Hacker News Reader

> This argument proves too much. By this reasoning, "Qualcomm-owned Cisco" is "injecting backdoors" into their chips as well.[1]

I would not consider this to be past my belief ...

View on HN

CISCO has not only a long history of creating backdoors, but have also been marketing them as features. They even wrote an IETF proposal (RFC 2804) for a LI backdoor:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2804

https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-10/Cross_Tom/Bl...

Edit: Schneier wrote in 2018: "We don't know if this is error or deliberate action, but five backdoors have been discovered [in CISCO] already this year." and linking to this article: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cisco-backdoor-hardcoded-a... (the final count went up to 7 actual backdoors discovered in 2018.

From May 2019: https://www.scmagazineuk.com/cisco-firewalls-routers-switche...

The IETF proposal you linked is not for a backdoor. It's IETF refusing to set rules on future IETF standards including, or not including wiretapping.

i.e. It states that whether a standard includes a wiretap or not is irrelevant to it being an IETF standard.

I wouldn't either, but I'm gonna hold out for some evidence before I start telling people they are :)

Edit: hey, while we're on the subject, what ever happened with that supermicro thing? Check's in the mail?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com