[163648] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: huawei
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Gallagher)
Thu Jun 13 16:56:27 2013
In-Reply-To: <51BA0044.2050601@mtcc.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:35:43 +0300
From: Mark Gallagher <markwgallagher@gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I think one of the possibilities suggested beyond call-home or backdoors
was that they might have installed a secret kill-switch to be activated
against 'enemy' nodes in time of war was an cyber shock and awe campaign.
mg
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
> On 06/13/2013 10:20 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>>
>> 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).
>>
>>
> It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Hijacking many cat
> photos to
> send your cat photo... how deep is your DPI?
>
> Remember also, the answer to the universe fits in 6 bits...
>
> Mike
>
>
