On Chinese-Owned Technology Platforms

I am a co-author on a report published by the Hoover Institution: “Chinese Technology Platforms Operating in the United States.” From a blog post:

The report suggests a comprehensive framework for understanding and assessing the risks posed by Chinese technology platforms in the United States and developing tailored responses. It starts from the common view of the signatories — one reflected in numerous publicly available threat assessments — that China’s power is growing, that a large part of that power is in the digital sphere, and that China can and will wield that power in ways that adversely affect our national security. However, the specific threats and risks posed by different Chinese technologies vary, and effective policies must start with a targeted understanding of the nature of risks and an assessment of the impact US measures will have on national security and competitiveness. The goal of the paper is not to specifically quantify the risk of any particular technology, but rather to analyze the various threats, put them into context, and offer a framework for assessing proposed responses in ways that the signatories hope can aid those doing the risk analysis in individual cases.

Posted on February 25, 2021 at 6:19 AM22 Comments

Comments

Matthias Hörmann February 25, 2021 8:06 AM

Wouldn’t it make sense to do a similar risk analysis for all goods, services and information sources used by either government employees, a significant portion of the population or major parts of the economy?

It has amazed me for decades that that does not seem to be standard operating procedure for governments to evaluate the risks and benefits of large external but also internal suppliers of physical products, information and services for obvious failure modes like

  • What if the supplier manipulates this?
  • What if the supplier withholds this?
  • What if a third party disrupts our supply chain to this?
  • How much money leaves our economy through this?
  • What are our options if this does not conform to our regulation?
  • What are our options if we need changes made to this once the supplier becomes unavailable?
  • How can this adversely affect the behavior/health/… of our population?

wiredog February 25, 2021 8:24 AM

@Matthias Hörmann
Most of the government agencies I’ve worked with in the IC do those sorts of things. Whenever there’s an update to software we use, for example, it gets thoroughly analyzed to ensure it doesn’t do anything unexpected.

Joe K February 25, 2021 8:38 AM

The phrase “our national security” features prominently in this report.

This phrase always makes me wonder why the processes that have
rendered millions of US residents homeless are seemingly never
considered to belong under this rubric.

I am curious why “banks, not bombs” makes any difference at all, since
it surely makes no difference to the ones rendered homeless.

Perhaps the explanation is hidden in the referent of “our”? JP Morgan
Chase and Goldman Sachs have an interest in “our national security”,
but my homeless peers do not?

JonKnowsNothing February 25, 2021 9:50 AM

@Joe K

re: why millions of US homeless are not considered as part of “our national security”

Because it is a Hoover Institution report. It’s an influential place to be sure but it’s also the home base for out of work NeoLiberal-NeoCons-Arch-Libertarian prominent named persons.

The value of such reports is primarily to give “cover” for the myriads of “Hoover Fellows” paychecks .

One can also discern the bias in the report from the title: “Chinese technology”. You don’t have to read one more sentence to know what the report’s findings will be in the executive summary.

The report might have had any title like:

  • USA technology threats to US National Security
  • UK technology threats to US National Security
  • EU technology threats to US National Security
  • Brazil technology threats to US National Security
  • BLM threats to US National Security
  • Social Justice and Wealth Redistribution threats to US National Security

No worries, Hoover produces all of these sorts of reports.

ht tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution
(url fractured to prevent autorun)

Clive Robinson February 25, 2021 12:25 PM

It’s interesting to note that the “US National Security” is given as the reason for the report.

Well how about first starting with “Australian National Security”? Or most other countries in the world.

Put simply the US has had such an overwhelming effect on the National Security of just about every other country in the world, it assumes it is automaticaly “lord and master” and that “all dissent must be crushed” just like any “School playground bully” assumes that “might is right”.

It’s very easy to come up with a plan, and that is simply to do what China has done over the past couple of decades in response to the US intrusions into China’s sovereignty and national security.

However such US policy bullying will result in way more push back and new legislation against US organisations.

It will also lead to strong “Internet boarders” and the likes of the Great Firewall of China, will become the norm and with it all the freedoms the internet was supposed to bring will be turned first into boarder clashes / skirmishes then into full scale informational and economic wars.

With the US finding it will more rapidly take the coresponding hit than other nations[2]. In part due to the principle of,

“My enemies enemy is my friend”

Which for a short time will produce a consolidated opposition to the US, only to fall apart to infighting “when the US gorgan lies dead”.

We saw this back in Barack Obama’s last term in office. The US tried it on with TPP[1] which excluded China but included a whole load of other nasties ISDS rightly horified the rest of the world when the secrets of what were realy going on leaked and fairly quickly became verified.

[1] TPP in the Pacific and TTIP in Europe were a disaster when things became public, that in the end even the US citizens did not in any way want favourable as it might have been to US Corps who in effect wrote them. TTP especially was seen as a follow on to Bill Clinton’s North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) but was found to be a US corporate “land grab” via ISDS which caused bad press around the world,

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/isds-the-devil-in-the-trade-deal/5734490

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid

Which caused it to run into an end of term election cycle where every candidate disowned it as poison,

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/tpp-explained-what-is-trans-pacific-partnership.html

The point being is that most of these “Save the US” by “Get China” ideas fail and fail miserably[2].

[2] That is,for ordinary US citizens all of these “Get China” ideas realy only favour short term thinking US Corporation and politicians they pay, who see instant profits, cost savings or both at the expense of everyone else. Especially by far the majority of ordinary US citizens who see jobs and finance actually go to China due to them, and US jobs and salaries stagnate whilst rent and cost of living rise significantly with the Corporate “rent seeking” policy rising on the profits and cost savings…

Godfree Roberts February 25, 2021 3:13 PM

China will launch four new technology platforms this year, to which it owns most of the IP: IoT, Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), Blockchain Services Network (a platform), and Quantum Secure Networks.

Western nations will have the option to develop alternatives, of course, but the combined costs of lost opportunity, time lag, and cost will make alternatives less palatable.

xcv February 25, 2021 11:02 PM

wiredog • February 25, 2021 8:24 AM

@Matthias Hörmann
Most of the government agencies I’ve worked with in the IC do those sorts of things. Whenever there’s an update to software we use, for example, it gets thoroughly analyzed to ensure it doesn’t do anything unexpected.

Thoroughly analyzed? Hah! They procrastinate. Anything else would be unexpected. Government agencies are government agencies, with all the bureaucracy and literally red tape with secret and top secret ticker tape over everything, bright red lipstick, rouge on their cheeks, and all the conversation of a hair salon or pedicure spa. You’ve got Miss Moneypenny syndrome at all those govoernment offices. Too many government workers act like they somehow have more “intelligence” than common citizens, tell us how stupid we are, all these federal laws about their “need to know” shit that ain’t none of their business in the first place, what they’re allowed to blab about all they want on the job, but we are not to breathe a word about it or even question anything, or they ship us off by “extraordinary rendition” to Guantanamo Bay or some place like that for torture and interrogation.

AL February 25, 2021 11:48 PM

@Clive
“It’s interesting to note that the “US National Security” is given as the reason for the report.

Well how about first starting with “Australian National Security”? Or most other countries in the world.”

I read the report, and it is confined to China and the U.S. I don’t understand why we can’t have a microcosm, a topic confined to a narrowly tailored issue.

I don’t see why it needs to include Australia. The best people to be working on that report would be people in Australia.

Where does this go? He can’t talk about a narrowly tailored issue? He also has to talk about the disappearing honeybees, the expensive housing crisis, the Israel Palestine issue, my emotional comfort after months of isolation due to Covid, etc, etc. Come on.

The report deals with China vs. U.S. The critique should only concern itself on whether the contentions in the report is correct. While I’ll choose to listen rather than speak to this issue, I think that is what comments regarding this report should be confined to.

Winter February 26, 2021 2:36 AM

@Clive
“Well how about first starting with “Australian National Security”? Or most other countries in the world.”

Because the USA has to do a delicate balance act to protect USA National Security while at the same time prevent other countries from protecting their national security.

The US seem to be fighting very hard to keep other countries insecure. So hard, that the USA themselves regularly are a victim of these efforts.

Obviously, NeoCon/NeoLib institutions are not going to teach other countries where their weak spots are.

Clive Robinson February 26, 2021 5:54 AM

@ AL, Winter,

I don’t see why it needs to include Australia. The best people to be working on that report would be people in Australia.

I see you don’t get the point, whilst Winter did.

The report is in effect an excuse to declare warfare on China.

By and large those in the US including the politicians have been too stupid and short sighted, thus the neo-con, libiterian attitudes has led the US into the dire straits it’s got it’s self in economically and now realises it can not catch up on on it’s own merits.

Thus the only way it can keep it’s dominance over the world is by “Bombing them back to the stone ages” or it’s modern equivalent.

What do you think all that nonsence over 5G has been about?

It’s to try and destroy China’s ability to become the worlds leading telecoms producer, with it’s own technology.

As for 5G enabling spying, actually rather less so than any telecoms tech that has dribbled out of the US since the late 1970’s early 1980’s when compared like for like.

The US is in serious trouble, because it has chosen not to invest in it’s future. Instead it chose the route of short term cut and run investing and debt leveraging to maximize paper profit. It’s got so bad that even US universities do not see teaching as a core activity any longer and certainly not research that is anything more than short term. In fact a valid critisim against certain prestige universities is that they have become “Hedge Funds” as a core activity.

I’ve been warning here for years that outsourcing jobs was a very bad idea. For several reasons,

1, It gives IP to your potential competitors.
2, Because they not you are resolving issues they get a technological lead.
3, It takes money out of the US economy and it injects it into the foreign economy. If you understand economic churn and the ten to one model, every direct dollar you take out of the US economy removes ten times the economic activity, but it creates ten dollars of economic activity in the foreign country. So a hundred times the harm is done. You can argue if it’s ten to one less or more but the result is still the same.
4, It creates job losses and long term unemployment in the home economy and does the opposit in the foreign economy.
5, As a result it destroys the home customer base, thus weakening the US company significantly.
6, The lack of jobs stops the home workforce investing in it’s self through education, the opposite happens in the foreign economy.
7, The lack of skilled workers stops most attempts to reverse the trend and research and development stagnates in the home economy whilst it takes of in the foreign economy.

And there is worse to come because since the invention by a couple of Europeans of the junk bond market to get around the Bretton Woods agrement “smart money moves” or if you want it more graphically it’s become the number one “Economic Vampire”. The only reason the US has not sunk way way further economically is the US Dollar is used as the world trading curancy. If that stops, then the US would be in such deep trouble even laundering drug money will not stop it’s economy freezing up. Historically the way to halt that kind of depression was to open up the Treasury and buy your way out by investment in workers to create economic need, one way was by internal investment in infrastructure, but the other was by “going to war” where not only do you put money into workers and troops, you also destroy another nations economic ability by “bombing it back into the stone ages” but that only realy works when two things apply,

1, You have technological superiority.
2, You can stop the enemy destroying your home production.

There were accusations that China stole the F35 designs and it became a political idiom. But then people noticed that the Chinese plane not only took off it landed as well, and could handle a little bit of rain unlike the F35. Then a joke started in the industry about “Maybe we should outsource the F35” or variations on it.

Another sad little truth, why do you think the DoD got it’s panties in a wad over “supply chain security”?

Well the truth is all those hightech weapons the US has all have Far East technology in them thus the DoD realised they had two problems,

1, They could not make more weapons in times of war if thr Far East cut off supply or even just delayed it a bit or made it slightly unreliable.
2, If the suppliers had thought far enough ahead then the weapons they had in stock might not work either.

But there was another issue, that has been known about for years, Isaac Asimov even used it as a plot line in his Foundation Series back in the early 1950’s. Put simply if another nation controls the production of all those non war devices such as domestic appliances and industrial machinery or in the more modern era computers they also can stop your ability to fight a war simply by crippling your home economy. Ask people in California and Texas what power outages have ment for then both last summer and this years snap winter? What do you think would happen if every fridge/freezer in US homes stopped working? How about computers? Oh and cable/broadcast television?

Then ask your self why the Obama idea of the “Big red Internet off switch” disapeared from view? How about the idea of Smart Grids?

The US is overly dependent on flaky technology in the Internet and lack of Security in smart tech, combined it’s realy a question of IF not WHEN it’s all going to go wrong.

I kind of hoped the US and other countries would realise the real message behind 9/11, but in the main they have not, nor have most other Western Nations. It’s this,

“All technology is agnostic to use, and will work as well for good as evil those ideas being human social constructs. The more reliant a society becomes on technology the more easily it can be used against the society.”

You would have thought having a number of passenger aircraft turned into guided missiles for the price of a few box cutter knives by just a hand full of technically incompetent idiots resulting in the destruction of iconic buildings and thousands of lives might have been a wake up call…

Anyway the usual US solution was applied “Start a War in name and deed” but this time the target was both the US citizen and the US economy…

I could list a whole lot more, but as long as the US keeps doubling down on stupidity things are not going to get any better. Thus in effect writing a precursor to a declaration of war against a country that,

1, Has technological superiority.
3, Has developed the weapons to easily defeat your armed forces and drop nuclear devices all over the US homeland.

Does not exactly strike me as a wise thing to do, especially when just about everything in the US has due to neo-cons become way way to fragile.

Ask yourself a personal question,

What are you going to do when Uncle Sam says “Ship up soldier it’s time for you to die in a pointless war”?

Winter February 26, 2021 9:55 AM

@Clive
“Does not exactly strike me as a wise thing to do, especially when just about everything in the US has due to neo-cons become way way to fragile.”

The NeoCons et al. were very fond of the the Roman Empire, with the USA as Rome. But they did not looked at how Rome fell:
– Massive tax evasion by the rich and powerful
– The Roman equivalent of “supply chain poisoning”, hiring non-Roman soldiers
– After hiring foreigners in the armies, trying to get rid of them

AL February 26, 2021 12:10 PM

@Clive

The report seems to confine itself to internet/tech security. I’m not seeing a declaration of war here. You’re reading a little too much into it. This is what I see.

The US response to the growing threat posed by China-controlled internet platforms lacks coherence. The United States needs a clear, effective, and consistent strategy on these issues…

That said, I do think neocon foreign policy is the number one threat to the U.S. While China spends on infrastructure and new silk road that will boost their economic strength we’ve flushed $3T down the toilet in the Middle East, with bombs dropping this week. China’s economy grew in 2020 while our Federal Reserve prints money like it is the Weimar Republic. Same goes for the ECB.

And I’m quite aware that we’re being bombarded with a lot of big bad China stories, particularly out of the New York Times. I’d like to see a story on how it was that the U.S. adopted Modern Monetary Theory without a political debate.

That said, I don’t see this paper like you do. Way I look at it, it is a small component with much bigger issues, namely economic issues. We still trade in the WTO as a “developed” country while China trades as a “developing” country. No level playing field there.

The answer to the problem in this particular paper might simply be the Great Firewall of the U.S. Certainly, well before war, we would cut off connectivity. We’re asymmetrical now, because they have their firewall and we don’t.

Indeed February 26, 2021 12:13 PM

@lurker

Yep, the lockdowns certainly have been the greatest threat to public health we’ve experienced in decades. You can see this in the states that are open and doing fine vs states that have been unable to tackle the lockdown hydra.

They get crucified in the news, but the reality is quite different.

Clive Robinson February 26, 2021 1:38 PM

@ AL,

I’d like to see a story on how it was that the U.S. adopted Modern Monetary Theory without a political debate.

Though it makes me grind my teeth, it’s fairly easy to explain[1],

1, Gov purchases from “favoured” suppliers by printing money.

2, The suppliers move the money into real assets or effrctively off shore.

3, The suppliers pay legislators to give them favoured tax status of fractions of a percent or less.

4, The workers carry the tax burden on renumeration, purchases and often sales of assets especially those held long term.

5, Shortfalls are made up by fines to workers and non favoured suppliers.

So the legislators are being paid to asset strip the nation into foreign currency or real assets beyond taxation.

This COVID relief given to major corporations who put money in politicians election campaigns and other “dark money” systems almost immediately moved it out of the US or out from under US Dollar rates etc by the purchase of real assets. The tax and fine paying public will spend the next three or five generations paying that back via taxation or worse fines.

As I’ve noted on the blog several times over the years Governments are failing to recover taxes from corporations that have become virtual and move around off shore as fast as radiowaves move. So Govs increased taxation on individuals in various hidden ways untill it was nolonger possible to raise them any further. So they turned to fines and other similar systems to asset strip those that become politically undesirable. Part of this is the “hard on criminals” where what they reaky mean is “asset strip the poor and lower waged classes”.

As part of this is systems used to seperate individuals from real assets so they become the source for “rent seeking” which helps keep the value of the currancy.

In a way MMT is “stealth inflation” in that on by far the majority of the population who have only financial assets (savings etc) not real assets (property etc) the result is they and they alone subsidise the currancy and the effect through taxes and fines has the same depreciation on their financial assets as that of the coresponding inflation.

So when you realise who the political paymasters are and how they benifit by MMT it’s not hard to “follow the money”.

Expect to see more ways to seperate those who arecwaged and salaried from any assets they might own. One such trick is that land taxes increase in handling fees as well as per area fees. Which automatically disadvantages small area property holders especially small comercial interests. Large commercial interests however negotiate significant discounts and some actually get paid by negative fees. This is sold to the public as “bringing XXX to the community” where XXX is employment, amenities, or some other thing that can be made to sound like a “Social Good” but is infact actually a deficit to individuals either directly, or indirectly through others such as small traders having to raise their prices thus increased sales taxes etc, which also puts the small traders at a very significant further disadvantage against the large commercial interests.

Such is the “hidden hand of the market” of neo-capitalism, that sees any disaster-capitalism it can create as not just beneficial but necessary to short term profit.

Which is why you get so much under investment in strategic services such as services and infrastructure. They create a disaster by deliberate underspending, then hit those who are dependent with well over actuall cost demands, which becomes profit to attract shareholders etc.

Something those in California and Texas are now starting to realise. That is not only does the “free market” give them higher than average bills per kWh they also get hit with infrastructure repair and development costs as further fees on top…

[1] One of the things I hate about those in “economics” is how they find new ways to lie about reality while being “subsidized” in various hidden ways by those who benifit most from the lies… MMT and it’s supporters should have their incomes and benifits traced right back to the source through think tanks and other financial cut outs.

JonKnowsNothing February 26, 2021 1:42 PM

@AL

re: The answer to the problem in this particular paper might simply be the Great Firewall of the U.S. Certainly, well before war, we would cut off connectivity. We’re asymmetrical now, because they have their firewall and we don’t.

Every country has a firewall or ability to shut down the internet. They may call it different names but the functionality is there and gets used.

Once upon a Web-Time there were specific prohibitions on breaking the net and Splinter-Net was to be avoided. Breaking the net completely returns us to the level of Sneaker Net function.

In the USA, the net can be fully controlled along the major backbones run by the back-haul companies. The net can be broken along any line contained within the dual fiber rings East and West of the Mississippi. It can be broken down to the state, city, county and street level. In major cities like New York and San Francisco and Chicago it can be broken down by building levels and for big structures by floor.

The primary reason the USA public doesn’t see it in use at that level is that too much global traffic passes along the USA backbone and Bluffdale would starve.

On the front end in public view we have our Firewalls held by corporations. FB recently ran a demo against Australia. The US Gov can order any company to stop providing service or continue to provide logged services under a number of laws including a NSL (National Security Letter).

It’s done regularly and in secret. FISC may just be a rubber stamp but that’s what it is for.

What isn’t available is a way for an Individual to have their own Impenetrable Firewall. All the ones on offer leak like sieves and provide only a fig leaf’s worth of protection. Every individual connection passes through the controls not of just the USA but other countries.

Depending on how far up you plan to pull up the drawbridge, the moat isn’t deep enough.

Clive Robinson February 26, 2021 2:40 PM

@ JonKnowsNothing,

The primary reason the USA public doesn’t see it in use at that level is that too much global traffic passes along the USA backbone and Bluffdale would starve.

You also forgot to mention what would happen to the US economy… To say it would “grind to a halt” would be like comparing a glaciers forward momentum to that of a rocket going for a moon shot.

Because the Internet is seen as “free to use” it’s had just about everything put on it…

So the logistics that get food to the shops “check”. The power that gets to your home “check”. The water that gets to your home “check”. The sewage that gets taken away from your home “check”. The rubbish that gets taken away from your home “check”. The bills you pay “check”. The investments you make “check”. In many cases in Western countries the release from the employer to the bank to transfer wages/salary “check”.

But it gets a bit more subtle when it comes to communications. In theory voice and seconfary services like SMS are independent of the Internet, the reality is the two are deeply interteind at the physical layer they share. But with LTE and 5G the pretence of seperation is gone all services will be IP based on the developing back bone. Thus to shut down the Internet means shutting down mobile communications.

But due to licencing costs all the Emergancy Services not just first responders are moving off of “Private Mobile Radio” to “Mobile networks”. This also includes all the service maintainence personnel going out ensuring that infrastructure is functioning.

Likewise delivery services, taxi drivers, and just about anything else that provides services of any sort you can imagine…

But what about traffic managment? Are people aware of just how much of the street lights and signals run off of the mobile network. What do you think would happen if all the traffic lights and pedestrian crossing lights in New York and Washington DC just stopped?

The way the Inyetnet anf mobile communications have built up and have become so intertwined, you can not just shut “one thing down” without many others being significantly adversly effected.

So the whole system is very very fragile with all the potential unseen side effects just kicking in but… Not being able to be kicked back up when they have gone down because of the intertwined and often circular interdependancies…

In short in the US in particular stoping the internet would be the equivalent of dropping a ton of nuts and bolts directly into the engine of not just the economy but also the engine of state…

What is the betting that if you cut off either the Internet or Mobile comms in Texas the right way you will get the same effect if not worse of frozen fuel supplies?

Would that despised by “exceptionalist neo-cons” “Green deal” generation give enough power to bring things back up again or would they all fly to Mexico?

AL February 26, 2021 3:27 PM

@Clive
MMT is done for one reason, and one reason only. Our debt markets function under supply vs. demand principles. The Fed (and ECB) increases the supply to the point that interest rates resolve around 0%. That is why corporations are borrowing and leveraging their business. If the Fed stopped printing, with the huge deficits, interest rates would soar, and goodby stock market.

And it’s not “favored suppliers”. Trump wanted to end the payroll tax and print Social Security benefits. The far-left want the Fed to print and extinguish student loans. Biden’s $2T stimulus will be printed (created) because to finance it in debt markets would result in soaring interest rates.

We’re hearing about “deficits” when the deficits are a bit of a charade. And that goes to the news reporting, because the biggest problem is not biased news (although it definitely is), the problem is omitted news,

JonKnowsNothing February 26, 2021 4:08 PM

@Clive

re: You also forgot to mention what would happen to the US economy… To say it would “grind to a halt” would be like comparing a glaciers forward momentum to that of a rocket going for a moon shot.

Anecdote: tl;dr

In the mists of time before the internet but during they heyday of internal networks, I did a stint with one of the heavy ends of the financial spectrum. The person (1) in charge of getting the company set up for computers had never used one before and had no interest in using one and saw no reason there should be a computer anywhere.

A common conversation revolved around computers as an expense. Computers are an sink and have no offsetting GAAP revenue or source stream. As a non-tangible revenue generator I offered a very clear way for him to calculate how much revenue they would generate without them. I could shut down the networks and systems and they could run on paper like the Old Days. Then he could compare the results.

Curiously, he never authorized that experiment.

One thing to give credit where it is due, he had a complete understanding of the risks and hazards of allowing technology to flow at a faster pace than the auditing and system security match.

I learned much from him.

1, Everyone in the industry above hourly pay is called a Vice President.There are levels on levels of Vice Presidents and this person was near the top crown.

Fed.up February 26, 2021 9:51 PM

Perhaps the solution is different country versions. I was in Japan at a conference and I noticed that their version of PowerPoint was different than in the USA. Different markets have different UI and color preferences.

So why not have different chip sets and core code for countries? Perhaps there could be different user signatures too? This would also serve to protect against hacking if American versions weren’t allowed to be sold outside of the USA and perhaps there could be a way so that software wouldn’t even work outside of its borders. US Media outlets do this so why couldn’t software do this too?

Today Microsoft admitted to Congress that they have operations in Russia and China. They give both countries access to their code. It is insanity to sell the same software to the DoD that they gave to the CCP.

I hope that there’s a technological solution to this rather than political.

Anonymous February 26, 2021 11:39 PM

@JonKnowsNothing
“What isn’t available is a way for an Individual to have their own Impenetrable Firewall. All the ones on offer leak like sieves and provide only a fig leaf’s worth of protection.”

On Windows, there is a “firewall” that is very unyielding, and that is IPsec. Above the IP level, there are over 100 protocols that can run. One is TCP (6). Another is UDP (17). Throw in ICMP and bada-bing, we’re rocking with IPv4, with only 3 protocols enabled. Back in the day, I needed PPTP – that’s protocol 47.

I’ve used IPsec for a firewall since Win2000, as it is not only good for communications, it is also good for firewalling.

On the macro view, I think IPv6 brings opportunities to bring a firewall capability while allowing international transit to pass through the U.S. We’re not going to be locked into an IPv4 world and mindset forever.

SpaceLifeForm March 2, 2021 6:01 PM

@ Bruce, Clive, ALL

It’s interesting that few have responded.

A good thing. People are learning.

For those that have not:

IPsec and IPv6 are absolute garbage.

Leave a comment

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.