• hunter2_ 19 minutes ago

    If we set aside geopolitics and purely consider whether tightening the security of private networks is sensible whatsoever: are routers a substantially bigger threat than client devices such as the various IoT knickknacks (smart TVs, smart switches/outlets, smart appliances, etc.)? Controlling the NAT/firewall features is handy for opening ports and working around VLAN segmentation, but that isn't required for many scenarios; a compromised client device can often snoop on the rest of the network and exfiltrate what it discovers just fine even with an uncompromised router.

    • nizbit an hour ago

      Cisco been hiding this in plain sight since 2004: https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/CSD4291.pdf

      Love seeing pop up like it’s new or something.

      • nrki 18 minutes ago

        Huh? LI is standard on like every internet router there is.

      • jdlyga an hour ago

        This is just geopolitics. You should've seen what the US and Europe did during the Cold War.

        • juliusceasar 18 minutes ago

          Israel did the same in Netherlands with the biggest telecom KPN.

          • orwin an hour ago

            My company new installation now use Siemens routers. It seems a few will keep Cisco though, so we have yet another provider. More work for me I guess.

            • soumyaskartha 33 minutes ago

              The audacity of banning others for doing exactly what you got caught doing. At least be subtle about

              • ahartmetz 28 minutes ago

                There is no contradiction if you see it as a power struggle rather than an ethical matter.

              • ChrisArchitect 22 minutes ago
                • mikkupikku an hour ago

                  > country which once exploited an attack vector is now trying to protect itself on that vector

                  I have no doubt that American efforts at security on this front are inadaquate, incompetent, etc. But hypocritical? Nah.

                  • drivingmenuts an hour ago

                    If I was more paranoid, I'd start thinking the ban is to make it easier to spy on us by limiting our choices to a few domestic vendors who can be coerced by regulatory capture and "for the kids" political rhetoric.

                    • john_strinlai an hour ago

                      that makes sense, but i suspect it is more likely to be a bribery scheme. ("why not both!" someone yells)

                      • drivingmenuts 17 minutes ago

                        Sooner or later, some idiot lawmaker/opportunist is going to insist on 1) age checks to connect to a router and 2) content filters for routers, both of which can be used to score cheap political points.

                    • themafia 2 hours ago

                      A USA company bought an Indian OS to turn into it's SOHO router/firewall product. The results are exactly what you would have expected:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4COrX9YHcU

                      • palmotea 2 hours ago

                        > A USA company bought an Indian OS to turn into it's SOHO router/firewall product. The results are exactly what you would have expected:

                        > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4COrX9YHcU

                        You're linking to a 36 minute video titled "Black Hat USA 2025 | China's 5+ Year Campaign to Penetrate Perimeter Network Defenses." There's nothing in the description about "USA company bought an Indian OS to turn into it's SOHO router/firewall product."

                        Either you linked the wrong thing or you need a better source.

                        • themafia an hour ago

                          > Either you linked the wrong thing

                          I did not. The speaker clearly says in the video, twice, that they bought their OS from an Indian company. Anyways, here's the direct link to the quote:

                          https://youtu.be/z4COrX9YHcU?si=hzsYtprPeYkEC9DF&t=303

                          Perhaps your assumption should be that your efforts were inadequate rather than others.

                          You also could have opened the transcription panel and literally just searched for "india."

                      • tptacek 2 hours ago

                        Um, this is not an example of hypocrisy? If I punch you in the nose, I am not a hypocrite if I block your attempt to punch me back.

                        • GorbachevyChase an hour ago

                          There is no rule based order, and when it comes to state security establishments, the US or any other, there are no good guys.

                          • tptacek 35 minutes ago

                            I agree with that too, but that doesn't make the "hypocrisy" line make any more sense.

                          • fooqux an hour ago

                            I'm pretty sure they don't care about hypocrisy. They have the power to do this and get away with it, so they do.

                            • tptacek an hour ago

                              Oh, I agree, but the article says:

                              There is an element of hypocrisy in all this because American intelligence agencies were previously caught intercepting Cisco-made routers on their way to customers

                              No there isn't! That's not hypocritical! Words mean things!

                              • orwin an hour ago

                                I agree it's not hypocrisy, but I can see the element of hypocrisy, if I understand their meaning correctly.

                                • tptacek an hour ago

                                  Can you help me understand it then? I assume it's some kind of "turnabout is fair play" thing?

                            • CoastalCoder an hour ago

                              Good point.

                              If people are calling this hypocrisy, then I suspect there's a larger moral argument that hasn't been articulated.

                              • nclin_ an hour ago

                                Power revels in hypocrisy: Rules protect the in-group but do not bind them, and bind the out-group but do not protect them.

                                It's not just logical, it's affective: There is a real pleasure in domination, and a real fear in any loss of control. It feels good to be strong, to be in control, to be protected but not bound. Domination is hegemony, hegemony is safety.

                                These billionaires genuinely feel themselves to be oppressed if their power is threatened in any way. [1]

                                ---

                                [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no

                                • tptacek an hour ago

                                  Life is a mystery. Everyone must stand alone!

                                  • tialaramex 2 minutes ago

                                    The version of CryptoPals we wished for but didn't deserve?

                                    I listen to "Ice Ice Matrix" more often than I'd like to admit and every time I hear "Did you stop?" "No, I just drove by" I remember years ago solving these toy examples.

                                • esafak an hour ago

                                  No-one will be sad if you do get punched in the nose.

                                  • adventured an hour ago

                                    The US hasn't really needed that kind of sympathy since the 1860s Civil War.

                                    Other nations being sad when you get punched in the nose is only useful if you have no effective way to respond.

                                    Half the world disliked the US during the Cold War. People act like any of what is going on is new.

                                  • convolvatron 2 hours ago

                                    apparently the kind of people that whine the most loudly about being punched turn out to be real avid punchers themselves.

                                    • tptacek an hour ago

                                      People who are good at punching tend also to be good at avoiding punches.

                                    • keybored 39 minutes ago

                                      US domestic propaganda is built on hypocrisy (we need to stop X from doing Y... which we or our allies are doing already). It might not be explicitly stated right here, on this matter (contrary to The Register), but that’s the backdrop.

                                      Calling it hypocrisy is at the very least good propaganda to try to wake Americans up from their stupor.

                                      Admittedly though with Trump there’s no hypocritical propaganda any more. He just says he “wants the oil” or whatever.

                                      • tptacek 36 minutes ago

                                        It is not my argument that the US isn't generally hypocritical.

                                    • MisterTea an hour ago

                                      > Country that put backdoors into Cisco routers to spy on world bans foreign routers

                                      Says the tech rag hailing from the 5-eyes nation known as the UK...