Apparently we should ban Cisco’s network equipment: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/02/cisco_vulnerabilities/
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425439">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>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.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425453">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>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.</p><p><br></p><p>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.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425504">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>IMO speculation-driven policy is bad policy but I guess we disagree.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425726">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>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. </p><p><br></p><p>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.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425454">In reply to Bob Nelson:</a></em></blockquote><p>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.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#425506">In reply to lvthunder:</a></em></blockquote><p>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. </p><p><br></p><p>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.</p>