India Bars ZTE, Huawei, Others From Sensitive Government Projects 160
hypnosec writes "The Indian Government has decided it won't be using telecom equipment from international vendors, and has barred all such foreign companies from participating in the US$3.8 billion National Optical Fiber Network (NOFN) project — a project aimed at bringing high-speed Internet connectivity to the rural areas of India. The DoT has decided that it will be going ahead with 100 per cent domestic sourcing and has released a list of certified GPON suppliers. This decision comes after the research wing of the ministry, C-DoT, advised the telecom department to bar Chinese companies like ZTE and Huawei, keeping in line with a similar decision by the U.S. In an internal memo, the research body advised the department that both these Chinese companies are a security threat to the telecom world."
Tinfoil Hats? (Score:3)
Okay, I'm not a big conspiracy theorist. But if there isn't a good chance of a backdoor in their software, I'm a monkey's uncle. Aren't these companies partly owned by the People's Liberation Army?
Re:Tinfoil Hats? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand the paranoia over buying equipment supplied by a company known to be tight with a foreign power you don't always get along with. But I also really wish someone would show some proof of something close to a security threat in one of these products before the whole world goes crazy about "OMG the Spies!!!"
There is tons of hardware by these companies available all over the world, and so far (to my knowledge) nobody has ever found any evidence of a back door, or any spying capability in any of it. And honestly, I don't see any reason to think that those companies are any more likely than any other company in the world to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
As for a "security threat" also view huge projects as a "security deal". We bought a huge telco system, you got jobs, we want hi tech weapon sales/code in return.
Re:Tinfoil Hats? (Score:4, Insightful)
Would India want a country it has been at war with rally doing their base to base to capitol optical links?
You do realize that most countries that do business today have at one time or another been at war with each other?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
India does have a lot of "skirmishes" with its neighbors doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tinfoil Hats? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not racism. It's a legitimate concern, but it doesn't just apply to the chinese. Who's to say that Cisco/nortel/juniper et al don't also have backdoors in their firmware? Frankly, no western country has a right to bitch about chinese government abuse of civil liberties and police state paranoia when they themselves are doing the same things. I'm surprised the indian government isn't choosing to distrust western closed hardware as well. They should.
This is yet another reason why closed software sucks. There's no way to audit what's running on the hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
with US-created backdoors, when they break, there's a patch for it coming soon to restore functionality.
with the chinese ones, the bugs you get are the bugs you live with. you can't expect the chinese back-doors to be as well supported, can you? once they break, they are broken.
I'd prefer the US backdoors. at least I know there's support for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine China will ban or at least just stop buying US and Indian telecoms equipment now, in retaliation. As the largest and fasted growing market the damage to these companies will probably be at least as big as the advantage they gain from not having to compete in their own countries.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you seriously suggesting that the PLA wouldn't hide secret functions in its gear?
Seriously?
This is primarily a security decision, and if there is nationalism or protectionism at play AT ALL it is secondary to the real actual threat.
You've posted similar fairy tales before, handwaving away legitimate security concern as racism. You realize that it's ridiculous to assert this, don't you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you seriously suggesting that the PLA wouldn't hide secret functions in its gear?
I'm saying they didn't. There's a difference.
This is primarily a security decision, and if there is nationalism or protectionism at play AT ALL it is secondary to the real actual threat.
There is no threat, so secondary concerns become the only one when the "primary" is a farce.
You've posted similar fairy tales before, handwaving away legitimate security concern as racism. You realize that it's ridiculous to assert this, don't you?
Yes, it's ridiculous to look for proof before wasting billions spending money on other companies who may have the same or worse. With so many people looking at Huawei under a microscope, how do you think they'd get away with hidden back doors? It's improbable at best, and at this point, pretty much statistically impossible. How long until you admit you were wrong? 5 y
Re: (Score:1)
You have no idea if there is code hidden in Chinese telecom gear. Neither does Australia or India - this is why they don't trust it.
Saying there is no threat is impossible. Just because a threat has not been identified, or publicly disclosed, does not mean there is no threat. The threat could be on the die itself - the Chinese have been busted implementing on die mystery functions on seemingly otherwise normal hardware before.
How about this - I won't believe that Huawei, essentially a PLA front, will eve
Re: (Score:2)
What PLA front are you talking about? Just because some US Congressman said that since the president of the company served in the PLA, therefore the company MUST be a PLA front do you actually believe it? It's like saying that any person that served in any military is just a tool for the rest of his life.
Why don't you educate a bit more about the issue before repeating words like a parrot. You can start with reputable sources like http://www.economist.com/node/18771640 [economist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You will have to provide sources for what you are saying here. Phrases like "It's widely believed to be the Chinese government." doesn't help your argument, who are the people that widely believes that? Posting as an AC doesn't help either. The reason Huawei sells so cheap is no secret. If you have ever been to China, especially Shenzhen, you would realize that Huawei is just one of those clone makers with cheap knock-offs, only a tad better. In short, there is no Bolshoi ballet without the thousands of bal
Re: (Score:2)
And keep in mind, the competitors are leveraging Indian and Chinese design firms heavily, but even as such, they can't compete with Huawei. As far as all accountants I’ve talked to can tell, the company must be bleeding money at an incredible rate as they seem to sell all equipment at a loss not considering the specialty design they’re doing, yet somehow, they manage to stay in business.
I keep hearing that. China sells solar panels lower than I could make them, so it must be an evil plot. But it's not. It's just them playing with the market the same way thousands of US companies have for hundreds of years. If they are selling below cost, then our proper response should be "buy more" not blocking them. But we act irrationally. Why?
I could go into their interviewing process and how it feels more like they're trying to get free consulting, as they never hire anybody, but ask questions which aren't appropriate for an interview,
They ask questions like "how does Ericsson implement XXX feature?" In the US, that would be more appropriate than "what do you do in your free time?"
they have offices near every office of all of their competitors, and this is no joke, I was working for Ericsson, there was an Alcatel-Lucent office some 80 miles away, and Huawei had offices not 10 miles from EACH of those offices. Why do they have two offices that close to each other?
The re
Re: (Score:2)
You have no idea if there is code hidden in Chinese telecom gear. Neither does Australia or India - this is why they don't trust it.
You have no idea if there is code hidden in Cisco/USA or Alcatel/France telecom gear. So why are they trusted and China isn't?
How about this - I won't believe that Huawei, essentially a PLA front, will ever produce anything that I would be comfortable with, ever.
Huawei is a PLA front as much as GM is a CIA front.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says I trust Cisco or Alcatel gear?
India and Australia have issued blocks against buying Huawei and ZTE. They have not issued any such blocks against Cisco or Alcatel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I support India and Australia because they are not oppressive combloc states, and they have no business putting Chinese military-grade spyware into their infrastructure.
Why not buy Chinese. Their quality is so good that they can hide spyware in devices subject to intense investigation and millions of dollars of inspection. No spyware has ever been found. The US is the only country that has deliberately engaged in public malware attacks on other countries, so India and Australia should be more worried about the US than China.
The only objections to that I've seen here are "but they aren't like us,
Re: (Score:2)
People object to putting hardware produced by a foreign military contractor into their critical communications infrastructure, and that there has been no spyware found on the devices doesn't prove it's not there.
Cisco is a "foreign" military contractor" to Australia and India. Nope, every argument comes down to "I hate China".
Re: (Score:1)
Nationalism and protectionism are fundamental when it comes to protecting a nation.
Re: (Score:1)
Must be racism, nobody can give any other answer (other than there's still an unknown problem that a million people with a billion dollars couldn't find).
Re: (Score:2)
It's always the racists that are quick to trot out racism as the driving force behind everything.
So say the lying racists who want to hide their racism. Why else do white people in France and the US get different treatment than the Chinese?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, looks something like that. FTA:
State-owned C-DoT also criticised the government's decision not to select a fibre technology developed by it for the Rs 20,000-crore initiative to lay optic fibre connecting all panchayats in the country, claiming this would undermine six years of research.
They're hardly thus impartial observers. Also, their recommendation seems entirely based on the US decision, no other sources or original work quoted. Personally, I've no problem if they say "we're spending a fortune on building our national infrastruture, so we're going to use that as an opportunity to develop our indiginous technology capability". This, after all, is what the Chinese have been doing for years, either by downright stealing of IP, or by forcing "pa
Re: (Score:2)
There has never been one, and millions of dollars have been spent looking. It's all about racism (or nationalism or protectionism).
I dunno. If you really care about security then you need to trust your suppliers. When your threat model is attacks by other nation-states then your only good solution is to make things domestically. There have been a few high-profile cases where equipment was sabotaged by foreign governments - the US destruction of a Soviet refinery comes to mind. Then you have stuxnet and such - which work in part because foreign governments have strong knowledge of the equipment you're using, even if it doesn't have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I think they'd be foolish to buy from Cisco. They really should make something domestically.
That said, India is far more likely to end up in hostilities with China than the US. They do share a border, and I believe they occasionally end up in skirmishes over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the issues were the same with Australia the had no such actual security issues. I've stated elsewhere that India has more of a reason for political reasons to not buy Chinese, but off US and Australian reports to do so is silly.
I'm having difficulty parsing that. However, generally speaking it is wiser to buy products from countries that you're allied with than from those you get into spats with, if you don't want to risk sabotage.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the Chinese may have never used their position as a supplier to sabotage them yet, but that isn't a reason to trust them. I'd be paranoid and not trust my allies either, but if you have to pick somebody to trust better it be an ally.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary (Score:2)
Indian Dept of Telecom: We're banning Huawei on hearing reports of security concerns by the US and Australia.
US House Intelligence Committee: We're banning Huawei on hearing reports of security concerns by India and Australia.
Australian Security Intelligence Organization: We're banning Huawei on hearing reports of security concerns by the US and India.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they have a hidden kill switch (not a backdoor)
Or a hidden activation switch, I mean you don't think the Chinese are so stupid that it calls home by default? It'll work 100% to spec until it gets either some magic payload or a magic port knock and goes "live". If you make the activation key sufficiently long (128 or 256 bits) then there's no way to brute force prove that it's not there short of ripping it apart and analyzing each transistor.
Re: (Score:2)
Shakespeare, in Henry IV, Part One, 1596:
Falstaff: 'The better part of valour is discretion; in the which better part I have saved my life.'
I'm with Billy Boy on this one. If there was one inkling of a national security issue, I would opt for a different choice than these Chinese companies.
Re: (Score:1)
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." In short, this a 'think of the children' concept where rational thought disappears.
While another country shouldn't be trusted, the USA has massive industry protectionism in the name of 'national security'. It then travels the world demanding all other countries obey its 'free trade' policy.
As already mentioned, the USA is also capable of such skulduggery, but no-one complains about US-ian dishonesty, even when they have a proven record.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tinfoil Hats? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you forget about NSAKEY_?. Microsoft apparently took great lengths to shush that since you can't remember. There is no telling what Government backdoors are in Microsoft Windows since Indians and Chinese both help write code for it. There was also (and still is) an unknown hole in IE in 2010 that allowed Chinese hackers to steal Data from Google, Adobe and others. The question was: Was it really unknown, or intentionally put there?. Who knows, not us.
Then there is the Hardware backdoor from China, using the ASIC chip in US Military components. It's not a theory or a maybe, it's all fact. If you can't personally see the code for all this Software and Hardware, nobody should use it. But of course, we know that's not possible except with Open Source.
Re: (Score:3)
Then there is the Hardware backdoor from China, using the ASIC chip in US Military components
Citation please?
If you're talking about the Actel chip, it wasn't done by the Chinese: http://www.csoonline.com/article/707542/china-not-to-blame-for-backdoor-in-us-military-chip [csoonline.com]
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sps32/sec_news.html#MEDIA [cam.ac.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that because Microsoft (an American company) included backdoors, we shouldn't trust ZTE and Huwaii (Chinese companies)
You just made my point for me. The point being that there is no reason to think that these Chinese companies are ANY worse than any other company out there, and, due to increased scrutiny, they are likely among the most secure in the world.
Luckily India was smart and excluded all foreign companies, unlike many others who are extremely hypocritical blocking Chinese firms whil
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
... I also really wish someone would show some proof of something close to a security threat in one of these products before the whole world goes crazy about "OMG the Spies!!!" ...There is tons of hardware by these companies available all over the world, and so far (to my knowledge) nobody has ever found any evidence of a back door...
Firmware update, anyone? Or, how about any of several other ways to introduce backdoors and other security holes after the fact, perhaps even using purpose-built hardware 'features' that aren't detectable prior to remote activation?
Note that I'm not specifically China-bashing here - I don't trust Cisco and the like either, and if I was a patriotic Chinese citizen I sure AS HELL wouldn't trust them. Bottom line: governments and corporations spy, because information is power. They WILL attempt to gather info
Re: (Score:2)
And that was my point. India is being smart and trusting nobody outside their own country. But so many other places are barring Chinese manufacturers over security concerns, while gladly doing business with companies with a far worse track record of back doors and security threats. Personally if I was going to trust anyone, it would be the companies with the highest level of scrutiny on them (ZTE and Huawei) over pretty much anyone else.
On a side note, as for firmware updates, I don't know what gear you wou
Re: (Score:1)
It's not only the Chinese companies that are blocked. ... All companies that aren't doing too hot right now and could use the business.
Ericsson, Nokia-Siemens, Alcatel-Lucent,
Re:Tinfoil Hats? (Score:5, Insightful)
The top three owners of ZTE are all members of the PLA. All three are high ranking officers. One of them is also believed to be a high ranking member of the Chinese equivalent of the CIA.
These men claim that their PLA association is past history and not relevant but they are all still ranking officers in the PLA. Maybe just maybe their ownership is related to the corruption of the PLA and communist party in general and that there is no real connection. The problem is that even if there is no involvement now, the PLA could direct intervention and backdoored firmwares.
I'd be surprised at any government stupid enough to put in place telecom equipment from a company owned by the military of a sovereign nation. You're probably at risk with any non native produced equipment BUT that risk goes up enormously if that foreign company is owned not only by the government of a foreign nation but the military of that nation.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is that any more of a risk than say every American company where it is well known that all their morals are for sale to the highest bidder?
People have spent a lot of time and money looking for security holes in these companies products, and none have ever been found. And yet the world immediately assumes they must be there, while generally giving every other company in the world a free pass.
We are fairly certain that ZTE and Huwaii products are safe, as they have been studied extensively in this wit
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
American companies are also excluded. India has specified that it will be supplied by a domestic supplier.
Re: (Score:2)
Not good enough (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to understand why the military is running a telecom company.
I also fail to understand how uniformed service personnel can run a for-profit company.
Re: (Score:3)
It's China. As they are officially (If increasingly less so in practice) a communist country, they generally see much less seperation between the state and industry than we expect in the west. Many large companies are openly state-owned (ZTE), and even private companies (Huawei) have a very close relationship with the government, to the point that government officials sit on the board of directors. This works both ways: Just as the companies do the government's bidding, so the government works to tilt the e
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, listen to yourself. You sound like Joseph McCarthy. But after seeing so many messages just like yours, it's not hard to see why wars start. Because instead of cultural understanding and mutual trust all you feed is your fears with baseless accusations, and then wonder several years laters why the missiles start flying. Sigh. World War 3 here we come.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tinfoil Hats? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But if there isn't a good chance of a backdoor in their software, I'm a monkey's uncle.
A monkey's descendant, actually, according to Mr Darwin. There may well be backdoors of all kinds in SW; I don't think we need to be any more concerned about whether it comes from China or the US. Friendly nations are only friendly now, they may become less so in the future, and will quite likely have prepared for such a scenario in several ways.
Security by perfect code is just as illusory as security by obscurity; it is a kind of magical thinking. They can help slow down an enemy, but it isn't enough in an
Re:Tinfoil Hats? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my thoughts. Plus they get to look good with the US while bashing China at the same time, which they don't like. Indian government is very corrupt, so in a way this also allows them to channel funds to their pockets in an easier way.
Re: (Score:1)
Am I the only one who's watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugdpbPW_k3g [youtube.com] ?
It's a Defcon 20 talk on how Huawei security practices basically don't exist, and all the bugs are things we saw in the 90s.
If researchers who didn't even have the source code could find holes large enough to drive a truck through, don't you think someone half competent could find them if they had the source code? Combine that with Huawei not having anything security related on their website. If you find a bug, there is no one to
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't these companies partly owned by the People's Liberation Army?
According to Is China's Huawei a threat to our national security? [marketplace.org] "Huawei is not China. Huawei is Huawei," said Sykes. "We are an independent commercial company. Zero percent ownership by the Chinese government."
It's safe to say... (Score:2, Interesting)
That a large shout goes out to China saying "We dont Trust you" from the rest of the world.
Yet the rest of the world still insists on using the large, cheap, suicidal and robotic workforce of China to produce it's consumer goods!
Just wait until the Water Cooler starts listening in on your breaktime chats about the latest developments in secret tech.... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Well sure, but its pretty easy to get your routers and network gear to phone home. Its going to be harder get someone to plug a network cable into the water cooler, or enter the wifi password. Well.. until watercoolers have apps of course.
Re: (Score:1)
Well sure, but its pretty easy to get your routers and network gear to phone home. Its going to be harder get someone to plug a network cable into the water cooler, or enter the wifi password. Well.. until watercoolers have apps of course.
You still using a water cooler? I hear that there's an app for that: it extends the coolness of an iPhone to the water.
They even plan to make iPhone bigger (or was it to make iPad smaller?), so that the app could be used more efficiently against AGW.
(ducks)
Re: (Score:1)
Google beat them to it with GoogleTap, but the water is lukewarm and it only works about half the time. Even when it works, the water comes out slowly and jerkily.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yet the rest of the world still insists on using the large, cheap, suicidal and robotic workforce of China to produce it's consumer goods!
Suicide rate is higher in the US than in a Foxconn factory.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably because they at least have jobs at the Foxconn factory...
Re: (Score:2)
Suicide rate is higher in the US than in a Foxconn factory.
Who has time to commit suicide?
Re:It's safe to say... (Score:4, Informative)
I hear the amount of shirts at 1 Wal-Mart is higher than how many shirts are in my closet too.
"rate" means # per person. Try to think before you post next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ever seen one of those little 3G dongles? Chances are one of those was a Huawei..
Components & software? (Score:3, Funny)
Did the govt also consider components(chips, circuitry, software) in locally sourced hardware also are not made outside India or are open-source. India does not have expertise in chip manufacturing except potato chips.
if you can do the work at home, do it (Score:2, Interesting)
I support that.
I think the US should try to get its key tech from local companies, too. and their suppliers and their suppliers.
we are *too* globalized. somehow, we went too far in that direction and people are just mindlessly forging forever forward and not stopping to think.
countries are not permanent friends. its unwise to be too global.
Re:if you can do the work at home, do it (Score:5, Insightful)
I rather like the idea of interdependence growing to the point where countries simply can't afford to have wars with one another, myself.
Re: (Score:1)
Most insightful comment on slashdot. This also explains why USA tightened its borders so much after 9/11 and continues to create a gap between it and the rest of the world: it's much easier for them to make war.
Re:if you can do the work at home, do it (Score:5, Insightful)
This was exactly the same argument made on the eve of WWI, that the world economy was too interdependent for war to be waged between the major powers. What happened afterwards is history.
My own take is that the nuclear deterrent is much more potent than any economic deterrent.
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear deterrent doesn't work on proxy wars. See: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (80s)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was exactly the same argument made on the eve of WWI, that the world economy was too interdependent for war to be waged between the major powers. What happened afterwards is history.
In all my studying of WWI I've never heard that brought up. The closest thing I've heard to that was that every major head of Europe was Queen Victoria's grandkid (or grandkid-in-law).
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea, too.
but I don't think its realistic to ever have it happen.
even small bunches of people eventually fight with each other. you expect the world to stay peaceful or even get peaceful and hold it for any length of time?
you are not describing life on earth. some other species and planet, maybe, but not earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody said on this site that when people and goods stop crossing borders is when tanks and soldiers start to march in.
Re: (Score:1)
> countries are not permanent friends. its unwise to be too global.
Some believe that one of the intentions of global trade and international relations as they are is to ensure that countries ARE permanent friends... because it would be too costly economically to go to war. Not just the cost of bomb, but the inability to make bombs without your trade partners.
Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
"In an internal memo, the research body advised the department that both these Chinese companies are a security threat to the telecom world"
You mean becoming completely dependent on another country, a specific company, etc. for resources, especially defense critical resources, can be a 'security threat'? Really?
No shit. I know I left that clue bat laying around here somewhe....
When government hands out money (Score:1)
They want it to be spent locally, where the voters live.
So which are the Indian Networking companies? (Score:3)
So who are the Indian equivalents of Cisco, Avaya, Juniper, Brocade, et al? Yeah, they do have domestic Telecom companies like Airtel, Reliance Communications, but others? Only one I can think of is iBaton (Apple hasn't sued them for using I before the product name) which makes networking equipment like switches & routers. Otherwise, everything there is the usual DLink, Linksys, Cisco and so on.
It makes more sense if the Indians were to just ban Chinese companies, like Huawei and ZTE from the action
Re: (Score:2)
companies like airtel will use its hardware subsidaries like beetel(sp not just the unknown iBaton) or other indian manufacturere(rather import and relabelers) will import the same huwaei or ZTE spec devices manufactured in taiwan or indirectly in china and sell it. so govt here just helps the indian middle men if not manufacturing.
BTW the software for cisco to juniper et all are developed here in india and the hw made in china. so big deal its quite the same for american companies as well
Re: (Score:2)
So who are the Indian equivalents of Cisco, Avaya, Juniper, Brocade, et al? Yeah, they do have domestic Telecom companies like Airtel, Reliance Communications, but others?
Of the back of my head, I can recall Tejas Semiconductor. There are others, google should serve you well.
Just hire their engineers! (Score:3, Insightful)
India joins the US (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I feel like china was never meant to be successful, forever as cheap labor for western corporations, oh yeah some of the people will be successful and they'll buy western goods but they're not supposed to be able to compete with us, that's not what free trade is about. I guess we'll have to invade them and bomb them back to the Stone Age so they'll be the impoverished third world labor they were always meant to be.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your rationale is that the vast majority of the world is neither the US or Western Europe. And it's precisely there where the Chinese excel. I suggest you read http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/09/23/Europe-The-Strings-Attached-to-a-Chinese-Bailout.aspx#page1 [thefiscaltimes.com] to get a better picture of what's coming. Some countries are investing their foreign reserves in yuans, the Chinese offering money to Europe with some conditions (kind of like the World Bank, IMF), and the truth is, as we all
Spy vs Spy (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
In its current spat with Japan, China proved more than willing to use economic warfare in disputes.
Oh? Interesting. Any articles about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Google: China "rare earths" Japan? You might even restrict the search to "site:slashdot.org", and you'll still get a number of relevant hits.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more about people boycotting Japanese products, than the government blocking Japanese imports. Japan and China have a troublesome history, especially after World War 2, so any sovereignty issues will flare up in the same fashion.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2012-11/20/content_15946209.htm [chinadaily.com.cn]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
exactly what will happen. infact even the software will be packed as is without even testing. this is the case with all the indian handset manufactures who sell samsung salaxy s2 or higher spec android phones and tabs at 1/5 of the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to call BS on this one. Wiring by itself is not an active component. So, one could cause copper wire to act like an antenna by intentionally compromising the shielding, but that's it (short of including digital components in the connectors or something, but they would still need power from somewhere. Anyway I don't consider that a 'bug'). So, assuming you compromised the shielding, if the signal being transmitted through the wire was of sufficient power and high enough frequency, then it would l