UK, and they had just the meta-data.
They would know that companies IP address, so if they monitored lots of traffic (even if it was otherwise heavily encrypted meta-data), going to another company. That would let them begin to know, the activities of that important UK company.
They could then use private detective like techniques to infiltrate the other company, to find out what is going on, between the two companies.
Bletchley Park, did do a good job.
Some/many think, if it wasn't for Bletchley, I would be saying
"Ich kann nur deutsch sprechen".
-
No, it's not Trump nor Xi. It's about national interest, and it is not even political.
The US has no problems with completely dictatorship countries (compared with China's collective/authoritative democracy) as long as they export interests to the US.
China happens to be the country which benefited from US's jump starting and doesn't want to keep exporting interest to the US.
And the US, or to certain degree, the Anglo Saxon ethnic, is rooted with colonialism, and you guys deeply believe by eradicating the old system in a new land you did a service to people living there.
And more importantly, the wealth of the I5 are accumulated in such a way.
So it's really a clash between I5's fundamental interest and China's national interest. It's nothing political, nothing presidential and nothing personal. It just has to happen regardless the fancy causes it is given.
Your post, and other(s), have shown my lack of knowledge/appreciation, of how important 5G is, and will be in the future.
I suppose it is a bit like all the worlds telephone, mobile phone networks air-space and cable (TV) combined, into a new, modern upcoming entity. With some/much of the internet and computer networks, thrown in for good measure.
I can well understand why China would want to be the main supplier of it, and why the US would want to stop China, from being in that position.
-
Meta-data is hugely useful.
Just by watching the company's parking lot and loading docks, compared to the months prior, you can know how their business is going. If a company claims to be doing $100 million dollars a year, the HQ isn't going to be a the second floor on top of a small Takeout Restaurant...
I am not sure you can do this anymore with today's sensitivity:
If you have some one here for an interview, go out to the parking lot and look inside his/her car. (Well, you need his plate number so his car doesn't get ticketed parking at visitors parking all day, right?) You will know if that guy is well organized, attend to detail... Doesn't matter, "a fellow with 5 empty coffee cups and a dried out half eaten slide of pizza on the passenger seat right on top of an unpaid phone bill", I like a fellow like that handling my account receivables.
Edit: Broke up the last sentence to two - otherwise unchanged. (Since there are new post after my edit, I should say this)
-
So forget Bletchley Park then, it will be Google this time around.
-
So forget Bletchley Park then, it will be Google this time around.
Easier than needing to search Google.
"Fitbit’s developer Strava - which considers itself "the social network for athletes" - regularly publishes a map of around 27 million people’s jogging routes. Last November, that global database of exercise “hotspots” was updated, what it revealed has sent a shiver down US Central Command’s spine."
Say you see a whole bunch of people jogging where there was nothing but sand 10 miles in every direction, you kind of figure out may be some unit is deployed there...
Imagine what you can do with cell tower connection data. Possibilities is endless.
(I couldn't find the article I read about that originally, but here is a similar one and it is the source of the above quote)
https://proprivacy.com/privacy-news/us-military-fitbit-concerns
EDIT: Forgot the "Imagine what..." line, the edit added that back.
-
Hopefully things will get peaceful, as time goes on, between China and the US. Trump may not be around (in power), after the November election.
No, it's not Trump nor Xi. It's about national interest, and it is not even political.
The US has no problems with completely dictatorship countries (compared with China's collective/authoritative democracy) as long as they export interests to the US.
China happens to be the country which benefited from US's jump starting and doesn't want to keep exporting interest to the US.
And the US, or to certain degree, the Anglo Saxon ethnic, is rooted with colonialism, and you guys deeply believe by eradicating the old system in a new land you did a service to people living there.
And more importantly, the wealth of the I5 are accumulated in such a way.
So it's really a clash between I5's fundamental interest and China's national interest. It's nothing political, nothing presidential and nothing personal. It just has to happen regardless the fancy causes it is given.
But Trump is quite erratic, so his actions must have some effect.
There is a normally a lot of difference between the public stance of politicians, & the interests of that country.
For instance, back in the '50s & '60s when both the PRC & the USSR were the "big baddies", with "Reds under the bed" rhetoric flowing freely in Australia, we were selling huge quantities of grain to both countries.
"Business is Business!"
Recently, Trump has decided that the WHO were "under the thumb of China" & started pressuring allies to support an inquiry, fairly obviously aimed at making China the scapegoat over COVID19.
That country, quite understandably, took offense.
Australia's PM, in public statements, backed the call, also pushing the "China bad" line.
When the actual official line came out, it was much more "wimpy", but the damage was done.
China increased tariffs on Australian barley, making it uneconomical for our farmers to export it, (or their factories to buy it).
All fair enough, so far, but then the PRC calmly turned around & bought their barley from the USA!
In Australia, we are quite used to our "Great & powerful friends" screwing us over, so it shouldn't have come as much of a surprise!
In a way, we seem to have gone back to the modus operandi of powerful States of the 18th & 19th centuries, where the reasons for wars were not ideological, but the perceived "best interests" of the existing power structures in those States.
After all, for most French people & English people life was not much different------- it really sucked in both countries, but during those centuries, thousands of people from both sides tried to kill each other, (& often succeeded), for little advantage.
-
so regardless intelligence must be encrypted peer to peer, and that encryption can be using a custom algorithm, rather than standard AES, making it harder to hack than the infrastructure-level encryption. So really, what is the point hacking switches and routers?
Telephone is another thing, it doesn't support peer to peer encryption. But that's already easy to tap, unless you encapsulate it over VOIP with a good cypher, which everyone does nowadays.
I think the concern is more about continuity of service than data being siphoned off and sent outside the country.
Even if you can't read the contents of messages being sent over a network, you can still do severe damage to an enemy if you can cripple that network by shutting down key parts of it.
-
Australia's PM, in public statements, backed the call, also pushing the "China bad" line.
When the actual official line came out, it was much more "wimpy", but the damage was done.
China increased tariffs on Australian barley, making it uneconomical for our farmers to export it, (or their factories to buy it).
All fair enough, so far, but then the PRC calmly turned around & bought their barley from the USA!
In Australia, we are quite used to our "Great & powerful friends" screwing us over, so it shouldn't have come as much of a surprise!
I guess Ozzies are fully aware that it is the small price to pay serving the master, aren't they ? Hence, no complain heard at all. :-//
-
You can't have 4 countries sharing national intelligence securely and then have the 5th one relaying such information "in the clear", so to speak.
Presumably no one is going to transmit clear text intelligence over the Internet. It's gotta be encrypted, and since Ethernet, which is the basis of modern Internet, or at least at the last mile, is not secure by design, anyone with any access to the same network can tap into your communication, so regardless intelligence must be encrypted peer to peer, and that encryption can be using a custom algorithm, rather than standard AES, making it harder to hack than the infrastructure-level encryption. So really, what is the point hacking switches and routers?
Telephone is another thing, it doesn't support peer to peer encryption. But that's already easy to tap, unless you encapsulate it over VOIP with a good cypher, which everyone does nowadays.
All communications tend to be encrypted? but I think it's about making sure the network is secure.
-
"Fitbit’s developer Strava - which considers itself "the social network for athletes" - regularly publishes a map of around 27 million people’s jogging routes. Last November, that global database of exercise “hotspots” was updated, what it revealed has sent a shiver down US Central Command’s spine."
Say you see a whole bunch of people jogging where there was nothing but sand 10 miles in every direction, you kind of figure out may be some unit is deployed there...
As an interesting aside, said map is here (https://www.strava.com/heatmap) and it's really interesting to zoom in on your local area to see which routes exist and are popular nearby. Since the Coronavirus lockdown, I've been using Strava to discover new cycle routes near my home and it's been a hugely valuable asset - and no, I'm not usually "social" in any way besides the odd forum post here and there. I keep my profile 'private', but there's no reason not to allow data from my rides to contribute to an overall map of how popular my local roads are.
Of course, it helps that I'm an ordinary member of the public, taking exercise by riding public roads that exist on published maps. If I were a government employee, in a location that's supposed to be secret or where I'm otherwise not supposed to be, I'd be monumentally stupid to track my movements with a GPS device and upload those movements to a social network.
-
there was indeed a case of a soldier that ran his bases perimeter on strava :palm: I don't care for google knowing where I am and don't mind helping with traffic routing. Everyone should use google maps to drive.
I do rather tire of hearing people screaming blue murder about the government knowing things when they are telling the world already. Of course that network needs to remain impenetrable to outside people and access to the networks does not necessarily mean the data is at risk but the network itself.
-
I guess Ozzies are fully aware that it is the small price to pay serving the master, aren't they ? Hence, no complain heard at all. :-//
Still the PRC didn't do anything the UK didn't do to us in the past, & neither the USA or PRC tested nuclear weapons in our country! ;D
-
What I find funny, is "By 2027".
So they can potentially listen in for the next 7 years. Great! :-DD
That is clearly business talk and strategy, nothing about political.
As the US's most remote 51th "state", the UK country state of UK is just buying time with that excuse, as once DT is gone, this pressure is gone too.
That makes sense. The thing doesn't really seem to come into effect, until December 31st 2020 (first deadline, when future purchases are prohibited). I.e. AFTER the November Trump possible second term elections. So if he loses, and the pressure disappears, things could get interesting.
It would be interesting, to know the full (secret) picture, with all the juicy details.
China seem to be especially angry about this, which makes me wonder why.
I.e. No smoke without fire, or No big noise, without something bigger to this story, as regards China.
China/Huawei just losing sales of some 5G equipment, shouldn't really bother China that much, I would have thought. Why all the fuss ?
They've invested a huge amount of effort and money into an attempt to build a monopoly. It's not 'some' we're talking about here, it's supplying infrastructure on a global scale.
Thanks. I understanding it better now (yours and other posts about it).
So, in reality, this 5G thing is expected to mushroom into a huge business/money making entity, and it is at a relatively early stage in its development. So, China want to muscle in on this massive 5G thing.
Hence, losing early business to the UK, could badly damage their reputation, and mean they lose early market share, and hence the (5G) battle, in the market place.
-
Infrastructure equipment is expensive, bought rarely and extremely expensive to develop given the numbers. I expect every sale is worth fighting for when the numbers are relatively low.
-
Infrastructure equipment is expensive, bought rarely and extremely expensive to develop given the numbers. I expect every sale is worth fighting for when the numbers are relatively low.
Also, presumably, at some level. It may connect through (directly or indirectly), to the massive mobile/cell phone market place. Potentially allowing Huawei/China to have (more/sooner) advanced knowledge, about upcoming 5G things.
Which could allow them (Huawei) to much more significantly be a major player, in the mobile devices market place.
I.e. They may be able to know 5G things, before Apple/Samsung etc, giving them a significant market place lead/advantage. As these massive technological developments, take time. First to market, is often what makes companies win, over other competitors.
-
You can't have 4 countries sharing national intelligence securely and then have the 5th one relaying such information "in the clear", so to speak.
and that encryption can be using a custom algorithm, rather than standard AES, making it harder to hack than the infrastructure-level encryption.
AES is stil secure. Cryptographers fear "custom" and new algorithms since they have not been put to the test. Designing a new algorithm that is both secure and also efficient on common CPUs is fraught with traps for young players. This is like someone claiming to have invented a method of amplifing electrical signals with better fidelity, power efficiency, reliability, and price effctiveness than a modern op-amp. All EEs would be skeptical.
-
Well my understanding is that 5G does not actually do anything to the mobile phones, it's about mast cannectivity so it does not directly impact on making handsets.
-
According to the UK GCHQ the Huawei products are fundamentally insecure, due to buggy software.
They don't need back doors. They have front doors :)
All Chinese kit is buggy as hell. Huawei is of similar quality to Draytek which is the top of Chinese stuff and yet whole sections in the functionality just don't work. I've been using these boxes for 10-15 years.
So why did the UK networks install this stuff? Because it's cheap. Cisco kit is 10x the price, the cheap Cisco kit is junk (rebadged Chinese boxes) and the judgement is made that if the box does its job it is OK. Most data flowing over the cellular networks is encrypted (https) so everybody is happy... except that traffic analysis is still possible and very useful to a State-level enemy.
One doesn't need to worry about Chinese snooping on the traffic. They probably aren't, routinely, because it would have been discovered by now, in scenarios where somebody is having to debug something and is monitoring packets. These things have been discovered many times in the past e.g. PC or phone software sending data back to the Church of Apple or Google. But the Chinese probably can, and very likely can remotely shut the boxes down so they need a physical reboot (power cycle) but then the packet used to shut them down can be re-sent. I have a Draytek 2955 router which reboots several times a day, upon receiving some funny packet. I also used to have a Nokia 808 phone which (this was well known) would be locked-up by a rare 3G/HSPA packet (the fix was to disable HSPA). So plenty of examples.
It is a pity the UK installed this garbage in the first place but the networks are private companies and when spending millions, the cost is important.
Also we don't need 5G anyway. The UK doesn't even have a decent 4G coverage; most of the countryside doesn't have it. What is 5G actually needed for? The stuff coming out of China now about "bad news for all UK mobile phone owners" is totally disingenuous trash.
-
The problem is that companies only look at the bottom line and keeping share holders happy and if buying cheap does not keep the share price up they will resort to fiddling the books. After all standards like those granted under a CE mark exist simply to protect the consumer from too much bottom line watching.
Clear example, Grenfel tower has substandard panels installed that were not fire proof, how much did they save? a mere £5k which was relatively small money to the cost of the project but that was £5K in the refurbishes pocket.
-
USA's biggest problem is not Chinese spying, but the fact that THEY ARE NOT.
Only vendors so far caught with spyware were Cisco (with NSA spyware loaded) shipped to Russia....
They figured Russians are stupid and that they won't check..
How else will they spy on Angela Merkel if they don't control the network...?
-
Both sides have been playing that game for years. Remember the Gift given to a US president by Russian school children that was a very clever radio transmitter with no actual electronic components,
-
But who cares if the US can monitor the traffic? There is no conceivable scenario where the US will be our enemy, in the military sense.
Every country with signals monitoring capability (most modern countries) is monitoring everybody else's traffic. Well, there is a treaty (UKUSA?) blocking those two doing it to each other but who would be quite sure?
What we really do not want is China being able to remotely shut stuff down.
Also developing these boxes is not rocket science. It all starts with a copy of Linux, a load of open source software, and some purpose written stuff.
-
Basically you only get a full sense of security if you make your own stuff. But governments change too often to enact such a long lasting policy. This would have benefits in that it employs people and builds local skills and gives a government real control over it's infrastructure. But of course in todays world of privatization that means that multinational corporations need to actually do as they are told rather than tell the government their demands which seems to be more the case these days.
-
rebellious colony you mean :-DD
-
Also we don't need 5G anyway.
This is the crux of this biscuit!
What purpose is served by having a 5G handset/smartphone?
What large payloads will you download to a smartphone that need "Speed" -- and where will those files be stored?
Web page "speed" is likely a function of server-side capability and internet routing. Existing standards are already sufficiently fast for HD and 4k video, and seriously, watching video on your phone is silly. Sure, you could use a smartphone as a hot-spot, but then you're depending on the phone for its WiFi and routing capabilities, and the phones aren't optimized for that.
It seems as if 5G is really a replacement for incumbent internet services -- cable, DSL, FIOS. The customer (home, business) has a 5G modem on site that attaches to a standard router and WiFi hot-spot.
-
Also we don't need 5G anyway.
This is the crux of this biscuit!
What purpose is served by having a 5G handset/smartphone?
What large payloads will you download to a smartphone that need "Speed" -- and where will those files be stored?
Web page "speed" is likely a function of server-side capability and internet routing. Existing standards are already sufficiently fast for HD and 4k video, and seriously, watching video on your phone is silly. Sure, you could use a smartphone as a hot-spot, but then you're depending on the phone for its WiFi and routing capabilities, and the phones aren't optimized for that.
It seems as if 5G is really a replacement for incumbent internet services -- cable, DSL, FIOS. The customer (home, business) has a 5G modem on site that attaches to a standard router and WiFi hot-spot.
It's also short range and LOS, so only effective in urban areas. Remote areas will still be served by 4G.
-
It's also short range and LOS, so only effective in urban areas. Remote areas will still be served by 4G.
This is not the case. 5G includes both mm-wave (short range, LOS, extremely high bandwidth) and traditional (~700MHz-6GHz) technologies and is fully intended to be able to deploy standalone with no 4G services.
-
Both sides have been playing that game for years. Remember the Gift given to a US president by Russian school children that was a very clever radio transmitter with no actual electronic components,
I believe that monitoring device was totally passive, a microwave resonant cavity with an acoustic diaphragm on one face. I read that it was invented by L Terman, the inventor of the Theremin. A remote transmitter and receiver detected the phase modulation. I am just old enough to remember the US ambassador to the UN showing the wood carving of the Great Seal to the General Assembly as an excuse for the U2 incident.
-
Funny enough Huawei kit is pretty much the backbone of all cellular and wireless technology here in South Africa, from the cellphone batteries, to the actual base stations, to the antenna arrays that are connected to them. Also the most popular manufacturer of LTE routers, and I am using one, which is pretty solid as far as uptime and throughput, more losses due to the carriers losing connections due to power loss than anything else. I would have ot regularly restart it, because the mobile antenna it was connected to would lose it's backhaul, leaving the system in a locked state, and you could either reboot the router and thus get a reconnect when power was returned, or log in and turn off the WAN side, wait 30 seconds and turn it back on, getting the same result.
Power switch was faster though, and I should log in sometime and see just how many junk SMS's are in memory, because this device does have a valid mobile SIM number associated with it, and has VOIP POTS interface as well, though it is not set up, no real need to have another phone number, as I cut the landline cord last year. Will get a random one from an online seller if I need a number for some reason,
-
Presumably no one is going to transmit clear text intelligence over the Internet.
I would assume that everybody in the business of intelligence would presume that all sensitive communication (or even literally all) can be (and is) intercepted, so if you don't want third party to know what you're chattering about, you absolutely have to encrypt. Not doing so is just dumb. So if your device is already encrypting everything, it should not matter if somebody has access to your router.
In any case, I see all this as overreacting, while at the same time ignoring the glaring spyware that is Windows, Android, Facebook et al.
-
Basically you only get a full sense of security if you make your own stuff. But governments change too often to enact such a long lasting policy. This would have benefits in that it employs people and builds local skills and gives a government real control over it's infrastructure. But of course in todays world of privatization that means that multinational corporations need to actually do as they are told rather than tell the government their demands which seems to be more the case these days.
Nortel was a huge loss for Canada with their hacking by the chinese military coinciding with huawei having access to the servers, sunk them.
china's IP theft and corporate espionage has wiped out many competitors that need to exist for security and economic prosperity.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-01/did-china-steal-canada-s-edge-in-5g-from-nortel?srnd=premium-canada (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-01/did-china-steal-canada-s-edge-in-5g-from-nortel?srnd=premium-canada)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nortel-collapse-linked-to-chinese-hackers-1.1260591 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nortel-collapse-linked-to-chinese-hackers-1.1260591)
-
One interesting part of this saga is that the UK intelligence community has specifically said that the risks around Huawei are "manageable". But who listens to experts nowadays, anyway? :D
It seems to me that this entire incident is all about what happens when a rising superpower (China) begins to look like a problem to an established superpower (USA), so the UK was forced to choose a side even though it is obviously more beneficial to the UK to play nice with both sides. Smaller countries basically have to be "flexible" when the big boys are fighting! :D
-
China and US are both trying to collect neutral countries..
..{Shortened}
Hopefully things will get peaceful, as time goes on, between China and the US. Trump may not be around (in power), after the November election.
Otherwise there could be big supply issues as regards Electronic/computer stuff (along with the other huge range of items, that China is involved with).
Already we are experiencing some serious supply problems, both with components and personal computer parts. But you are right, the worst for us that can come out of this is the electronics industry is affected because China does so much manufacturing. A graceful, gradual and controlled exit out of China by western countries is the best solution so that supply will continue. Trump will likely return because most Christians in the US will vote to see their great President returned to "continue the work of God here on earth". If he does not return, they will likely keep a low profile over their lack of discernment and wisdom, or come up with feeble excuses. But if he returns don't expect peace - just more divisiveness, more COVID-19 deaths and more stupidity - none of which is good for the electronics industry.
November will be an interesting month.
-
China and US are both trying to collect neutral countries..
..{Shortened}
Hopefully things will get peaceful, as time goes on, between China and the US. Trump may not be around (in power), after the November election.
Otherwise there could be big supply issues as regards Electronic/computer stuff (along with the other huge range of items, that China is involved with).
Already we are experiencing some serious supply problems, both with components and personal computer parts. But you are right, the worst for us that can come out of this is the electronics industry is affected because China does so much manufacturing. A graceful, gradual and controlled exit out of China by western countries is the best solution so that supply will continue. Trump will likely return because most Christians in the US will vote to see their great President returned to "continue the work of God here on earth". If he does not return, they will likely keep a low profile over their lack of discernment and wisdom, or come up with feeble excuses. But if he returns don't expect peace - just more divisiveness, more COVID-19 deaths and more stupidity - none of which is good for the electronics industry.
November will be an interesting month.
"A graceful, gradual and controlled exit out of China by western countries is the best solution" - to what problem?
VW just announced today that they are stepping up the production of electric vehicles in China. To my mind, that demonstrates how professionals deal with China: by participating in their high growth economy, so pension funds and other VW shareholders benefit - all of us, in Western countries, in other words.
Those that leave China and slam the door in her face are simply creating more opportunities for smarter mammals elsewhere, while creating disadvantages for themselves for no gain. It seems totally sub-optimal to me.
-
China happens to be the country which benefited from US's jump starting and doesn't want to keep exporting interest to the US.
The moment you realize that the West didn't kill your father. The West IS your father.
(https://i.redd.it/zdvhveib8n001.jpg)
-
And that's enough of this thread. Locked.