Slashdot Mirror


Cisco Complains To Obama About NSA Adding Spyware To Routers

pdclarry (175918) writes "Glenn Greenwald's book No Place to Hide reveals that the NSA intercepts shipments of networking gear destined for overseas and adds spyware. Cisco has responded by asking the President to intervene and stop this practice, as it has severely hurt their non-U.S. business, with shipments to other countries falling from 7% for emerging countries to over 25% for Brazil and Russia."

297 comments

  1. The GOP are going to have a meltdown by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They've got to choose between the "free market" and corporate profits and their aspirations to be big brother.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:The GOP are going to have a meltdown by hsmith · · Score: 1, Informative

      I am unsure if you realize this, but for the last 6 years Obama has been President, with the democrats owning the Senate since well before that.

      The biggest people complaining about this seem to be Rand Paul and sadly only a few others. Meanwhile the stupid and annoying cunts Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi circle jerk around how we need this surveillance state.

    2. Re:The GOP are going to have a meltdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've got to choose between the "free market" and corporate profits and their aspirations to be big brother.

      You do you know that these big brother programs have grown by leaps and bounds under the current non-GOP administration right????

    3. Re:The GOP are going to have a meltdown by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am unsure if you realize this, but for the last 6 years Obama has been President, with the democrats owning the Senate since well before that. The biggest people complaining about this seem to be Rand Paul and sadly only a few others. Meanwhile the stupid and annoying cunts Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi circle jerk around how we need this surveillance state.

      I am unsure if you realize this but even the Republican mainstream will not fight too hard to get rid of Big Brother.

      Government whores just want more government power over the people. Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this shit.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:The GOP are going to have a meltdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by hsmith (818216)
      Meanwhile the stupid and annoying cunts ...

      How did a 13-year old get a relatively low userid like that?
       

    5. Re: The GOP are going to have a meltdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What mental gymnastics did you go through to spin something terrible Obama is doing into hypothetically something the Republicans might do?

    6. Re: The GOP are going to have a meltdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put this on the GOP is so hilarious. The Dems have had the Whitehouse and the Senate for the last six plus years. The only meltdown is going to be the internet trollish commenters who blame the GOP, who are over six years from the Whitehouse. If the NSA is installing spyware in the hardware, it only come to light recently.

  2. Hey Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    We dunno pay taxes but plz help us make more money.

    1. Re:Hey Obama by CreatureComfort · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Troll.

      You understand the complaint is that they BOUGHT the congress, so they could have the tax code changed so they could legally shift their share of tax responsibility to others? So, while yes you are technically correct, you, and they, are so morally bankrupt I can't understand how you can live with yourself.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    2. Re:Hey Obama by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Considering that the article you're referring to doesn't even IMPLY that they "bought" Congress, merely that they would like Congress to do them a favour....

      Note that if they'd "bought" Congress, they'd not be having to publicly ASK for a tax holiday - they could just quietly get the tax holiday inserted into some completely unrelated bill so noone would notice.

      Note also that the laws you seem to think they "bought" actually predate the existence of Cisco (actually, they predate the computer industry), so the notion that Cisco "bought Congress off" decades before Cisco was even formed is...interesting. Stupid, but interesting.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Hey Obama by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      you, and they, are so morally bankrupt I can't understand how you can live with yourself.

      I suspect that their moral bankruptcy has a lot to do with enabling them to live with their moral bankruptcy. It's a self-justifying sort of thing.

    4. Re:Hey Obama by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Informative

      they BOUGHT the congress, so they could have the tax code changed so they could legally shift their share of tax responsibility to others?

      Except that is not what happened. America is the only country in the world that taxes extraterritorial income, payable upon repatriation of the profits. Corporations have been lobbying for years to have this changed, rightfully pointing out that it pushes both profits and jobs overseas while collecting very little tax revenue. If we made some sensible reforms, the corporate tax rates would be lower, but amount actually collected would be higher. Cisco, along with many other corporations, support these reforms. But, in the meantime, it is silly to criticize them for following the current rules. The current idiotic tax regime is due to dysfunctional politics, not "corporate lobbying".

    5. Re:Hey Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not silly to complain about an entity using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. Complaining about such is as much a time-honored tradition of the proletariat as executing such is of the bourgeoisie.

    6. Re:Hey Obama by kick6 · · Score: 1

      You understand the complaint is that they BOUGHT the congress, so they could have the tax code changed so they could legally shift their share of tax responsibility to others? So, while yes you are technically correct, you, and they, are so morally bankrupt I can't understand how you can live with yourself.

      Oh snap, moral bankruptcy. Go for the throat! Except for the fact that neither taxation nor bankruptcy have anything to do with morality. Nor is morality universal should you decide that paying taxes are part of your morality. Thusly, your call to moral superiority, basically just makes you look like a crazed liberal going super-saiyan in order to hide the fact that their arguments have zero basis in logic or reality. You're much more comfortable derailing a debate, and forcing conservatives to defend their morality instead of the issue at hand.

      Congratulations on being a stereotypical mouthpiece for stupid liberal soundbites, and being a party to the destruction of the western way of life.

    7. Re:Hey Obama by Ramirozz · · Score: 1

      As if buying the congress will be implied or even mentioned. You are also assuming that self harming their businesses is a dumb thing to do as if doing businesses today (mixed with politics) is a sustainable game. It is not. It never was.

      --
      http://www.quasarcr.com/
    8. Re:Hey Obama by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You understand the complaint is that they BOUGHT the congress, so they could have the tax code changed so they could legally shift their share of tax responsibility to others? So, while yes you are technically correct, you, and they, are so morally bankrupt I can't understand how you can live with yourself.

      What actions are you taking to remove this kind of power from Congress?

      Just since we're having a "no you're the hypocrite'" thread and all...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:Hey Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is complete bullshit.

    10. Re:Hey Obama by HiThere · · Score: 1

      What actions do you propose as feasible? Few people want to go underground....it leads to a "Mikado" interpretaion of underground.

      (See "I've got a little list" in G&S Mikado:
      As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
              Iâ(TM)ve got a little listâ"Iâ(TM)ve got a little list
      Of some modern-day offenders who might well be underground,
              And who never would be missedâ"who never would be missed!
      )

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re:Hey Obama by Znork · · Score: 1

      The default for pretty much all states is to tax extraterritorial incomes. Some countries have treaties specifically for personal income that exempts workers employed in a different country from double taxation. I have never heard of any non-tax shelter country allowing repatriation of tax-evaded profits once they're finished with the picking and choosing where to claim the profit 'happened'.

      And no, the accountant and the janitor at the Caymans office does not count as significant amounts of 'jobs pushed overseas'. Nor will lowering corporate tax rates increase collection as the tax rate achievable through these arrangements is zero which means that any non-zero tax rate still will not result in profits being taken anywhere but in the tax shelter.

      At least the double Irish may be getting fixed, but frankly, barring legislation that creates a significant risk for accountants, CFOs and CEOs of actually landing in jail permanently for tax evasion, it will probably be followed by some new structure followed by whining about untaxed profits being stuck in some other place they decided to put them in.

    12. Re:Hey Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post gems like that logged in next time and you'll get some mod points. I'm just gonna use the one I'd give you to shut FuckYouBill up. I hate that guy. He is without morals- at least ones most people would find acceptable.

    13. Re:Hey Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The default for pretty much all states is to tax extraterritorial incomes. Some countries have treaties specifically for personal income that exempts workers employed in a different country from double taxation.

      Apples and oranges.

      Most states tax income that their residents earn, regardless of where that source was. (That's taxation of extraterritorial income, and that's normal.)

      The United States is the only country (with the exception of Eritrea) that taxes non-residents. (That's citizenship-based taxation, and it's an abomination. The US citizen, working abroad, is still required to file US taxes, and there is often no way to find competent accounting services. These services must still be hired at considerable personal expense and a return filed even if no tax is ultimately owed to the US.)

      It is the taxation of non-residents that's the injustice here. If you don't live in a country, regardless of your citizenship, you aren't using the services of its government, and you ought not to need to file taxes.

    14. Re:Hey Obama by Znork · · Score: 1

      Yes, apples and oranges in that personal taxation is really beside the point here, the main point is corporate taxation.

      But no, the US isn't that unique in taxing non-residents, most countries seem to. I have several friends working in various European countries, and they have to file taxes both in their country of citizenship and in their country of residence. Due to the tax treaties they do not have to pay taxes on the income earned but they do have to report it, and the exemptions from taxation seems to apply only to wages.

      I'll agree that the US rules certainly seem more complex than the other examples I've seen, but it is in no way unique in taxing citizens wherever they are.

    15. Re:Hey Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your a deluded fool, many (maybe even most) countries do this. Turn off Fox and back away from the remote...

  3. Why bother with tricks? by Katatsumuri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does NSA have to do this? Can't they just order Cisco to install this in their factory?

    Or did they co-operate in this way to prevent whistle-blowing or counterintelligence at the factory?

    In any case, I doubt Cisco didn't know about this. They are probably trying to save their face after a third party uncovered this.

    1. Re:Why bother with tricks? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why does NSA have to do this? Can't they just order Cisco to install this in their factory?

      Actually, no. They can ASK Cisco to do this, but they have no legal power to order them to do this.

      Now, they may quietly PRETEND they have the legal power to order this, and phrase their request as an order. But they really can't do much if Cisco ignores them.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Tha_Zanthrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cisco knew, they even had a 'choice' in the matter: cooperate with the government and keep your mouth shut about it or get your business ruined by that same government.

    3. Re:Why bother with tricks? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Why does NSA have to do this? Can't they just order Cisco to install this in their factory?

      Not if the factory is in China.

    4. Re:Why bother with tricks? by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does NSA have to do this? Can't they just order Cisco to install this in their factory?

      Why risk someone at Cisco running to the press? Best to keep them out of the loop.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    5. Re:Why bother with tricks? by tuxut · · Score: 2

      Then you probably haven't read The Patriot Act.

    6. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does NSA have to do this? Can't they just order Cisco to install this in their factory?

      Actually, no. They can ASK Cisco to do this, but they have no legal power to order them to do this.

      Now, they may quietly PRETEND they have the legal power to order this, and phrase their request as an order. But they really can't do much if Cisco ignores them.

      Except, you know, throw them in prison without a trial.
      An agency with no oversight, who's "requests" cannot be questioned openly without charges of treason, has the power to do anything they want to anyone they want.

    7. Re:Why bother with tricks? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What in the patriot act gives them this power?

    8. Re:Why bother with tricks? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An agency with no oversight, who's "requests" cannot be questioned openly without charges of treason, has the power to do anything they want to anyone they want.

      Several things:

      1) "whose". Illiteracy doesn't actually make your arguments better.

      2) Treason is defined by the Constitution. Article 3, Section 3. Learn it, love it, live it. There's a reason why people don't get charged with treason all that often. Note that Snowden did NOT get charged with treason. Do you really think anyone at Cisco can be charged with treason if they can't charge Snowden with it?

      3) thank you for agreeing with me. They have no legal power to do so, though they can PRETEND they do by phrasing requests as orders. Alas, ignoring them doesn't actually get you in trouble.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:Why bother with tricks? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes "Best to keep them out of the loop." is very much needed from the NSA perspective.
      The outrage from investors, institutional investors, trust funds, technical staff, political leaders, ex staff, the legal teams has to be 100% real.
      The "Never believe in anything until it has been officially denied" has to look and sound real every decade.
      The academics have to stay tame, the political leaders have to legally make been a whistleblower in the US difficult, the end users stay unaware....
      Once the trick is out that long term consumer turns into a new customer for any other brand.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    10. Re:Why bother with tricks? by symbolset · · Score: 2

      What they do is use their total information awareness to find some excuse to put the executives in prison for a completely different reason. The difference matters little to the executive.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    11. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Lesrahpem · · Score: 1

      Now, they may quietly PRETEND they have the legal power to order this, and phrase their request as an order. But they really can't do much if Cisco ignores them.

      That is like saying the mafia may quietly pretend to have the power to shut down your business if you don't do what they want. While the NSA may not have the authority, on paper, they certainly have the ability to press the issue by "extralegal" means and have verifiably done so in the past.

    12. Re:Why bother with tricks? by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it weren't for Edward Snowden, Cisco would have never been able to complain--because no one would have ever known it was happening. Keep in mind that the NSA had been doing this kind of stuff for OVER 10 YEARS without a significant leak. So you can't blame them for functioning under the assumption that neither Cisco nor anyone else was ever going to know it was happening (until about 75 years from now, when it's finally declassified).

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    13. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While true, they can PRETEND in such a fashion that it will ruin your life: insert your name on the no-fly list; flag your name in various multi-agency databases, preventing you from maintaining the clearance necessary to work on government contracts, and turning any routine traffic stop into a ride to jail for a twenty-four hour hold; freeze your assets as part of an investigation into accusations, the specifics of which you have no right to know; etc.

      So, no, they have no legal authority to force you to comply, but they do have means at their disposal to make you wish you had. Your local Sheriff has most of these powers, so don't try to pretend that the NSA is so inept that they couldn't pull it off.

    14. Re: Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Letters words and sentences

    15. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of Qwest, the one major communications provider to tell the NSA to take a hike and suddenly they are under investigation by the SEC and most of their government contracts vanish. "Ask" seems to be a euphemism for "do it or we'll break your legs & empty your bank accounts".

    16. Re:Why bother with tricks? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Informative

      What in the patriot act gives them this power?

      You don't need the power officially. They have ways of getting what they want.

      [Quest's CEO] says he refused to cooperate based on advice from his lawyers that such an action would be illegal, as the NSA would not go through the normal process of asking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a subpoena. About this time, he says the company’s ability to win unrelated government contracts - something it did not have trouble with before the NSA meeting - slowed significantly.

      And here

      I'm not saying anything in particular about Cisco's vulnerability to pressure from the NSA. I'm just saying they don't necessarily need explicit legal power to get what they want.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    17. Re:Why bother with tricks? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What they do is use their total information awareness to find some excuse to put the executives in prison for a completely different reason. The difference matters little to the executive.

      Now, who would do such a thing?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    18. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Spamalope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not if the factory is in China.

      And now China has political cover if we notice them inserting their own changes into, say, the ethernet PHY compromising every router regardless of firmware revision. Or adds their own Stuxnet onto the support CDs included with the router.

    19. Re:Why bother with tricks? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Alas, ignoring them doesn't actually get you in trouble.

      Not explicitly, and not obviously. It will, however, probably lead to you not being invited to quote for government pork-barrel business anymore, and more than one very lengthy visit from the IRS. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not legal anymore, it only matters if you have more firepower (legal, political, or otherwise) than they do.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    20. Re:Why bother with tricks? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

      They should have known. The ideas behind Project SHAMROCK and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... should have been a hint.
      The Martin and Mitchell defection in 1960 did offer the hint 'intercepting and deciphering the secret communications of its own allies"
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      There where a few magazine and books over the 1970-80's that also offered a view of global telco reach, indexing, storage and tracking under ECHELON.
      Copper, optical it all has to move via some nations backhaul... that so cheap peering loop
      The reading back to the press of embassy traffic sent on trusted crypto should have been a hint.
      So "anyone else was ever going to know" seems to be a lot of nations where happy to see their telco systems entire output shared with 5 other nations (and a few others) for decades in some form as part of a mil deal.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    21. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Ramirozz · · Score: 1

      "Out of the poop"... oh I didn't read that right... or not?

      --
      http://www.quasarcr.com/
    22. Re:Why bother with tricks? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Alas, ignoring them doesn't actually get you in trouble.

      Yeah, right.

      Joseph Nacchio.

      Three Felonies a Day.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    23. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source?

    24. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now, they may quietly PRETEND they have the legal power to order this, and phrase their request as an order. But they really can't do much if Cisco ignores them."

      Tell that to lavabit.

      In fact it's easy for them to get a court order based on erroneous interpretations of the law and bring in the marshals if they want to go that way.

      The real reason they prefer to do it themselves is because that way fewer people know about it.

    25. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except now they cooperated with the government, kept their mouths shut AND got their business ruined.

    26. Re:Why bother with tricks? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What in the patriot act gives them this power?

      You don't need the power officially. They have ways of getting what they want.

      [Quest's CEO] says he refused to cooperate based on advice from his lawyers that such an action would be illegal, as the NSA would not go through the normal process of asking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a subpoena. About this time, he says the company’s ability to win unrelated government contracts - something it did not have trouble with before the NSA meeting - slowed significantly.

      In other words, once you start sucking on Satan's cock, you're not allowed to stop. Ever.

      There's a lesson to be learned there...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    27. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      if Cisco was honest, they would send to each customer upon registering the product a nice file that will reinstall the clean OS and eradicate the crap the NSA is doing.

      But Cisco is far from honest as a company, so they are probably whining that they are not being PAID to install the back doors.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    28. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      You cant, It's a criminal offense to actually read that part of the patriot act.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    29. Re:Why bother with tricks? by RazorSharp · · Score: 1
      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    30. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually you can, Cisco can start hiring contractor security firms and get more guns than the NSA. an NSA agent that has a M16 rifle pushed in his face by contractors and being told to "please leave the premises..... SIR!" has two options, he can leave or he can be killed in self defense.

      A large very rich corperation can get away with a hired army to protect themselves from the government.

      but that slippery slope is very steep and very very slippery.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    31. Re:Why bother with tricks? by VortexCortex · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, I might give three fucks about your pedantry if there weren't innocent folks in Gitmo who are detained without trial for years, and may never leave. "Treason", or "Terrorism" whatever. They can snatch up anyone for any reason and claim, "national security" or "state secrets".

      You're like a damn dumb BASIC prompt, balking at petty syntax errors when you could use your marvelous brain instead understand the message. What a waste of flesh.

    32. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like the mob has no legal power to demand protection money from a storefront.

    33. Re:Why bother with tricks? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      You hope it's only a firmware change. Altering hardware would be nearly impossible to detect by anybody but cisco and potentially very hard to do without destroying the part in the process.

      PS Cisco will send you the current firmware for a new product it's just a PITA if it does not have smartnet.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    34. Re:Why bother with tricks? by RazorSharp · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not legal anymore, it only matters if you have more firepower (legal, political, or otherwise) than they do.

      Anymore? This is the way it's always been. The good old Catch-22.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    35. Re:Why bother with tricks? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      1-That won't stop hardware changes. 2-If the NSA has access to the network (they do) then they can intercept your download attempt and insert their own code (again).

    36. Re:Why bother with tricks? by fredrated · · Score: 1

      He never publically advacated for it, he was publiched posthumously.

    37. Re:Why bother with tricks? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Or, he is blaming his incompetence on the government.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    38. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the Catch-22 clause.
      The Patriot Act gives them the power and right to do anything that you can't stop them from doing, or that you aren't actually aware of.

    39. Re:Why bother with tricks? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      They have no legal power? The average person commits what, 23 Felonies a day. They just pick one, make it stick, and get you to play ball. If you still refuse, well I suggest looking up what happened to Qwest's CEO when he refused to play ball.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    40. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, slippery when wet. You'd actually have to be china or india to get away with it in reality.

    41. Re:Why bother with tricks? by JWW · · Score: 2

      â¦. and no one has more firepower than they do.

    42. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but that slippery slope is very steep and very very slippery.

      We know that at the end of this are Shadowruns...

    43. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know of two corporations in the USA that the CEO has private security that is there for protection from All agents. If a LEO was to pull him over the LEO would be facing 4 very heavily armed guards coming out of the SUV following them, demanding he prove who he is and WTF he is doing. And if you think that Elon Musk will ever talk to a Cop before the cop was disarmed by security, then you are a very silly person.

    44. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does NSA have to do this? Can't they just order Cisco to install this in their factory?

      Why risk someone at Cisco running to the press? Best to keep them out of the loop.

      NSA intercepts shipments of networking gear destined for overseas and adds spyware

      Bullshit!! Cisco doesn't have to say anything to anyone about what they are doing. Unless all the employees are engineers and can quickly figure out what is going on, and when you work for these companies at certain positions your under contract to STFU over what your doing, even after your retirement. Or they can blackmail you by destroying your career should you grow balls and want to go elsewhere.

      The fact remains hardware makers are, or could be involved. If they continue to sell products with blatant security holes, that should be a dead giveaway. The industry claims thay want to stop these holes, but yet 20+ years later they still are pushing products with terrible security!

    45. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      1) Don't care. This isn't English class.
      2) Make that argument while getting tortured by the Pakistani intelligence service. I'm sure they'll be sympathetic.
      3) Oh really? And you have lots of evidence to support that? See #2 and keep in mind these very same people have sent hellfire missiles into the living-rooms of American citizens with no court oversight, no real evidence and nothing more than the order of the president. If they can murder a US citizen without a trial, forcing Cisco to install some software seems to pale in comparison.

    46. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Every day I ware a Casio F-91w watch. I don't even like watches...
      But...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

      There are at least 8 people sitting in prison right now, because they were waring this watch when captured. It's a $5 watch. I'm waring it until they're set free. It's so cheesy, I get asked about it, which gives me the opportunity to inform people just how corrupt and unjust what we're doing is.

    47. Re:Why bother with tricks? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      He's being pedantic. I often am, too, so I recognize it. And, in a pedantic sense, he's right. He probably doesn't doubt that it's only in a pedantic sense that he's right.

      You've got to deal with the fact that a lot of programmers tend to be very picky about the exact statements used. It helps them deal with compilers, but it causes trouble when they're talking with people. One doesn't get very far by telling a compiler "you know what I mean".

      That said, yeah, they can't charge you with treason...well, they CAN, but they wouldn't. That one's to easy to beat, and has a clear constitutional definition. As someone else has said, they might not charge you with anything. At one point they "suspended" Habeus Coprus. Did they ever reinstate it? If so, I didn't hear, so my guess is that they might not get around to charging you with anything for quite a long time. Quite likely years, but decades isn't beyond what's happend in history. Then they will charge you with something that is reasonably easy for them to prove (at least to the satisfaction of the court). You may be lucky and get sentenced to time already served.

      Please note that everything I've said here has precedents within US history. (Consider the internment of US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII.) If I went out side US history I could find lots worse abuse of power by "police" who had no more authorization than do current US groups....not the NSA particularly, as I'm not really familiar with their "officially given powers", but the organizations that they work with. And note that it's public knowledge that they are quite willing to redefine the meaning of words to allow them to engage in activities that have been forbidden. Consider how they've redefined torture. (Again, they is not specifically the NSA, but rather the entire cooperating "US Intelligence Agencies".)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    48. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Actually you can, Cisco can start hiring contractor security firms and get more guns than the NSA. an NSA agent that has a M16 rifle pushed in his face by contractors and being told to "please leave the premises..... SIR!" has two options, he can leave or he can be killed in self defense.

      A large very rich corperation can get away with a hired army to protect themselves from the government.

      Yeah, but lately it has proven cheaper to just rent... erm, "arrange for" the services of the government's own military to the corporation's bidding.

    49. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Let's be clear. "Power" and "legal authority" are often two very different things. Laws are for the little people to obey.

    50. Re:Why bother with tricks? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      A corupt government run amuck is just that. No patriot act needed. The comment was that patriot act authorized it- not that they are doing illegal things.

      This is important because you might as well run around jousting windmills if you are fighting the wrong cause of the problem. Blaming this behavior on the patriot act is like you going out and eating a pasta diner then breaking into someone's house with the parent bitching because you went out to diner. For all the faults there may be with you eating pasta, it misses the big point entirely.

    51. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be an expensive private army since every employee would be risking jail time for threatening a federal employee. The federal government could easily take Cisco's legs out from under them by freezing their assets undermining their ability to pay the private contractors. The only way to bypass the US banking system to make payments would be barter via cash, Bitcoins/altcoins, stock, or precious commodities such as gold coin. If they tried any of the above they would likely be in violation of IRS regulations/federal minimum wage law.

    52. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but shortly thereafter Joe Nacchio gets slapped with insider trading prosecution...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Nacchio

    53. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like him claiming we had no spy planes flying over the Soviet Union...until the Soviets produced Gary Powers...

    54. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their mouths aren't shut anymore dumbass. Learn to read. I'm guessing their running their traps now because the business got ruined. The NSA obviously doesn't keep their end of their bargains.

    55. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monsanto, and...?

    56. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    57. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every day I ware a Casio F-91w watch. I don't even like watches...
      But...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

      There are at least 8 people sitting in prison right now, because they were waring this watch when captured. It's a $5 watch. I'm waring it until they're set free. It's so cheesy, I get asked about it, which gives me the opportunity to inform people just how corrupt and unjust what we're doing is.

      I really like what you're doing here — the F-91W is not unlike a those rubber bracelets worn in support of various causes, with the F-19W representing the cause of resistance against US government tyranny (specifically, indefinite detention and other instances/types of draconian counter-terrorism overreach).

    58. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "please leave the premises..... SIR!"

      Ah, the old channeling of Nic Cage trick. I'd like to see it combined with Jedi powers.

    59. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not if it's downloaded via Tor and verified via gpg signature.

    60. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    61. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the NDAA. Yeah, the people have given up a lot of their freedoms for, supposedly, security

    62. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed!

    63. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, more guns than the US government? You don't think they'd come back with the ATF? I think....dragons be that way. Big corp doesn't complain when the US military/intelligence sectors acts as their private army, it seems.

    64. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for standing up for him. After all, we all know the only reason he took a 52 MILLION DOLLAR PROFIT, from his insider trading was because he wanted to make a stand against the NSA, right? I mean I'm pretty sure money had nothing to do with it, right? He's a helluva guy and I'm sure that on any given day you could just go to his house and slam a few beers with him. He's just a average Joe, just trying to make a little money and pay his bills.

      Now I don't want to confuse your 'facts' with the truth, but I will say point blank that I've never committed 23 felonies in a day, have you? And don't drop that conspiracy crap about how would I know since the big bad government hides the laws BS. If you haven't got the brains to know whether you''ve committed a felony, then it's time to end the discussion. Because your just bleeping shoveling too much Horsebleep to understand how bleeping stupid you sound.

      Let me clue you in. Just because he might have rightly oppossed the governments effort to spy doesn't have jacksh*t to do with the crimes he committed. Seems to me Martha Stewart did some time for 'earning' a lot less. This assw*pe is going to a place that he earned admission to, and no amount of Fox News, daily caller, drudge report or other right wing conspiracy theories are going to change that.

    65. Re:Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That YOU are going to MONITOR the legality of their transactions for both parts? Othewise, they both CAN do whatever they want to each other if you factorize OUT. I want Win 98 and modem on THESE processors, it should run SUPER GREAT despite OS limitations.

    66. Re:Why bother with tricks? by phorm · · Score: 1

      They do have the power to block Cisco from all government contracts, which is quite often what's used in cases such as these. There's also the whole adding of executives to special lists for tax audits etc
      See also Joseph Nacchio and QWest

  4. Just buy it by ketomax · · Score: 0

    Considering that this is shopping season, NSA should just buy Cisco and stop all this complaining.

  5. Hypocritical by DaMattster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find it funny how the US government accused Huawei and ZTE of building in backdoor access while engaging in the exact same practice. I don't doubt that they do, they just haven't been caught red-handed. Pun full intended. I'm guessing that even if Obama were to issue an executive order halting the process, it would be largely for show. The actions will continue under renewed secrecy.

    1. Re:Hypocritical by Scutter · · Score: 1, Informative

      The NSA has not been caught red-handed, either. The article even points out that the pictures have not been independently verified.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Hypocritical by Lumpio- · · Score: 2

      What the NSA is doing must be OK because it doesn't target the "American people". All the news and press conferences just concentrate on reassuring people that "American people" are not being spied on. It's OK to spy on people from all those foreign countries though.

    3. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It takes one to know one. The US government was afraid of that kind of thing exactly because they knew they were doing it to everybody else.

    4. Re:Hypocritical by upuv · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How do you think the NSA found the Chinese back doors?

      Kinda of a duh moment don't you think?

    5. Re:Hypocritical by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      The NSA wouldn't work with journalists / Wikileaks to redact documents obtained and delivered to them. Why would they work with similar organisations in this instance?

      At least they can't stand behind "Any disclosure puts people at risk" in this instance, unless "people" is the guy in the photo opening up Cisco kit and "in danger" means "desk duty".

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:Hypocritical by usuallylost · · Score: 0

      The accusations against Huawei and ZTE are that they have engineered back doors into every piece of equipment. Where the accusation against the NSA is that they have compromised Cisco equipment going to individual customers and suspect countries. I see a significant difference there. In the case of Huawei and ZTE it means you can pretty much never trust their gear. In the case of Cisco most of the world can trust their gear with the exception of people who are direct targets of the NSA.

    7. Re:Hypocritical by NetNed · · Score: 0, Troll

      If Glen Greenwald is involved in the story, then it's ALL for show.

    8. Re:Hypocritical by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0

      Pretty much.

      That IS, in fact, what espionage agencies are for, after all - spying on people in foreign countries.

      Oddly enough, the NSA's MANDATE is "foreign signals intelligence". Note that word "foreign" - it's important.

      Also oddly, EVERY OTHER spy agency on the planet spies on *gasp* FOREIGNERS! For values of foreigner specific to the agency in question. The French espionage apparatus does not consider Frenchmen to be "foreign", the Russian one does not consider Russians to be "foreign", etc.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:Hypocritical by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I find it funny how the US government accused Huawei and ZTE of building in backdoor access while engaging in the exact same practice.

      It's funny. I was watching the news this morning and one of the lead stories was about the arrest of a bunch of Chinese officials for "cyberspying." And the first thing that I thought when I saw that was "I wonder what the Administration is trying to hide with this stunt." So I come on Slashdot and this is the first story I see this morning. Guess I know now why those Chinese dudes got arrested.

      Smart strategy. Whenever a story breaks about YOUR cyberspying, just stage a distraction stunt to highlight OTHER COUNTRY'S cyberspying.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    10. Re:Hypocritical by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the case of Cisco most of the world can trust their gear with the exception of people who are direct targets of the NSA.

      If there is anything we have learned since the Snowden Saga started, it is that most of the world are direct targets of the NSA. That is, your post is self-nullifying and vanishes in a poof of logic.

    11. Re:Hypocritical by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      How do you think the NSA found the Chinese back doors?

      The NSA has not found any Chinese backdoors.

    12. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The NSA has not found any Chinese backdoors.

      There is a Huawei device with an alleged spyware infested chip highlighted at the Spy Museum in Washington, DC for many years now.

    13. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, not all espionage agencies are doing industrial spionage on their close allies.

      It is quite possible that China and Russia does this, but the Yanks are most *certainly* doing it.

      But ofcourse, if you are saying that the American people MANDATED it (in upper case no less) then I suppose it is all cool.

    14. Re:Hypocritical by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      The accusations against Huawei and ZTE are that they have engineered back doors into every piece of equipment. Where the accusation against the NSA is that they have compromised Cisco equipment going to individual customers and suspect countries. I see a significant difference there. In the case of Huawei and ZTE it means you can pretty much never trust their gear. In the case of Cisco most of the world can trust their gear with the exception of people who are direct targets of the NSA.

      Would someone please mod the above 'funny'. That was a joke, wasn't it?

      I'm sure, given the previous revelations about us tapping our allies' leaders phones, that most of our allies are going to be quite leery of Cisco gear for quite some time. Also, It may well be that Huawei and ZTE have back doors, but where's the evidence? I'm sure multiple parties have disassembled their code and looked, but I haven't heard any corroboration. It's not like anyone took pictures of Chinese government operatives modifying the equipment.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    15. Re:Hypocritical by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      If Glen Greenwald is involved in the story, then it's ALL for show.

      How so? Are you implying that Greenwald is a shill? Or that he's not a credible journalist? If so, how about some proof?

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    16. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Highly suspicious individuals like German goverment and industry only. Or whoever else the secret courts would like to green-light.

      Where did you read that the NSA cherrypick lucky winners anyway?

    17. Re:Hypocritical by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm glad America approves me hacking American systems and spying on American people. After all, foreigners are fair game, and Americans are foreigner to me, so...?

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

      Oddly enough, the NSA's MANDATE is "foreign signals intelligence". Note that word "foreign" - it's important.

      Also oddly, EVERY OTHER spy agency on the planet spies on *gasp* FOREIGNERS!

      For the NSA, anyone who isn't powerful isn't in the 'club', and that's foreign enough. Other spy agencies are valuable as propaganda cover though. If the NSA facilitates domestic spying by them then 'swaps' intel, both agencies claim they aren't spying on citizens! And if they pay or coerce local businesses to spy and turn over the data, why the intel is laundered so it's clean. And clean means it's ok!

    19. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO, this is actually an important shift. If they get caught again (and they will), they won't have a leg to stand on. Strange bedfellow that the best champion of of the US Constitution right now is lost tech sales.

    20. Re:Hypocritical by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I find it funny how the US government accused Huawei and ZTE of building in backdoor access while engaging in the exact same practice.

      It's not "funny", it's rational - as domestic people moved to Huawei equipment, they lost some of their ability to spy. Throw out a scare story, drive people back to the platforms with developed intercepts.

      If you have to choose between a government with police powers over your body knowing what you say in private and one half way across the world where you don't go knowing the same things, which would you choose?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    21. Re:Hypocritical by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      yeah right. having the capability to put a backdoor in one piece of equipment at the factory isn't marginally cheaper than putting it in all of them.

      From the NSA's perspective it would be more like "backdoor them all, just in case".

    22. Re:Hypocritical by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      erm. typo.
      " isn't marginally cheaper" should read "IS only marginally cheaper"

    23. Re:Hypocritical by jkrise · · Score: 0

      If the President is in control of the NSA, doesn't it follow that the NSA did this with full Presidential approval in the first place?

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    24. Re:Hypocritical by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      How this tripe got insightful i will never know.

      --
      Good-bye
    25. Re:Hypocritical by upuv · · Score: 1

      Can't help myself here. Using ridiculous reverse logic of a TV intelligence interrogator.

      So you are admitting that you are aware of Chinese back doors that are not currently known about by legitimate parties?
      Tell me what you know of these back doors.
      And tell me how we can use them.

    26. Re:Hypocritical by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      There is a Huawei device with an alleged spyware infested chip highlighted at the Spy Museum in Washington, DC for many years now.

      Alleging that there is a backdoor is different from actually finding one. Furthermore, even if a Chinese backdoor is found someday, it is highly unlikely that it will be the NSA that finds it. That is not the NSA's job. The NSA spies on people. The FBI is supposed to prevent spying on Americans.

    27. Re:Hypocritical by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If you are in control of your compiler, are you responsible for every compiler error?

      That said, he *may* have given them "full Presidential approval". We don't know either way. And it's also possible that he knew, but was being blackmailed into letting them do whatever they felt like. There are *LOTS* of possibilities.

      What's inside a black box? You can't know until you look, and then you may not be certain.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    28. Re:Hypocritical by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The NSA is also supposed to ensure that US communications are secure. They've just been ignoring that part of their job, possibly because spying gave them more power.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    29. Re:Hypocritical by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Proof is too much to ask for to justify an assertion. Evidence would be reasonable to ask for, however.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    30. Re:Hypocritical by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Proof is too much to ask for to justify an assertion. Evidence would be reasonable to ask for, however.

      You are quite correct. I played fast and loose with the English language. Thanks for calling me on it.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    31. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA has not found any Chinese backdoors.

      Have a look for presentations about Huawei security and code quality which are available on the internet. The NSA has almost certainly found plenty of back doors, they just don't know which ones are deliberate back doors and which ones are accidental fuck ups.

    32. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon asshole. Just say it. You hate the nigger. Just open your mouth and say what everyone else believes is fashionable right now: "It's all Obama's fault". Everything is Obama's fault. That goddamned Obama...

    33. Re:Hypocritical by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      ... What?

      They most certainly have, its been documented, hell regular researchers have found the back doors and published about them.

      And thats not to mention directly ripping off Cisco IOS and using it on their own hardware.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    34. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon asshole. Just say it. You hate the nigger.

      "You hate the nigger."

      Just open your mouth and say what everyone else believes is fashionable right now: "It's all Obama's fault".

      "It's all the fault of Bush, Obama, and their administrations, aided by complicity in the judicial and legislative branches."

      FTFY.

      Everything is Obama's fault.

      A lot; not all. He is a lying, right-wing authoritarian who's furthering the expansion of the surveillance/police state, after all.

      That goddamned Obama...

      Yep.

    35. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How this tripe got insightful i will never know.

      Hmm... Someone with points must have modded it up.

    36. Re:Hypocritical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Glen Greenwald is involved in the story, then it's [all] for show.

      Yup; Mr. Greenwald shows his readers Pulitzer prize-winning truths, whereas with most news outlets, it's all for obfuscation, misdirection, and propagandizing.

  6. What a freak show by ruir · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is rather obvious Cisco and Microsoft have backdoors. This seems like a political show because coming to the media saying "We dont have any backdoors" would not be politically correct. Any foreign government that uses this equipment is just dumb at best.

    1. Re:What a freak show by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      "Any foreign government that uses" sadly for many its a generational buy in.
      Some time during the cold war the telco system went more digital with US 'wiretap' friendly software and hardware to track everybody within that nation.
      Staff are trained, generals and the security services are happy, the next generation of staff are trained... after a while the political class just enjoys crypto junk they are handed by their nations best.
      How can a small set of a nations experts stand up to their own political class, generals, telco experts all saying its better to help the USA and get good support vs making a diplomatic fuss over crypto and hardware that every other friendly nation uses...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:What a freak show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Cisco and Microsoft have backdoors.

      Oh please. There's a big difference between cisco intentionally adding a backdoor, and Microsoft accidentally adding hundreds of unintentional backdoors. Microsoft, while technically incompetent, is not guilty in this matter. Just because Windows machines are constantly hacked doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't trying to stop that.

    3. Re:What a freak show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this a joke?

  7. physical inspections/software images by Stonefish · · Score: 1

    Make the top of the case clear so that the physical modifications are easy to see and encourage reflashing of images to checksumed versions.

  8. NSA 911 Hurricanes... etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Well Thanks OBAMA!

  9. How do you know if your hardware has this? by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh that's easy, your cisco hardware actually works. I'll be here all night folks. Try the fish.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  10. In Soviet Russia, the Internet surfs you by Katatsumuri · · Score: 1

    In possibly related news, Russia is building their own Internet! With central control! And domestic payment system! And in fact, screw the whole "inter" thing...

    Under a heart-warming name "Cheburashka".

    Not sure if this is directly related to the 28% Cisco orders decrease.

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia, the Internet surfs you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia are re-inventing AOL and MSN?

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia, the Internet surfs you by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      The Dark Ages are returning!

    3. Re:In Soviet Russia, the Internet surfs you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Age of Coprorations is beggining!

  11. Dear Cisco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stop acting like you just found out about it, it's too late for that now, it'll only make you look worse.

    Signed:
    The rest of the world

    1. Re:Dear Cisco by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Actually, they may HAVE just found out about that particular technique.

      The better question is:
      "What steps have you taken to secure your routers against intrusion?" One can guess that the answer is "none", but it's just a guess. There've been an awful lot of stories about how this or that Cisco or Linksys router is vulnerable to this or that intrusion. Why should they be trusted? That the NSA could infiltrate (possibly with NSL letters) the company without upper management knowing is quite reasonable...even if one may doubt that's what happened. That Cisco should continue to sell routers with known vulnerabilities without patching them is less forgiveable. So get a statement from them on THAT. Then check it against what's actually happening.

      My guess is that Cisco is totally untrustworthy, but this is just a guess. I don't KNOW that they are intentionally shipping routers that can easily be 0wn3d by J. Random Hacker. (And for that one, you can't really blame the govt. That one clearly is Cisco.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  12. NSA proprietary information by mschaffer · · Score: 2

    I doubt that the NSA would like Cisco to know how/what they are doing to their routers.

  13. Too late by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Problem is that there is pretty much no possible way Cisco can put the toothpaste back in the tube. They have no simple way to prove to potential customers that their gear hasn't been hacked or compromised in some way. The actions (real or perceived) of the NSA have basically screwed a number of US companies in overseas markets where security is any sort of a concern.

    Basically even the perception that the NSA may have compromised the equipment is enough to keep people from buying Cisco. Of course then the question becomes who do you trust? The Chinese make a lot of gear but they are probably trusted even less than the Americans if anything. Unless the gear is manufactured domestically under supervision it's unclear how you ensure that no one has introduced undesirable code/hardware.

    1. Re:Too late by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      They have no simple way to prove to potential customers that their gear hasn't been hacked or compromised in some way.

      Maybe ask Apple for help, since they allowed them to use the name "iOS" for their operating system. The essential parts of the operating system on iOS are signed with Apple's private key and don't work otherwise. Even if there was a "jailbreak", you can reset an iPhone and you know that all hacks are gone. The phone also allows new OS software only if it is signed by Apple. That should be equally possible on an Cisco router. (You can get around this with a jailbreak, but the important point is that at a customer, you _can_ put the device into a state where the OS is Apple only, and Cisco customers would like the ability to put the device into a state where they knew the software is Cisco only).

    2. Re:Too late by yacc143 · · Score: 1

      Well, as we already know, private keys in the US not necessarily private.

      Even a simple court order might end up with giving normal "law enforcement" personal access to the private key.

      The NSA does not operate with THAT much publicity.

    3. Re:Too late by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      enough to keep people from buying Cisco

      Do we think that it is just Cisco routers that are affected?

    4. Re:Too late by stewsters · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be the first time that keys were used in this way. http://arstechnica.com/securit...

    5. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't specific to either Cisco or the NSA. Anyone with enough money to bribe somebody in the shipping chain can do it to hardware from any vendor, US or otherwise.

    6. Re:Too late by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      It's really hard to believe Cisco did not know about this. They were either cooperating (even if just by turning a blind eye) or incredibly incompetent. As you say, it will indeed be very difficult for them to gain anyone's trust.

      It would probably take them all but 5 minutes to have one of their Chinese employees dump the firmware and compare the checksums to known vanilla sources. I can't believe a large company wouldn't have this as part of their regular process.

    7. Re:Too late by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You know, if you buy hardware and a support contract, you want to download the latest (and/or greatest) image for your device and reflash it yourself anyway. So how are all these people getting compromised in the first place? I never trust a cisco product will work properly until I flash IOS (or whatever) to it myself and see it flash without error.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Too late by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The only solution is to have your military build your own network gear from scratch, using your own designs, using chips made in your own chip fab. Everything top to bottom designed and built by your own people. Then you can trust everything to work properly and not spy on you. Note that most countries are not willing or able) to manage this.

    9. Re:Too late by blackanvil · · Score: 1

      Problem is that there is pretty much no possible way Cisco can put the toothpaste back in the tube. They have no simple way to prove to potential customers that their gear hasn't been hacked or compromised in some way. The actions (real or perceived) of the NSA have basically screwed a number of US companies in overseas markets where security is any sort of a concern.

      Basically even the perception that the NSA may have compromised the equipment is enough to keep people from buying Cisco. Of course then the question becomes who do you trust? The Chinese make a lot of gear but they are probably trusted even less than the Americans if anything. Unless the gear is manufactured domestically under supervision it's unclear how you ensure that no one has introduced undesirable code/hardware.

      I suspect Cisco's shareholders will insist they move production out of the US, and start doing final assembly of devices locally for their biggest foreign markets. The US will lose more jobs, costs will go up due to inefficiencies, and the NSA will start trying to get into the code (if they're not already.) If this sort of thing goes on, they may stop being a US-based company entirely, and move corporate offices, development, etc off-shore to avoid the stigma.

    10. Re:Too late by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      One way around this dilemma is for Cisco to move manufacturing from U.S soil to a foreign country (not China). Brazil would be a good choice for Cisco to relocate some of their manufacturing plants.

  14. Damage control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cisco knew exactly what the NSA was up to, just like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Dell, and all the rest.

  15. Fuck Beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I clicked on class, got to the classic front page, clicked the article and got back to beta. Fix your fucking beta, that we can disable it!

  16. Don't complain. Sue. by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't complain. Sue.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Don't complain. Sue. by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't complain. Sue.

      "State secrets".
      Allowing the lawsuit to proceed will expose state secrets and undermine the all-important War on Terror.
      Next suggestion?

    2. Re:Don't complain. Sue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't complain. Sue.

      Oh, you MUST be a jew.....

    3. Re:Don't complain. Sue. by rizole · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's a very specific post. Besides, I haven't seen Sue complain about this issue anyway.

    4. Re:Don't complain. Sue. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Yes. A specific post to a specific topic. Shocking.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:Don't complain. Sue. by schlachter · · Score: 1

      build tamper proof containers and personally oversee them being placed on a boat.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    6. Re:Don't complain. Sue. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Cisco has rights if any of us have rights. Those rights were violated without due process. It violates the constitution.

      At the very least Cisco deserves to be compensated for the act. If the US government is willing to pay Cisco for their loss of business as a result of this then fine. If not then you have a legal case for forcing the government to pay Cisco.

      If the government appreciates that its violations have a dollar consequence and is forced to pay that consequence then it will likely be more respectful of those rights.

      If you do not take the government to court then you're giving it a free pass.

      End of story. You're surrendering without a fight.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:Don't complain. Sue. by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Well. Clearly you have not been looking at her XKeyscore file.

      --
      -
    8. Re:Don't complain. Sue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the lawsuit really stops with "State secrets", then you have all you need. Send the routers back for a refund, get some other product. And run lots of packet sniffers yourself to see that the equipment isn't "sending reports home".

  17. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Republican spin machine will easily manipulate their "base" to not only accept it, but DEMAND that the big corp's profits are protected at the base's expense.

    Let's face it, the electorate is informed by mass media and mass media is incompetent and in bed with their corporate masters.

    You can't have it both ways. Either they're willful manipulators or incompetent buffoons, but not both. At the most they might be willful manipulators pretending to be incompetent buffoons, but that is not the same thing.

  18. Feeling ashamed by Chewbacon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to think 40 years ago we were on the brink of nuclear war with a country that did shit like this.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    1. Re:Feeling ashamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're Russian?

    2. Re:Feeling ashamed by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Huh, I didn't know the Soviet Union exported networking equipment in 1973.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Feeling ashamed by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Yes, they did. All Russian made copies of American made equipment. They also copied computers.

    4. Re:Feeling ashamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did a bad job of it too. IBM 360 knock-off models in Russia tended to break and perform slowly.

    5. Re:Feeling ashamed by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      The computers would have worked better if they had left "bits" and "bytes" off the bill of materials when the knock-off design went into production.

    6. Re:Feeling ashamed by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Argument aside, the Russians were frowned upon for spying. So much the allegation of being a spy was a mark hard to erase. Your cereal taste better now?

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    7. Re:Feeling ashamed by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that 40 years ago the US was doing stuff like this also... just less overtly.

  19. Working with the US gov, the double edged sword. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cisco also USES government funds and resources to handle it's civil matters too gaining an advantage. They use the FBI services for free to inspect and investigate routers being imported from other countries or through Canada to find the "unlicensed" overruns and knockoffs. This is strictly a civil issue between Cisco and it Chinese factories and suppliers.

    Cisco chooses to use off shore factories in countries that have a record of corruption, no regard for US IP laws and cutting corners and then make up for the loses and that risk by pushing the enforcement costs off to the US taxpayers. That is a great win-win plan for Cisco. Cisco to FBI. "Hey, factory we choose to use in China to save some money is making knockoffs and selling them in the US cutting into our profits, how can you help us?" The US government SHOULD say, "Hey Cisco, you took that business risk and should have known this could happen, it's not the US taxpayers problem, deal with it yourself."

  20. Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    See Plausible deniability

    Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA in the early 1960s to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

    It's roots go back to Eisenhower's NSC Directive NSC 5412 of March 15, 1954, which defined "covert operations" as "...all activities conducted pursuant to this directive which are so planned and executed that any U.S. Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the U.S. Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them." [NSC 5412 was de-classifed in 1977, and is located at the National Archives, RG 273.]

    Otherwise known as "They think you're a fucking dumb cunt."

  21. USA advised Australia not to purchase chinese by felixrising · · Score: 5, Insightful

    During the NBN infrastructure procurement process, apparently the USA provided intelligence to Australia indicating Chinese owned Huawei be excluded as a supplier . Not doubt to aid both Cisco's chances of winning the bid, whilst also providing an easy in for the NSA to get it's ears pre-installed in Australia's NBN well in advance. It certainly smells dirty to me...

    1. Re:USA advised Australia not to purchase chinese by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      And that gave the Aussies a hobson's choice. Be 0wned by the Chinese or Americans.

      It is possible that the Aussie spy agencies were working with the US to more thoroughly compromise Aussie network infrastructure.

    2. Re:USA advised Australia not to purchase chinese by felixrising · · Score: 1

      Well, there was a move by the Attorney General around that time to legalise meta-data collection for storage for up to 2 years.. perhaps trying to cover their arses for what they were already doing? It didn't get very far after being shouted down.

    3. Re:USA advised Australia not to purchase chinese by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup. I'd be shocked if most nations didn't do this sort of thing. You don't really get a choice in whether the hardware you buy is backdoored - you just get to pick whose backdoor it comes with.

  22. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    By Republicans nominating Romney they showed a true first culturally - Romnet would have been the first Non - Trinitarian Christian president in American History. This shows more 'liberalism' than what the 'liberals' demonstrated.

  23. cisco survives because of autopilot. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Organizational stagnation keeps cisco in the money. Their contracts are draconian, their prices are exorbitant, they bully IT departments that try to divest from them, and their support/documentation model is based on the 1970's approach to servicing a maytag washer. namely, that only the cloistered few shall have access.

    you might need them for carrier grade (whatever that means these days) equipment but largely their market share has diminished because of competition and open source. PF and IPTables solved the firewall part, CARP and keepalived solved redundancy, and asian companies like TPLink took what they learned from years of running Cisco factories and put it into a much more reasonable offering that doesnt include secret spy chips. that is unless you ask an american intelligence agency (whatever that means these days) in which case theyre riddled with evil and you need to keep buying Cisco.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:cisco survives because of autopilot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there is probably some truth regarding organisational stagnation, you are conveniently ignoring that fact that Cisco does make some good products. Their switches, particularly the 3750 and 6500 series are excellent are used well beyond their expected lifecycle. Just look at ebay for second hand cisco gear...it still gets sold for a good price.

      While there are valid competitors like Juniper in the routing space, Aruba in the wireless space and Palo Alto in the Security space, it would be a mistake to label Cisco as some giant has-been that doesn't have a product worth buying.

    2. Re:cisco survives because of autopilot. by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      While there are valid competitors like Juniper in the routing space, Aruba in the wireless space and Palo Alto in the Security space, it would be a mistake to label Cisco as some giant has-been that doesn't have a product worth buying.

      Just wait a few months. They will be. Any "secure" product that includes exploitable backdoors is one that "isn't worth buying".

    3. Re:cisco survives because of autopilot. by Necroman · · Score: 1

      And you don't think the NSA wouldn't install backdoors into any other companies products either? Cisco just is the biggest fish out there and the easiest to attack. There is no proof that Cisco was complicit in any of this.

      --
      Its not what it is, its something else.
    4. Re:cisco survives because of autopilot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you don't think the NSA wouldn't install backdoors into any other companies products either? Cisco just is the biggest fish out there and the easiest to attack. There is no proof that Cisco was complicit in any of this.

      Cisco's complicity is irrelevant; either way, their products aren't secure and are no longer trustworthy.

    5. Re:cisco survives because of autopilot. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Agree. Unless your router is made by a company associated with a government fairly adversarial to the US and only handled by couriers associated with similar governments, I'd assume that it is compromised if the NSA has any interest in compromising it. I'm sure the NSA can intercept routers made in the EU if it wants to with the cooperation of local governments (or the local government will compromise it and hand the NSA a feed, likely in exchange for the NSA sharing something else with them). Governments are pretty cozy about these sorts of things no matter what they say in public.

      Now, if you buy a Chinese router using a Chinese courier and have it delivered in a country like China then you're fairly unlikely to be subject to NSA tampering. Of course, you're fairly likely to be subject to Chinese tampering instead.

      You can't keep secrets from governments as a private individual - at least not unless you're allied with some other government that you can't keep secrets from.

  24. CISCO = Cisco IS Cia Owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Class, repeat after me
    Bing = Bing Is Not Google
    Cisco = Cisco IS Cia Owned

  25. Details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if we ever will receive the precise details of this NSA operation, but I would still like to know:

    1) How was the integrity of the shipping chain tainted? At which point NSA grabbed the devices and who allowed them to do this?
    2) What does this "spyware" do, and does this mean a modified system firmware or something else?

    1. Re:Details? by pdclarry · · Score: 2

      I don't know if we ever will receive the precise details of this NSA operation, but I would still like to know:

      1) How was the integrity of the shipping chain tainted? At which point NSA grabbed the devices and who allowed them to do this?

      2) What does this "spyware" do, and does this mean a modified system firmware or something else?

      Most of that is covered in Greenwald's book, and also in the NSA documents that have been released. The specific physical interception point is not described, but the modified firmware is. Once the router goes into service it "phones home" periodically and allows NSA to send monitoring instructions.

  26. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or incompetent buffoons carrying out the orders of willful manipulators... or incompetent buffoons trying to be willful manipulators, and succeeding by chance... or willful manipulators with no regard for failure, so long as it moves the agenda... or willful manipulators with an overarching strategy that only makes them appear foolish to those not privy to the details... etc.

    So, yeah, you can really have it both ways, from a multitude of different angles.

  27. What a freak show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like a tera'rist, time to inject your browser with javascript exploits and put you on a watch list.

    Don't ever think about traveling by plane.

  28. Wildly out of touch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The U.S. government is extremely corrupt. It is silly to talk about the constitution and law when there are many situations in which people operating with the power of the U.S. government do not feel bound by any law.

  29. Oh come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't want to be shunned by the world, don't produce in a fascist control-crazy country.

    Move elsewhere, or put your lobbying money to the use of encouraging openness and liberty rather than corruption. You are the ones buying policies left and right. If you are overriding democracy with money, at least override it with something longterm healthy.

    The politicians you are buying right now are not to the best of your longterm interest.

  30. Coming up next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cisco CEO complains to Pizza Hut about adding cheese to pizza.

  31. Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cisco partnered with IBM and CERN.

    They have a time machine, reliant on an IBM 5100.

    Trust me, I am from the future. One last warning: In the future, Republicans are confused, frightened, always correct and afraid of brown people. Democrats are confused, frightened, always correct and afraid of white people.

    1. Re:Duh. by maharvey · · Score: 1

      It seems democrats are even more afraid of brown people than republicans, they are just less likely to admit it:

      Hidden Racial Anxiety in an Age of Waning Racism

  32. Far easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama has already publicly stated many times that illegal surveillance is not going away. It would be far easier to build factories overseas to bypass this issue and thus further destroy the US economy. But then you would probably end up with some other spy agency knocking at your door with "secret" orders.

  33. Why! Cisco gear is manufactured in the USA. by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    Why! Cisco gear is actually manufactured in the USA. (As opposed to being outsourced to the cheapest outfit on the planet.)

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:Why! Cisco gear is manufactured in the USA. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      It's built in the USA because the USA government doesn't trust stuff built in China for government contracts.

    2. Re:Why! Cisco gear is manufactured in the USA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's built in the USA because the govt doesn't trust the Chinese to put the back-doors in properly without blabbing about it.

  34. Why bother with tricks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the factory in China? :P

  35. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Europe a liberal is someone who wants the government out of their bedroom and out of their pocketbook. American political thought is deeply and perhaps intentionally confused.

  36. Obama will surely help by judoguy · · Score: 1, Funny
    Thank goodness Cisco has a champion of truth to appeal to.

    He'll, you know, speak truth to power! He'll battle the NSA on our behalf!

    He'll, he'll uh... Oh, never mind.

    --
    Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    1. Re:Obama will surely help by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You never know. Cisco is a powerful and wealthy corporation. He might suppor them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Obama will surely help by NotBorg · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes. Good job Cisco. Great show! Who would have thought a pony could ride a dog like that. Best. show. ever.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
  37. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Bengie · · Score: 2

    It's not a binary exclusive thing. Some politicians can be one type and some can be another type, but as a whole, they can all be both.

  38. Still doesn't work by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The phone also allows new OS software only if it is signed by Apple. That should be equally possible on an Cisco router.

    If Cisco can monitor your gear, so can the NSA. You are presuming that Cisco actually is not in cahoots with the NSA. While it is certainly possible Cisco is not working with the NSA, a foreign buyer cannot assume that is true because they have no way to confirm.

  39. US accuses Chinese military of cyber espionage by olsmeister · · Score: 1
  40. DIY routers looking better all the time by Mark+of+the+North · · Score: 5, Informative

    Putting open source routing software on a rack-mount PC equipped with a few NICs is looking better all the time. Since the open source routing software solutions are getting quite good, this is doable. I did it and wouldn't go back:

    About three years ago I noticed that our Cisco routers were a bottle-neck, worryingly old, and I was the only member of my staff comfortable with their CLI. We definitely did not have the budget to buy new Cisco routers, so I looked into HP and D-Link layer-3 switches. They were still too expensive. We used OpenWRT on some wireless routers, so the idea of using open source routing software was not new to us. Tested using plain Linux as a router. That worked, but was (way) over my staff's head. Tried Vyatta on the same hardware. At that time Vyatta's web-interface was a joke, making it no better than plain Linux for our purposes. (The web-interface may have improved since then and as a virtual router in a VM environment, Vyatta looks quite good.) Untangle was decent, but all of the interesting features had to be bought, which nullifies most of the advantages of it being open source. Heard about pfSense on the Linux Action Show and gave it a try.

    Testing pfSense and learning its feature-set convinced us that it could do everything we needed (NAT, routing/firewalling between VLANs and the outside world) as well as do some other nice tricks (VPN concentrator, web caching/filtering, nice graphs of important stats, logging web usage, acting as a DHCP and DNS server, etc.). Basically, pfSense does everything that OpenWRT does and more since it expects to be run on more powerful standard hardware. Since it runs on standard hardware, the community isn't as fragmented as with OpenWRT, and more of pfSense's users are applying it in a professional environment, so the community support is quite good. The paid support is excellent. Being able to replace a failing router or NIC with something we had on the shelf is nice too.

    So we had an open source routing solution that fit our needs, and much better than Cisco's offerings. But shifting all of our routing from Cisco to pfSense was a bold move. The Huawei story was the clincher for us. If Huawei did it, Cisco could too. That realization lead to my decision to always use an open source solution on network edge devices. This story seems to support that decision.

    1. Re:DIY routers looking better all the time by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The Huawei story was the clincher for us. If Huawei did it, Cisco could too.

      Is there really any solid evidence that Huawei has ever done anything wrong in terms of placing back doors in their gear?

      Everything I've heard has just been guilt by association (the head of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, was an engineer for the PLA, but it should be noted that Huawei is actually an employee-owned company, not state-owned or military-owned).

    2. Re:DIY routers looking better all the time by Mark+of+the+North · · Score: 1

      You are correct. There was no smoking gun. At least, not in any of the stories that I've seen. I mis-wrote. Apologies to Huawei.

    3. Re:DIY routers looking better all the time by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      One accidental bug compared to a government scheme to embed backdoors into every US-made OS and piece of equipment..... I'll take my chances with open source.

      The reality is that OpenBSD has a better security track record than ALL the commercial vendors and doesn't come with a rootkit installed by default.

    4. Re:DIY routers looking better all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are comparing a low end router with enterprise class gear, not the same thing. Only the low volume, high cost equipment is assembled and shipped from Cisco owned plants in the United States. These are products which make about 70% of of the revenue for Cisco. The rest of the stuff (comarable to your configuration using pfSense) is manufactured and shipped from foreign plants using contract manufacturers. You will be safe if you bought this type of Cisco equipment.

    5. Re:DIY routers looking better all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice story, but isn't the hardware the thing that has been hacked by the NSA and not the software?

    6. Re:DIY routers looking better all the time by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The reality is that OpenBSD has a better security track record than ALL the commercial vendors and as far as we know doesn't come with a rootkit installed by default.

      This may be correct. Now you need to start checking your chips.

      What do you mean "security"? The appropriate level of security depends on what you are doing. Real security depends on building all of your devices yourself out of discrete components. And using one-time pads for communication. (Well, that's *almost* enough.) Just about nobody is going to go that far. Personally, I don't *worry* about government surveilance. I don't approve of it, but I don't worry about it. I'm too boring for them to bother with. OTOH, I won't bank on-line. I don't trust that level of security with my finances. (If I could, I'd convince my Bank to tighten things up WRT on-line transactions.) I may not be wealthy, but it doesn't take much to interest a thief in an account...and they wouldn't know until after they'd broken in anyway, and at that point they might as well clean it out. And government (as well as commercial) decisions have weakened on-line security to the point where *I* won't trust it for financial transactions. Sometimes I do it anyway, because it's just too convenient to buy specialized merchandise over the internet...but exposing my credit card that way always makes me nervous.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:DIY routers looking better all the time by Mark+of+the+North · · Score: 1

      You might be right. $3500 for a router was too much for us. That wouldn't get us in the enterprise door.

    8. Re:DIY routers looking better all the time by Mark+of+the+North · · Score: 1

      More likely the software running on the Cisco boxes. Reflashing the software would be a simple task and wouldn't even involve a screw-driver.

    9. Re:DIY routers looking better all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most stupid plan ever.-
      You can't control the hardware.

    10. Re:DIY routers looking better all the time by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Too easy to detect and defeat. Modified hardware modules with stealth modifications is the trick.

    11. Re:DIY routers looking better all the time by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      From the pfSense website:

      Note

      In environments requiring more than 3 Gbps or 1 million packets per second of sustained throughput, no router based on commodity hardware offers adequate performance. Such environments need to deploy layer 3 switches (routing done in hardware by the switch) or high end ASIC-based routers. As commodity hardware increases in performance, and general purpose operating systems like FreeBSD improve packet processing capabilities in line with what new hardware capabilities can support, scalability will continue to improve with time.

      I suppose there may be lots of small business that have less than 3 Gbps. But there are probably way more people interacting with networks that handle over 3Gbps. Probably every University in the country, every retail chain, all city and state governments, etc..

  41. Greenwald is only putting on a show? by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    That is odd, I thought FOX News, CNN, MSNBC were all putting on shows with entertaining gossip, talking heads with poor track records (but good ratinings) and other infotainment BS? Why would I bother to READ anything Glen Greenwald writes when I can turn in simple minded entertaining tripe that will not depress me?

    High profits and high ratings come from being ALL SHOW. I think you have him confused with most the media.

    The ONLY reason Greenwald makes a living competing against the infotainment industry is because he has actually done his job. Which BTW, a large part of it is getting out the news to as many people as he can. People wanting some real news about things that actually matter go to him in great enough numbers he can make a living; an idealistic type like him wants readership more for spreading the news than for merely increased profit. It does little good to dump news in ways that people don't get it; it's irresponsible and defeats the point.

    Spreading out leaks and structuring them so the PR spin/coverups become evident is a whole level above just good journalism.

    As far as leaking things that harm the US; well that is really what a free press is all about! Leaders kill plenty of people in more ways that people realize but that is OK?? They always justify their actions with time-tested rhetoric that people are so conditioned to that it hardly needs repeating. What we need is people bringing up the 4th estate as being every bit as justified as the other branches of government for the loss of life for "high minded ideals" (doesn't that phrase always seem empty or sarcastic? things are exploited so much the words lose meaning.)

  42. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by laie_techie · · Score: 2

    mormon === scientology you must mean stupidity not liberalism

    If you equate Mormonism with Scientology, you have a lot to learn. Please study what we truly believe (http://www.lds.org and http://www.mormon.org/ instead of what people say we believe.

  43. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    It's safer to assume that they all are both.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  44. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

    Back in the election of '08...

    You mean the election of '12, don't you?

    --
    In C++, your friends can see your privates.
  45. Hardware level changes? by swb · · Score: 2

    I would assume that whatever the NSA is doing to this equipment must make hardware changes. If reflashing with new IOS loads "fixed" NSA compromises, I would expect it wouldn't be a very successful program as firmware upgrades would close the back doors.

    They must be making changes to hardware in some way that are transparent to IOS and possibly not even visible to someone doing field replacement of internal modules.

    It's kind of crummy they do it at all, but it would be pretty fascinating to see how they are able to backdoor this equipment in a way that survives firmware flashing and doesn't add mystery daughterboards to the equipment. Given that it's also network equipment typically implemented by people who are smarter than the average bear, it's also interesting how they manage to configure remote access into the equipment without being detected and accommodating the actual premise configurations.

  46. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yeah, that's still pretty fucked up, dude. The major difference in the level of craziness between Mormonism and Scientology isn't quantitative, but qualitative. Mormonism descends from a different brand of crazy, one we are used to. And really, the 1800s were a little late for believing a 15-year-old saying he heard God and is now a prophet. The correct response to that sort of stunt is to either slap him silly for lying badly or properly educating him about the effects of recreational drugs after they wear off.

    Sorry if this came out a little blunt. Do consider, though, that a scientologist would be equally offended to be compared to a mormon.

  47. Well it's a good thing.... by ogdenk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Instead of buying backdoored equipment that's been tampered with by NSA employees, I replaced a $6,000 Cisco AVA box with a 1U dual-core atom box running pfSense for about a grand. I've also reflashed the various WRT-series routers in the field with DD-WRT. ....And now our official new IT policy is "thou shalt not buy Cisco/Linksys gear".

    Way to go NSA, you sank what little remains of the US tech industry. And it's not Snowden's fault in the least for revealing the crimes and assault on our liberty at the hands of the NSA. It's the NSA's fault for committing the serious crimes against their own people in the first place. They should be shut down, tarred, feathered and put on trial for becoming domestic terrorists. Don't tread on me.

    1. Re:Well it's a good thing.... by thygate · · Score: 1

      The incentive to switch to secured Linux flavors for ALL operations has never been so high in EU organizations, both private and government. Companies most affected by this will be MS, Cisco, Apple and the likes.. You did this to yourself USA, don't come crying now.

    2. Re:Well it's a good thing.... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      How big is your network? (number of clients?, Gbps?). pfSense states on their website that off the shelf hardware with their software cannot handle more than 3Gbps.

    3. Re:Well it's a good thing.... by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      I didn't see that stated anywhere.... I guess it really depends how much money you throw at the firewall box and what you are using for network interfaces. As with anything, performance ain't cheap if you really need it but you can make it happen.

      My environment isn't huge, just fairly complex. I never push more than 10Mbps. There's 28 remote sites, some fairly complex firewall rules, a lot of VPN traffic and proxy server duties it's handling just fine though. Quad PCIe NIC on a dual-core atom board with a couple gigs of RAM and a 128GB SSD.

      Obviously if you need 3Gbps, you have more money to throw at higher performance hardware. It's not perfect for every situation but it's far from crap and much more versatile. You'd probably have the cash laying and the need for a hardware crypto accelerator too.

      Performance will just get better as pf evolves as well.

  48. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Just watch the Southpark episode about Joseph Smith. Like the one on CoS, they are factually pretty much accurate.

  49. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by spire3661 · · Score: 2

    I love on the scientology one they had to repeatedly flash text saying "Scientologists ACTUALLY believe this'

    --
    Good-bye
  50. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I have. I also know Mormon history better then most Mormons.

    You are a cult that hide stuff from it's own believers. But worse of all: You use the government to dictate what other people can believe, and you have destroy boy scouts.

    Fuckers.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  51. Someday when Lord Christ Obama is President by gelfling · · Score: 3, Informative

    He can fix all the things.

  52. free software, free society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Software based networking running on a generic chip that you add to the router.

  53. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

    It matters not.

    I am not going to be one who claims that left and right parties are the same, however, I will say that the points on which the fights are usually picked are not generally relevant.

    I put it to you: left vs. right; liberal vs. conservative; Democrat vs. Republican: all of these dichotomies are put before us to keep our eyes off the ball. The most revolutionary thing we can do is build bridges, because doing so breaks the "divide" part of "divide and conquer."

    Rush LImbaugh and Michael Moore both serve the same purpose, even if inadvertently. Get emotion out of it; THINK!!. Most importantly, ask yourself what each thing these assholes are doing does to or for you personally and reward only those who act in your best interest. Show the rest of them the door.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  54. I believe it's called. . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plausible Deniability.

    If they asked company C to participate in this little program of theirs and they get caught, then it's pretty much game over for Cisco.

    OTOH, if company C simply agreed to " look the other way " and let the NSA intercept outgoing hardware for " quality inspections ", then company C can simply say they had no idea this was going on. Without some notification from within company C's organization, I don't see how the NSA would be able to keep track of what hardware company C was sending overseas with 100% accuracy. I'm guessing there is some sort of agreement in place between the two here. Just my theory though.

    What has me curious is what about the other major ( USA based ) players in the Routing / Switching world ? ( Juniper comes to mind ) I would assume they would be in the exact same position.

  55. Why no checksum for each indivual router, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cisco should just encrypt the hardware so it won't work if someone has altered it in transit.

  56. Made in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't most tech products made in China or elsewhere outside the U.S.? Are they saying the NSA is doing this outside of the U.S. in overseas shipping locations?

  57. when the big brother is watching you eat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when this happens you have to think out of the box. Cisco is big business and it sure hinders the business. I would build a few plants outside of the us and drop nsa and the likes out picture.

  58. Reflashing may not help by sjbe · · Score: 1

    You know, if you buy hardware and a support contract, you want to download the latest (and/or greatest) image for your device and reflash it yourself anyway.

    If the hardware you cannot flash has been compromised you can flash whatever you want and it probably won't matter.

  59. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    What about incompetent buffoons pretending to be willful manipulators?

  60. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    ask yourself what each thing these assholes are doing does to or for you personally and reward only those who act in your best interest.

    Yeah, fuck everyone else.

  61. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't pin your hopes on teaching people what your religion believes. *Every* religion believes in wacky, nonsensical things that can be twisted around and laughed at.

    Teach people that your religion *acts well*. That should be your central difference with Scientology -- the Scientologists break the law to spy on and destroy their enemies, while legitimate religions treat people fairly. Belief does not matter at all. The way a religion acts is what makes them honorable or criminal.

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  62. Poor Cisco (damage control) by nomad63 · · Score: 1

    For this many years, NSA is employing this practice of injecting spyware code into CISCO's software/firmware and CISCO is realizing this malfeasance just today ? Gimme a break ! Get real people of CISCO. You were in cahoots with NSA, more than likely, inserting the sanctioned code into your hardware, wherever and whenever asked by the big brother. Now you are crying foul and run into the arms of Uncle Obama ? People are not that stupid as you can imagine. I can guarantee you, there are not that many people with skills of injecting a nearly undetectable routing code into a world renowned router and at the same time, work at NSA for a peanut salary paid by government. So, NSA doing this on their own with no help from CISCO is as believable as someone growing a bubble gum tree on their backyard.

    --

    __________
    The more I know people, the more I love animals
  63. Binary thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't have it both ways. Either they're willful manipulators or incompetent buffoons, but not both.

    When you grow up, you will realize the World isn't Black and White; Good or Evil; Vanilla or Chocolate.

    And you expressed one of the many problems with our World today.

  64. Exercise in Futility by thejuggler · · Score: 1

    This is like asking a Alpha Wolf to protect the sheep from the rest of the wolf pack which he has order to slaughter the sheep.

  65. How quaint ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that you think the Constitution matters anymore.

  66. made in china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does NSA have to do this? Can't they just order Cisco to install this in their factory?

    if it was done at the factory, then the chinese would know what "extra features" the firmware has.

  67. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do I sense a hint of morality and ethics in the "gotta hack'em all" mindset of big tech?

  68. illegal? by schlachter · · Score: 1

    isn't this tampering with commerce?
    isn't this illegal?
    isn't this what the gov accuses the chinese of doing with their own routers?

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't your entire post horrible grammar?

    2. Re:illegal? by schlachter · · Score: 1

      don't think so, coward. just not using caps.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  69. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

    I saw what you did there ... He's not having it both ways, he never said the Republican spin machine was mass media ... that was an inference that you made. The reality is that he is correct ... except a more balanced view would be "the political spin machines of every political organization" rather than the "Republican spin machine" ans the mass media is incompetent and led by their corporate masters who direct the spin machines on both sides of the fence.

  70. that's not the point by mbkennel · · Score: 1


    The shifting is all the sleazy tricks to make shell companies so that the 'territory' which makes the profit happens to be a small office in a low tax country which somehow is supplying this global market, and the large operations in the large markets operate at a loss.

    The US charging taxes on worldwide income is an attempt to circumvent those shenanigans.

    The 'territorial' system would make the farcical tax evasion entirely legal instead of tax-deferred. Now it's just legal until the money comes back to the U.S. (i.e. tax-deferral benefit provided for free).

    Now the companies and their WSJ propagandists claim all this money is "trapped" when it is no such thing---they just don't want to pay the taxes they owe---and use it as extortion for tax "reform" which reforms only one half of the bargain. Is your money in your 401k "trapped"?

    And in aggregate, corporate income tax i.e. actual money paid is at generational lows, not highs as you would have believed from the noise. But they're working to make it even lower.

    1. Re:that's not the point by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The US charging taxes on worldwide income is an attempt to circumvent those shenanigans.

      Not true. The way the US imposes corporate income tax is the reason for the shenanigans. The extra-territorial nature of the US tax code dates all the way back to 1913, long before these sorts of tax shelters existed, or had any reason to exist.

      The 'territorial' system would make the farcical tax evasion entirely legal instead of tax-deferred.

      Which is the way it should be. Under current law, a company that has sales both in the USA and in foreign countries is accessed tax on foreign income only if the HQ is in America. Result: Admin, legal, and management jobs leave America, and we collect less tax because the companies avoid the income tax while also collecting less payroll and sales taxes because the jobs are gone. Not a single other country has this stupidity in their tax code.

      Now it's just legal until the money comes back to the U.S. (i.e. tax-deferral benefit provided for free).

      You are missing the point: The money doesn't come back. It is reinvested overseas.

  71. Mormonism is a fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mormon "Church" was started by a Con man.

    It is perpetuated by people who are stupid or in on the Con.

    So, YOU are either stupid or part of the con.

    Either of those are people I do NOT want to associate with.

    1. Re:Mormonism is a fraud by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      The Mormon "Church" was started by a Con man.

      It is perpetuated by people who are stupid or in on the Con.

      So, YOU are either stupid or part of the con.

      Either of those are people I do NOT want to associate with.

      Welcome to slashdot where ad hominem is alive and well. If you can't come up with an intelligent argument, just call the other side stupid or a con man. Joseph Smith Jr was never committed of a single crime. The con is that we actually believe in the Bible. I recently watched the movie "Heaven Is for Real" in which the Wesleyan preacher was having a crisis of faith stating that they expect their children to believe in God, Jesus, and Heaven, but now that his son was describing a visit to Heaven (complete with sitting on Jesus' lap) he didn't know what he believes.

    2. Re:Mormonism is a fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, this isn't an argument, it's an opinion about a church founded by someone who claimed to have found a bunch of gold plates in his back yard that revealed a bunch of really odd stuff and then lost them. It is some really hard stuff to swallow.

  72. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by laie_techie · · Score: 1

    Just watch the Southpark episode about Joseph Smith. Like the one on CoS, they are factually pretty much accurate.

    I have watched the South Park episodes about Joseph Smith and Mormons, and they misrepresent our doctrine.

  73. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by laie_techie · · Score: 1

    I have. I also know Mormon history better then most Mormons.

    You are a cult that hide stuff from it's own believers. But worse of all: You use the government to dictate what other people can believe, and you have destroy boy scouts.

    Fuckers.

    Our official doctrine is available for all to see on our website. There are a couple of items from our past which we don't broadcast (Mountain Meadows - which was done against Brigham Young's orders - being one), but we don't lie about our history. We don't dictate what others can believe or not; one of our Articles of Faith states that we claim the right to worship whom we wish, how we wish, and where we wish, and we grant that right to everyone else (yes, this is a paraphrase). The LdS Church has not destroyed the Boy Scouts of America (the Church actually published a statement they agree with the BSA's stance on homosexuality).

  74. Obama isn't a republican by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Big brother bama isn't a republican.

  75. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

    The LdS Church has not destroyed the Boy Scouts of America (the Church actually published a statement they agree with the BSA's stance on homosexuality)

    I'm pretty sure that's what he meant--that the BSA has taken those stances because of Mormon influence.

  76. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy fuck! I am SO sorry our educational system failed you.

  77. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right cause geekoid is a homo hating redneck. That's also why he's shitting on Mormons- they're not his brand of crazy so fuck 'em!

  78. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get emotion out of it; THINK!!. Most importantly, ask yourself what each thing these assholes are doing does to or for you personally and reward only those who act in your best interest.

    You ask the reader to stop using emotion to guide our society...by using an Appeal to Emotion- complete with bolded words and all! I applaud you so much. You sure you aren't a politician yourself? Ah fuck it! It doesn't matter anyway. You've got me convinced!

  79. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by laie_techie · · Score: 1

    The LdS Church has not destroyed the Boy Scouts of America (the Church actually published a statement they agree with the BSA's stance on homosexuality)

    I'm pretty sure that's what he meant--that the BSA has taken those stances because of Mormon influence.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the largest sponsor of the BSA, with a unit for nearly every congregation (there's no denying that). You'll note that the LdS Church didn't throw a hizzy-fit over allowing openly gay boys in our troops. Also, other religious groups were up in arms because the BSA went this far.

  80. Cisco s moving to Toronto, as previously announced by davecb · · Score: 1

    Waterloo and Ottawa have more computer scientists. but Tranna has the manufacturing infrastructure, so Cisco's announced that they're moving significant parts of the company there. The first phase is $100 million, out of a $4-billion investment in Ontario. and roughly 1,700 jobs. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

    Besides, many people fear CSE less than they do the NSA. After all, Canada's only been caught spying on Brazil, while the US was found spying on everyone on the planet (;-))

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  81. Direct link to Cisco's complaint letter by Khopesh · · Score: 1
    Here is a direct link to a scan of the letter from Cisco CEO John Chambers to President Obama:
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/img.docstoc.com/thumb/orig/170154030.png

    I'd paste the whole text here if it weren't an image.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  82. DIY routers looking better all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use pfSense at home and for my hosted servers.

    Everyone I know who has tried pfSense has become a convert.

    Cisco can go eat a dick when they want to charge me $10,000 for a product that is inferior in most ways to my $800 pfSense box + a layer 2 switch.

  83. Falling Sales by flopsquad · · Score: 1

    I wish all my company's sales would fall from 7% to over 25%. Curse you NSA, and curse the 350% increase in sales you've unleashed upon me!

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  84. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Sentrion · · Score: 1

    Yeah, reminds me of the many sermons I've heard about how you can use logic and deduction to prove the Bible, which almost always consisted of allegories, allusions, analogies, anecdotes, uncited "scientific discoveries", misattributed quotations from historical figures, other poetic, persuasive and literary elements, and a conspicuous absence of a competent debater (ie "infidel") to challenge (ie "heresy") any of the statements to "prove" the logical conclusion: that if you look honestly into yourself and measure all of the fallible human evidence against the one true standard of truth, which of course, is the Bible.

  85. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    That's actually not in most people's best interest. It is interesting that you seem to believe that a person's best interest is at the expense of everyone else.

  86. BOTH! by Slur · · Score: 1

    Either they're willful manipulators or incompetent buffoons, but not both.

    Yes, they can be both. They can be incompetent buffoons in the sense of not realizing that their stupid empty ideology based on religious indoctrination is a mental trap that pushes them beyond stupid, yet be very good at manipulating things to accomplish their childish goal of armageddon and rapture. Or, they can be total slaves to their corporate masters with no sense of morals or ethics of their own, and yet be very good at carrying out the goals of their masters.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  87. really hate beta. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously, only lets me read this article in it. what a pile of crap.

  88. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by dimko · · Score: 1

    Or learn, what you want us to believe, in what you believe. Either way, you are guys loonies, even by loonies standards.

  89. Re: No. And there is a precedent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1000000000 well said

  90. In other news... by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    "Evil bit" to be renamed "Patriot bit"

  91. This was a Cisco/NSA story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how in the hell did it degrade into a religious discussion...get a life people, keep on topic

  92. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    I agree, I'm not sure the parent was expressing this sentiment though.

  93. Gray market by CmdrTamale · · Score: 1

    Given open knowledge of NSA tampering with Cisco export kit, how does this affect the gray market in pre-owned kit originally destined for domestic US use?

    Is it booming, with all the not-Five Eyes wanting a copy to take apart?

    Is it in a slump because of fear of a free ride to Gitmo?

    And might this have any relation to Cisco's attempts to crack down on this market in the past?

    Just curious....
    --
    Are you embarrassed to be an American? If not, why not?

  94. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please study what we truly believe (http://www.lds.org and http://www.mormon.org/ [mormon.org] instead of what people say we believe.

    You believe that NSA data centers are more important than privacy.

    You believe that when the government tells you to give up polygamy if you want to be a state, it is better to change God's Plan on a whim than stick to your guns.

    What am I missing? No balls?

    Actions speak louder than words.

  95. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either they're willful manipulators or incompetent buffoons

    Nope, they are incompetent buffoons BECAUSE they are willful manipulators. This is what makes them unqualified to lead, inform, and report.

    You can't have it both ways yourself. Either competence is based on morals, or competence is just the ability to manipulate others.

  96. Traffic examples? by taylormc · · Score: 1

    Based on concerns expressed here, I have investigated traffic coming across my desk directed to the www.nsa.gov IP address, and found innocent explanations for it. Are there examples anywhere of syslog records for traffic confirmed as being generated by compromised equipment?

  97. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

    Well, the 'fuck everyone else' view is needlessly polarizing. I was more trying to make the point that we should choose our allies with care. To expand on the example, I don't need Rush or Moore in my life, because they are both part of the same problem, but someone like Amy Goodman, who is unabashedly liberal, yet tries to get both sides of an issue represented on her show, is good; similarly, I believe that Dennis Prager, equally unabashedly conservative, is acting in generally good faith. Why? Both will hear an argument from the other side without shouting it down.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  98. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I kind of blew that one, didn't I? My bad.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  99. Re:No. And there is a precedent. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Thank you for clarifying your comment. I agree, but unfortunately a significant portion of American's don't want to hear dissenting opinions. Any middle of the road program that shows both sides risks being defined as liberal to conservatives and conservative to liberals (NPR).

    Anything intelligent is drowned out by a cacophony of imbecile's. Meanwhile you have pseudo intellectuals that know how look smart without saying anything polarizing, or stick to one side of an issue.
    People put more stock in the opinions of these psuedo intellectuals then they do people who are truly expressing and analyzing things that require intelligence.