U.S. says 5G networks are 'vulnerable' to undermine Chinese suppliers: report

It's no secret that the U.S. doesn't want Huawei or any other Chinese tech company selling its networking equipment in America. Now it's taking that cause beyond its borders.

The U.S. government is actively pressuring allies and telecom companies in those countries to stop them from using networking equipment from Huawei and other China-based tech companies, the Wall Street Journal is reporting. The U.S. is specifically pointing to supposed vulnerabilities inherent to 5G, the report said, in order to dissuade Huawei's partners.

One unnamed U.S. official in the report cited "additional complexities to 5G networks that make them more vulnerable to cyberattacks." In the briefings between the U.S. and its allies, a key talking point is that individual 5G cell towers will take on more "core" functions with regard to voice and data traffic, which isn't the case with current (4G LTE and older) equipment, according to the report.

The implication: An attacker would theoretically have an easier time hacking a 5G network over older networks.

That's not necessarily correct, however. Tim Bajarin, lead analyst for Creative Strategies says, "There is serious security built into the 5G spec and Intel and [Qualcomm] are expected to add additional sedulity to their radio's (sic) and processors. This should make it harder, not easier [to hack a 5G network]."

All of this is centered around the ongoing U.S. effort to keep Chinese-made equipment out of networks worldwide, ostensibly to reduce the risk of cyber-espionage. Huawei is the world's No. 2 manufacturer of cellphones (after Samsung) and is the No. 1 supplier of networking equipment, according to data from Dell'Oro, a research firm that analyzes telecom infrastructure.

In response to a query from Mashable, a Huawei spokesperson said, "Huawei is surprised by the behaviors of the U.S. government detailed in the article. If a government's behavior extends beyond its jurisdiction, such activity should not be encouraged."

The U.S. vs. Huawei

The pushback against Huawei et al. has been intense in the last year, but it predates the Trump administration: a U.S. congressional report from 2012 stated that Huawei was a threat to national security. The chief concern is that, because it's based on China, Huawei could be compelled by the Chinese government to compromise its own hardware or software to serve Chinese intelligence directives.

If such a thing happened, it would severely compromise a company's integrity — probably to the point where it could never do business again — which is why the scenario seems unlikely. However, just such a scenario appeared to have actually happened when earlier this year Bloomberg reported a so-called hardware hack: a server supplier was compelled by the Chinese armed forces to insert a tiny chip into its hardware that would allow covert access.

That report has since been credibly called into question, but the fear remains — fear that the U.S. is more than happy to take advantage of. What the Journal report makes clear is the U.S. is even willing to undermine the integrity of 5G technology in order to sow doubt about Chinese tech companies and reduce their role in supplying equipment worldwide.

The question, however, is: Where does the concern for cybersecurity end and American protectionism begin? It's not like the U.S. and its allies don't have a dog in the 5G fight; what's bad for Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE is generally good for Western companies like Ericsson and Nokia.

The questionable Bloomberg story notwithstanding, there's also been virtually no evidence that Huawei or any other Chinese firm has been compromised in the way the U.S. government suggests. All of this is based on potentials: If Huawei supplies equipment, and if that equipment is compromised, then we're in big trouble. The conclusion: You should probably go with someone else, just in case.

Given China's record on human rights and its stated goals of being a world leader in developing emerging technologies like 5G and AI, there is comfort in subscribing to that position. However, without evidence, it's not hard to see this logic extended to any company based in a country that isn't a U.S. ally. It's possible that right call doesn't necessarily align with the most fair call.

In any case, the security of 5G networks is something that everyone has a stake in. If the U.S. wants to take the position that they're inherently less secure than older networks, that's not a comfortable place to be either.