Connect with us

Biz & IT

Science publisher IEEE bans Huawei but says trade rules will have ‘minimal impact’ on members

Published

on

The IEEE’s ban on Huawei following new trade restrictions in the United States has sent shock waves through the global academic circles. The organization responded saying the impact of the trade policy will have limited effects on its members, but it’s hard at this point to appease those who have long hailed it as an open platform for scientists and professors worldwide to collaborate.

Earlier this week, the New York-headquartered Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers blocked Huawei employees from being reviewers or editors for its peer-review process, according to screenshots of an email sent to its editors that first circulated in the Chinese media.

The IEEE later confirmed the ban in a statement issued on Wednesday, saying it “complies with U.S. government regulations which restrict the ability of the listed Huawei companies and their employees to participate in certain activities that are not generally open to the public. This includes certain aspects of the publication peer review and editorial process.”

In mid-May, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security added Huawei and its affiliates to its “Entity List,” effectively barring U.S. firms from selling technology to Huawei without government approval.

It’s unclear what makes peer review at the IEEE a technology export, but the science association wrote in its email to editors that violation “may have severe legal implications.”

Whilst it’s registered in New York, the IEEE bills itself as a “non-political” and “global” community aiming to “foster technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity.”

Despite its removal of Huawei scientists from paper vetting, the IEEE assured that its compliance with U.S. trade restrictions should have “minimal impact” on its members around the world. It further added that Huawei and its employees can continue to participate in other activities as a member, including accessing the IEEE digital library; submitting technical papers for publication; presenting at IEEE-sponsored conferences; and accepting IEEE awards.

As members of its standard-setting body, Huawei employees can also continue to exercise their voting rights, attend standards development meetings, submit proposals and comment in public discussions on new standards.

A number of Chinese professors have reprimanded the IEEE’s decision, flagging the danger of letting politics meddle with academic collaboration. Zhang Haixia, a professor at the School of Electronic and Computer Engineering of China’s prestigious Peking University, said in a statement that she’s quitting the IEEE boards in protest.

This is Haixia Zhang from Peking University, as an old friend and senior IEEE member, I am really shocked to hear that IEEE is involved in “US-Huawei Ban” for replacing all reviewers from Huawei, which is far beyond the basic line of Science and Technology which I was trainedand am following in my professional career till now.

…today, this message from IEEE for “replacing all reviewers from Huawei in IEEE journals” is challenging my professional integrity. I have to say that, As a professor, I AM NOT accept this. Therefore, I decided to quit from IEEE NANO and IEEE JMEMS editorial board untill one day it come back to our common professional integrity.

The IEEE freeze on Huawei adds to a growing list of international companies and organizations that are severing ties or clashing with the Chinese smartphone and telecom giant in response to the trade blacklist. That includes Google, which has blocked select Android services from Huawei; FedEx, which allegedly “diverted” a number of Huawei packages; ARM, which reportedly told employees to suspend business with Huawei; as well as Intel and Qualcomm, which also reportedly cut ties with Huawei. 

Source link

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Biz & IT

Researchers devise iPhone malware that runs even when device is turned off

Published

on

Classen et al.

When you turn off an iPhone, it doesn’t fully power down. Chips inside the device continue to run in a low-power mode that makes it possible to locate lost or stolen devices using the Find My feature or use credit cards and car keys after the battery dies. Now researchers have devised a way to abuse this always-on mechanism to run malware that remains active even when an iPhone appears to be powered down.

It turns out that the iPhone’s Bluetooth chip—which is key to making features like Find My work—has no mechanism for digitally signing or even encrypting the firmware it runs. Academics at Germany’s Technical University of Darmstadt figured out how to exploit this lack of hardening to run malicious firmware that allows the attacker to track the phone’s location or run new features when the device is turned off.

This video provides a high overview of some of the ways an attack can work.

[Paper Teaser] Evil Never Sleeps: When Wireless Malware Stays On After Turning Off iPhones

The research is the first—or at least among the first—to study the risk posed by chips running in low-power mode. Not to be confused with iOS’s low-power mode for conserving battery life, the low-power mode (LPM) in this research allows chips responsible for near-field communication, ultra wideband, and Bluetooth to run in a special mode that can remain on for 24 hours after a device is turned off.

“The current LPM implementation on Apple iPhones is opaque and adds new threats,” the researchers wrote in a paper published last week. “Since LPM support is based on the iPhone’s hardware, it cannot be removed with system updates. Thus, it has a long-lasting effect on the overall iOS security model. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first who looked into undocumented LPM features introduced in iOS 15 and uncover various issues.”

They added: “Design of LPM features seems to be mostly driven by functionality, without considering threats outside of the intended applications. Find My after power off turns shutdown iPhones into tracking devices by design, and the implementation within the Bluetooth firmware is not secured against manipulation.”

The findings have limited real-world value since infections required a jailbroken iPhone, which in itself is a difficult task, particularly in an adversarial setting. Still, targeting the always-on feature in iOS could prove handy in post-exploit scenarios by malware such as Pegasus, the sophisticated smartphone exploit tool from Israel-based NSO Group, which governments worldwide routinely employ to spy on adversaries.
It may also be possible to infect the chips in the event hackers discover security flaws that are susceptible to over-the-air exploits similar to this one that worked against Android devices.

Besides allowing malware to run while the iPhone is turned off, exploits targeting LPM could also allow malware to operate with much more stealth since LPM allows firmware to conserve battery power. And of course, firmware infections are already extremely difficult to detect since it requires significant expertise and expensive equipment.

The researchers said Apple engineers reviewed their paper before it was published, but company representatives never provided any feedback on its contents. Apple representatives didn’t respond to an email seeking comment for this story.

Ultimately, Find My and other features enabled by LPM help provide added security because they allow users to locate lost or stolen devices and lock or unlock car doors even when batteries are depleted. But the research exposes a double-edged sword that, until now, has gone largely unnoticed.

“Hardware and software attacks similar to the ones described, have been proven practical in a real-world setting, so the topics covered in this paper are timely and practical,” John Loucaides, senior vice president of strategy at firmware security firm Eclypsium. “This is typical for every device. Manufacturers are adding features all the time and with every new feature comes a new attack surface.”

Continue Reading

Biz & IT

The tech sector teardown is more catharsis than crisis

Published

on

Following a series of “super clarifying” meetings with shareholders, Uber’s chief executive, Dara Khosrowshahi, emailed employees on Sunday night with an arresting message: “we need to show them the money.”

Mangling his metaphors, Khosrowshahi explained that the market was experiencing a “seismic shift” and the “goalposts have changed.” The ride-hailing and food delivery company’s priority must now be to generate free cash flow. “We are serving multitrillion-dollar markets, but market size is irrelevant if it doesn’t translate into profit,” he wrote.

For the boss of Uber to be trumpeting cash flow and profit would once have seemed about as likely as Elon Musk shouting about the benefits of personal humility and petrol-fueled cars. No company has been more emblematic of the long, crazy, capital-doped bull market in technology stocks than Uber. Founded in 2009, the company floated a decade later at a valuation of $76 billion without recording a single quarter of profits. Its belated conversion to financial orthodoxy shows how much markets have been transformed since the turn in the interest rate cycle and the crash of the tech-heavy Nasdaq market, which has dropped 26 percent this year.

As ever, when bubbles burst, it is hard to distinguish between temporary adjustment and permanent change, between the cyclical downturn and the secular trend. Has the speculative froth just been blown off the top of the market? Or have the rules of the game fundamentally changed for those venture capital-backed start-ups trying to emulate Uber? My bet is on the latter, but that may be no bad thing.

There is certainly a strong argument that the extraordinary boom in tech stocks over the past decade was largely fueled by the unprecedented low-interest-rate policies in response to the global financial crisis of 2008. With capital becoming a commodity, it made sense for opportunistic companies such as Uber to grab as much cash as VC firms would give them to “blitzscale” their way to market domination.

This madcap expansion was accelerated by funding provided by a new class of non-traditional, or tourist, investors, including Masayoshi Son’s SoftBank and “crossover” hedge funds such as Tiger Global. Such funds are now seeing spectacular falls in their portfolio valuation. SoftBank has just announced a historic $27 billion investment loss over the past year at its two Vision Funds, while Tiger Global has lost $17 billion this year.

“There was a unique set of economic and financial policies enacted by the world’s central banks that we have never seen before: sustained negative interest rates over the long term,” says William Janeway, the veteran investor. As a result, he says, some companies pursued “capital as a strategy,” looking to invest their way to success and ignoring traditional metrics. “But I do not believe that is a sensible or sustainable investment strategy.”

Stock market investors have drawn the same conclusion and are now distinguishing between those tech companies that generate strong cash flow and profits, such as Apple, Microsoft, and Alphabet, and more speculative investments, such as Netflix, Peloton, and Zoom. These may have grown extraordinarily fast during the COVID-19 pandemic, but they are still flooded with red ink.

Just as public market investors have rotated out of cash-guzzling growth stocks into cash-generating value companies, so private market investors are following suit, says Albert Wenger, managing partner of Union Square Ventures, the New York-based VC firm. “I think that this is healthy. Companies have to build real products and deliver customer value that translates into earnings,” Wenger says, even if this shift will prove “very, very painful for a number of companies.”

Life is already becoming uncomfortable for late-stage startups looking to exit. The public markets are now hard to access. According to EY, the value of all global IPOs in the first quarter of 2022 dropped 51 percent year on year. The once-manic market for special purpose acquisition companies, which enabled highly speculative tech companies to list through the backdoor, has all but frozen. Trade sales have also fallen as M&A activity has contracted sharply. And valuations for late-stage funding rounds have now dropped in the US, with the rest of the world following behind.

In spite of this, the VC industry remains stuffed with cash and desperate to invest. According to KPMG, almost 1,400 VC funds around the world raised a total of $207 billion last year.

Although cash will count for far more, the ability of startups to exploit opportunities by using cheap and powerful tools such as open source software, cloud computing, and machine learning applications remains undimmed. And a slowdown in the voracious hiring plans of the big technology companies may persuade more budding entrepreneurs to give it a go. “We still need to take many more shots on goal from an investment and societal perspective,” says Wenger. There remains screaming demand for climate tech startups to invent smarter ways of reducing energy consumption, for example.

Venture-backed companies may have just ridden the most extraordinary wealth-generating bull market in history. Such supernatural conditions will never occur again. What follows will more likely prove to be catharsis than crisis, so long as they, like Uber, can show investors the money.

Financial Times: © 2022 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Continue Reading

Biz & IT

How a French satellite operator helps keep Russia’s TV propaganda online

Published

on

Enlarge / Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during the Moscow Urban Forum 2018 on July 18, 2018 in Moscow, Russia.

Getty Images | Mikhail Svetlov

Not long after Russia steamrolled into South Ossetia in 2008, effectively annexing the territory of its southern neighbor, a group of Georgians banded together to set up a new Russian-language television station, a voice independent of the Kremlin: Kanal PIK.

With the help of Georgia’s public broadcaster, they signed a five-year deal with French satellite operator Eutelsat to beam their station into the Caucasus. Just two weeks after they launched in 2010, Eutelsat notified PIK that they were dropped. Their space on the satellite had been promised to Gazprom Media Group, a chief pillar in Moscow’s tightly controlled media system.

Kanal PIK said in a statement at the time that the saga “leaves Intersputnik and Gazprom Media Group—both of which adhere to the Kremlin’s editorial line—with a de facto satellite transmission monopoly over Russian-language audience.” Kanal PIK would acquire a spot on another Eutelsat a year later, but the station struggled and went dark in 2012.

More than a decade on, Russia once again finds itself trying to consolidate its information hegemony in the region. And, once again, Eutelsat is making it possible. But two experts on the satellite industry say it’s time that Ukraine’s allies step up and force Eutelsat to prioritize real reportage on the situation in Ukraine over Russia’s state-backed disinformation.

“It’s not normal that a French satellite is used for a propaganda war,” says André Lange, one half of the Denis Diderot Committee. If their proposals are adopted, “it would be a bomb going off in the Russian media world,” says Jim Phillipoff, a former satellite TV executive and ex-Kyiv Post CEO. He’s the other half of the Diderot Committee.

Formed in March, Phillipoff and Lange’s committee has, essentially, only one recommendation: Unplug Russia’s main satellite television providers from the Eutelsat satellites and replace them with stations carrying independent and credible journalism into Russia. “That’s the ultimate goal of our effort—to actually provide alternative media channels into the Russian television space that are not controlled by the Russian government,” Phillipoff tells WIRED.

Russian television has been ubiquitously and unfailingly in favor of the war against Ukraine, dutifully promoting Moscow’s official propaganda—and, all too often, disinformation. Satellite television is especially important, particularly for areas with poor broadband connectivity. The Council of Europe estimates that about 30 percent of Russian households pay for satellite television. About half of the country has satellite dishes on their homes, Phillipoff says.

Those dishes are largely calibrated to receive signals from five satellites, all managed by Eutelsat. The two most important satellites orbit at 36° east, giving them coverage for much of Eastern Europe and western Russia: One, 36B, is owned directly by Eutelsat; the other, 36C, is owned by the Russian government and leased to Eutelsat—which, in turn, leases space back to Russian television operators. The other three satellites are owned directly by Russia but managed by Eutelsat and cover central, northern, and eastern Russia.

Continue Reading

Trending