News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by nickpsecurity on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @12:05AM (#11532187)
It's not the switch itself. It's the I.P. in the switches. And you've narrowed the situation enough to ensure nobody could meet your criteria unless representing the most wreckless spies on Earth.

Note: One fun fact of layer 2 Ethernet is it's insecure enough by itself that many just tap straight into the lines somewhere. Led to development of MACsec standard.

Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by walrus01 on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @01:22PM (#11536030)
Not at all. "Put a suspicious device on an internet connection, let it run, and capture all packets to see where it phones home" is a fairly basic process.
Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by nickpsecurity on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @01:39PM (#11536180)
The connectors in TAO catalog use RF to make that impossible without unusual spectrum analyzers. I did that, too. Another trick is covert channels to make it invisible in network traffic. Covert channel analysis is mandated in high assurance specs but almost nobody does it.

Anyway, you're not going to see a switch subverted by pro's in action. They won't blow that cover. They'll use it to facilitate a normal attack and plant evidence it came through a normal vector. That's how subversion works at pro level.