China Walks Out of Wireless LAN Security Talks 313
Ant writes "A CommsDesign article reports that China walked out of a wireless standards meeting this week, accusing the International Organization for Standardization of favoring the IEEE's 802.11i ANSI-certified wireless LAN security scheme over its own controverisal proposal, EE Times has learned.
The gambit came after China's Wireless Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) security scheme was withdrawn and placed on a slower track by the ISO." From the article: "China initially agreed last year to refrain from making its WAPI security scheme mandatory for wireless LAN equipment in China. It then approached ISO with a fast-track submission in an effort to make WAPI an international security standard."
The article... (Score:3, Funny)
MANHASSET, NY (Score:2)
MAN|HAS|SET in shit
Can't fault China... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. How did you engineer a secret backdoor into your marble game?
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:2)
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:2)
Every law _worldwide_ is ultimatly Unilateral (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no international legislature (the UN ain't it), there is no international monarch. They are the two groups that make laws. When there is a 1:1 correlation between cause & effect, if you don't have the cause (international legislature) you can't have the effect (international law).
So despite the lies that a bandied about, international law doesn't exist.
What people often mean when they say "international law" is "treaties," but they usually have some agenda they are hiding behind and intentionally misleading you. I assume that since God is dead and humans can no longer appeal to the moral authority of God that they feel the need to appeal the moral authority of some other fictitious being. In this case, international law (aka global standards).
Now on to treaties.
Treaties are just agreements between governments to enact laws. They aren't law by themselves. The US Constitution gives the President the authority to make treaties, but Congress gets to ratify and then make laws based upon them.
So, the US & AU make a treaty to do W, X & Y
When it gets run through the AU Parliament they don't like W. So they pass a law that allows for V, X & Y. That law is only enforceable in AU. It is an imperfect implementation of the treaty, but an implementation nonetheless. It is like a standard that is implemented but not fully.
Same thing happens in the US Congress. But they pass law with X, Y & Z.
Now you have 2 national laws. A AU law. A US law. You don't have an international law. Why? No international legislature remember.
You can sue in AU under the AU law, but not the US law. So in AU you are entitled to V, X & Y.
You can sue in US under the US law, but not the AU law. So in US you are entitled to Z, X & Y.
No where can you sue under the treaty. You never are entitled to W. Because te treaty (which entitled you to W) isn't a law, just an agreement to make a law.
You can't sue in NZ under either the AU or US laws. Because NZ, has neither of these laws and their courts don't care about US or AU laws.
Now we mis-use the term "treaty" to refer to both the AU & US laws collectively, but neither of them is really the treaty as negotiated by the PM/President.
Hey what about these international courts?
Well, they are really arbitration bodies.
They have no legal power beyond what the individual nations give them.
The UK may pass a law giving ICC judgments full effect, but that is due to the UK ceding sovereignty to the ICC, not because the ICC is inherently morally superior or because of some international law (which doesn't exist remember).
Now the US doesn't agree to cede its sovereignty to the ICC. So the ICC has no effect in the US.
Why no power beyond what the individual nations give them?
It comes down to a concept called jurisdiction.
See, ultimately might does make right. Not moral correctness, but the right to do something is ultimately based upon your ability to enforce that right.
To enforce a court order to, for example, the ability to forcibly imprison someone, take their personal and real property from them, you need an army and a police system. Nations have these things. NGO bodies don't. Even the UN has no standing military. It relies on borrowing the military of its member nations.
If the ICC has a judgement it wants enforced in the UK, it needs to get the approval of the UK government to use the UK police force to do that. Alone, the ICC is impotent.
Ultimately, every country acts unilaterally. Every country implements their own version of treaties. Every country decides whether or not to cede sovereignty to an international arbitration board.
Re:Every law _worldwide_ is ultimatly Unilateral (Score:2)
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:2)
They who? For instance, if Bush signed up for the ICC, would it of become law? No, it would have to pass though Congress, and the Senate.
I've heard that the vast majority of US soldiers are US citizens, with families in the US. And ALL these people have influence on their Congressmen and Senators.
You think these people like the idea of an International Criminal Court?
Not to mention, I don't even think it's Constitutional.
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:2)
when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian
population, with knowledge of the attack:"
One soldier murdering another are not grounds for international crime. One soldier killing an armed civilian isn't eitehr. Fire bombing civilians and soldiers would be.
Get your head out of that as of yours. If you want to punish real criminals transparently (in the eye
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:2)
Are you dense?
If you murder someone in just about any country, you'll probably end up in a court in that country.
Non-Americans who commit serious crimes in America frequently appear in an American court.
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:3, Funny)
Great, another Mac fanatic.
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:2)
Hmm. You forgot that we jews also control the weather. And we gays control the media. Hence, you should also conclude there is a secret cabal of jewish homos that hold all newschannel weatherpersons under constant blackmail, threatning to open our own weather outlets and control the weather. Plus, the gay jewish illuminati members totally fuck with the Mars program.....
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:2)
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:2)
In short, I don't think you'd be happy with the human rights committee - or the UN as a whole, or even the whole world - unless they did exactly what America wants and said.
You almost got that. Change America to I. If you find two people who agree 100% on everything you can be sure that at least one fails to use his brain. Since I'm not in charge (and honestly I don't want to be) as dictator of the world for life, I have to compromise. I elect people, who sometimes even win. I allow someone to "r
Re:Can't fault China... (Score:2)
Well, sort of. I personally cannot as an American, but congress can do all of that. It is only an international issue if other nations choose to make it one. Nations invade each other all the time. (for some definition of all the time) Nations do a lot of other things to control other nations (See Russia/Ukraine). Sometimes it is an internation issue, sometimes it is not.
I don't have time to read the whole charter and respond to each point. Here is some examples of how I'm concerned it can be abus
Made in... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not just take the new standard and profit on our willingness to buy their stuff, as usual?
Perhaps our dollars don't have the shine they used to?
Re:Made in... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Made in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of the chips in question are manufactured in Taiwan by TSMC. I guess some of them could be made in China at UMC.
Why not just take the new standard and profit on our willingness to buy their stuff, as usual?
Because chip manufacturers have no influence over the designers of Wi-Fi chips, which are mostly American companies (Atheros, Broadcom, Marvell, Intel, etc.). So it's not really their stuff.
Re:Made in... (Score:2)
UMC is still in Taiwan. They have gotten in trouble for investing in China, if I recall correctly, but they have not opened a fab on the mainland yet.
no, our dollar sucks (Score:2)
Re:no, our dollar sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that China's currency is tied to the US dollar. This has been a major point of contention for the Bush administration, as well as the US domestic manufacturing sector. Even as the dollar falls, Chinese imports become no less or no more expensive because the exchange rate has stayed the same.
A weak dollar helps increase American exports to Europe, for instance, because Europeans can now get more for their euro. When the
Currency Peg != Real Exchange Rate (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't confuse a currency peg with the purchasing power. A currency peg does not mean that the value of imports/exports remains fixed. You are also assuming that the Dollar and Renminbi are the only two currencies out there. I'll try to explain because it's not entirely intuitive. (and I'll try to keep it simple because it isn't - hopefully I've gotten my cash flows right...)
If t
Screw your guys, we're staying home! (Score:3, Insightful)
With 2,000,000,000 potential customers, and most of the world's manufacturing capability within two hours' flying time, you don't just get to choose standards, you get to write 'em.
"It is glorious to be rich! Let a thousand flowers bloom from the barrel of a Pringles can!"
Re:Screw your guys, we're staying home! (Score:5, Interesting)
As lighthearted as your comment is... that's the scary part of all this. I imagine it terrifies the large communcations and networking firms.
The catch-22 that so many vendors are facing is to not participate in such a huge market (bad idea) or be forced to partner with a company in China to produce the product locally for China [because WAPI won't be licensed to foreign firms] (also a bad idea). It's worse than a prisoner's dilemma, because you already KNOW that Huawei and others will provide equipment that is "legal" in China... so the ability to "win" by refusing to play (both prisoners remaining silent) is not dependent on your competitors. It is - precisely - zero. Refusing to enter the Chinese market also reduces competition and price pressure in China, allowing local firms an even better base with which to compete with firms in the US and EU.
This just stinks, in my opinion. It goes right along with China selecting the EVD standard for DVDs [digitimes.com]. It's playing a market power game... and while it's effective (and just might work in this case), it doesn't make the 'game' any less dangerous for US and EU firms.
Re:Screw your guys, we're staying home! (Score:2)
IBM clearly thinks that it can make money partnering with Chinese companies. If anyone knows what they're doing these days it's IBM. It is entirely reasonable for China to have their own standards that no one cares about because the [potential] market is so vast. If China can successfully bring more of their population up to the economic level where they can be buying computers and mp3 players, there's no limit to what they can make happen.
China needs the expertise of American companies to design the de
China dislikes patent royalties (Score:2)
Probably this is more of the same.
We have a bad habit of writing patented stuff
into standards. China will help us fix this.
In past times China would just ignore royalties,
but they're trying to make nice with the WTO and
all... so they need to make patent-free standards.
So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:2)
WAPI is old (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WAPI is old (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WAPI is old (Score:4, Insightful)
Not news until we find out why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not news until we find out why (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not news until we find out why (Score:2)
China Walks Out (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember, China still has a repressive few who are determined to remain in power and if strangling wireless LAN in their own country helps them stay in power one more day, so much the better for them. Not much of a difference between them and the old emperors and such, just exert power differently...
"We get signal!"
"No you don't, and off to reeducation camp for you!"
Re:China Walks Out (Score:2)
Re:China Walks Out (Score:3, Insightful)
Russia tried fast tracking democracy and look where it got them.
China is trying to make economic development happen first, and they seem to be doing well. I suspect few in the Chinese government have any illusions about the fact that once they have a large, reasonly wealthy middle class, political reforms w
Re:China Walks Out (Score:5, Insightful)
That's deliberate. As is the ignorance surrounding the middle east. It's much easier to hate if you don't realise that the people over there are just like you.
Tonights homework is Duck and Cover : An effective safety zone for your children during global nuclear warfare, or a tool for instilling fear and hate at a young age?
No matter where you are from, your country will have a pro bias to some countries, and an anti against others. The US seems to be anti almost everyone except a few select nations, and even then all they can do is make (badly informed) jokes about our teeth. ;-)
Re:China Walks Out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:China Walks Out (Score:2)
There was nothing very communistic about Athenian democracy.
Communism always fails (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations! You are being a tedious bore, and simultaneously insulting the memory of the hundreds of millions killed by Communism. Nice trick. Too bad your insight is not original to you, but has been an article of faith among marginalized leftists for fifty years.
Ask most (American) people what they think communism is, and if they have any idea at all, it'll be something like totalitarianism.
Americans kno
Re:Communism always fails (Score:2)
Human nature and behavior are highly malleable. In fact, religious communities in the US (darlings of the political right), demonstrate exactly the kind of altruism and sharing that you claim is contrary to human nature. The difference, of course, is that in the US, people have a choice: they can behave like selfish jerks or they can choose to be altruistic. That's a good thing.
In the long run, current US consumerism is as unsustainable as So
Re:Communism always fails (Score:5, Interesting)
Like most unfounded generalizations, thats not really true.
They only thing thats failed recently was Stalinism which was really the only thing resembling Communism that was tried on a large scale in the last century and it was really more Authoritarian Socialism. Trotsky advocated a substantially more democratic form of communism, abhorred Stalin's repressive tendencies, but lost a power struggle and his life. If Trotsky had won, the last century would have been a much different place. All that was proved in China and Russia in the last century is that dictators can be ruthless and brutal, both Stalin and Mao were, but so were Hitler, and Mussolini, Pinochet and the Shah of Iran...this list goes on for a while so for brevity I'll stop here.
Before humankind developed agriculture and started economies man lived under "primitive communism". It worked quite well and was substantially less devastating to our planet than capitalism has proven to be. It was the social form most native american tribes practiced and worked quite well until it encountered imperialist capitalism.
A few other examples of communism that doesn't really fit your mold were the earliest Christians which is somewhat ironic. They did in many instances live in communes and if you actually read Christ's teaching without bias he is in most instances advocating Communism and abandonment of personal property. Some community's like the Amish and Mennonite's live in communes today for this reason, its the closest economic model to the teachings of Christ. Their communes aren't perfect but many work quite well. The problem with modern Christian's are most of them like their wealth and property so they turn a blind eye to Christ's teachings on the subject.
Its a little hard to quantify what system China runs under these days but it appears to mostly be a Stalinist dictatorship with a mix of capitalist economics though its economy is so heavily controlled by the government it recently resembles Fascism more than Communism or Capitalism. China does present a problem with your generalization because it was for a very long time Stalinist Communism and its Communist party is still very much intact and now very successful though I grant you its sure not pure communism anymore.
Cuba certainly isn't perfect but it does get by and it has a few things over the U.S. In particular, quality health care for everyone, not just those who can afford it like in the U.S., and higher education for everyone based on merit and not based on who can afford it. Its certainly not a wealthy country but it does get buy which is amazing considering it has to endure economic boycott from its largest neighbor and has been under various forms of attack from the U.S. since its inception.
I'll probably get flamed for it but Gates and Balmer were right when they said it. The Linux community is in most respects a stateless communist community where everyone is contributing to the common good and no one is exacting property rights in return. It is an example of a true virtual commune that seems to work very well.
"the memory of the hundreds of millions killed by Communism"
Nice attempt to say:
Communism = killing millions of people
There isn't really any correlation. For example:
Fascism = killing millions of people too
Capitalism = killing millions of people too
Americans murdered millions of native American's by various means and generally practiced ethnic cleansing to push them out of their ancestral homes, and on to lands that were for the most part desolate and encouraged them to wither away and die. Many were killed in the process either directly or through famine and disease as Americans destroyed their primitive communes and their way of life in the name of profit and imperialism, the term used was "Manifest Destiny".
American's inflicted slavery on millions of people plucked out of Africa ag
Re:"immutable" (Score:2)
> to get there, quite possibly this century.
"We are the Borg. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
Re:China Walks Out (Score:2)
China may have walked out... (Score:5, Funny)
China walks out... (Score:4, Funny)
Following China's walkout, the resulting new coastal areas in central Asia are expected to provide new economic opportunities to the formerly isolated, landlocked region. A brief panic gripped the people of Japan, as China blocked out the sun for several hours as it stepped across the island nation. Geologists and the international community at large are eagerly waiting to see where and how the newly independent continent decides to settle. It was last seen striding across the South Pacific in a brisk huff towards the Isthmus of Panama. Panamanian officials have cautioned China to be careful as the newly mobile landmass will not fit through the canal and would need to carefully step over the fragile strip of land, which could be easily crushed into the seabed by an errant footstep. Representatives of the Chinese government could not be reached for comment.
You can't sell shit to a cow farmer (Score:5, Informative)
WAPI is insecure, doesn't scale, late and undeployable.
If you read the specs and had any involvement in the 802.11i process, you will understand what an amature piece of work WAPI is. It was compounded with the blatant IP grab that China was trying to make with WAPI (you have to send China your RTL, they *THEY* can integrate it into your chip - yeah right).
The only way you can effectively write 802.11 specifications for anything as intertwined with the base spec is to go to the 802 meetings and propose your scheme. From 802, down through 802.11 and the 802.11 task groups, the documents are heavily cross dependent and part of the purpose of these massive meetings is to make sure that all the bits fit together and are kept up to date with respect to each other.
Trying to write an 802.11i replacement in isolation is doomed to failure and fail is exactly what they did.
Now they are forum shopping. ISO rubber stamps the 802 documents because 802 has a long history of succesful open standards development. Whining 'it's not fair! They won't take our spec but they will take the IEEE specs' is disingenuous bullshit and they know it. There is a basic quality threshold you have to pass first.
Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer (Score:3)
Like the one WEP passed? If that's what rubber-stamping the IEEE gets us, then maybe China is right to whine about fairness. WEP wasn't just bad, it was moronic.
China does have good cryptographers. They beat SHA-1.
Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer (Score:4, Interesting)
It's being proposed by a government that spies on its own peoples communications (openly).
Need I say more?
-nB
Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, the flip side is that 802.11i is great, and so is 802.1X, and the Chinese government clearly want a back door in their standard to allow simple eavesdropping. I cannot believe that WAPI doesn't have a back door. If it did, there would be no reason not to open it to scrutiny.
If there's a back door, someone else will discover it and WAPI will be rendered useless, anyway.
Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer (Score:3, Informative)
802.11i is extensible like that. It it only the base modes for interoperability that are mandated. Support for vendor proprietary additions are included and are distinguised using the standard IEEE OUI.
WAPI throws the whole lot out (they delete clause 8 and start over) and replaces it with something broken.
Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer (Score:2)
Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer (Score:2)
Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer (Score:2)
Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether we think it's reasonable or not; I strongly believe both the political side of the government and scientists within the government think that the U.S. and other nations are just as likely to use their technology domination to steal secre
Re:You can't sell shit to a cow farmer (Score:3, Insightful)
Centralized ISP's where all the network traffic is going through a small number of choke points are much better suited to totalitarian states.
But if a totalitarian state concedes wireless is here to stay they are going to try to mandate one with a backdoor known to the state so they can with some difficult
What is WAPI anyway? (Score:4, Informative)
Here is a paper that describes the WAPI standard. [suntzureport.com] As a cryptodilettante, damned if I know if it's any good.
Re:What is WAPI anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
"The only secret part of the protocol is the symmetric encryption algorithm used between a wireless device and the access point, after both of them have been authenticated." and "The regulation also requires that any company who develops products that use encryption to keep the encryption algorithm a secret from anyone who is not authorized to know the algorithm"
To have a secret algorithm is a bit untrustworthy!
Would you trust your secrets to a secret Chinese algorithm? It might be good but clearly the Chinese can break it.
Re:What is WAPI anyway? (Score:2)
I'd have difficulty trusting this ancient chinese secret. It'd probably have a backdoor by using they key "Calgon Laundry Detergent".
Forget the Chinese part (Score:3, Informative)
A proof something is strong would mean you could conduct a single test that would prove that an algorithm didn't have any flaws. That test would be all that's needed. It'd get redone a number of times to ensure there were no errors in testing, but if it passed, you'
Wireless and Optical Media (Score:4, Insightful)
Between this and the Chinese push for EVD it sounds like China is tired of paying royalties on technology they manufacture to foreign technology companies. Remember with one law they can include any standard they want in 75% percent of the electronics you buy. If they really want to push EVDs or WAPI they will not have much of a problem. I mean manufacturer's will have to choose between employing two standards in all products, or going with whatever China wants. Ubiquity makes for a de-facto standard.
Re:Wireless and Optical Media (Score:2)
Re:Wireless and Optical Media (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wireless and Optical Media (Score:2)
thailand is nearly there, while vietnam is still struggling with the legacy of a corrupt communist system. they have no technological sector to speak of, and will not for some time. china is much more modern in that respect.
Re:Wireless and Optical Media (Score:3, Interesting)
It's nowhere near as easy as you seem to think: China has a powerful chip to bargain with. You want to sell there? (and you do, that's a given), you play ball with the Chinese. From everything I've seen, I'd say the Chinese are not behaving like wilting flowers; they're playing hardball because they can afford to.
Privacy under communism? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't that sort of oxymoronic? In a communist country how does one fit "privacy" and/or "secure" encryption? This is obviously for public use. The government can adopt whatever security standards they dam please for their own communications.
Re:Privacy under communism? (Score:2)
China wants a piece of the action (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is China, anyway? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who is China, anyway? (Score:2)
By Patrick Mannion
EE Times
Just because Mannion is being a jackass and implying that the entire nation of china should be viewed as one upset entity doesn't mean that the submitters to
Noone has said it, but maybe.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Take all the facts into consideration, this country has more human rights violations than most can keep track of, and habitually shuts down any means by which the people can read unauthorized material, often resulting in illegal, indefinate jail sentances. All that, for re
Backdoor (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh well (Score:2)
yeah no company needs 1 billion customers (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.inventions.org/culture/asian/chinese.h
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:2, Insightful)
1. It's a brutal dictatorship.
2. They invaded Tibet, and murdered 1/3 of the inhabitants.
3. 14 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are Chinese.
4. They make for extremely poor immigrants, refusing to integrate in the host country that graciously allowed them entry, and indeed consider themselves superior to the "mongrel people" (whites) and "black shit" (blacks).
5. To the Chinese, legal contracts are just sort of like suggested behaviour, but are in n
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:2)
Sure there are many Chinese with bad attitudes. There are also many with good attitudes. There are also many white people with good/bad attitudes.
"They don't integrate" may be true in many places as it is with many other cultures. In multicultural societies often you end up with some (if I may borrow terms from Chemistry) "suspensions" rather than "solutions". We all have to put in an effort. For some, this is a lot of work apparen
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:2)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:3, Informative)
One might even go so far as to say China has never been communists according to the doctrine laid out by Marx, but some form of Socialist Dictatorship. Even when Mao was in charge, they had constant battles with Moscow over the fact that China's communisim didn't match up with Russia's communisim. And neither was what Marx had envisioned.
They make good fortune cookies, though.
China isn't really a communist country (Score:3, Insightful)
they would probably be the first sucessful communist government to succeed in producing a government with a stable economy.
Classic, theoretical communism implies there will be a dissolution of the central gov't into a form of anarchism. Soviet communism (as we currently see communism) bans private ownership of property, and the gov't regulates all operation of all material production. China's economic system currently has "rich" private owners of various enterprises, and looks to divest the gov't of a
Re:China isn't really a communist country (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:China isn't really a communist country (Score:3, Insightful)
I never said *I* beleived they were evolving into a western-style socialist state. That requires decentralization of political power to the masses. China's central committee has shown no such predisposition to do so.
Who says China will get "too big for its britches"? Perhaps its the Uni
Re:The question is... (Score:2)
Just like FireWire.
Re:The question is... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:awww poor babies (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who cares about this? (Score:2)
Re:Who cares about this? (Score:2)
Re:Detestable Pro-American Pansies (Score:2)
Slashdot is not a pro-American forum. If you were paying attention, you would realize that America is not criticizing the rest of the world -- the rest of the world is criticizing the Chinese government.
I wanted to mod you down, but I don't currently have any mod points. Sorry.