[163626] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: huawei
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Helms)
Thu Jun 13 13:22:04 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAGWRaZZduutFiwNTSSR=uHayKCr_1ZKcWaBhQMTEA5xdB4zkQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:20:40 -0400
From: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
To: Nick Khamis <symack@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Not really, no one has claimed it's impossible to hide traffic. What is
true is that it's not feasible to do so at scale without it becoming
obvious. Steganography is great for hiding traffic inside of legitimate
traffic between two hosts but if one of my routers starts sending cay
photos somewhere, no matter how cute, I'm gonna consider that suspicious.
That's an absurd example (hopefully funny) but _any_ from one of my routers
over time would be obvious, especially since to be effective this would
have to go on much of the time and in many routers. Hiding all that isn't
feasible for a really technically astute company and they're not in that
category yet (IMO).
On Jun 13, 2013 1:10 PM, "Nick Khamis" <symack@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/13/13, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
> > On 06/13/2013 09:35 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >>
> >> I am assuming a not-Hauwei-only network.
> >>
> >> The idea that a router could send things through other routers without
> >> someone who is looking for it noticing is ludicrous.
> >>
> >
> > ::cough:: steganography ::cough::
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
>
> Well put!
>
> N.
>
>
