Another Cisco vulnerability

Avatar
16

Apparently we should ban Cisco’s network equipment: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/02/cisco_vulnerabilities/

Comments (16)

16 responses to “Another Cisco vulnerability”

  1. Avatar

    Paul Thurrott

    I was just thinking the same thing.

  2. Avatar

    lvthunder

    There is a big difference between a mistake and something being intentionally done. From the incredibly one sided article you linked to it sounds like those bugs were simply mistakes and nothing intentional.

    • Avatar

      skane2600

      In reply to lvthunder:

      But of course, there's no evidence that Huawei has intentionally placed vulnerabilities in their equipment either. Apparently judging different companies by the same standards is being one-sided in your opinion.

      • Avatar

        lvthunder

        In reply to skane2600:

        There is no public evidence of that. You are correct. Who knows what the government knows and has classified? I think the government knows something and is keeping a tight lip on it probably to protect their asset in China. It would be one thing if it was just the Trump Administration doing this, but this distrust of Huawei started in the Obama Administration and continued into the Trump Administration.

        • Avatar

          skane2600

          In reply to lvthunder:

          Again, if there is a backdoor, it's in the code or in the hardware. If an asset told the US about it they could look at it, confirm it if it's true and if so publicize the evidence. Since it would be forensic evidence, China would have no way of knowing if the US had help or if they found it on their own. Thus no asset would be placed in danger.


          On the other hand, if an asset simply made a general claim about the relationship between the Chinese government and Huawei, it's not real evidence and the US would not reveal the source because in that case it might harm the asset. The problem is that some such claims by "assets" have in the past been proven wrong and driven by the asset's personal agenda.

          • Avatar

            lvthunder

            In reply to skane2600:

            I never said there was something in there now, but since this stuff gets added all the time it could be added in the future. Why would you put a critical piece of infrastructure in the hands of a potential foe. That asset could be saying the military is in here everyday. Who knows. My point is the government knows something we don't know. Remember this is 5g equipment we are talking about mostly. There isn't a lot of it around.

            • Avatar

              skane2600

              In reply to lvthunder:

              IMO speculation-driven policy is bad policy but I guess we disagree.

              • Avatar

                Greg Green

                In reply to skane2600:

                You’re speculating that it’s a speculation driven policy. Other are speculating that it’s an intel driven policy.


                Two administrations with quite different foreign policy views came to the same conclusion and Obama’s policy was in complete opposition to his general view of open armed internationalism. That seems to indicate that something other than speculation was driving this.

                • Avatar

                  skane2600

                  In reply to Greg Green:

                  I was responding to lvthunder who said "That asset could be saying the military is in here everyday." When you read "could be" you know they are speculating. That's a fact, not speculation on my part.


                  I didn't claim that the government was following a speculation driven policy, but in response to lvthunder's point I was expressing my opinion that such a policy would be bad.



      • Avatar

        Bob Nelson

        In reply to skane2600:

        Help me out here. I can't tell if this is just your standard anti-Americanism, or you're being deliberately obtuse.


        Why are tech people as a group so naive when it comes to the dangers of the world?

        China is an evil monster of a country. More of an organized crime enterprise than a country actually.



        • Avatar

          wp7mango

          In reply to Bob Nelson:


          Maybe tech people are not naïve. Perhaps they are in fact open minded and sensible, rather than being sensationalist, closed-minded, and irrational.

        • Avatar

          skane2600

          In reply to Bob Nelson:

          On a good day tech people are evidence-driven and not prone toward black and white thinking. It sure beats insulting people in lieu of a rational argument.

          • Avatar

            lvthunder

            In reply to skane2600:

            Do you accept the notion there may be evidence that has been classified leading the government to come to a different conclusion then you have? And tech people very much have black and white thinking. Facebook bad. Apple or Microsoft Bad depending on what side you are on. Tech has plenty of black and white subjects.

            • Avatar

              skane2600

              In reply to lvthunder:

              Again, the software and hardware inside networking equipment can't be classified unless it is specifically government-specified equipment used only in government-authorized applications. Yes, hearsay statements by "assets" could be classified but that wouldn't be definitive evidence as I've already argued.


              Remember, I said "on a good day". Of course anyone regardless of profession can be guilty of black and white thinking, but tech people discussing technical matters should strive to be guided by evidence and the context in which it occurs.

    • Avatar

      Paul Thurrott

      In reply to lvthunder:

      Sure. And this is the kind of assumption one makes about a US company that one, for some reason, does not make for a Chinese company. This is the hypocrisy that inspired this post, I think.

  3. Avatar

    karlinhigh

    I wonder... does any other country, in fact, ban Cisco equipment?

Leave a Reply