« What will help solve cyber security? Collaboration and open communication or competition between countries and companies? | Main | Just do four things and stop up to 85% of intrusions states Australian Security Intelligence Office - but do they take their own medicine? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I am a bit surprised that Mr. Ren’s background has been met with suspicion in certain countries like the United States. The US, of all places, has been a home to entrepreneurial IT success stories. Inspiring stories like Michael Dell’s PC shop-based out of his dormitory, or Bill Gate’s decision to start Microsoft with Paul Allen while in college are well known in American tech-culture. I wonder if Mr. Ren’s humble beginnings with Huawei just need more details (and hopefully more appreciation). Mr. Suffolk is absolutely right to state that a private company is under no such requirement to release operational details. I would be willing to bet that most of the American politicians who have criticized Huawei and perhaps its foundation would look far less credible though, if Huawei’s establishment details were also publicly discussed, such as Huawei’s other founding investors in addition to Mr. Ren in the late 1980’s. I think certain politicians will sadly continue to cast aspersions if such issues are not discussed openly whether lawfully required or not.

John Suffolk

Thank you for your comments. I was part of the team that hosted the Congressional study in our Headquarters in Shenzhen, as well as meeting the Committee in Hong Kong and one of the authors of answers to the many questions we were asked, and I have to say that our approach was as professional as I have seen throughout my business and Government career - I am sorry you have a different view.

Two thirds of our business comes from outside of China and I think many of the Citizens and Governments in the 140 countries in which we operate in may take exception to you suggesting they are 3rd world. I would say that whilst they might not have the GDP of say the USA, in their own way many countries are using technology in very advanced ways.

We pride ourselves on our transparency - after all who gets reviewed, audited and inspected as much as Huawei? - we are a private company who are under no legal obligation to publish information yet because we are a leader in transparency we have had our accounts audited by a world-class audit firm, KPMG for 8 years, we publish our accounts and a full range of other information.

I note your point on “association" with the Chinese Government, yet there has never been any report that has identified any evidence of association with the Chinese Government other than that required under law for purposes of company formation and taxes etc - just like any company in the world. From my perspective I can honestly say that I have never had any of my cyber security work reviewed, modified, influenced by anyone other than colleagues in Huawei and our customers.

Finally we fully support your point about third-party validation of our products – this is what we do, it was such a shame that the Committee did not agree with you or I on validation. If you are American perhaps you could lobby your Congressmen to introduce a bill that ALL technology should be subject to independent review. After all other Governments carry the same risk of using equipment not produced in their country. It is right for non-American companies and Governments to question what might lurk in American technology just as it is right for the American Government to question what might lurk in non-American technology. As I put in my recent White Paper one doesn’t need to look too hard for links between say the American Security Agencies and American technology companies, nor for conspiracy theories about known flaws being left open so that a Government can exploit them. This is why we favour and demonstrate openness, transparency and collaboration and do not wish to see cyber security being used as a protectionist measure – I hope you favour this approach as well.

Once again thank you for your comment.


I do agree with the primes of keeping network stable and secure. However, looking at the United State Congressional study on Huawei, I don't think Huawei is living what it is preaching. I found Huawei very defensive and not transparent. There were a lots of questions Huawei could have answered to come clean but they chose politics over integrity. I keep hearing Huawei is serving over 3 billion people, but the majority of this are the 3rd world country nation who have less interest in security more than they do just for technology. If Huawei want be market leader, there should be more full transparency, les association with Chinese government, and their product security and integrity should be confirmed by 3rd party.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

March 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31