US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment

**harrybarracuda** · 29-03-2019, 08:09 PM

UK: Huawei is spying for the chinkies
Huawei: No we're not, honest, you can trust us, John.

**OhOh** · 29-03-2019, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

UK: Huawei is spying for the chinkies

Show us your cards or fold.

US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment-cowgirl-gunslinger-sitting-aiming-f8p26g-jpg

**harrybarracuda** · 29-03-2019, 09:25 PM

Awww is the widdle chinky sychophant all indignant?

If there was a chinky playing cards in the picture you were going to use, he'd probably have his Huawei phone camera spying on his neighbours hand.

US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment-29983d1553866869-us-warning-allies-ditch-huawei

US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment-29983d1553866869-us-warning-allies-ditch-huawei

**OhOh** · 30-03-2019, 05:46 PM

Huawei an enemy, Part II – Rural American carrier of choice [video]

We explored the mythological roots of the propaganda push against the Chinese company. We noted that the tactic taken to demonize it resembles almost identically the same tactic as it was deployed against Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab, and its owner and founder Evgeny (Eugene) Kaspersky. That tactic was the employment of a highly circumstantial line of reasoning, that both Mr. Kaspersky and Mr. Ren Zhengfei, the founder of Huawei, were each educated in their respective nations’ military and intelligence complexes, so therefore they are agents of their respective governments, because both have Communists involved, either presently (China) or formerly (Russia). Springing this line of reasoning on the American media, the media conveyed this to the populace of the United States, which is remarkably uneducated about international realities, that is, unless folks have actually gone to see them personally, and the fact is that Americans appear to travel outside the United States relatively little contrasted with their European and Asian counterparts. This makes it fairly easy for the US media to cast any narrative it wants – without any other points of reference, and a desire to trust the news media of a free country, it is very easy to dupe Americans into thinking many things.

But what is the reality of Huawei, itself? Is the company beholden to the Chinese defense and intelligence apparatus? Does Huawei obey orders from the Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party?

The answer is unknown, so there lies the point from which conjecture arises. However, if Huawei’s business practices are indicative of the desire of the company or the Chinese government to somehow compromise the United States’ national security, there may be something amiss with the strategy.

The United States has several major wireless cellular carriers that offer nationwide coverage: AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint. These companies have their “secondary” and sometimes even ternary networks. But there are also a large number of what are called “Regional” wireless carriers that offer wireless services in places that Big Telecom never covered. This means the great empty spaces away from the coastal cities and the scattering of large cities in the central and Western US.

Fierce Wireless is a news and information website that supports the unique world of wireless companies and their concerns. Their Editor’s Corner featured Mike Dano with some surprising information that many Americans probably do not know:

As a group of lawmakers reportedly prepares to voice concerns about how the proposed merger of Sprint and T-Mobile might be affected by China’s Huawei, there’s something they should know: Huawei already commands a substantial business among a range of smaller U.S. wireless carriers.

Moreover, a significant number of Huawei’s U.S. carrier customers—which offer wireless services to tens of thousands of Americans in rural locations across the country—are collectively happy with Huawei’s services and argue that the company poses no threat to U.S. national security.

“There is no evidence that Huawei equipment is a threat to national security, and southwestern Kansas residents rely on such equipment used by United TelCom to provide them with reliable wireless services not only for public safety purposes, but also for daily business and personal communications,” said Todd Houseman, the CEO of United TelCom, in a recent FCC filing.

There is an incorrectly stated fact – it is not merely tens of thousands of subscribers that are served by Huawei core networks. Here are the subscriber counts of networks in which Huawei forms the core and structure of the given provider’s network:

SI Wireless – Western Kentucky and Tennessee – 20,000 customers
NE Colorado Cellular [a.k.a. Viaero Wireless] – Eastern Colorado, Western Kansas, Nebraska, Southeast Wyoming and Southwest South Dakota – 110,000 customers
James Valley Telecommunication – Aberdeen, South Dakota and surrounding areas – 10,000 customers
United Telephone Association [a.k.a. United Wireless] – Customers across southwestern Kansas
Nemont Telephone Cooperative – Montana and Northwest North Dakota – 12,000 customers
Union Telephone Company – Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Idaho – 40,000 customers

Anyone looking at these networks’ subscriber counts and coverage maps will see that these networks cover small towns and lots of very rural space with very few people. Although it is extremely likely that all these networks have roaming agreements with one of the larger national networks (because people in rural America commonly travel great distances for their livelihood, often many hundreds of miles in each day), the actual locales covered are not likely to be of great interest to the Chinese government… unless they wish to know how fast our corn and wheat grows. Further, the subscriber count of all these networks listed probably approaches about 200,000 people, not even 1/100 of the US’ population.

So, why do these companies use Huawei in their core networks? Simple. It is good quality equipment and the prices and service are excellent. Here to tell us about it is Frank Dirico, Owner and President of Viaero Wireless:

[Author’s note: In this matter, I can step in directly, as I worked with and for Mr. Dirico during Huawei’s buildout phase that he describes in this video. Much of what follows is also based on personal experience with Huawei and on my own level of experience as a wireless systems “engineer”, highly familiar with GSM / HSPA+ core networks.]

While this is a promotional interview that Mr. Dirico gave, the information he shares is essentially on target. Frank Dirico is an exacting professional, and has made a tremendous career for himself building out networks of this type. When Huawei deployed its test network across the San Luis Valley and near Walsenburg, Colorado, the reports we got from there were simply amazing in terms of how fast the network was built. When the “all clear” came to replace the legacy network that was, incidentally Nokia, the switch out of both core network components, and the cell sites themselves moved extremely quickly, accomplishing a great push in mere months.

Viaero’s geographical spread is enormous, and the architecture of the network for rural coverage meant that cell towers were usually about ten miles apart from one another, though in populated areas there were more cells to cover the subscriber counts. The towers are often powered by off-the-grid sources, such as solar energy or propane, and the network broadcast signal is said to be increased in the event of severe weather, such as the blinding blizzards and severe thunderstorms that cross the area. In recent times, Viaero deployed high definition cameras on their Huawei towers to observe weather conditions and provide extremely current warnings.

Huawei, like most wireless network providers, is used to providing services in areas of much higher population density, so they had to relearn their craft for Colorado and Nebraska. Simply put, they did so, and very effectively. Viaero’s success with Huawei was doubtlessly impetus to neighboring rural carrier Union Wireless, who also switched their core to Huawei in 2014. Fierce Wireless continues:

Why are so many smaller U.S. wireless companies working with Huawei, even after a 2012 government report (PDF) warned that equipment from Huawei and ZTE could be used by the Chinese government for espionage? That’s simple: Huawei equipment is apparently good and cheap.

“[James Valley Telecommunications (JVT)] chose Huawei because it was the most cost-effective option with a 40% savings versus the 2nd most cost-effective option,” wrote James Groft, the carrier’s CEO. “Huawei is also consequently our primary provider of customer support services, such as installation of new equipment and software upgrades. Huawei is highly cost-effective and it provides excellent customer service. Before contracting with Huawei, JVT had a series of terrible experiences with another, higher priced vendor. Huawei’s service record, while not perfect, has resulted in fewer and less severe coverage outages for our customers. Huawei is there when our customers need them.”

In this line of business, companies often have to subsist on small budgets, and while such rural networks do occasionally receive federal and state subsidies in the United States, the operators know better than to count on the flow of money from their local capitals or from Washington.

Additionally, sometimes American companies’ personal experiences with European GSM equipment makers and service providers has been, honestly not the best. [Author’s disclosure here] – I worked with two such US carriers and the experience with European core network partners often featured a measure of condescension (GSM technology is way ahead of anything the US had in cellular, so its creators appeared to feel a bit superior) and as noted above, there appears to be a bad service record. Huawei’s people were friendly, expert and eager and excited to help. Their engineers worked with ours and the relationships developed were solid and friendly.

The experience with Huawei seems to be uniformly constant with everyone who works with them. Perhaps it is simply the Chinese work and social ethos, but such an experience goes a long way.

The US has blundered in really odd ways in recent years, in matters such as trying to get Europeans to by American natural gas, shipped across the Atlantic by ships, while Russia lies just next door to many European countries, and can offer the same fuel for far cheaper – just hook up to the pipeline. Huawei has made great progress – their networks were always good, but their handsets had some catching up to do in order to meet the levels of South Korean Samsung, and of course Apple, and they have done so.

However, the geopolitical game seems to be in operation in both cases, and if carried out, it will only make life expensive and miserable for many thousands of people while the politicians and fat cats in DC and Europe can celebrate “stamping out the threats” of what is really likely only free market competition.

Part III will examine the fight as it presently exists."

https://theduran.com/huawei-an-enemy...-choice-video/

A local wireless company discusses hie experience working with Huawei equipment, service operations and installation crews..

**OhOh** · 30-03-2019, 06:28 PM

European Commission weighs in on 5G security

The European Commission (EC) has released a set of operational recommendations that target cybersecurity across 5G networks in Europe. The recommendations are the result of a March 22 European Council meeting (PDF), in which heads of state called for a “concerted approach to the security of 5G networks.”

The recommendations call for each EU member state to complete a national risk assessment of 5G network infrastructures by the end of June 2019, and then update existing security requirements for network providers to include conditions for ensuring the security of public 5G networks. The EC said such measures are meant to protect the economies, societies and democratic systems that’ll be impacted by 5G technologies moving forward.

It asks that member states exchange information with one another and the European Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) in order to complete a coordinated risk assessment by October 2019. Member states will then decide upon a set of measures, ranging from certification requirements, tests, controls and the identification of products or suppliers that are considered potentially nonsecure.

Finally, it asks member states to further collaborate with industry stakeholders to develop a dedicated EU-wide certification scheme for 5G, which should then become mandatory for 5G suppliers.

“The resilience of our digital infrastructure is critical to government, business, the security of our personal data and the functioning of our democratic institutions,” said Commissioner Julian King, who is in charge of the Security Union, in a statement. “We need to develop a European approach to protecting the integrity of 5G, which is going to be the digital plumbing of our interconnected lives.”

The measures are in response to growing concern among leaders globally over the vulnerabilities of 5G networks built using too few suppliers. The U.S. government has launched a lobbying campaign against China-based 5G vendor Huawei over security concerns that has resulted in a handful of countries banning Huawei products from 5G deployments.

In Europe, countries have been less interested in banning Huawei altogether, opting instead to shore up security guidelines around 5G networks. Germany’s telecom regulatory body, the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA), for example, announced earlier this year it would not ban Huawei products from 5G deployments, which prompted a U.S. ambassador to threaten to withhold intel from Germany.

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wirel...hs-5g-security

**harrybarracuda** · 30-03-2019, 07:02 PM

Fucking right they need a Risk Assessment, all that chinky spying equipment.

**OhOh** · 30-03-2019, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Huawei: No we're not, honest, you can trust us, John.

These ten companies;

Huawei Technologies, Nokia, Samsung, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, ZTE,Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE), Intel, Nokia, Qualcomm, and Cisco.

appear to be judged by the industry, as potential 5g equipment suppliers. There may well be others.

Do you have links to their own NSC Audit reports, or any other countries similar organisation, so we can judge the absolute "risk" from them all?

**OhOh** · 30-03-2019, 07:59 PM

Huawei Frightens Europe's Data Protectors. America Does, Too

By Helene Fouquet

and Marie Mawad

24 February 2019, 12:00 GMT+7 Updated on 25 February 2019, 15:10 GMT+7

U.S. Cloud Act is raising concern about extraterritoriality
Act allows authorities to get data overseas, EU to negotiate

"There’s "no proof of any wrongdoing" by Huawei, says Telefonica CEO Jose Maria Alvarez-Pallete.

A foreign power with possible unbridled access to Europe’s data is causing alarm in the region. No, it’s not China. It’s the U.S.

As the U.S. pushes ahead with the “Cloud Act” it enacted about a year ago, Europe is scrambling to curb its reach. Under the act, all U.S. cloud service providers from Microsoft and IBM to Amazon -- when ordered -- have to provide American authorities data stored on their servers regardless of where it’s housed. With those providers controlling much of the cloud market in Europe, the act could potentially give the U.S. the right to access information on large swaths of the region’s people and companies.

The U.S. says the act is aimed at aiding investigations. Some people are drawing parallels between the legislation and the National Intelligence Law that China put in place in 2017 requiring all its organizations and citizens to assist authorities with access to information. The Chinese law, which the U.S. says is a tool for espionage, is cited by President Donald Trump’s administration as a reason to avoid doing business with companies like Huawei Technologies Co.

“I don’t mean to compare U.S. and Chinese laws, because obviously they aren’t the same, but what we see is that on both sides, Chinese and American, there is clearly a push to have extraterritorial access to data,” Laure de la Raudiere, a French lawmaker who co-heads a parliamentary cyber-security and sovereignty group, said in an interview. “This must be a wake up call for Europe to accelerate its own, sovereign offer in the data sector.”

Matters of espionage and foreign interference will be at the center of talks at Europe’s biggest telecoms and technology conference, the MWC Barcelona, that started Monday.
Irish Case

The Cloud Act (or the “Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act”) addresses an issue that came up when Microsoft in 2013 refused to provide the FBI access to a server in Ireland in a drug-trafficking investigation, saying it couldn’t be compelled to produce data stored outside the U.S.
The act’s extraterritoriality spooks the European Union -- an issue that’s become more acute as trans-Atlantic relations fray and the bloc sees the U.S. under Trump as an increasingly unreliable ally.

Europe may seek to mitigate the impact of the law by drawing on a provision in the act that allows the U.S. to reach “executive agreements” with countries allowing a mutual exchange of information and data. The European Commission wants the EU to enter into talks with the U.S., and negotiations may start this spring.
EU Action

France and other EU countries like The Netherlands and Belgium are pushing for the bloc to present a common front as they struggle to come up with regulations to protect privacy, avert cyber attacks and secure critical networks in the increasingly amorphous world of information in the cloud.

A Dutch lawmaker at the European Parliament, Sophie in ’t Veld, recently expressed frustration at what she called the EU’s “enormous weakness” in the face of the U.S.’s “unlimited data hunger.”

“Because of the Cloud Act, the long arm of the American authorities reaches European citizens, contradicting all EU law,” she said. “Would the Americans accept it if the EU would grant itself extraterritorial jurisdiction on U.S. soil? And would the Commission also propose negotiations with Russia or China, if they would adopt their own Russian or Chinese Cloud Act?"

An internal memo crafted by the French government in November states that “the Cloud Act could be a test from the U.S., and they expect a political response, which ought to be European to be strong enough.”

French Response

The Cloud Act was enacted just weeks ahead of Europe’s data-protection law, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which states that all businesses that collect data from EU citizens have to follow the bloc’s rules, which could put the two laws at odds.

While waiting for the EU to get its response together, some countries are preparing their own, with the French leading the pack. President Emmanuel Macron’s teams are readying legal and technical measures to shield the country, four government officials involved said. The president’s office, the finance ministry and the state’s cyber security agency ANSSI have worked on it for the last 10 months.

“The more we dig into the Cloud Act, the more worrying it is,” said ANSSI chief Guillaume Poupard. “It’s a way for the U.S. to enter into negotiations... but it has an immediate extraterritorial effect that’s unbearable.”

Not OK

The French government has held meetings with banks, defense contractors, energy utilities and others, asking them to use “Cloud Act-safe” data providers. It’s also studying legal options, a finance ministry official said. One way might be to refresh a 1968 “Blocking Statute,” which prohibits French companies and citizens from providing “economic, commercial, industrial, financial, or technical documents or information” as evidence in legal proceedings outside the country.

“No one can accept that a foreign government, even the American one, can come fetch data on companies stored by a U.S. company, without warning and without us being able to respond,” Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said in a speech on Feb. 18.

France has been more vociferous in its opposition to the Cloud Act because its companies have borne the brunt of other extraterritorial U.S. laws. In 2014, BNP was slapped with an $8.97 billion U.S. fine for transactions with countries facing American sanctions. French oil company Total SA walked away from a $4.8 billion project in Iran after Trump pulled out of its nuclear deal.

Local Providers

One consequence of the Cloud Act is that European companies and organizations will start looking for local alternatives. Europe’s phone operators, many of whom are already being steered away from Huawei, see the act making providers from the U.S. a threat, too.

“On the one hand you have this Chinese expansion and on the other these new U.S. rules are putting American companies at the mercy of the administration,” Gervais Pellissier, deputy chief executive officer of Orange SA, told reporters on Thursday in Paris. “The hardware bricks are either American or Chinese. We need to now find a software layer to deal with the situation.”

Local cloud providers are using the Cloud Act and GDPR in their sales pitches. French company Atos is telling customers it’ll keep their most-sensitive data physically on servers in Europe. It struck a deal with Google to safeguard client data.

OVH Groupe SAS, presenting itself as a Europe-grown rival to Amazon’s cloud business, is growing sales 30 percent a year and making profit running data centers in Europe.

“We can guarantee our customers the sovereignty of their data, which is more than Amazon or other rivals can offer,” Founder and CEO Octave Klaba told reporters in October."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...erica-does-too

"We need to now find a software layer to deal with the situation."

One hopes not the same one utilised to design the 737MAX software/training and aircraft manuals.

**harrybarracuda** · 30-03-2019, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

These ten companies;

Huawei Technologies, Nokia, Samsung, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, ZTE,Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE), Intel, Nokia, Qualcomm, and Cisco.

appear to be judged by the industry, as potential 5g equipment suppliers. There may well be others.

Do you have links to their own NSC Audit reports, or any other countries similar organisation, so we can judge the absolute "risk" from them all?

Oh you silly boy.

None of those countries have laws that let their governments hack companies and steal data, or force their own companies to handover data to the spooks.

None of them have fake cars made by stealing designs from around the world, or fake phones or fake everything else the chinkies pirate en masse.

Everyone knows you can't trust the thieving chinkies.

Well, except you, but you're a snivelling chinky sycophant.

* Except ZTE, those cuntos were already caught putting malware on their phones. Probably at the request of Winnie the Pooh. but they're chinkies too so it isn't surprising. Huawei phones have probably got malware on too, just better hidden.

**OhOh** · 30-03-2019, 10:23 PM

So it appears that no other company has an annual audit by NSC. I'm sure all the others, excluding Cisco, who inform users of it's equipment they do obey ameristani laws, have no security problems and do not obey their counties laws.

Thanks for you opinion.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

None of those countries have laws that let their governments hack companies and steal data, or force their own companies to handover data to the spooks.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Under the act, all U.S. cloud service providers from Microsoft and IBM to Amazon -- when ordered -- have to provide American authorities data stored on their servers regardless of where it’s housed

**harrybarracuda** · 30-03-2019, 10:47 PM

Still struggling to understand what "Due Process" means I see.

I think foobar is dragging you down to his level.

**foobar** · 30-03-2019, 10:50 PM

^The usual imaginary distinctions from Lord HawHaw ..the fact is no other country hacks the world more than America, and its all sanctioned by the US legal system, in fact the US government demands it and forces US tech companies to install backdoors in their products and to give the keys to the NSA, even when its not sanctioned they do it anyway.

**harrybarracuda** · 30-03-2019, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by foobar

^The usual imaginary distinctions from Lord HawHaw ..the fact is no other country hacks the world more than America, and its all sanctioned by the US legal system, in fact the US government demands it and forces US tech companies to install backdoors in their products and to give the keys to the NSA, even when its not sanctioned they do it anyway.

And this imbecile doesn't even have a clue what the NSA were collecting.

He's such a stupid little boy.

**OhOh** · 31-03-2019, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Still struggling to understand what "Due Process" means I see

We have had many examples of ameristani and it's vassals understanding of the phrase "due process".

The latest being the illegal collusion between FAA and Boing ,Boing airplanes, which so far, has caused 500+ innocent souls to die.

**harrybarracuda** · 31-03-2019, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

We have had many examples of ameristani and it's vassals understanding of the phrase "due process".

The latest being the illegal collusion between FAA and Boing ,Boing airplanes, which so far, has caused 500+ innocent souls to die.

You're really trying to compare this with the chinkies ordering its business to spy on foreign companies and steal as much IP as they can get their grubby little hands on? And making it legal for their intelligence services to hack foreign companies?

Oh dear.

US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment-clutching-straws-jpg

US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment-clutching-straws-jpg

**harrybarracuda** · 13-04-2019, 07:39 PM

Chinkies just can't be trusted.

Huawei savaged by Brit code review board over pisspoor dev practices

Britain's Huawei oversight board has said the Chinese company is a threat to British national security after all – and some existing mobile network equipment will have to be ripped out and replaced to get rid of said threat.

"The work of HCSEC [Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre]… reveals serious and systematic defects in Huawei's software engineering and cyber security competence," said the HCSEC oversight board in its annual report, published this morning.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/0...annual_report/

**OhOh** · 13-04-2019, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

some existing mobile network equipment will have to be ripped out and replaced to get rid of said threat

One wonders whether the "replacement" equipment will be Huawei or some other kit, certified by an Annual NSC Audit report issued by UK Cyber Security Evaluation Centre.

**harrybarracuda** · 13-04-2019, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

One wonders whether the "replacement" equipment will be Huawei or some other kit, certified by an Annual NSC Audit report issued by UK Cyber Security Evaluation Centre.

That's because one is a chinky brown noser.

**Klondyke** · 18-04-2019, 02:50 PM

Belgian cybersecurity agency finds no threat from Huawei, as US increase pressure
April 16, 2019

Belgium’s centre for cybersecurity has found no evidence that telecoms equipment supplied by Huawei Technology could be used for spying. The news comes as US authorities renew their campaign in Europe against the Chinese telecoms giant.

The agency, which reports to the Belgian prime minister, had been tasked with analyzing the possible threat posed by Huawei, which supplies equipment to Belgian mobile operators Proximus, Orange Belgium and Telenet.

“Until now we have not found technical indications that point in the direction of a spying threat,” a spokesman for the agency said on Monday. “We are not providing a final report on the matter, but are continuing to look into it.”

Meanwhile, the United States will push its allies at a meeting in Prague next month to adopt shared security and policy measures that will make it more difficult for China’s Huawei to dominate 5G telecommunications networks, according to people familiar with the matter and documents seen by Reuters.

The event and broader U.S. campaign to limit the role of Chinese telecommunications firms in the build out of 5G networks comes as Western governments grapple with the national security implications of moving to 5G, which promises to be at least 100 times faster than the current 4G networks.

The issue is crucial because of 5G’s leading role in internet-connected products ranging from self-driving cars and smart cities to augmented reality and artificial intelligence. If the underlying technology for 5G connectivity is vulnerable then it could allow hackers to exploit such products to spy or disrupt them.

The United States has been meeting with allies in recent months to warn them Washington believes Huawei’s equipment could be used by the Chinese state to spy. Huawei Technologies Co Ltd has repeatedly denied the allegations.

Officials from more than 30 countries will meet May 2-3 to agree on security principles for next-generation telecoms networks, said Robert Kahofer, chief of cabinet at Czech cybersecurity agency NUKIB.

A U.S. official familiar with the plan said the Prague meeting marks a strategic shift in how the U.S. government plans to urge allies to drop Huawei and other 5G vendors in the future, which Washington believes pose a risk to national security. The official described the approach as “softer.”

A Huawei spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. U.S. proposals for the Prague meeting urge governments and operators to consider the legal environment in a vendor’s country, how much state support a company receives, transparency of corporate structure, and trustworthiness of equipment. It also calls on partners to prioritize security and work together on investigations into cyberattacks aimed at 5G architecture.

The documents do not mention Huawei, the world’s largest telecoms equipment maker, by name, but U.S. officials said they hoped it would provide the “intellectual framework” needed for other countries to effectively bar Chinese vendors. In August, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a bill that barred the U.S. government itself from using Huawei and ZTE Corp equipment.

“The goal is to agree upon a set of shared principles that would ensure the security of next-generation telecommunications networks,” said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

The Prague conference has been organized by the Czech foreign ministry with support from NUKIB, said Kahofer. The foreign ministry did not respond to requests for comment.

Delegations from all of the European Union’s 28 member states, as well as the European Commission, NATO and around eight other countries including the United States and Australia are expected to attend, Kahofer said.

China and Russia have not been invited, he added, but stressed that the event was not “an anti-Huawei or anti-China conference.” Europe has emerged as a key battleground for the future of 5G, with the United States pushing allies and partners to bar Chinese vendors but European governments wary of the trade and economic consequences of angering Beijing.

Internet service providers have also warned that banning Huawei would incur huge costs and delay the rollout of 5G by years. A senior U.S. cybersecurity official said last week Washington wanted European governments to adopt “risk-based security frameworks”, citing recent moves in Germany to implement stricter security standards for all 5G vendors, and that doing so would effectively rule out using Huawei and ZTE.

“The United States welcomes engagement from partners and allies to discuss ways that we can work together ensuring that our 5G networks are reliable and secure,” said White House National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis.

Officials in Britain, which last month exposed new security flaws in Huawei equipment but says it has found no evidence of Chinese state interference, have also spoken of “raising security across the board” for 5G. The European Commission said in March that EU nations would be required to share data on 5G cybersecurity risks and produce measures to tackle them by the end of the year.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/5g/...ease-pressure/

**harrybarracuda** · 22-04-2019, 11:33 AM

Out of the box, even with the Huawei shit turned off, the shiny new Huawei P30 (the one they published the fake camera photos for) immediately starts sending data back to Chinky government websites.

Leave this one alone.

Dirty chinky spies.

https://github.com/pe3zx/huawei-block-list

**OhOh** · 25-04-2019, 11:03 AM

Huawei reportedly gets nod to help build British 5G network

US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment-5cc0ffcba3104842e4aa5e9a-jpeg

US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment-5cc0ffcba3104842e4aa5e9a-jpeg

An [Chinese?] engineer works at a Huawei laboratory in the United Kingdom.

"The United Kingdom has given the green light to Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Co to help build the country's next generation mobile communication technology network, said the Daily Telegraph newspaper.
The UK's National Security Council, which is chaired by Prime Minister Theresa May, agreed on Tuesday to allow Huawei limited access to help build parts of its 5G network such as antennas and other "noncore" infrastructure, the report said, without citing sources.

Analysts said the news sends a positive signal to Huawei, as entry into the UK's 5G network is highly likely to invite wider recognition in Europe and help reduce security concerns toward the Chinese company.
Huawei said in an emailed statement to China Daily that it welcomes reports that the UK government is moving toward allowing it in the country's 5G network.
"This green light means that UK businesses and consumers will have access to the fastest and most reliable networks thanks to Huawei's cutting-edge technology," Huawei said.

The Shenzhen-based company said it is awaiting a formal government announcement and it is pleased that the UK is continuing to take an evidence-based approach to its work.
As the world's largest telecom equipment maker and a leading smartphone vendor, Huawei is facing cyber security allegations in some foreign markets, including the United States. The company has repeatedly said such allegations are groundless and not supported by factual evidence.
The news came after Financial Times reported in February that the UK National Cyber Security Centre had determined that there are ways to limit potential risks from using Huawei in future 5G ultrafast networks.
Belgian newspaper De Standard also reported earlier that The Center for Cybersecurity Belgium has found no evidence that telecoms equipment supplied by Huawei could be used for spying.
Xiang Ligang, director-general of the Information Consumption Alliance, said the UK is in a better position than many countries to judge whether Huawei poses security risks, since it has a monitoring body that has been checking the company's products for years.

"But it still remains to be seen whether Huawei can be allowed in the UK's core infrastructure for the 5G network," Xiang said.
Despite the ongoing challenges, Huawei said it expects to post double-digit growth in its carrier business unit this year, as the Chinese company believes that global investment into 5G will be value-driven, reliable and generate more growth opportunities.
Hu Houkun, rotating chairman at Huawei, said last week that it had so far secured 40 commercial 5G network contracts, up from 30 announced in late January, and it has shipped more than 70,000 5G base stations, up from 40,000 announced in late February.

In the first quarter of this year, it posted 179.7 billion yuan ($26.8 billion) in revenue, representing year-on-year growth of 39 percent.

The company's first quarter net profit margin stood at about 8 percent, slightly higher than the same period last year."

Huawei reportedly gets nod to help build British 5G network - Chinadaily.com.cn

and here;

Will banning Huawei from the ‘core’ 5G network keep the UK secure?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/04/24/will-banning-huawei-core-5g-network-keep-uk-secure/

I suspect the use of the words, "noncore" and "core", allows both parties significant wriggle room, to enable a claim of victory.

Another Asian/Europe win/win

**harrybarracuda** · 25-04-2019, 01:09 PM

It seems the leaking of this meeting has caused consternation in the intelligence and counter-intelligence communities. No doubt May was trying to railroad this through on the sly to try and get a trade deal and blow her own trumpet per-Brexit.

I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

Everyone knows the chinkies are not to be trusted.

**OhOh** · 25-04-2019, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Everyone knows the chinkies are not to be trusted.

It appears that 78% of the worlds countries representatives disagree with you (150/193). If one is to assume the countries representatives are attending the BRI meeting month for reasons other than collecting air-miles.

**harrybarracuda** · 25-04-2019, 08:07 PM

Everyone knows the chinkies are not to be trusted.

One of the US’s best known hospitals, MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, is dismissing three Chinese American scientists after the National Institutes of Health singled them out by name in complaints, alleging that their NIH grant applications had concealed extensive links to Chinese institutions and that they posed a threat to US funded intellectual property.

The dismissals may herald others across the US, indicate recent warnings from the NIH director, Francis Collins, who told a Senate hearing earlier this month that his agency had sent similar letters to “more than 55” institutions. These followed an open letter sent last August to more than 10 000 institutions warning them that “foreign entities have mounted systematic programs to influence NIH researchers and peer reviewers.”

https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1911

**harrybarracuda** · 25-04-2019, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

It appears that 78% of the worlds countries representatives disagree with you (150/193). If one is to assume the countries representatives are attending the BRI meeting month for reasons other than collecting air-miles.

Collecting brown envelopes and cake tins would be closer to the truth.

Thread: US warning allies to ditch Huawei, Chinese "spying" equipment

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions