UK to Allow Huawei Into Its 5G Networks
- Paul Thurrott
- Apr 24, 2019
-
23
Britain’s National Security Council has agreed to allow China-based Huawei to participate in the country’s 5G networking infrastructure. That said, Britain will block Huawei from “core” parts of the 5G network
As was first reported by The Telegraph, Huawei will “help build parts of the network such as antennas and other ‘non-core’ infrastructure.”
Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
“We welcome reports that the UK government is moving towards allowing Huawei to help build the UK’s 5G networks,” a Huawei statement reads. “While we await a formal government announcement, we will continue work cooperatively with the government and the industry and their evidence-based approach to network security.”
Some are criticizing allowing Huawei, which is based in China but privately-owned, into governmental infrastructure.
“It still raises concerns,” Tom Tugendhat, the chairman of Britain’s Foreign Affairs Committee, told BBC Radio. “The definition of core and non-core is a very difficult one with 5G. [5G] does change from a faster internet system into an internet system that can genuinely connect everything, and therefore the distinction between non-core and core is much harder to make.”
The decision is also a rebuke to the U.S. government, which has pushed for its allies to block Huawei and other China-based tech giants from 5G networks around the globe. Too, the UK decision will likely be used as a template by other countries in the EU and elsewhere when it comes to working with Huawei.
The issue? Not everyone is convinced by the United States’ evidence-free arguments against Huawei. And the UK, in particular, has argued for security and engineering over the nationality of the company.
“When we analyze a company for their suitability to supply equipment to the UK’s telecoms networks, we are looking at the risk arising from their security and engineering processes as well as the way these technologies are deployed in our national telecom networks,” Jeremy Fleming, the head of Britain’s GCHQ spy agency said Wednesday. “A flag of origin of 5G equipment is important but it is a secondary factor.”
Conversation 23 comments
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#423011">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>Absolutely no reason for such information to be classified if it's actual "clinical/digital forensics evidence" since the techniques required to obtain such information have been known publicly for decades. Now if the "evidence" is Agent X in China told us so that's different.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#423064">In reply to anderb:</a></em></blockquote><p>So, are you taking the position that any vulnerability should be classified as a backdoor? Is there any record of Huawei or any other entity compromising a system due to this vulnerability? If that was the intention, why wasn't it done before it was fixed. And what exactly would Huawei have to gain by exploiting it? If there was a widespread attack that was specific to Huawei's laptop the negative economic impact on their bottom line would likely far exceed any financial advantage of exploiting it.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#423447">In reply to anderb:</a></em></blockquote><p>It doesn't matter what definition one wants to use, as long as it's applied consistently. So if a vulnerability in Huawei's driver means one should never use Huawei products then a vulnerability in any vendors product should also preclude them from being used. Any other approach is political not technical.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#423435">In reply to anderb:</a></em></blockquote><p>The evidence that Huawei used this vulnerability for industrial espionage is exactly the same as the evidence that these other companies used it for industrial espionage, that is absolutely none.</p><p><br></p><p>Not every capability of Windows is well documented and developers take alternate approaches all the time. Doing so isn't really evidence of any bad intent. It's true that a backdoor could be subtle, but there has to be an end-to-end "solution" to actually obtain key information from key players. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#423502">In reply to Sandy:</a></em></blockquote><p>I believe in facts and evidence. If the US government is banning Huawei solely because of China's system of government, they should say so. Of course competition with US companies could also be a motivation. </p>
-
salman992355
<p>Thanks for sharing</p>