{"id":182,"date":"2008-03-02T22:41:19","date_gmt":"2008-03-03T06:41:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cubist.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/2008\/03\/02\/collaborative-current-event-counterfeit-cisco-network-hardware-imported-from-china-seized\/"},"modified":"2008-03-03T23:04:40","modified_gmt":"2008-03-04T07:04:40","slug":"collaborative-current-event-counterfeit-cisco-network-hardware-imported-from-china-seized","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/2008\/03\/02\/collaborative-current-event-counterfeit-cisco-network-hardware-imported-from-china-seized\/","title":{"rendered":"Collaborative Current Event: Counterfeit Cisco Network Hardware Imported From China Seized"},"content":{"rendered":"

http:\/\/www.thestandard.com\/news\/2008\/02\/29\/us-canadian-agencies-seize-counterfeit-cisco-gear<\/a><\/p>\n

USA and Canadian law enforcement has seized US$78 million worth of Cisco routers, switches, and network cards in 400 seizures since the coordinated operation between the two nations was launched in 2005. The reason for the seizures is “illegal importation and sale of counterfeit network hardware”. Personally, I’m a little confused as to how network hardware can be imported legally, but apparently there are laws governing it. (If you’re wondering what “counterfeit” network hardware is, I’d imagine it’s the sale of previously illegally imported hardware). The involved agencies are the U.S. FBI’s Cyber Division, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and apparently, to some extent, the U.S. Department of Justice.<\/p>\n

No matter how you slice is, $78 million of network equipment (74 _thousand_ units of Cisco hardware) is _a lot_ of hardware to import, illegally or not. The fact that this is possible is quite telling regarding the enforcement of import laws Stateside. Most likely, either the smugglers are clever, the inspectors are incompetent\/indifferent\/undertrained, the inspectors are turning a blind eye, or some combination thereof. Preventing this from reoccurring could be difficult, simply given the scale that this illegal trade has already been built up to. One interesting comment comes from Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher of the DOJ’s Criminal Division, “It is critically important that network administrators in both private sector *and government* perform due diligence in order to prevent counterfeit hardware from being installed on their networks.” “and government”? It’s interesting that the stolen goods are pervasive enough that they may even be working their way into government infrastructure…and that network administrators might be willing to cut a few corners.<\/p>\n

How are we to respond to this, besides “Huh, crazy” or “Tax dollars at work…”? Even the reasoning the DOJ gives is a little…brief. “To protect the public from network infrastructure failures associated with the counterfeits”. So are they worried about hackers? In the entire article, this is the only real explanation given as to why this operation really exists, though considering the FBI is involved, it’s natural that press releases may be sparse in certain regards. But they don’t hesitate to publish how many millions of dollars worth of units they’ve seized.<\/p>\n

Given the parties involved, it’s doubtful we’ll learn many of the details, but something interesting is going on here.<\/p>\n

Max A., David W., Travis M.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

http:\/\/www.thestandard.com\/news\/2008\/02\/29\/us-canadian-agencies-seize-counterfeit-cisco-gear USA and Canadian law enforcement has seized US$78 million worth of Cisco routers, switches, and network cards in 400 seizures since the coordinated operation between the two nations was launched in 2005. The reason for the seizures is “illegal … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-events","category-integrity","category-policy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secblog.cs.washington.edu\/Security\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}