Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security Communications Encryption Government IT Your Rights Online

India, China Try Import Regulations As Security Tools 108

An anonymous reader writes "The Register reports that the Chinese government is forcing vendors to cough up the source code to their encryption alogrithms before they can sell their equipment to the Chinese government. The EU doesn't seem to like it, but if I were in their position I'd want the same thing." China's biggest neighbor goes further; another anonymous reader writes "Telco equipment from China could have spyware that gives access to telcom networks in India. The Indian government has officially told mobile operators not to import any equipment manufactured by Chinese vendors, including Huawei and ZTE. The ban order follows concerns raised by the Home Ministry that telecom equipment from some countries could have spyware or malware that gives intelligence agencies across the border access to telecom networks in India. The biggest gainers from the move could be Ericsson, Nokia, and Siemens, which have been losing market share to aggressive Chinese equipment-makers in India."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

India, China Try Import Regulations As Security Tools

Comments Filter:
  • by al0ha ( 1262684 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:27PM (#32035406) Journal
    are the ones that are open to peer review. So Kudos to the Chinese for being smart enough to make these idiot companies with closed-source encryption technologies provide them with the source code for review. Good encryption does not rely on obfuscation of code and processes!
  • Trust (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WrongSizeGlass ( 838941 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:30PM (#32035462)
    This seems like a natural progression down the line of diminishing trust between countries. It's not very surprising, especially since the Chinese government *may* have been 'supportive' of some of the China/Google hacking. It appears the downside of possibly endorsing or supporting security breaches is other people/countries/etc will suspect you of it from that point on.

    I can't blame the Chinese government for wanting to have the encryption information ... and I can't blame India for not trusting Chinese technology. Nobody wins when no one trusts each other.
  • Copying (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:31PM (#32035474) Homepage

    If you're going to give your source code to the Chinese, you know for certain they will copy it and never buy a product from you again.

  • by srussia ( 884021 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:32PM (#32035486)
    Security through security!
  • Re:Trust (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FooAtWFU ( 699187 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:35PM (#32035534) Homepage

    I'm just reminded of the old security-oriented definition of Trust: the person you trust is the person who can break your security. It's a perfectly healthy attitude to trust people (/businesses/nations) as little as possible when the security of your data is at risk. In arena of IT security, we need less "trust" and more "verify".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:40PM (#32035636)
    I don't think that's why they want to view the source code...
  • Re:Trust (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:41PM (#32035660)

    Nobody wins when no one trusts each other.

    It certainly helps maintain some diversity, which is otherwise all but killed off by globalization. Without diversity, there's no competition.

  • by c0d3g33k ( 102699 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:48PM (#32035732)
    Unless the source can be compiled from scratch and used in place of the pre-compiled versions, including flashing of firmware, creation of installable ROM images or OS installs, having source code guaranteed by analysis to be exploit-free gains the user nothing. There could still be spyware in the final product. Short of self-installing, I guess creation of bit-equivalent or checksum-equivalent binaries would be good enough as a verification mechanism.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:49PM (#32035768)

    Regardless of whether that's why they want to view it or not, the net effect is that only robust algorithms will be exported to China. Everybody can get the code to GPG, but that doesn't make the keys invalid.

  • Re:Trust (Score:2, Insightful)

    by OhHellWithIt ( 756826 ) * on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:53PM (#32035832) Journal

    I can't blame the Chinese government for wanting to have the encryption information ... and I can't blame India for not trusting Chinese technology. Nobody wins when no one trusts each other.

    What about the domestic producers of encryption equipment? Don't they stand to gain a little through sales to their government, whether it be India, China, or the U.S.A.?

    For my part, I don't understand why any government trusts producers of other countries for their critically sensitive information. In the U.S., we know that our "friends", like Israel, engage in espionage, and I'm pretty sure we spy on them (although I have no evidence to back it up other than fuzzy recollections of news articles over the years). How do I know that a U.S.-produced item doesn't have a back door for NSA to use?

  • by sznupi ( 719324 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:54PM (#32035836) Homepage

    Yes, India is, like, right now [bbc.co.uk] in the process of auctioning 3G licenses. This will really bring benefits to Ericsson and Nokia Siemens.

  • by Arker ( 91948 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:56PM (#32035864) Homepage

    Unless the source can be compiled from scratch and used in place of the pre-compiled versions, including flashing of firmware, creation of installable ROM images or OS installs, having source code guaranteed by analysis to be exploit-free gains the user nothing. There could still be spyware in the final product. Short of self-installing, I guess creation of bit-equivalent or checksum-equivalent binaries would be good enough as a verification mechanism.

    It should be common sense that you have to verify that the source code you were given actually compiles to a bit-identical executable in order for the exercise to mean anything at all.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:57PM (#32035888)
    actually Alcatel-Lucent will benefit from this. They have low priced telecom equipment and they have been replaced in many countries by even cheaper Huawei.

    But isn't this strange? They put a ban because chinese "could have spyware or malware" in their equipment. Isn't this like putting someone in jail because he might do something bad in the future?

    Here is my conspiracy theory: big companies export corruptions in the developing countries (this is a fact). Some companies could just not compete with the cheap Huawei so they paid officials for the ban. Problem solved! either this or the chinese really have spyware on their machines.
  • by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @03:59PM (#32035928) Journal

    If only the State governments were that smart. Who the hell knows what's inside the Diebold voting machines? When working with the Defense Department we're expected to provide all the code for review.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @04:03PM (#32035982)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:Trust (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Arker ( 91948 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @04:08PM (#32036046) Homepage

    Nobody wins when no one trusts each other.

    Au contraire, when it comes to security, everyone wins when no one trusts each other.

    The chinese move, at least, is long overdue. No one should ever trust a device whose source code is secret.

  • by c0d3g33k ( 102699 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @04:24PM (#32036282)
    Yes, but that's not always the case, even with nominally "Open Source" software that ends up on proprietary closed devices. Tivo comes to mind, as does Android. I can't recall ever reading about building bit-identical executables as a way of verifying that what is running on the hardware is actually the same as the audited source code. Mostly I read the opposite - what actually runs is always different from what the 'open' source can produce, if for no other reason than signing them with a private key. That's enough to slip in some clever assembler routine that can be used as a backdoor, I'm guessing.
  • by kubitus ( 927806 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @04:26PM (#32036310)
    Google also had to find out that China does not want backdoors - unless they are their own.

    .

    I would recommend every government, company or institution to use especially network devices only, if they can review and then compile the code themselves which is to be run in the device.

    So as to avoid Trojan Boot Loaders within their networks.

  • by rtfa-troll ( 1340807 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @04:41PM (#32036560)

    The effect of giving the Windows source code to China seems to have been that people in China used it to break into Google and tens of other major corporations. Why should this be any different? There are expert groups in China who will find vulnerabilities in the systems and then, instead of having to have trojanised equipment from their own vendors, they will be able to attack the other vendor's equipment just as well.

    What's really funny is that India is stopping buying Chinese made teleco equipment whilst other countries like the US; also great friends of China (when will you stop blocking their discipline against the rebel province of Taiwan???) still continue to buy Chinese.

  • by rtfa-troll ( 1340807 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @04:50PM (#32036712)

    but Indian goverment is not buying the stuff. It's the telecom operators that buy it and use it to sell services to regular citizens. The goverment could buy trusted equipment for their needs.

    The teleco stuff is the stuff you will use to call for help and communicate during a war. Since the idea of total war [wikipedia.org] it has been clear that your civilian infrastructure may be targeted in war. The idea of something which lets your opposition remotely disable most of your industrial capacity is crazy. That's what Chinese exchanges represent for India.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 29, 2010 @05:00PM (#32036862)

    in the 80's and 90's American manufacturers gave away their technology to the Chinese to get a piece of the huge Chinese market. This allowed the Chinese to modernize their manufacturing technology by decades in a few years. Then instead of opening their markets, China flooded the world markets and decimated the foreign competition.
    One might hope managers of corporations would learn from the past...

  • Re:Trust (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 29, 2010 @05:17PM (#32037092)

    How do I know that a U.S.-produced item doesn't have a back door for NSA to use?

    Always assume that it does. If you are wrong, good. If you are right, you are prepared.

  • by orasio ( 188021 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @05:33PM (#32037302) Homepage

    The headline suggests that China is using import rules to bolster security. I think it is the other way round. They are using the demand for source code as a barrier to trade to (unfairly) help domestic firms. Not very many overseas firms are going to provide source code, leaving the market open to Chinese firms.

    I would agree with you if you didn't say "(unfairly)".
    Access to source code is a legitimate security concern. Fair trade doesn't mean that you can't set high standards if foreign providers can't reach them.

  • by webminer ( 1619915 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @11:46PM (#32040448)
    Why do obnoxious dumbasses like you bring up poverty everytime India does something good or aspires for something that only developed countries has 'rights' to? A developing country cannot aspire to have security and be able to defend itself from commie and islamic terror neighbours? Cant it become self-sufficient in space, defence and other technological advances? Because it is poor, the entire populace is doomed to live in 15th century?

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...