News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Worried about Huawei? Take a closer look at Tencent by unionpivo on Friday March 29, 2019 @05:39AM (#19520241)
What makes you think something like this would be announced on company wide email?

One or two guys, working on cheat detection might know something, or most likely are just told to ignore whatever, they see.

Re:Worried about Huawei? Take a closer look at Tencent by huffmsa on Friday March 29, 2019 @07:37AM (#19520711)
Like Google's Dragonfly. Or AT&T letting the NSA splice intercepts in the main fiber room.

Ntk only.

Re:Worried about Huawei? Take a closer look at Tencent by empath75 on Friday March 29, 2019 @08:42AM (#19521086)
intelligence services play the long game. Gradually exert pressure, put friendly management in place, move supporting services to Chinese data centers, etc. Maybe it takes 10 years. They aren’t in any rush.
Re:Worried about Huawei? Take a closer look at Tencent by sky_nox on Friday March 29, 2019 @01:40PM (#19523846)
Click on his profile. He's the CTO of the company.
Re:Worried about Huawei? Take a closer look at Tencent by philwelch on Friday March 29, 2019 @03:25PM (#19524735)
Even if you're the CTO of a US company that's being infiltrated by a foreign intelligence agency, there are only three possibilities:

* You are a foreign intelligence asset and and any denials on your part are lies.

* You are not a foreign intelligence asset, but you know that strange things are afoot and have informed the FBI. In order to not jeopardize the counterintelligence investigation, you have been instructed to play dumb, and hence, any denials on your part are lies.

* You are not a foreign intelligence asset and you have not noticed the infiltration. In this situation, you're not lying when you deny that anything's going on, you're just ignorant.

Of course, if your company isn't being infiltrated by foreign intelligence, you will also, correctly, deny that the company is being infiltrated. I'm not saying that his company is being infiltrated or compromised; I'm saying that there's virtually zero informational value in someone in his position denying such a thing because no one would ever admit it.