[HN Gopher] Country that put backdoors in Cisco routers to spy o...
___________________________________________________________________
Country that put backdoors in Cisco routers to spy on world bans
foreign routers
Author : beardyw
Score : 117 points
Date : 2026-03-24 17:32 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| themafia wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| convolvatron wrote:
| apparently the kind of people that whine the most loudly about
| being punched turn out to be real avid punchers themselves.
| tptacek wrote:
| People who are good at punching tend also to be good at
| avoiding punches.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Good point.
|
| If people are calling this hypocrisy, then I suspect there's a
| larger moral argument that hasn't been articulated.
| fooqux wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I agree it's not hypocrisy, but I can see the element of
| hypocrisy, if I understand their meaning correctly.
| tptacek wrote:
| Can you help me understand it then? I assume it's some
| kind of "turnabout is fair play" thing?
| esafak wrote:
| No-one will be sad if you do get punched in the nose.
| adventured wrote:
| 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.
| nclin_ wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Life is a mystery. Everyone must stand alone!
| tialaramex wrote:
| 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.
| GorbachevyChase wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I agree with that too, but that doesn't make the "hypocrisy"
| line make any more sense.
| keybored wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| It is not my argument that the US isn't _generally_
| hypocritical.
| danparsonson wrote:
| On the other hand, if you punch someone in the nose and then
| loudly declare that your treehouse is the only safe place and
| everyone else is forbidden from entering because people have
| been punching people in the nose lately, then that does have a
| ring of hypocrisy about it doesn't it? The US is not banning
| its own routers.
| orwin wrote:
| 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.
| jdlyga wrote:
| This is just geopolitics. You should've seen what the US and
| Europe did during the Cold War.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| > 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.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > 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...
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| that makes sense, but i suspect it is more likely to be a
| bribery scheme. ("why not both!" someone yells)
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| 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.
| nizbit wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Huh? LI is standard on like every internet router there is.
| nizbit wrote:
| Backdoor no? "Lawful" sure ;)
| ranger_danger wrote:
| This is just CALEA which has been mandated for decades now.
| soumyaskartha wrote:
| The audacity of banning others for doing exactly what you got
| caught doing. At least be subtle about
| ahartmetz wrote:
| There is no contradiction if you see it as a power struggle
| rather than an ethical matter.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47495344
| hunter2_ wrote:
| 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.
| juliusceasar wrote:
| Israel did the same in Netherlands with the biggest telecom KPN.
| kevincloudsec wrote:
| the ban covers all foreign-made consumer routers but practically
| every router is manufactured abroad, even the ones sold by
| American companies. the only domestic exception is Starlink, iirc
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-24 23:01 UTC)