Huawei
March 29th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David FarrarNBR reports:
Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei – involved in a $1.35 billion Ultrafast Broadband project in New Zealand – is almost certainly a front for Chinese intelligence, a defence analyst claims.
That’s the collective view of the security community in the US, Britain and Australia, according to Auckland-based defence analyst Paul Buchanan, who says it would be prudent for Prime Minister John Key to listen to them.
Dr Buchanan worked for the US Department of Defence before imigrating to New Zealand.
Huawei has been blocked from bidding for the national broadband network in Australia. In the US it is blocked by Congress in 2008 from buying networking company 3Com, and in 2010 Congress blocked them from bidding on telecommunications gear for Sprint.
It is of some significant concern that Australia has blocked Huawei, seemingly on security grounds, but I think there is a whiff of paranoia that all Chinese companies are controlled by the Red Army or PRC Government.
Huawei is actually 100% privately owned by its employees, and has been around since 1987. It has 110,000 employees and US$28b in revenues so this is not some small fly by night operator. It works for 45 of the world’s top 50 telcos.
One of its partners is Symantec.
The blocking of it in the US doesn’t mean a lot because politicians in the US use security issues as a form of trade protectionism. It is concerning that Australia has blocked them, but to this day I am unaware that anyone has ever discovered that equipment supplied bu Huawei has some sort of secret backdoor built into it – if they did, that company would probably lose every customer within weeks.
Related posts:
- CTU calls on Govt to freeze Telecom
- Yes please
- The difference between Donald and Norman
- Telecom makes non data capped broadband available
March 29th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Actually they should block them on the grounds that their gear is rubbish. I saw a Huwawei mobile phone and it was unbelievably crap. The fact it was running android didn’t help (ducks for cover).
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:09 am
I posted this yesterday. Gordon Campbell, not known as the most pro-US of commentators, had this to say:
Vote:http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2012/03/28/gordon-campbell-on-the-chinese-cyber-security-threat/
March 29th, 2012 at 11:12 am
It’s a joke. The massive backdoor is in the US servers which copy terrabytes per second to the US intelligence services analytical systems.
Any significant amount data pilfering should be obvious to competent network supervision and monitoring. It’s all going to have to go out through our international connections which are not exactly over-endowed with spare capacity.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Um, haven’t Symantec just dumped them, DPF?
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:18 am
>I am unaware that anyone has ever discovered that equipment supplied bu Huawei has some sort of secret backdoor built into it – if they did, that company would probably lose every customer within weeks.
This is correct. Huawei are building a global company to take on Cisco and Juniper. They’re not going to throw away a business that is potentially worth tens of billions of dollars. Also… sensitive communications should all be encrypted anyway, so it wouldn’t matter if the routers start copying exabytes of data to China and no one notices.
Huawei realise there is a perception issue here. They have a software development center in the UK, I believe, and their security head is also british (? Ex-CIO of BT, perhaps?). That doesn’t stop protectionists going after them tho, and the usual anti-Chinese racists are involved like Russel Norman and the Labour Party.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:20 am
mm, as usual Campbell writes crap: “Much of what the world knows about the Echelon monitoring and surveillance system was gathered by the penetration of the system’s weak point in New Zealand, by investigative reporter Nicky Hager in his book Secret Power. It will not have escaped the attention of the Chinese that New Zealand – ever eager and credulous in its trade and diplomatic dealings – offers a similar soft entry point for its further cyber penetration ambitions.”
Moronic. Far from being a weak point, NZ’s small size and openness exposed what was going on in Echelon rather than allow it to remain secret as happened in the rest of its empire. Just as the French underestimated their vulnerability in the Rainbow Warrior strike so big nations frequently misjudge how hard it is to keep secrets hidden here.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Oh, and look at Huawei’s competitors: Cisco and Juniper are American. The NSA is building a vast data center in Utah that is pretty much designed to suck up the internet, decrypt it, and store it for later reference. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
And Alcatel is French. The same France that blew up a Greenpeace boat, tested nuclear weapons in our neighbourhood for years, and where the relationships between government and commerce are very murky.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:34 am
mikenmild>Gordon Campbell, not known as the most pro-US of commentators, had this to say
Campbell’s views are confused, to say the least. Near the start of the article he mentions that Huawei do a lot of business in Singapore. then he says:
“It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall as new Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman tries to justify New Zealand’s laissez-faire attitude to China’s cyber threat, within the next Five Power Defence Arrangement discussions.”
Errrr… Singapore are one ot the FPDA partners. In which case, is he suggesting that NZ should be raising Singapore’s “laissez-faire attitude to China’s cyber threat” with them in a defence forum? That’s just bizarre.
He also implies that we shouldn’t do business with Huawei since Huawei does business in Iran. But so do we. Does he want us to boycott ourselves?
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:38 am
toad – arent symantec a big evil american corporation??
they may have “dumped” them but they did so because they want american govt contracts and as DPF states, Huawei are a victim of trade protectionism. (something you greenies love).
its kinda sad just how much the greens hate the chinese. they are good people just trying to make their way in the world
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:38 am
NZ’s enthusiasm for the People’s Republic of China has us in a quandary. Do we line up with our additional allies of Australia and the United States, or do we keep our head up Beijing’s red arse?
To the chagrin of the extreme left and the peacenik nuts, NZ is a part of Echelon, or Five Eyes, the important signals intelligence pact with the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia. This is NZ’s only foothold in high-level defence of the West.
If our partners think Huawei hardware and software could in some way provide a Beijing tap into that nerve stream of the West, NZ will be kicked out of this pact.
What will National do? Further weaken our ties with the West (after NZ torpedoed ANZUS)? What will the Greens do? They are NZ’s main China sceptics, but also home of the peaceniks who dislike Echelon. What song will Kumbaya’s Labour sing on this? Is there a political voice for those NZers who champion our traditional allies?
A. Wilkinson may be correct about greater threat from the servers of US analytical systems (11.12 post), but it’s important that we consider allegations of Huawei’s apparently close links with the People’s Liberation Army, as detailed in the article linked to below:
http://freebeacon.com/huawei-too-dangerous/
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:38 am
If as Bucahanan says the UK intelligence community is sceptical, why is Huawei BT’s major broadband provider.
It seems to me much more about commercial protection for US companies rather than security of the system.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:41 am
” Do we line up with our additional allies of Australia and the United States, or do we keep our head up Beijing’s red arse?”
ya kinda give yourself away with comments like that.
one one hand we “line up with” and on the other our heads are “up beeijings arse”?
Personally, id like to see a stronger relationship with the US over China. Just not sure i care if some pork loving congressmen want to protect cisco & co
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:49 am
Jack5, IMHO the best chance of keeping things honest and open is to have a good mix of suppliers from different political blocks competing with and keeping an eye on each other.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Dime posted at 11.41:
There seems to be a fair bit of (Beijing) pork being proffered in NZ at the moment, too.
Fat commissions on land sales, business for accountants and lawyers and bankers, fat fees for PR agencies, foreign trips for journos, and, one suspects, for political lobbyists. Some political organisers may be tempted by prospects or dreams of tasty but legal financial contributions to party organisations.
AND re Alan W. at 11.49. That’s a respectable view, but entails neutrality. Is NZ big enough economically to support such a neutral stance? Would Australia then lessen our economic and political ties? That’s about the last country in the world we can move to freely. It’s our biggest trade partner. It’s more important to us than China can be.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:53 am
There may be trade issues involved, and there may not. We do not know. What we DO know is that China has and continues to be involved in the largest cyber-espionage and intellectual property theft operation since the beggining of the internet.
Caution then should be governments approach to this issue, and staying onside with our allies.
Oh, and the idea that any company in China is “privately owned” is naive in the extreme. The PLA has its hands on every apsect of the Chinese economy.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 11:56 am
“There seems to be a fair bit of (Beijing) pork being proffered in NZ at the moment, too.”
good shit!
hopefully we got more aussie pork, US pork etc etc etc
not nz tax payer funded pork
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Jack5, yes, Australia is most important but trade-wise China is second and also very important. I don’t see any problem with trade neutrality and lots of advantages.
I”d argue the opposite: NZ is too small not to practice trade neutrality since otherwise it has zero influence on its inevitably much bigger partner(s).
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Dime posted at 11.56:
The taxpayers seem to at least partly finance the Asia New Zealand Foundation, which distributes some pork within NZ. There are likely a number of other channels in which NZ taxpayer pork goes out to Beijing lovers.
AND
Alan W. posted at 12.05 in favour of trade neutrality.
Alan, I’m not sure that a tiny country can have trade neutrality without political/defence neutrality. Sweden is outside NATO and inside the European Community, but joining the latter has put pressure on its defence neutrality, with calls to join NATO. It is a more substantial, more industrialised economy than ours and more suited for successful armed neutrality.
But it would be a great coup for the pragmatic neutrality you advocate if NZ could both remain a member of Five Eyes AND build links with the PLA in its vast internet infiltration of Western business and defence.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Alcatel and Ericsson major competitors of Huawei and often touted as alternatives manufacture equipment in China.
Much of this comment re Huawei is :-
1) US paranoia
2) non trade barrier protectionism at which the French and USA are past masters
3) US concern at losing commercial dominance
4) US concern at their huge trade imbalance with China
5) NZ paranoia re anybody who is Asian
A delicious irony in all this is how the Greens seem so willing to share the US world view in this matter without any evidence whatever. Then of course much of what the Greens trumpet is without any foundation anyway.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
When Jack5 said: “Oh, and the idea that any company in China is “privately owned” is naive in the extreme. The PLA has its hands on every apsect of the Chinese economy”
He was absolutely right. DPF, you may wish to temper that statement about ‘private ownership’ of Huawei. One of the last major projects I completed before I left the consulting world was for a ‘large global telco’. Huawei is controlled from top to bottom by the Chinese military, dont doubt it for a second.
That said, I think there is a lot of paranoia in the statements coming out at the moment – but better a little too much than not enough. And say what you like about PaulB’s melt down a while back – when it comes to this stuff, he knows his shit. Used to ride a bike with him for hours on end, fascinating chap
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
I don’t know why people are so scare of this. After all if the chinese planned to spy on us, then we would perhaps have been already all doomed:
- Lots of electronic devices are made in China or use part that made in China.
- Lots of your clothings are made in china and can be embedded RFID tag to fast-track the spy plan.
- Building materials.
Yet they won’t do this, because they knew it is just a massive-scale commercial suicide plan as DPF said.
On other hand, if people are so worried about the Chinese companies that might link to chinese govt or pay tax to enrich those communists; why those ppl not go to their bank and asking where the funding for their mortgage are from, if it has any link to the chinese, how about return that mortgage and look elsewhere. Perhaps it’s easy to say than do. Jeez.
PS: Before you are yelling at me for being pro-CN, I should make clear that:
a/ I am an Asian migration
Vote:b/ I am from the place that I have a massive dispute with CN over lands and seas so I have no interest to overly support them.
March 29th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Nigel – I think its the fear of the unknown that created this anti-china sentiment.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
I tend to believe the US / Australian experts rather than the armchair experts above.
Regardless, perception is reality and this will affect NZ / US / Australian defence relations.
My personal opinion is that you’d be naive to believe the chinese govt is not involved with this company. Chinas appetite for technology is massive.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Huwawei for the highway.
Vote:Why do people beleive a totalitarian organisation has our best intentions at heart
March 29th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Their name is a field day for Conspiracy theorists. “Who R We?” “Huawei”….hmmmm
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Adam Smith posted at 12.55, citing Alcatel and Ericsson as major competitors of Huawei and pointing out they are competitors to Huawei. Adam went to to talk about US paranoia and trade protectionism.
Alcatel is French-based, and Ericsson is Swedish, so I’m not sure about the link to “US paranoia”. Sweden is of no threat whatsoever in the Pacific and France long ago gave up testing nuclear bombs in the region.
Adam went to to talk of criticism of Huawei as being NZ paranoia about anybody who is Asian. This is a bullshit tactic to shut down criticism of anything from Beijing. Minister Maurice William-Sung has used it, and it is trotted out against anyone dares raise any criticism of Beijing. It’s a crap argument, Adam. Dime, in his 1.25 post, repeats this illogical tactic.
Besides, NZ is less racist than Beijing. Ask any Tibetan or Turkic citizen of Sinkiang or ethnic Mongolian of Inner Mongolia.
Nigel Ng, who indicates he is an immigrant from Taiwan (I suspect that if he was Singaporean his English would be stronger), points out the amount of clothing and other goods we import from China. Fair point, and no problem with that Nigel. China is our second biggest trader partner. Trade is good, but every sovereign nation is entitled to decide what it trades and with whom.
Nigel is on weaker ground when he suggests that there is nothing to spy on in NZ. In itself, NZ is of no threat to anyone bigger than Tokelau. Nigel is right, no-one’s interested in copying the replica Spitfire outside Christchurch Airport.
However, New Zealand, as the minnow of the Five Eyes signal-intelligence pact, has security installations such as at that at Nelson which was attacked by not-so-peaceful peaceniks. Because NZ receives as well as passes on Five Eyes data, it would be a worthwhile field for signal-intelligence pying. Huawei’s field encompasses electronic traffic of the type Five Eyes monitors.
You can see why it is sensitive to let Huawei into the field within a country that’s in Five Eyes.
Everyone talks about the CIA, but the Five Eyes link is with the National Security Agency, which some poster may be able to confirm is bigger than the CIA. NZ both passes on and receives information that would be of high interest to the People’s Liberation Army.
Therefore, Nigel, NZ is a potential spying target.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
The perception that Muawei might do something naughty is because of the Chinese govts Internet censorship and stories of cyber hacking etc, this may be all wrong of course but the perception is there and China needs to address such issues before they produce more Mexican standoff situations.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Jack5>However, New Zealand, as the minnow of the Five Eyes signal-intelligence pact, has security installations such as at that at Nelson which was attacked by not-so-peaceful peaceniks. Because NZ receives as well as passes on Five Eyes data, it would be a worthwhile field for signal-intelligence pying. Huawei’s field encompasses electronic traffic of the type Five Eyes monitors. You can see why it is sensitive to let Huawei into the field within a country that’s in Five Eyes.
Too late, the UK has already done so. Big time.
And your assertion that there is a “security installation” in Nelson is kind of random.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Apparently, 2 Degrees also uses the Huawei network, unless that has changed.
A commentator ‘Matthew’ left this comment here on Kiwiblog in 2009 when 2 Degrees started –
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/08/mobile_competition.html#comment-593360
That is one of the reasons I never went with 2 Degrees. Looks like I made the right decision.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Jack5 wrote
Adam Smith posted at 12.55, citing Alcatel and Ericsson as major competitors of Huawei and pointing out they are competitors to Huawei. Adam went to to talk about US paranoia and trade protectionism.
This is not quite what I wrote. I noted as one point that Alcatel and Ericsson were major competitors and that both manufactured in China, Presumable in consequence they are vulnerable then to Chinese infiltration.
Alcatel is French-based, and Ericsson is Swedish, so I’m not sure about the link to “US paranoia”. US paranoia was a distinct point, I did not say either Alcatel or Ericsson were subject to it
Sweden is of no threat whatsoever in the Pacific and France long ago gave up testing nuclear bombs in the region.
Irrelevant and not germane, and I made no mention of either being a Pacific threat
Adam went to to talk of criticism of Huawei as being NZ paranoia about anybody who is Asian. This is a bullshit tactic to shut down criticism of anything from Beijing. Minister Maurice William-Sung has used it, and it is trotted out against anyone dares raise any criticism of Beijing. It’s a crap argument, Adam. Dime, in his 1.25 post, repeats this illogical tactic.
The bullshit is Jack5s. Everywhere you look on blogs, newspaper comments, radio we see continual invective and abuse of Asians. I hold no brief for Beijing, but ill informed prejudice like Jack5 pisses me off
Besides, NZ is less racist than Beijing. Ask any Tibetan or Turkic citizen of Sinkiang or ethnic Mongolian of Inner Mongolia.
So NZ being less racist makes the racism OK, what a crock.
New Zealand, as the minnow of the Five Eyes signal-intelligence pact, has security installations such as at that at Nelson which was attacked by not-so-peaceful peaceniks. Because NZ receives as well as passes on Five Eyes data, it would be a worthwhile field for signal-intelligence pying. Huawei’s field encompasses electronic traffic of the type Five Eyes monitors.
You can see why it is sensitive to let Huawei into the field within a country that’s in Five Eyes.
Presumably Jack that is why there is a major Huawei research centre in UK and Huawei supplies equipment to BT. UK being the location of the UKs GCHQ, UK equivalent of NSA,. So why exactly is NZ such a target when it buys equipment, but UK is not.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Basically the NBN is a bit of a beat up. I doubt that controlling the hardware would enable any intelligence – the backbone should never be assumed to be secure. It’s more laziness – they’re saying “Huawei might be bad guys, and imagine if they controlled our backbone” instead of thinking harder and saying “we’ve assessed that Huawei might be bad guys, but for the following reasons that doesn’t really create a risk”.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Adam Smith posted at 3.03:
Better consider this from from today’s The Australian . It includes this, Adam (NBN is Australian’s National Broadband Network):
As for the following extract from Adam Smith’s 3.03 post:
Extreme overstatement in that sentence, I would say, Adam.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Jack5: “And they still don’t have any guarantee they picked everything up,” he said.
Ummm… surely the question is did they pick anything up?
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Look in to the hacking of Nortel. Huawei are implicated. Someone was inside their systems since the year 2000 and pretty much looted all their R&D.
“The founder and CEO of Huawei is a former officer in China’s People’s Liberation Army”
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=24328
NSA director fingers China in recent RSA intrusion and subsequent data thefts, U.S. oblivious its at war
Well, no more hemming and hawing about, it’s official — the Chinese hacked EMC Corp. (EMC) subsidiary RSA and stole the secrets of its proprietary security algorithm according to the chief of the U.S. National Security Agency.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
So they were good enough hackers to break into RSA servers, but slack enough that their efforts can be traced back to China? Yeah, right. Someone wants you to believe in Chinese uberhackers, but why?
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Jack5
You trumpet what you call costly measures undertaken by British security agencies. That was the UK’s call. yet the fact remains, the UK allowed Huawei to supply. Prima facie no problem.
You do not seem at all upset by the common presumption that the NSa and the Fearless 5 (joke) monitor all communications. Why is that good and China bad.
A good idea is that which you do not wish revealed you take measures to protect, eg
Face to face meetings
encryption
for example
Personally I use True Crypt
Yet it is interesting to note that a number of email systems, programmed by US companies, do not allow significantly encrypted email past their firewall for fear of viruses.
So many entities are at risk of information leaks through virus protection and/or compliance with US based ‘protection scenarios’
So grow up and realise it is not just China, but all the major nations, including our ‘allies’ ,are spying. Probably the allies more than China.
That is what nation states do.
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
“AdamSmith1922″ in his 7.26 post equates what is essentially counter-surveillance by New Zealand and its allies with spying by China.
If he can’t distinguish between the interests of the five democracies including his own country (NZ) and those of the totalitarian People’s Republic of China, “AdamSmith1922″ ought to respect the memory of Adam Smith and drop the Great Scot’s name from his Kiwiblog posting name.
As for the use of True Crypt, I hope “AdamSmith1922″ is taking the precautions advocated to protect True Crypt from the attacks to which it is vulnerable. I have nothing sensitive enough to need encryption, but “AdamSmith1922″ is welcome to be as cautious as he likes, though that won’t count if the PLA becomes interested in his computer.
“AdamSmith1922″ can increase his security awareness by reading about the attack from China on RSA Security last year. I think RSA Security was founded by the trio for whom the RSA public-key cryptography algorithm was also named. Read about the attack at this link:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9218857/Researcher_follows_RSA_hacking_trail_to_China
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
As this string nears its end, a statement by DPF at the beginning deserves looking at. He said in discussing its ownership that one of the owners was Symantec.
In fact, Huawei Symantec,was a joint venture that was established between Huawei and Symantec Technologies in 2008. The end of the JV, with Huawei buying out Symantec, was announced in November, and was to have been finalised by the end of this month (March).
The article linked to below throws light on the ownership structure of Huawei and the role of CEO Ren Zhengfei, a former engineering officer in the PLA. The shares “owned” by employees seem to be non-transferable, and thus more of a profit-sharing device than a Western-style ownership device.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/175946,analysis-who-really-owns-huawei.aspx
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Jack5 is such an uninspiring commentator, his latest attack on me reads in part:-
jack5 (2,523) Says:
March 29th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
“AdamSmith1922″ in his 7.26 post equates what is essentially counter-surveillance by New Zealand and its allies with spying by China.
Since when is counter surveillance not an equivalent of spying. There is no definitive proof of Cina spying.
If he can’t distinguish between the interests of the five democracies including his own country (NZ) and those of the totalitarian People’s Republic of China, “AdamSmith1922″ ought to respect the memory of Adam Smith and drop the Great Scot’s name from his Kiwiblog posting name.
I can distinguish very well. I assume from his comments that Jack5 applauds the OTT approach to mega upload, the extradition from the UK of people to the US with no evidence to that great bastion of democracy the USA. Get real the usa, more than perhaps any other nation ignores international law and pursues the approach of US law applying everywhere.
Whilst I like many Americans on an individual level, much of theri international approach is abhorrent.
As for the use of True Crypt, I hope “AdamSmith1922″ is taking the precautions advocated to protect True Crypt from the attacks to which it is vulnerable. I have nothing sensitive enough to need encryption, but “AdamSmith1922″ is welcome to be as cautious as he likes, though that won’t count if the PLA becomes interested in his computer.
As I have nothing the PLA could be interested in, I have no concern.
“AdamSmith1922″ can increase his security awareness by reading about the attack from China on RSA Security last year. I think RSA Security was founded by the trio for whom the RSA public-key cryptography algorithm was also named. Read about the attack at this link:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9218857/Researcher_follows_RSA_hacking_trail_to_China
you really have a China problem don’t you?
BTW are you concerned that the USA are doing the same? Are you so blinkered and thus naive that you fail to understand this?
Vote:March 29th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
adamsmith1922 raises his head again at 8.49.
A final question for you, “adamsmith1922″. If New Zealand and China get into a full-blown dispute, a stand-off, conflict, perhaps even armed conflict, which side will you be on?
Vote:April 28th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
I recently purchased a Huawei from Dick Smith. Within 5 days the touch screen began to fail, within a week it couldnt process a simple video and by two weeks it was getting so hot that it finally warpped the case making it impossible for the backs to stay on. Dick Smith said I did this to the phone and Huawei wont do a thing about it. I have a phone less than three weeks old that it garbage. NEVER again Dick Smith and NEVER EVER again Huawei!!!!!
Vote: