Slashdot Mirror


India Bars ZTE, Huawei, Others From Sensitive Government Projects

hypnosec writes "The Indian Government has decided it won't be using telecom equipment from international vendors, and has barred all such foreign companies from participating in the US$3.8 billion National Optical Fiber Network (NOFN) project — a project aimed at bringing high-speed Internet connectivity to the rural areas of India. The DoT has decided that it will be going ahead with 100 per cent domestic sourcing and has released a list of certified GPON suppliers. This decision comes after the research wing of the ministry, C-DoT, advised the telecom department to bar Chinese companies like ZTE and Huawei, keeping in line with a similar decision by the U.S. In an internal memo, the research body advised the department that both these Chinese companies are a security threat to the telecom world."

160 comments

  1. Tech support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Why use fiber when it would be so much cheaper to line up a bunch of tech support employees and pass the information along in a game of 'telephone'.

    Yes, I'm a cruel cruel man!

    1. Re:Tech support by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Beats the current carrier pidgeon system dead into the ground.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Tech support by Crash+McBang · · Score: 2

      Because if you do, purple monkey dishwasher!

      --
      To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
  2. Tinfoil Hats? by RudyHartmann · · Score: 2

    Okay, I'm not a big conspiracy theorist. But if there isn't a good chance of a backdoor in their software, I'm a monkey's uncle. Aren't these companies partly owned by the People's Liberation Army?

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
    1. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by green1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can understand the paranoia over buying equipment supplied by a company known to be tight with a foreign power you don't always get along with. But I also really wish someone would show some proof of something close to a security threat in one of these products before the whole world goes crazy about "OMG the Spies!!!"
      There is tons of hardware by these companies available all over the world, and so far (to my knowledge) nobody has ever found any evidence of a back door, or any spying capability in any of it. And honestly, I don't see any reason to think that those companies are any more likely than any other company in the world to do that.

    2. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not only the Chinese companies that are blocked.
      Ericsson, Nokia-Siemens, Alcatel-Lucent, ... All companies that aren't doing too hot right now and could use the business.

    3. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it really even matter in China?

    4. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The top three owners of ZTE are all members of the PLA. All three are high ranking officers. One of them is also believed to be a high ranking member of the Chinese equivalent of the CIA.

      These men claim that their PLA association is past history and not relevant but they are all still ranking officers in the PLA. Maybe just maybe their ownership is related to the corruption of the PLA and communist party in general and that there is no real connection. The problem is that even if there is no involvement now, the PLA could direct intervention and backdoored firmwares.

      I'd be surprised at any government stupid enough to put in place telecom equipment from a company owned by the military of a sovereign nation. You're probably at risk with any non native produced equipment BUT that risk goes up enormously if that foreign company is owned not only by the government of a foreign nation but the military of that nation.

    5. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Much of the network maybe dual use like Australia. Would India want a country it has been at war with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War really doing their base to base to capitol optical links?
      As for a "security threat" also view huge projects as a "security deal". We bought a huge telco system, you got jobs, we want hi tech weapon sales/code in return.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Not any more a risk than Cisco from the US government or Alcatel/Lucent from France.

    7. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There has never been one, and millions of dollars have been spent looking. It's all about racism (or nationalism or protectionism). Unless they have a hidden kill switch (not a backdoor) that's very very secure (for DoS only), there can't be anything there. The DoS would only come out when China declares war or something. Oh, and the moon landing was faked by Castro as part of the LBJ-hires-Castro-to-kill-JFK deal.

    8. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the constant security issues with Microsoft's products?
      That are likely to have ties with one of the most powerful governments of the world...

    9. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by green1 · · Score: 1

      And how is that any more of a risk than say every American company where it is well known that all their morals are for sale to the highest bidder?

      People have spent a lot of time and money looking for security holes in these companies products, and none have ever been found. And yet the world immediately assumes they must be there, while generally giving every other company in the world a free pass.

      We are fairly certain that ZTE and Huwaii products are safe, as they have been studied extensively in this witch hunt. I'd feel more confident with the security of their products than those of any other company that hasn't gone through the same scrutiny and is just as likely to be corrupt.

    10. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's not racism. It's a legitimate concern, but it doesn't just apply to the chinese. Who's to say that Cisco/nortel/juniper et al don't also have backdoors in their firmware? Frankly, no western country has a right to bitch about chinese government abuse of civil liberties and police state paranoia when they themselves are doing the same things. I'm surprised the indian government isn't choosing to distrust western closed hardware as well. They should.

      This is yet another reason why closed software sucks. There's no way to audit what's running on the hardware.

    11. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by RudyHartmann · · Score: 1

      Shakespeare, in Henry IV, Part One, 1596:
      Falstaff: 'The better part of valour is discretion; in the which better part I have saved my life.'

      I'm with Billy Boy on this one. If there was one inkling of a national security issue, I would opt for a different choice than these Chinese companies.

      --
      Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
    12. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously suggesting that the PLA wouldn't hide secret functions in its gear?

      Seriously?

      This is primarily a security decision, and if there is nationalism or protectionism at play AT ALL it is secondary to the real actual threat.

      You've posted similar fairy tales before, handwaving away legitimate security concern as racism. You realize that it's ridiculous to assert this, don't you?

    13. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by CBravo · · Score: 1

      Acces to the source code and influence in design decisions is good enough for complex stuff. Or you hire stupid people instead of smart ones which just create bad code for you (which functions just good enough for production purposes). Ba(ck)d(oor) software.

      --
      nosig today
    14. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Nationalism and protectionism are fundamental when it comes to protecting a nation.

    15. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... national security issue ...

      "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." In short, this a 'think of the children' concept where rational thought disappears.

      While another country shouldn't be trusted, the USA has massive industry protectionism in the name of 'national security'. It then travels the world demanding all other countries obey its 'free trade' policy.

      As already mentioned, the USA is also capable of such skulduggery, but no-one complains about US-ian dishonesty, even when they have a proven record.

    16. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      American companies are also excluded. India has specified that it will be supplied by a domestic supplier.

    17. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by lxs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would India want a country it has been at war with rally doing their base to base to capitol optical links?

      You do realize that most countries that do business today have at one time or another been at war with each other?

    18. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes ~1987 is some time ago en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Sino-Indian_skirmish

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    19. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you seriously suggesting that the PLA wouldn't hide secret functions in its gear?

      I'm saying they didn't. There's a difference.

      This is primarily a security decision, and if there is nationalism or protectionism at play AT ALL it is secondary to the real actual threat.

      There is no threat, so secondary concerns become the only one when the "primary" is a farce.

      You've posted similar fairy tales before, handwaving away legitimate security concern as racism. You realize that it's ridiculous to assert this, don't you?

      Yes, it's ridiculous to look for proof before wasting billions spending money on other companies who may have the same or worse. With so many people looking at Huawei under a microscope, how do you think they'd get away with hidden back doors? It's improbable at best, and at this point, pretty much statistically impossible. How long until you admit you were wrong? 5 years? If there's no attack by China in 5 years, backed by Huawei transformers leaping from their networking gear, will you admit it then? 10 years? Or will it take 1000 years of no Huawei backdoors until you believe?

    20. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      Protecting them from what? With so many asserting there "must" be a problem, how come nobody can find it?

      Must be racism, nobody can give any other answer (other than there's still an unknown problem that a million people with a billion dollars couldn't find).

    21. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I had that argument here when Australia did the same. Why would they trust Cisco/USA and Alcatel/France over Huawei/China, one of their largest trading partners? But if we don't like China, then nobody else should. At least India has a theoretical fear from China, as idiots everywhere seem to think China will invade the only large country more population dense than itself for "space".

    22. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Mike+Frett · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Did you forget about NSAKEY_?. Microsoft apparently took great lengths to shush that since you can't remember. There is no telling what Government backdoors are in Microsoft Windows since Indians and Chinese both help write code for it. There was also (and still is) an unknown hole in IE in 2010 that allowed Chinese hackers to steal Data from Google, Adobe and others. The question was: Was it really unknown, or intentionally put there?. Who knows, not us.

      Then there is the Hardware backdoor from China, using the ASIC chip in US Military components. It's not a theory or a maybe, it's all fact. If you can't personally see the code for all this Software and Hardware, nobody should use it. But of course, we know that's not possible except with Open Source.

    23. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      with US-created backdoors, when they break, there's a patch for it coming soon to restore functionality.

      with the chinese ones, the bugs you get are the bugs you live with. you can't expect the chinese back-doors to be as well supported, can you? once they break, they are broken.

      I'd prefer the US backdoors. at least I know there's support for them.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    24. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by azalin · · Score: 1

      Well people do complain about the US shenanigans. A lot actually. Try reading foreign news from time to time (very often available in English).

    25. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by azalin · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's probably the reason those are excluded as well. While the summary focuses on the Chinese, it also states that no foreign suppliers will be involved.

    26. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by lxs · · Score: 1

      India does have a lot of "skirmishes" with its neighbors doesn't it?

    27. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by jandersen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But if there isn't a good chance of a backdoor in their software, I'm a monkey's uncle.

      A monkey's descendant, actually, according to Mr Darwin. There may well be backdoors of all kinds in SW; I don't think we need to be any more concerned about whether it comes from China or the US. Friendly nations are only friendly now, they may become less so in the future, and will quite likely have prepared for such a scenario in several ways.

      Security by perfect code is just as illusory as security by obscurity; it is a kind of magical thinking. They can help slow down an enemy, but it isn't enough in any way. A better bet is to keep friend and foe where you can see them, and to make sure that your friendship is worth more than any alternative.

      Aren't these companies partly owned by the People's Liberation Army?

      No. The Chinese state may be involved in many enterprises, but the state is not the same as the army, and the army does not control the state. The picture is far more complex than you seem to think - the Chinese is no more one monolithic entity where all parts are in perfect lockstep, than the American 'state' of states; it wouldn't work in any other way - the national government rules over provincial governments, who rule over lower level, local governments etc. The higher level governments often have surprisingly little influence on the lower levels. Some companies are owned by government institutions at some level, but many are privately owned, and many private business people more or less 'own' their local government.

      What we should worry about in China (and anywhere) is not the national government, but the foul taint of corruption that springs from unelected, private business owners, who have far too much influence. If you think about it, when we hear about the appalling working conditions in some Chinese factories, this is exactly what is going on: rich people - capitalists, if you will - who treat their workers worse than animals and use their wealth to buy influence and pay off the police.

      The Chinese national government are trying very hard to get to grips with this problem, because it is vital for China's future. No one wants to do business in any sense with somebody that you can't trust, and you can't trust a system that is rotten with corruption and crime.

    28. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Issarlk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Am I the only one seeing this as an excuse to favor india's telecom companies without looking too protectionist?

    29. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      You have no idea if there is code hidden in Chinese telecom gear. Neither does Australia or India - this is why they don't trust it.

      Saying there is no threat is impossible. Just because a threat has not been identified, or publicly disclosed, does not mean there is no threat. The threat could be on the die itself - the Chinese have been busted implementing on die mystery functions on seemingly otherwise normal hardware before.

      How about this - I won't believe that Huawei, essentially a PLA front, will ever produce anything that I would be comfortable with, ever.

    30. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the source code for Windows has been peer reviewed by at least 4 western security agencies, the answer is: "Only the ones they want to be in there."

    31. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by monzie · · Score: 1

      I fail to understand why the military is running a telecom company.
      I also fail to understand how uniformed service personnel can run a for-profit company.

    32. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Then there is the Hardware backdoor from China, using the ASIC chip in US Military components

      Citation please?

      If you're talking about the Actel chip, it wasn't done by the Chinese: http://www.csoonline.com/article/707542/china-not-to-blame-for-backdoor-in-us-military-chip
      http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sps32/sec_news.html#MEDIA

      --
    33. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      Indeed, looks something like that. FTA:

      State-owned C-DoT also criticised the government's decision not to select a fibre technology developed by it for the Rs 20,000-crore initiative to lay optic fibre connecting all panchayats in the country, claiming this would undermine six years of research.

      They're hardly thus impartial observers. Also, their recommendation seems entirely based on the US decision, no other sources or original work quoted. Personally, I've no problem if they say "we're spending a fortune on building our national infrastruture, so we're going to use that as an opportunity to develop our indiginous technology capability". This, after all, is what the Chinese have been doing for years, either by downright stealing of IP, or by forcing "partnerships" with foreign companies desperate to get access to their market.

      But c'mon guys, just have the balls to come out and say it...

    34. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It's China. As they are officially (If increasingly less so in practice) a communist country, they generally see much less seperation between the state and industry than we expect in the west. Many large companies are openly state-owned (ZTE), and even private companies (Huawei) have a very close relationship with the government, to the point that government officials sit on the board of directors. This works both ways: Just as the companies do the government's bidding, so the government works to tilt the economic playing field in their favor. See the restriction on rare-earth exports for an example.

    35. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need a hidden kill switch, ordinary programming bugs will just do fine.

    36. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has never been one, and millions of dollars have been spent looking.

      If the US can have backdoors in products, so can other companies:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG#Back-doored_machines

    37. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I guess all network equipment going forward will have to be designed &
      manufactured in good old USA. Using no chips, or components sourced
      from any outside country.

      When I read that it sounds more like protectionism and jobs rather than
      a security issue. Break open a "trusted" Cisco or Netgear, they have
      tons of stuff from China in them.

      How can we trust Cisco when they contain so much Chinese stuff?
      Could it be that some member of the PLA might own some factory
      that produces chips for American companies?? Is it possible?

    38. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I wouldn't buy Huawei gear, not because I fear any intentional backdoors, but because I have seen their people work on a project in switzerland. The code those guys produced was completely abysmal, I wouldn't even doubt that there are a metric fuckton of unintentional backdoors in there. It was kind of fitting, because their idea of security really did look a lot like swiss cheese....

      Plus, dealing with them is like talking to a wall, they just deny that there are problems until you finally give up and kick them out (if you can).

    39. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who's watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugdpbPW_k3g ?

      It's a Defcon 20 talk on how Huawei security practices basically don't exist, and all the bugs are things we saw in the 90s.

      If researchers who didn't even have the source code could find holes large enough to drive a truck through, don't you think someone half competent could find them if they had the source code? Combine that with Huawei not having anything security related on their website. If you find a bug, there is no one to tell it to. As a customer there are only version numbers. They don't even tell you what's been patched between firmware versions.

      They even say it in the talk. There are no backdoors because they don't need them. Plausible deniability.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    40. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I imagine China will ban or at least just stop buying US and Indian telecoms equipment now, in retaliation. As the largest and fasted growing market the damage to these companies will probably be at least as big as the advantage they gain from not having to compete in their own countries.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    41. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Clsid · · Score: 1

      What PLA front are you talking about? Just because some US Congressman said that since the president of the company served in the PLA, therefore the company MUST be a PLA front do you actually believe it? It's like saying that any person that served in any military is just a tool for the rest of his life.

      Why don't you educate a bit more about the issue before repeating words like a parrot. You can start with reputable sources like http://www.economist.com/node/18771640

    42. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Clsid · · Score: 1

      Jesus, listen to yourself. You sound like Joseph McCarthy. But after seeing so many messages just like yours, it's not hard to see why wars start. Because instead of cultural understanding and mutual trust all you feed is your fears with baseless accusations, and then wonder several years laters why the missiles start flying. Sigh. World War 3 here we come.

    43. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Clsid · · Score: 1

      Exactly my thoughts. Plus they get to look good with the US while bashing China at the same time, which they don't like. Indian government is very corrupt, so in a way this also allows them to channel funds to their pockets in an easier way.

    44. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by superzerg · · Score: 1

      Think to it differently: If US, Europe and now India are so convinced (without any proof) of the presence of backdoors in Chinese equipment, it is obviously because they include such backdoors in the equipment they manufacture and see no reason why Chinese would not do the same dam thing. That is the only rational reason I can imagine

    45. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they do .. that is why the project is going to be awarded to 100% domestic companies only

    46. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always the racists that are quick to trot out racism as the driving force behind everything. And you sure do trot that out, like clockwork, anytime you can harangue on the white folks.

    47. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      Aren't these companies partly owned by the People's Liberation Army?

      According to Is China's Huawei a threat to our national security? "Huawei is not China. Huawei is Huawei," said Sykes. "We are an independent commercial company. Zero percent ownership by the Chinese government."

    48. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As someone in the telecom industry, let me tell you what's known about Huawei within the industry.

      Huawei is a Chinese telecom equipment manufacturer with a large private investor who's identity will not be disclosed. It's been asked over and over, but they refuse to disclose this investor. It's widely believed to be the Chinese government. The reason for this is because Huawei does a large amount of custom work which none of their competitors will do because it's cost prohibitive and becomes a maintenance nightmare, yet this one company does it anyway. Not only do they do it, but they also do it at a lower cost than any of their competitors. And keep in mind, the competitors are leveraging Indian and Chinese design firms heavily, but even as such, they can't compete with Huawei. As far as all accountants I’ve talked to can tell, the company must be bleeding money at an incredible rate as they seem to sell all equipment at a loss not considering the specialty design they’re doing, yet somehow, they manage to stay in business. I could go into their interviewing process and how it feels more like they're trying to get free consulting, as they never hire anybody, but ask questions which aren't appropriate for an interview, and how they have offices near every office of all of their competitors, and this is no joke, I was working for Ericsson, there was an Alcatel-Lucent office some 80 miles away, and Huawei had offices not 10 miles from EACH of those offices. Why do they have two offices that close to each other?

      When you look at the company from that view, you start to have to wonder, why do they exist? Why would any company maintain an investor keeping them solvent when they're losing money left, right and center? If you answer it with, the Chinese government backs them, and it's so they can put backdoors in the infrastructure of every country, then it makes sense. I can't think of any other explanation that does make sense as to how that company survives.

    49. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Clsid · · Score: 1

      You will have to provide sources for what you are saying here. Phrases like "It's widely believed to be the Chinese government." doesn't help your argument, who are the people that widely believes that? Posting as an AC doesn't help either. The reason Huawei sells so cheap is no secret. If you have ever been to China, especially Shenzhen, you would realize that Huawei is just one of those clone makers with cheap knock-offs, only a tad better. In short, there is no Bolshoi ballet without the thousands of ballet companies behind it. I don't see the clone makers going out of business anytime soon, and neither Huawei or ZTE are alone there. Xiaomi is the next evolution of these companies, so it won't matter if they fail or not because electronics ARE manufactured in China. That is the reason they can sell so cheap, and no, they are not losing money. Their net profit (not revenue) in 2012 alone was up 33%, so again, I would need to see some numbers and sources backing your wild claims.

    50. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aye because two of its neighbors are either religously opposed(pakistan) or hungry for land(china). China and India use to be separated by a big country called tibet, we now call it china. Tibet wasn't enough for China, they wanted to claim part of India as well. The chinese were the aggressors and still are. The pakistan-india thing has more complex roots having some blame resting on the UK.

    51. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      There has never been one, and millions of dollars have been spent looking. It's all about racism (or nationalism or protectionism).

      I dunno. If you really care about security then you need to trust your suppliers. When your threat model is attacks by other nation-states then your only good solution is to make things domestically. There have been a few high-profile cases where equipment was sabotaged by foreign governments - the US destruction of a Soviet refinery comes to mind. Then you have stuxnet and such - which work in part because foreign governments have strong knowledge of the equipment you're using, even if it doesn't have back-doors. Who knows how many incidents have happened without becoming public knowledge?

      It really does make sense to keep the manufacture of core infrastructure local. Not only does this help prevent sabotage, but it also helps your supply chain (you can't be cut off as easily).

    52. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Unless they have a hidden kill switch (not a backdoor)

      Or a hidden activation switch, I mean you don't think the Chinese are so stupid that it calls home by default? It'll work 100% to spec until it gets either some magic payload or a magic port knock and goes "live". If you make the activation key sufficiently long (128 or 256 bits) then there's no way to brute force prove that it's not there short of ripping it apart and analyzing each transistor.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    53. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      ... I also really wish someone would show some proof of something close to a security threat in one of these products before the whole world goes crazy about "OMG the Spies!!!" ...There is tons of hardware by these companies available all over the world, and so far (to my knowledge) nobody has ever found any evidence of a back door...

      Firmware update, anyone? Or, how about any of several other ways to introduce backdoors and other security holes after the fact, perhaps even using purpose-built hardware 'features' that aren't detectable prior to remote activation?

      Note that I'm not specifically China-bashing here - I don't trust Cisco and the like either, and if I was a patriotic Chinese citizen I sure AS HELL wouldn't trust them. Bottom line: governments and corporations spy, because information is power. They WILL attempt to gather information covertly, and will exploit any opportunity to do so.

      India is simply being prudent.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    54. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you can't get along with ANY of your neighbors... maybe its not the neighbors!!!

    55. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different AC.

      pssst...it's a striking out in desperation....

      As someone in the telecom industry

      Translation: my Cisco portfolio is tanking like something fierce.

    56. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indians should be more worried about their own government.
      NARUS much!?

    57. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if you realize you just unwittingly promoted Huawei to the extent that if it's good enough for the Swiss, perhaps it's good enough for India.

    58. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by green1 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that because Microsoft (an American company) included backdoors, we shouldn't trust ZTE and Huwaii (Chinese companies)
      You just made my point for me. The point being that there is no reason to think that these Chinese companies are ANY worse than any other company out there, and, due to increased scrutiny, they are likely among the most secure in the world.
      Luckily India was smart and excluded all foreign companies, unlike many others who are extremely hypocritical blocking Chinese firms while allowing all sorts of other firms with proven track records of security threats to bid.

    59. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by green1 · · Score: 1

      And that was my point. India is being smart and trusting nobody outside their own country. But so many other places are barring Chinese manufacturers over security concerns, while gladly doing business with companies with a far worse track record of back doors and security threats. Personally if I was going to trust anyone, it would be the companies with the highest level of scrutiny on them (ZTE and Huawei) over pretty much anyone else.

      On a side note, as for firmware updates, I don't know what gear you would ever use in any critical capacity that allows the manufacturer to apply those without going through you. That's just asking for trouble!

    60. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My lakefront property in Arizona has an excellent view... Why wouldn't you trust me? I'm not saying Huawei is guilty of including backdoors or being owned by the Chinese government but... security concerns would go way deeper and wider than such simple minded direct questions.

    61. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Ah the "economist". No thanks, I don't like their brand of propaganda at all.

      Huawei is a spook shop run by Chinese spies, and this is common knowledge.

    62. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's always the racists that are quick to trot out racism as the driving force behind everything.

      So say the lying racists who want to hide their racism. Why else do white people in France and the US get different treatment than the Chinese?

    63. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And keep in mind, the competitors are leveraging Indian and Chinese design firms heavily, but even as such, they can't compete with Huawei. As far as all accountants I’ve talked to can tell, the company must be bleeding money at an incredible rate as they seem to sell all equipment at a loss not considering the specialty design they’re doing, yet somehow, they manage to stay in business.

      I keep hearing that. China sells solar panels lower than I could make them, so it must be an evil plot. But it's not. It's just them playing with the market the same way thousands of US companies have for hundreds of years. If they are selling below cost, then our proper response should be "buy more" not blocking them. But we act irrationally. Why?

      I could go into their interviewing process and how it feels more like they're trying to get free consulting, as they never hire anybody, but ask questions which aren't appropriate for an interview,

      They ask questions like "how does Ericsson implement XXX feature?" In the US, that would be more appropriate than "what do you do in your free time?"

      they have offices near every office of all of their competitors, and this is no joke, I was working for Ericsson, there was an Alcatel-Lucent office some 80 miles away, and Huawei had offices not 10 miles from EACH of those offices. Why do they have two offices that close to each other?

      The reason for that is simple. People travel to visit those offices. So they have offices close to competitors so if someone says "I'll be at Ericsson Tuesday" they can have a same-day meeting with them, without much trouble. Have you never been to a mall in the US? Anywhere with multiple cell phone company coverage, and if any company opens a store in a mall, the competitors all open a store in the same mall. I've even seen new stores go into a mall across the street from an existing store. OMG, AT&T and Sprint must be planning on nuking India!!!!!!

    64. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, because the US is the only one confirmed to have committed such acts, they'll buy from Cisco, but not Huawei. Again, the logic doesn't work.

    65. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You have no idea if there is code hidden in Chinese telecom gear. Neither does Australia or India - this is why they don't trust it.

      You have no idea if there is code hidden in Cisco/USA or Alcatel/France telecom gear. So why are they trusted and China isn't?

      How about this - I won't believe that Huawei, essentially a PLA front, will ever produce anything that I would be comfortable with, ever.

      Huawei is a PLA front as much as GM is a CIA front.

    66. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Then it goes on to indicate that Huawei and ZTE explicitly, while allowing all other foreign suppliers, but foreign suppliers will be under a price penalty (India will pay ~25% more for Indian gear), but Huawei is still excluded from that process.

    67. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're the same AC, who is actually also just the guy who got his ass team-raped for being a dumbass and defending a PLA backed telecom venture.

    68. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Who says I trust Cisco or Alcatel gear?

      And, please tell me the names of the GM execs and major shareholders who admit to being in the CIA. If you can't, then your statement is not credible, as Huawei is actually headed by current ChiCom military.

    69. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I think they'd be foolish to buy from Cisco. They really should make something domestically.

      That said, India is far more likely to end up in hostilities with China than the US. They do share a border, and I believe they occasionally end up in skirmishes over it.

    70. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Who says I trust Cisco or Alcatel gear?

      India and Australia have issued blocks against buying Huawei and ZTE. They have not issued any such blocks against Cisco or Alcatel.

    71. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But the issues were the same with Australia the had no such actual security issues. I've stated elsewhere that India has more of a reason for political reasons to not buy Chinese, but off US and Australian reports to do so is silly.

    72. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised the indian government isn't choosing to distrust western closed hardware as well.

      They don't trust western hardware... RTFA ;) all hardware must come from locally produced and approved vendors.

    73. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      But the issues were the same with Australia the had no such actual security issues. I've stated elsewhere that India has more of a reason for political reasons to not buy Chinese, but off US and Australian reports to do so is silly.

      I'm having difficulty parsing that. However, generally speaking it is wiser to buy products from countries that you're allied with than from those you get into spats with, if you don't want to risk sabotage.

      I'm perfectly willing to accept that the Chinese may have never used their position as a supplier to sabotage them yet, but that isn't a reason to trust them. I'd be paranoid and not trust my allies either, but if you have to pick somebody to trust better it be an ally.

    74. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Australia does more trade with China than the US. That makes them greater economic allies with China than the US. Though, as I said, India having a political problem with China is understandable, as they are currently in an undeclared war.

    75. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      says the rabbit with a rocket up its ass.

      I do value first ass experience such as yours though.

    76. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      You said "you," and decided to make this about my preferences. It just shows that you are desperate to deflect the issue at hand.

    77. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You said "you", so I responded with similar wording. If you have no stake in the matter, why are you defending Indian and Australia so vehemently?

    78. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      If you have no stake in the matter you wouldn't be on Slashdot attempting to polish China's image every time something like this comes up, nor would you be attempting to muddy the waters and poison the well by suggesting that it is because of racism.

      I support India and Australia because they are not oppressive combloc states, and they have no business putting Chinese military-grade spyware into their infrastructure.

    79. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      I'm just trying to tell the truth to balance all the racists on Slashdot.

      I support India and Australia because they are not oppressive combloc states, and they have no business putting Chinese military-grade spyware into their infrastructure.

      Why not buy Chinese. Their quality is so good that they can hide spyware in devices subject to intense investigation and millions of dollars of inspection. No spyware has ever been found. The US is the only country that has deliberately engaged in public malware attacks on other countries, so India and Australia should be more worried about the US than China.

      The only objections to that I've seen here are "but they aren't like us, so we must hate them".

    80. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      No, you've had all the objections clearly explained to you. People object to putting hardware produced by a foreign military contractor into their critical communications infrastructure, and that there has been no spyware found on the devices doesn't prove it's not there.

      The idea that this is somehow racism or bigotry doesn't fly, and advancing this argument makes one look rather suspicious.

    81. Re:Tinfoil Hats? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      People object to putting hardware produced by a foreign military contractor into their critical communications infrastructure, and that there has been no spyware found on the devices doesn't prove it's not there.

      Cisco is a "foreign" military contractor" to Australia and India. Nope, every argument comes down to "I hate China".

  3. It's safe to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That a large shout goes out to China saying "We dont Trust you" from the rest of the world.

    Yet the rest of the world still insists on using the large, cheap, suicidal and robotic workforce of China to produce it's consumer goods!

    Just wait until the Water Cooler starts listening in on your breaktime chats about the latest developments in secret tech.... ;)

    1. Re:It's safe to say... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Well sure, but its pretty easy to get your routers and network gear to phone home. Its going to be harder get someone to plug a network cable into the water cooler, or enter the wifi password. Well.. until watercoolers have apps of course.

    2. Re:It's safe to say... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yet the rest of the world still insists on using the large, cheap, suicidal and robotic workforce of China to produce it's consumer goods!

      Suicide rate is higher in the US than in a Foxconn factory.

    3. Re:It's safe to say... by c0lo · · Score: 0

      Well sure, but its pretty easy to get your routers and network gear to phone home. Its going to be harder get someone to plug a network cable into the water cooler, or enter the wifi password. Well.. until watercoolers have apps of course.

      You still using a water cooler? I hear that there's an app for that: it extends the coolness of an iPhone to the water.
      They even plan to make iPhone bigger (or was it to make iPad smaller?), so that the app could be used more efficiently against AGW.

      (ducks)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:It's safe to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the murder rate, And the teen pregnancy rate....

    5. Re:It's safe to say... by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Google beat them to it with GoogleTap, but the water is lukewarm and it only works about half the time. Even when it works, the water comes out slowly and jerkily.

    6. Re:It's safe to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which shout is that? The world, as in THE PEOPLE, are still buying phones, routers, modems, etc. from ZTE and Huawei. The world trusts China just fine, justified or not. Governments on the other hand are just protecting their masters, the local corporations. Nothing new to see here really.

    7. Re:It's safe to say... by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      The people where? I have literally never seen a Huawei or ZTE device in real life.

    8. Re:It's safe to say... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      I hear the amount of shirts at 1 Wal-Mart is higher than how many shirts are in my closet too.

      "rate" means # per person. Try to think before you post next time.

    9. Re:It's safe to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he means rate per capita.
      Also foxcom factories are like towns, people live there. When someone jumps of their apartment block this suicide is added to the suicide rate of the foxcom factory.

      And yes the suicide rate in a foxcom town is lower than in the rest of china and most towns in the U.S..

    10. Re:It's safe to say... by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 2

      Ever seen one of those little 3G dongles? Chances are one of those was a Huawei..

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    11. Re:It's safe to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try leaving ur moms basement, 'doctor'

    12. Re:It's safe to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably because they at least have jobs at the Foxconn factory...

    13. Re:It's safe to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My Chinese made IP cams have a built-in link to the factory. They apparently can log in remotely if you call the help desk too!
      I figured out the IP range of the company in China and black-holed it on my router. I don't need THAT kind of tech support.

    14. Re:It's safe to say... by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Suicide rate is higher in the US than in a Foxconn factory.

      Who has time to commit suicide?

    15. Re:It's safe to say... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Human interaction, you are an AC, not a human, so I fail to see the issue. If you didn't want to be made fun of, you shouldn't have revealed your stupidity in a public forum.

  4. Components & software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did the govt also consider components(chips, circuitry, software) in locally sourced hardware also are not made outside India or are open-source. India does not have expertise in chip manufacturing except potato chips.

    1. Re:Components & software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, and they wonder why their jobs are moving to India! Ignorance is something you need to cure yourself of, or soon you will be completely redundant.

  5. Above and beyond the two companies, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the department went all-in and has barred international companies including Ericsson, Nokia Siemens Networks, and Alcatel Lucent.

  6. idk.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Donde cenizas quedan fuego hubo

  7. if you can do the work at home, do it by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I support that.

    I think the US should try to get its key tech from local companies, too. and their suppliers and their suppliers.

    we are *too* globalized. somehow, we went too far in that direction and people are just mindlessly forging forever forward and not stopping to think.

    countries are not permanent friends. its unwise to be too global.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:if you can do the work at home, do it by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I rather like the idea of interdependence growing to the point where countries simply can't afford to have wars with one another, myself.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:if you can do the work at home, do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > countries are not permanent friends. its unwise to be too global.

      Some believe that one of the intentions of global trade and international relations as they are is to ensure that countries ARE permanent friends... because it would be too costly economically to go to war. Not just the cost of bomb, but the inability to make bombs without your trade partners.

    3. Re:if you can do the work at home, do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the idea, but what happens when some countries that are off the 'grid', or have little to no natural resources? How do we stop scenarios where the populace often blames the western/global world for their local exploitation?

      I don't know the answers just that these are the questions that come to mind.

    4. Re:if you can do the work at home, do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most insightful comment on slashdot. This also explains why USA tightened its borders so much after 9/11 and continues to create a gap between it and the rest of the world: it's much easier for them to make war.

    5. Re:if you can do the work at home, do it by iserlohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This was exactly the same argument made on the eve of WWI, that the world economy was too interdependent for war to be waged between the major powers. What happened afterwards is history.

      My own take is that the nuclear deterrent is much more potent than any economic deterrent.

    6. Re:if you can do the work at home, do it by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I like the idea, too.

      but I don't think its realistic to ever have it happen.

      even small bunches of people eventually fight with each other. you expect the world to stay peaceful or even get peaceful and hold it for any length of time?

      you are not describing life on earth. some other species and planet, maybe, but not earth.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:if you can do the work at home, do it by Clsid · · Score: 1

      Somebody said on this site that when people and goods stop crossing borders is when tanks and soldiers start to march in.

    8. Re:if you can do the work at home, do it by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      nuclear deterrent doesn't work on proxy wars. See: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (80s)

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    9. Re:if you can do the work at home, do it by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      This was exactly the same argument made on the eve of WWI, that the world economy was too interdependent for war to be waged between the major powers. What happened afterwards is history.

      In all my studying of WWI I've never heard that brought up. The closest thing I've heard to that was that every major head of Europe was Queen Victoria's grandkid (or grandkid-in-law).

    10. Re:if you can do the work at home, do it by airdweller · · Score: 1

      The parent probably referred to Norman Angell's The Great Illusion.

    11. Re:if you can do the work at home, do it by milkasing · · Score: 1

      Or even overt wars (India-Pakistan Kargil - 1999 ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_Warrel=url2html-29072http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War> ) The theory that Nuclear deterrence prevents wars is a one.

  8. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "In an internal memo, the research body advised the department that both these Chinese companies are a security threat to the telecom world"

    You mean becoming completely dependent on another country, a specific company, etc. for resources, especially defense critical resources, can be a 'security threat'? Really?

    No shit. I know I left that clue bat laying around here somewhe....

  9. When government hands out money by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0

    They want it to be spent locally, where the voters live.

  10. Easy by mnajem · · Score: 0

    Set up an Indian company, reassemble China made product, and claim made in Indian and sell it to the government Dead simple.

    1. Re:Easy by jiggs · · Score: 1

      exactly what will happen. infact even the software will be packed as is without even testing. this is the case with all the indian handset manufactures who sell samsung salaxy s2 or higher spec android phones and tabs at 1/5 of the cost.

  11. Why stop at this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole fucking outsourcing is National Security threat. American's should stop that.
    And Americans? They infected Indian land with Parthenium hysterophorus. They can not be trusted.
    And Chinese? No one trusts them anyway.

    I think its good for man kind to go back to strict national boundaries. No outside import/export. Less interaction, less friction.

    1. Re:Why stop at this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K.
      Guess we should start by turning this Internet thing off. Stupid foreigners ruined it anyways.

  12. So hardware OK, what about software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do these guys still use windoze?

  13. Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese won't care. They don't need infrastructure access when the individual users are using ZTE/Huawei equipments (phones, ADSL modems, etc.) themselves.

  14. So which are the Indian Networking companies? by unixisc · · Score: 2

    So who are the Indian equivalents of Cisco, Avaya, Juniper, Brocade, et al? Yeah, they do have domestic Telecom companies like Airtel, Reliance Communications, but others? Only one I can think of is iBaton (Apple hasn't sued them for using I before the product name) which makes networking equipment like switches & routers. Otherwise, everything there is the usual DLink, Linksys, Cisco and so on.

    It makes more sense if the Indians were to just ban Chinese companies, like Huawei and ZTE from the action

    1. Re:So which are the Indian Networking companies? by jiggs · · Score: 2

      companies like airtel will use its hardware subsidaries like beetel(sp not just the unknown iBaton) or other indian manufacturere(rather import and relabelers) will import the same huwaei or ZTE spec devices manufactured in taiwan or indirectly in china and sell it. so govt here just helps the indian middle men if not manufacturing.
      BTW the software for cisco to juniper et all are developed here in india and the hw made in china. so big deal its quite the same for american companies as well

    2. Re:So which are the Indian Networking companies? by williamyf · · Score: 1

      So who are the Indian equivalents of Cisco, Avaya, Juniper, Brocade, et al? Yeah, they do have domestic Telecom companies like Airtel, Reliance Communications, but others?

      Of the back of my head, I can recall Tejas Semiconductor. There are others, google should serve you well.

      --
      *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    3. Re:So which are the Indian Networking companies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean this stuff?"

  15. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NOFN project is to be NOFORN? Hahahahahah... sorry, couldn't help myself.

  16. It is only fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US sold photocopiers to the Russian government and were recording every document during the cold war. Why wouldn't China do the same with cellphones and networks? I am actualy more concerend about Google then any particular country. They have little trackers everywhere and collect "anonymous" data from cellphones for traffic maps. I bet they could pin point when you are at your computer based on your browsing profile. Imagine sending a friendly bomb locked on to an internet or cell connection.

    Google bad!

    Oh and a few years ago they blocked all Muslim you tube videos in Canada. :) Thank god for the onion and live leak. Without them I would never get to the real source of the story.

  17. The consequense of corporate soverignty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When manufacturing equipment in China, India, Eastern Europe and Russia, it's modus operandi to place backdoors in hardware and software to ensure payment is received. If you think your nascent wall street investor or American Corporate Executive has anything on what these guys try to pull off on a daily basis, think again. Government corruption overseas is easily a hundred times worse than it is here.

    It's almost of absolute certainty the backdoors placed in Huewei's and ZTE's kit was placed there by contract submanufacturers. It takes a government like China to view that as a value added feature and push for deployment in overseas systems. In all likelihood nobody knew about it except for the Chinese Government who's cybercorps actively search out and catalog such exploits.

    The difference with American companies is they know they will be held responsible for any intentionally installed back-doors in a court of law should shazbot really hit the fan. The Sony Rootkit Fiasco resulted in a class action lawsuit which while itself is a joke, did get them on the short list of hactivist groups and the Sony Playstation Network being down for near 2 months really trashed the console. Although one can say Sony had it coming; the original playstation was designed as an add-on to the original SNES and Sony ganked it and all the rights and entered the market with it nearly killing Nintendo at the time. Due to that and other reasons, The company is now circling the bowl.

  18. Just hire their engineers! by Dorianny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even without backdoors or intentional bugs that can be exploited to gain access, Huawei engineers hired/coerced by the government would be very useful in finding exploits in Huawei products.

  19. Not good enough by Su27K · · Score: 1

    Source code is only useful if you can be certain that the compiled code comes from the source code you reviewed, similarly design diagram is only useful if you are certain the actual hardware follows the diagram given to you; and this will need to be checked for every unit you bought.

    1. Re:Not good enough by CBravo · · Score: 1

      What I was refering to was the Chinese govt, not the buyers. All they need is a complete view of the system. All they need is one fatal bug.

      --
      nosig today
  20. India joins the US by tyrione · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It isn't a coincidence that India agrees with the US on building out by using local talent. Europe will follow suit in each nation state, and South America will do the same. China's stranglehold on cheap materials/labor is no longer the driving factor in manufacturing. The top manufacturers in China are working on investing in foreign lands to avoid losing their present contracts. Over time, they'll lose them. It's an economic/intelligence/political trifecta approach to breaking China's dominance on flooding world markets and thus driving down competiting economies. In short, US, Euro and other nation states corporations realize that game is up. They know the import/export tariff imbalance days are over.

    1. Re:India joins the US by Kplx138 · · Score: 1

      I feel like china was never meant to be successful, forever as cheap labor for western corporations, oh yeah some of the people will be successful and they'll buy western goods but they're not supposed to be able to compete with us, that's not what free trade is about. I guess we'll have to invade them and bomb them back to the Stone Age so they'll be the impoverished third world labor they were always meant to be.

    2. Re:India joins the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      Because we've been influencing their policies for the last 4 thousand years...

      Hint: stop feeling and start thinking.

    3. Re:India joins the US by Clsid · · Score: 1

      The problem with your rationale is that the vast majority of the world is neither the US or Western Europe. And it's precisely there where the Chinese excel. I suggest you read http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/09/23/Europe-The-Strings-Attached-to-a-Chinese-Bailout.aspx#page1 to get a better picture of what's coming. Some countries are investing their foreign reserves in yuans, the Chinese offering money to Europe with some conditions (kind of like the World Bank, IMF), and the truth is, as we all know whoever has the most money will likely end up ruling.

      And all of this happens while we over here complain that Chinese workers are slaves, and when you ask such "slaves" about their condition they just say that people in the West are just lazy and have too many holidays.

  21. Spy vs Spy by Dorianny · · Score: 3, Informative

    We hear national security and we all start thinking espionage and conspiracy theories. Truth is that economic losses can be just as devastating. All that expensive equipment needs regular servicing to function properly. All China would have to do is bar Huawei from offering its services in India and all that vital equipment is rather quickly going to turn into very expensive junk, leading to downtime and huge losses for whatever services rely on them. In its current spat with Japan, China proved more than willing to use economic warfare in disputes.

    1. Re:Spy vs Spy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In its current spat with Japan, China proved more than willing to use economic warfare in disputes.

      Oh? Interesting. Any articles about that?

    2. Re:Spy vs Spy by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      Google: China "rare earths" Japan? You might even restrict the search to "site:slashdot.org", and you'll still get a number of relevant hits.

    3. Re:Spy vs Spy by Clsid · · Score: 1

      It's more about people boycotting Japanese products, than the government blocking Japanese imports. Japan and China have a troublesome history, especially after World War 2, so any sovereignty issues will flare up in the same fashion.

      http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2012-11/20/content_15946209.htm

  22. Well, since the USA has done it for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see why they are worried about it.

    The only problem is why didn't they see the problem when the USA were selling kit to everyone (with deliberate holes in it)?

    Surely, too, India should be forbidding Microsoft Windows, right?

    Or is that going to have them invaded for Un-American Activities?

    1. Re:Well, since the USA has done it for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll probably do what every other Western country does, perform their own peer review of the Windows source code and compile it themselves.

      Yes, really.

  23. Testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any competent buyer large enough can TEST the equipment, set a honeypot(s) and feed it replayed information.
    You log the PSW and logic outputs. If they can't diss-assemble the code or do machine code, then they are not competent.
    You can use open source to log and record events.
    Otherwise core competency has been lost and they are just cargo cult administrators and drones.

    The only threat is that the devices wipe their memory(self destruct) and become bricks (sony and apple know about that).
    For a cheap labor country, overcome by having the basics to re-flash.

    If they dont know software, dont have software test engineers worth tuppence, and don't know hardware at the component level, then yes, they will have to both trust another foreign power AND hope another foreign power is not sitting on many zero day exploits.

    While hardware and router is a biggish deal, you have to balance risk - what if MS OS went down too. Why worry about routers when farms and boxes can be 'owned' .

    Throw in some big brand high end stuff and you have no single point of failure.

  24. AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The difference with American companies is they know they will be held responsible for any intentionally installed back-doors in a court of law should shazbot really hit the fan"

    AT&T.

    Nuff said.

    (Sony made billions on their rootkit and paid millions in fines. Hell, Jammie Thomas was put up for a fine bigger than they were for only 22 tracks! So your example is complete bollocks too.)

  25. Pot meet kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IDK what the big deal is. USA does the same thing. Case in point: A few years ago someone involved in our country's military aviation told that they could not even use electric wiring from the USA to build their aircraft, due to inclusion of some "bugs" that would enable tracking of aircraft even when radar is down or stealth tech is employed (I'm necessarily vague here). Don't know how much more lowtech one want's to go than copper wire.

    1. Re:Pot meet kettle by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

      I have to call BS on this one. Wiring by itself is not an active component. So, one could cause copper wire to act like an antenna by intentionally compromising the shielding, but that's it (short of including digital components in the connectors or something, but they would still need power from somewhere. Anyway I don't consider that a 'bug'). So, assuming you compromised the shielding, if the signal being transmitted through the wire was of sufficient power and high enough frequency, then it would leak enough EMF to be detectable from the outside. However, that is practically useless as a tool for espionage or sabotage. Any aerospace manufacturer worth a dime is going to have specifications on wires that require proper shielding and will test wires from their suppliers to ensure that they meet this specification. I think your "friend" was making stuff up or has too much tinfoil hat in his nature.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  26. Nationalism is Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is, until Americans wants something Made in the USA again. That kind of Nationalism is RACIST!

  27. Force Chinese to teach them ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    India needs to
    * force the Chinese to build the components inside India
    * limit the contract to 5 yrs
    * send them packing after Indian skills can handle the work

    Just like the Chinese do to western companies bidding on contracts inside China. Ask Siemens, GE, Microsoft, Apple, Intel, etc.....

  28. big talk, small penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a number of posters have indicated, this is all smoke and mirror for effect.
    India simply cannot manufacture it's own hardware (some would contend this even extends to software).
    Everything will go through some Indian sub that farms contracts back to Huawei, ZTE, ...who ever pays the most bribe.

  29. Why highlight Chinese companies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article, it seems all foreign companies, including companies in US and European, are excluded from the project.

  30. My guess as to what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's much simpler than the security angle.
    The decision makers got paid off by a local giant, who wanted to bar Chinese competition.
    The Chinese competitors were disbarred on 'security concerns'

  31. Perception is all that counts by Omniskio · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter whether or not there IS a backdoor. All that matters is that their MIGHT be a backdoor.

  32. Summary by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    Indian Dept of Telecom: We're banning Huawei on hearing reports of security concerns by the US and Australia.

    US House Intelligence Committee: We're banning Huawei on hearing reports of security concerns by India and Australia.

    Australian Security Intelligence Organization: We're banning Huawei on hearing reports of security concerns by the US and India.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog