advertisement


Huawei: UK 5G network provision

Snufkin

Snufkin

pfm Member
It makes you wonder if our glorious leaders are mentally challenged or have a vested interest in overseas electronics companies (or both).
 
Or they listened to evidence and made a decision based on that advice.

Seems like a fairly well balanced approach to me.
 
Most of them do the same us and have distributed vendors but France and Germany are trialling 5G with Huawei amongst others.
 
<moderating>

I’ve edited the thread title as it is an important issue and should get more interest this way.
 
Love the idea of peripheral networks not having any risk of access to the core. This was a fingers up to Trump and we are going with our own advice - or acknowledge that Trump had a point (even a stopped clock can be right twice a day) and bite the bullet, but no. Fudge it is.

Result, nobody is happy except perhaps China.

Listening to Truss on PM eulogising our 'experts' was comedy gold.
 
I think GCHQ already made decision that Chinese tech is already so deeply embedded in internet and comms infrastructure from component level upward, that limiting the branded HW from one supplier is silly. US move is pure protectionist for Cisco etc. And to create PR furore whilst they look after their own intersts.

The internet is truly multi national. Look around you at your IT kit. Where’s it made? Who makes many of the key code-bearing components of the stuff you may feel is made in EU, US, UK? Yep

UK intelligence and risk assessors at North, will have already spent plenty time and expertise looking at code security, data traps and system integrity from penetration or siphoning by baddies. They also hire poacher turned gamekeeper types to keep on their toes and ahead of stuff that the bad men and hackers are peddling.

5G already being trialled n some areas. I think VI bit of research shows that this particular Huwai fuss is about what will become an open standard for interoperability of interconnected kit that will comprise the 5G networks as they go live.

AT&T already launched in US. EE and TMobile are starting to go live beyond trials in some uk cities. Trump already missed the boat.

It may come into play in US bully boy tactics in trade talks, but it amoubts to little more than protectionism. May dupe a few voters and the technically illiterate.
 
An Internet radio programme I used to listen to was warning about security issues with Huwaei back in 2012. I didn't take a great deal of notice at the time as the programme is from the US and I hadn't really heard of them.

Interesting though. Could do with listening again.
 
SteveS1 said:
Love the idea of peripheral networks not having any risk of access to the core. This was a fingers up to Trump and we are going with our own advice - or acknowledge that Trump had a point (even a stopped clock can be right twice a day) and bite the bullet, but no. Fudge it is.

Result, nobody is happy except perhaps China.

Listening to Truss on PM eulogising our 'experts' was comedy gold.
Click to expand...

Why is it a fudge let alone unreal that the risk of peripherals (unlawfully) accessing the core can't be mitigated or managed? It is currently.
 
I fully admit I know absolutely nothing about mobile phone technology and I’ve not read up on this story at all, but the thing that puzzles me here is why this is a government decision at all? Surely this infrastructure is for the mobile phone companies to define in a competitive commercial marketplace? All the government should be involved in here is defining what specific frequencies are available commercially as they do with FM, DAB, digital TV, WiFi etc. Why is this state infrastructure? Why is the clown PM involved? I’ve obviously missed something here, but it sounds like the equivalent of some idiot Tory MP telling Plusnet or whoever what router they can buy.

PS FWIW I trust Tories and China pretty much equally and want neither meddling with my internet connectivity!
 
It's classed as "critical national infrastructure" so NCSC need to approve vendors/products that will be connected. It is supposed to be overseen by the CPNI but they aren't great and tend to be more about supply chain and process than technology.

We have to jump through major hoops when upgrading the network infrastructure as it is a 999 service and ties into the telecoms network.

I'm not sure if 5G is classed as CNI yet but it certainly will be soon as EE are replacing Tetra for the emergency services.
 
thebiglebowski said:
Why is it a fudge let alone unreal that the risk of peripherals (unlawfully) accessing the core can't be mitigated or managed? It is currently.
Click to expand...

I bow to your expertise, if you are saying that people working on the design and implementation of the peripherals are no closer to accessing the core as people who are not. The 'fudge' is quite simply because it pleases few people, like most compromises.

If the other options are only a year or so behind I'm wondering why take the chance? Delaying 5G a matter of months in a country that struggles to provide decent BB to a lot of people and 4G to many more doesn't sound terribly worth worrying about. I'm sure that could have been played 'in the nation's security interest' without too much trouble.
 
The difference with 5G is that it has a much much higher software content, the base stations usually run some Linux variant and have hundreds of man years of software development in them, so the scope for a bad actor is huge even if you verify every last line of code, you can update the software and then your are back to square one.
 
Huawei are not the bunch spies the US make them out to be, their kit is actually reliable, well made and sufficiently advanced (again most of that is because they pinched code off others)

It has always been a principle of network design to have multiple vendors. For example when you are deploying firewalls you should make sure that your edge and internal firewalls are from different vendors. If your edge firewall is compromised having a different vendor internally will slow them down or stop them allowing you to secure things.

Having multiple vendors also mitigates against companies going bankrupt and wiping out your investment
 
Oh, the UK ignored US protectionism and arbitrary blocking of Chinese tech, because they have looked into the facts, and deemed it not so that magic masts with Chinese tech will (or can) siphon off our data to Dear Leader.

End of the day, Eriksson, Nokia etc. are playing catch up with Huawei, so why go for inferior and likely more expensive tech.

Use HTTPS for sites with sensitive data, VPNs and strong encryption when necessary, job done. Security issues are far deeper than China, and far deeper than 5G infrastructure.
 
The government were clearly sucking up to China but trying to limit the impact on future trade withe the US. It stand to reason that any Chinese company in any field will ultimately do whatever they are told to do.
It is a shame that we can’t do this ourselves rather than farming it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top