Other countries have not proven that such a backdoor exists yet. If the US says it can prove it, then they should prove and show it to the intelligence agencies of their allied countries already instead of beating around the bush for all these years.
However, these claims that US officials have been aware of Huawei’s backdoor access “since 2009” is a bit contradicting to reports that they have released in the past.
Snowden leaked files showing how the NSA hacked into and spied on Huawei’s servers to see if there was any espionage being conducted. They concluded that there wasn’t any evidence of spying by Huawei.
“The House Intelligence Committee delivered an unclassified report on Huawei and another Chinese company, ZTE, that cited no evidence confirming the suspicions about Chinese government ties.”
The White House ordered a review of security risks posed by suppliers to US telecommunications companies over an 18-month investigation that found no clear evidence that Huawei had spied for China.
“A US government security review has found no evidence telecoms equipment firm Huawei Technology spies for China.”
Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre has closely followed Huawei over the years, subjecting it to strict government controls wherever it has been used. Ciaran Martin, the head of Britain’s NCSC, has even said that despite all of the espionage allegations against Huawei by the US, Washington has provided Britain with absolutely zero evidence supporting such claims so far, nor has Britain’s own cyber security firms detected any such evidence.
Britain is able to manage the security risks of using Huawei telecoms equipment and has not seen any evidence of malicious activity by the company, a senior official said on Wednesday, pushing back against U.S. allegations of Chinese state spying.
Asked later whether Washington had presented Britain with any evidence to support its allegations, he told reporters: “I would be obliged to report if there was evidence of malevolence … by Huawei. And we’re yet to have to do that. So I hope that covers it.”
So which is it? Backdoor or no backdoor present “since 2009”? They don’t have to reveal the method in which they discovered these alleged “backdoors” to the public, but they should at least be consistent when reporting their conclusions from back then and now…