One Article Review
| Source |  Errata Security |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 1585376 |
| Date de publication | 2020-03-06 15:57:01 (vue: 2020-03-06 21:00:41) |
| Titre | Huawei backdoors explanation, explained |
| Texte | Today Huawei published a video explaining the concept of "backdoors" in telco equipment. Many are criticizing the video for being tone deaf. I don't understand this concept of "tone deafness". Instead, I want to explore the facts.Does the word “#backdoor” seem frightening? That's because it's often used incorrectly – sometimes to deliberately create fear. Watch to learn the truth about backdoors and other types of network access. #cybersecurity pic.twitter.com/NEUXbZbcqw- Huawei (@Huawei) March 4, 2020This video seems in response to last month's story about Huawei misusing law enforcement backdoors from the Wall Street Journal. All telco equipment has backdoors usable only by law enforcement, the accusation is that Huawei has a backdoor into this backdoor, so that Chinese intelligence can use it.That story was bogus. Sure, Huawei is probably guilty of providing backdoor access to the Chinese government, but something is deeply flawed with this particular story.We know something is wrong with the story because the U.S. officials cited are anonymous. We don't know who they are or what position they have in the government. If everything they said was true, they wouldn't insist on being anonymous, but would stand up and declare it in a press conference so that every newspaper could report it. When something is not true or spun, then they anonymously "leak" it to a corrupt journalist to report it their way.This is objectively bad journalism. The Society of Professional Journalists calls this the "Washington Game". They also discuss this on their Code of Ethics page. Yes, it's really common in Washington D.C. reporting, you see it all the time, especially with the NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. But it happens because what the government says is news, regardless of its false or propaganda, giving government officials the ability to influence journalists. Exclusive access to corrupt journalists is how they influence stories.We know the reporter is being especially shady because of the one quote in the story that is attributed to a named official:“We have evidence that Huawei has the capability secretly to access sensitive and personal information in systems it maintains and sells around the world,” said national security adviser Robert O'Brien. This quote is deceptive because O'Brien doesn't say any of the things that readers assume he's saying. He doesn't actually confirm any of the allegations in the rest of the story.It doesn't say.That Huawei has used that capability.That Huawei intentionally put that capability there.That this is special to Huawei (rather than everywhere in the industry).In fact, this quote applies to every telco equipment maker. They all have law enforcement backdoors. These backdoors always hve "controls" to prevent them from being misused. But these controls are always flawed, either in design or how they are used in the real world.Moreover, all telcos have maintenance/service contracts with the equipment makers. When there are ways around such controls, it's the company's own support engineers who will know them.I absolutely believe Huawei that it has don |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | #cybersecurity 2020this @huawei abilities ability about above absolutely abused accepting access accessmalicious accusation actually adoption adviser after ago all allegations also always anonymous anonymously any applies are aren around article articles assume attributed backdoor backdoors backdoorsi backfires bad because been being believe bogus bribe brien but caller/callee calls can capability case cell china chinese cited classifies clearly close code com/neuxbzbcqw comes common company concept conclusion conference confirm connected contents contracts controls corrupt could countries country create credentials criticizing crypto curious databases deaf deafness debate deceptive declare deeply definition deliberately demands democracies demonstrate departments design devices discuss does doesn doing don done doors eavesdropped eavesdropping either enforcement engineer engineers equipment erased especially ethics even every everything everywhere evidence exclusive executed explained explaining explanation explore fact facts fake false fbi fear files find first flawed free frightening from front game get giving good government guilty hack had happened happens has have head hong how huawei hve incident incorrectly industry influence information insist instead intelligence intentionally interests international intolerable issue its journal journalism journalist journalists just know kong last law leak learn least legal legitimate let like local log logged maintains maintenance/service make maker makers malicious manner many march may maybe means mention misused misusing mobile month months moreover much named national nearest network news newspaper normal not now nsa nytimes objectively official:“we officials often one only order other over own page particular personal pic point portrayed posed position post press prevent priority probably professional propaganda protests providing published put queried query question quote rather readers real really reason regardless report reporter reporting response rest robert said same say saying says secretly security see seem seems sells sensitive seriously service service/maintenance several shady should side signal six society something sometimes sort special spun spying stand stories story street such support sure systems takes talk telco telcos than that them then these things think threat three thus time today tone towers true truth twisted twitter types under understand unfairly usable use used using vendor video view vlr wall want washington watch watched way ways ways:law what when where who whole will word words work world worse would wouldn wrong wsj years “#backdoor” |
| Tags | Hack Threat |
| Stories | |
| Notes | |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.