Symantec Dissolves a Chinese Alliance

[ao333]

Less than four years after Huawei Technologies and Symantec teamed up to develop computer network security products, the joint venture is being dismantled because Symantec feared the alliance with the Chinese company would prevent it from obtaining United States government classified information about cyberthreats.

According to two people briefed on the deal, Symantec’s decision was a pre-emptive political maneuver timed to coincide with the United States government’s efforts to share more classified cyberthreat information with the private sector. People with knowledge of the venture, who would speak only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak, said Huawei had already laid off several workers in Huawei Symantec’s Silicon Valley offices this month and planned to move its entire operation out of the United States, largely because of increased American government oversight.

In the next two weeks, Symantec, the Mountain View, Calif., computer security software firm, is expected to sell its 49 percent stake in the venture to Huawei for $530 million. The companies first announced the sale last November. In a news release, Enrique Salem, Symantec’s chief executive, said the project had “achieved the objectives we set four years ago” and would “exit the joint venture with a good return on our investment.”

As online espionage proliferates, the United States government has grappled with how best to share its classified cyberthreat intelligence with the private sector. In January, the Pentagon transferred an information-sharing pilot program, called the Joint Cybersecurity Services Pilot, to the Department of Homeland Security. The program was originally intended to share classified National Security Agency intelligence with military contractors. Homeland Security is expected to extend the program beyond those companies to antivirus companies, like Symantec, and network providers.

Symantec worried that its ties to Huawei would be a disadvantage when it came to being the recipient of classified threat information, according to the two people briefed on the matter. Cris Paden, a Symantec spokesman, declined to comment.

William Plummer, a Huawei spokesman, said that from Huawei’s perspective “both companies had a positive experience with the joint venture.” He added, “We are going to streamline the organization market by market including in the U.S.”

National security concerns have long dogged Huawei. Ren Zhengfei, Huawei’s founder and chief executive, is a former officer in China’s People’s Liberation Army, and American government officials and regulators have repeatedly raised concerns about Huawei’s close ties to the Chinese government.

In 2008, Huawei was forced to abandon a bid for 3Com, which makes antihacking computer software for the United States military, among other products, after an American government panel raised questions about the national security risks. In 2010, Huawei lost a bid to supply mobile telecom equipment to Sprint Nextel after lawmakers expressed similar concerns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/t...-alliance-with-huawei-of-china.html?ref=china

Such is the life of Communists... rejected world-wide...

 

[El Weirdo]

Thats what happens to thieving , unapologetic and under-developed people.... they deserve it and a hundred times more...The world knows the low standards of the chinese..disrespect for other nations intellectual property gets you this.. They wont go far.

Juat a quick example -

Thieves World

September 26, 2011: China admitted that it had recently tested a new anti-missile missile technology. American sensors spotted this test, where two Chinese missiles were fired towards each other, and disappeared as the warheads met. China claimed that this test involved new mid-course correction technology. China did not say what kind of missile was used to intercept the incoming ballistic missile. Last year, China successfully used a modified HQ-9 anti-aircraft missile to intercept a short range ballistic missile. Last year's test used technology stolen from the Russians, the more recent test indicates tech stolen from the United States.

China got the Russian anti-missile tech by purchasing a lot of Russian equipment, then picking it apart to see how it worked. For example, last year China received the last of 15 battalions of S-300MPU anti-aircraft missile systems bought from Russia. China won't be buying any more of those. That's because it has incorporated the best Russian tech into its locally designed and built HQ-9 systems. These are also being pushed aggressively to export customers as well. Unlike the S-300, China can upgrade the HQ-9 and sell it to anyone.

Thus, last year, an HQ-9 anti-aircraft system successfully shot down a ballistic missile. This capability is important to many potential export customers, and China wanted everyone to know where they could purchase that capability. China offers HQ-9 for export as the FD-2000. The HQ-9 is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Patriot. While about 30 percent of Chinese long range antiaircraft systems are S-300, 70 percent are the Chinese designed and manufactured HQ-9.

A decade ago, China began introducing the HQ-9. It was a much less capable system back then. Over a decade of development was believed to have benefitted from data stolen from similar American and Russian systems. The HQ-9 is deployed in ships as well. The radar apparently derived much technology from that used in the Russian S-300 system. The HQ-9 missile has a max range of about 100 kilometers, weighs 1.3 tons and has a passive (no broadcasting) seeker in the missile. The Patriot missile weighs a ton (for the 70 kilometer range version) and a third of a ton for the 20 kilometer range anti-missile only version. The S-300 missiles weigh 1.8 tons and have a range of 200 kilometers. Russia and the United States are debating how to deal with the growing Chinese use of stolen technology, especially for weapons systems that are exported and compete against the systems they are copied from. No one has a solution, and China denies all accusations.

Neither the S-300 nor HQ-9 has been tested in combat. Earlier Russian designed air defense systems tended to perform poorly in combat. Even the Russian SA-6 missile systems, that Egypt used in 1973, which were initially a surprise to the Israelis, were soon countered, and did not stop the Israelis from getting through. While the best sales technique is to push the product's track record, you have to do just the opposite with Russian anti-aircraft missiles. Thus the Russians, and now the Chinese with their FD-2000, emphasize low price, impressive specifications, test results and potential.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/20110926.aspx

 

[asianamerican]

This whole paranoid regarding Huawei is absurd and reek of sinophobia. Unfortunately, the US has the upper hand in technology - therefore they can do it without consequences. If China to use the same guideline, all US technology with ties to the US government would be banned. Since both Twitter and Google and many other CEO of technology companies once serve for the US military or at the behest of US government.

 

[asianamerican]

Thats what happens to thieving , unapologetic and under-developed people.... they deserve it and a hundred times more...The world knows the low standards of the chinese..disrespect for other nations intellectual property gets you this.. They wont go far.

Juat a quick example -

Thieves World

September 26, 2011: China admitted that it had recently tested a new anti-missile missile technology. American sensors spotted this test, where two Chinese missiles were fired towards each other, and disappeared as the warheads met. China claimed that this test involved new mid-course correction technology. China did not say what kind of missile was used to intercept the incoming ballistic missile. Last year, China successfully used a modified HQ-9 anti-aircraft missile to intercept a short range ballistic missile. Last year's test used technology stolen from the Russians, the more recent test indicates tech stolen from the United States.

China got the Russian anti-missile tech by purchasing a lot of Russian equipment, then picking it apart to see how it worked. For example, last year China received the last of 15 battalions of S-300MPU anti-aircraft missile systems bought from Russia. China won't be buying any more of those. That's because it has incorporated the best Russian tech into its locally designed and built HQ-9 systems. These are also being pushed aggressively to export customers as well. Unlike the S-300, China can upgrade the HQ-9 and sell it to anyone.

Thus, last year, an HQ-9 anti-aircraft system successfully shot down a ballistic missile. This capability is important to many potential export customers, and China wanted everyone to know where they could purchase that capability. China offers HQ-9 for export as the FD-2000. The HQ-9 is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Patriot. While about 30 percent of Chinese long range antiaircraft systems are S-300, 70 percent are the Chinese designed and manufactured HQ-9.

A decade ago, China began introducing the HQ-9. It was a much less capable system back then. Over a decade of development was believed to have benefitted from data stolen from similar American and Russian systems. The HQ-9 is deployed in ships as well. The radar apparently derived much technology from that used in the Russian S-300 system. The HQ-9 missile has a max range of about 100 kilometers, weighs 1.3 tons and has a passive (no broadcasting) seeker in the missile. The Patriot missile weighs a ton (for the 70 kilometer range version) and a third of a ton for the 20 kilometer range anti-missile only version. The S-300 missiles weigh 1.8 tons and have a range of 200 kilometers. Russia and the United States are debating how to deal with the growing Chinese use of stolen technology, especially for weapons systems that are exported and compete against the systems they are copied from. No one has a solution, and China denies all accusations.

Neither the S-300 nor HQ-9 has been tested in combat. Earlier Russian designed air defense systems tended to perform poorly in combat. Even the Russian SA-6 missile systems, that Egypt used in 1973, which were initially a surprise to the Israelis, were soon countered, and did not stop the Israelis from getting through. While the best sales technique is to push the product's track record, you have to do just the opposite with Russian anti-aircraft missiles. Thus the Russians, and now the Chinese with their FD-2000, emphasize low price, impressive specifications, test results and potential.

Air Defense: Thieves World

First off, Strategy page is useless. Nevertheless, I think you are naive to think that China should just buy the equipments and use it and not learn anything about the systems If that were the case, then no one would progress. Do you really expect China to buy technology forever or to develop everything indigenously? Why reinvent the wheel? Countries and people steal technology and best practice constantly. The US space program was based on German technology. If China has the upper hand in technology, you can bet the US will steal it by all mean necessary. Hell, US ELINT are build for industrial espionage.

People like you can complain all they want, but without reverse engineering and absorbing technology from around the world, no countries in the world would progress. How do you expect them to acquire these technology? Through research and development and ignore all the world progress...they would farther behind.

Currently China maybe the thieves, just like the US were thieves from the German. And Ancient Europe were thieves from Arabs and Asia.

It rather for inhuman for a group of people to deny other people progress because they don't make profit out of it or don't like other to progress. Granted, the West was first to industrialized and have much to offer to the world; unfortunately, to deny the developing world to learn from the West not only inhibit human progress but selfish. It shows the inherent selfishness - self centered view of the West with regards to the world that is evident throughout the last 300 years. The patent systems was only after the West's industrialization. It is something that the developing world should ignore.

 

[shuttler]

The act of McCarthyism is spreading at horrible speed thru the additional leverage of some stupid idle and random cyber racists. When China has the ability to develop its own chips, time to phase out all american made on grounds of potential espionage, tit for tat.

 

[trinity]

The act of McCarthyism is spreading at horrible speed thru the additional leverage of some stupid idle and random cyber racists. When China has the ability to develop its own chips, time to phase out all american made on grounds of potential espionage, tit for tat.

It would a blessing in disguise. Plz go right ahead. Now that India has cozied up to China, the US will be in a prime position to negate any downward pressure.

 

[antonius123]

Thats what happens to thieving , unapologetic and under-developed people.... they deserve it and a hundred times more...The world knows the low standards of the chinese..disrespect for other nations intellectual property gets you this.. They wont go far.

Juat a quick example -

Thieves World

September 26, 2011: China admitted that it had recently tested a new anti-missile missile technology. American sensors spotted this test, where two Chinese missiles were fired towards each other, and disappeared as the warheads met. China claimed that this test involved new mid-course correction technology. China did not say what kind of missile was used to intercept the incoming ballistic missile. Last year, China successfully used a modified HQ-9 anti-aircraft missile to intercept a short range ballistic missile. Last year's test used technology stolen from the Russians, the more recent test indicates tech stolen from the United States.

China got the Russian anti-missile tech by purchasing a lot of Russian equipment, then picking it apart to see how it worked. For example, last year China received the last of 15 battalions of S-300MPU anti-aircraft missile systems bought from Russia. China won't be buying any more of those. That's because it has incorporated the best Russian tech into its locally designed and built HQ-9 systems. These are also being pushed aggressively to export customers as well. Unlike the S-300, China can upgrade the HQ-9 and sell it to anyone.

Thus, last year, an HQ-9 anti-aircraft system successfully shot down a ballistic missile. This capability is important to many potential export customers, and China wanted everyone to know where they could purchase that capability. China offers HQ-9 for export as the FD-2000. The HQ-9 is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Patriot. While about 30 percent of Chinese long range antiaircraft systems are S-300, 70 percent are the Chinese designed and manufactured HQ-9.

A decade ago, China began introducing the HQ-9. It was a much less capable system back then. Over a decade of development was believed to have benefitted from data stolen from similar American and Russian systems. The HQ-9 is deployed in ships as well. The radar apparently derived much technology from that used in the Russian S-300 system. The HQ-9 missile has a max range of about 100 kilometers, weighs 1.3 tons and has a passive (no broadcasting) seeker in the missile. The Patriot missile weighs a ton (for the 70 kilometer range version) and a third of a ton for the 20 kilometer range anti-missile only version. The S-300 missiles weigh 1.8 tons and have a range of 200 kilometers. Russia and the United States are debating how to deal with the growing Chinese use of stolen technology, especially for weapons systems that are exported and compete against the systems they are copied from. No one has a solution, and China denies all accusations.

Neither the S-300 nor HQ-9 has been tested in combat. Earlier Russian designed air defense systems tended to perform poorly in combat. Even the Russian SA-6 missile systems, that Egypt used in 1973, which were initially a surprise to the Israelis, were soon countered, and did not stop the Israelis from getting through. While the best sales technique is to push the product's track record, you have to do just the opposite with Russian anti-aircraft missiles. Thus the Russians, and now the Chinese with their FD-2000, emphasize low price, impressive specifications, test results and potential.

Air Defense: Thieves World

That is a naiver article

No country with such a capability wont do reversed engineering for their military sake.

Even some giant corporations in Europe/USA and Japan also involved in tech stealing/spying.

 

[AADHAAR]

dont argue with someone with 85 national average IQ

that is what I learned over years.

atleast you should surely avoid coming to this forum .... it becomes a disgrace for other chinese people.

keep quiet and restrict yourself to labour intensive jobs.

with your level of "IQ", you are just good for doing "repetititive tasks" as a cheap substitute to what industrial robots are supposed to do elsewhere. hopefully, chinese sweat shops will pay you more than 2 cents per post which you make here.

 

[ao333]

atleast you should surely avoid coming to this forum .... it becomes a disgrace for other chinese people.

keep quiet and restrict yourself to labour intensive jobs.

with your level of "IQ", you are just good for doing "repetititive tasks" as a cheap substitute to what industrial robots are supposed to do elsewhere. hopefully, chinese sweat shops will pay you more than 2 cents per post which you make here.

I think that's better than being dumb and poor.

 

[Abhishek_]

I think that's better than being dumb and poor.

talking about communists again?