This was interesting but the title "From China, With Love" seems descriptively weak and unnecessarily confrontational, as if somehow the Chinese government were to blame for one router manufacturers backdoor.
* Chinese intervention and even ownership of its local industries is a well-known phenomenon. You can't on the one hand believe that NSA --- err, Clyde Frog --- is strongarming US Internet companies into complying with court orders while at the same time seriously suggesting that Chinese manufacturers are independent of the Chinese state.
* How much do we know about Shenzhen Tenda? All I could find in 5 minutes or so of research is that it's the result of the efforts of D.P. Quan to provide networking and enrich the lives of all people through, IIRC, excellence.
* China has a very well-established, well-attributed track record of attacking the tech infrastructure of the rest of the world, and does so through proxy organizations.
* A very blatant backdoor with minimal tech support value is something that is more valuable to a state than to a random tech company.
Ever since the Snowden situation began every security issue related to the US has invited comments suggesting the NSA might be involved. I don't see your point.
It's pretty well known that there is some terrible software that comes out of the Chinese hardware shops. 99.9% of the time these are not malicious back doors. Instead they're debugging or QA frameworks that just get left in released software. There is zero process or control of the releases. They can certainly put a system together, but they can't write the software for shit.
Your comment is just another over-generalisation. You sum up the entire spectrum of Chinese companies with 'they'. Why do you think this makes sense and yet you'd naturally spot that it would be plain dumb to summarise and generalise American companies in this way?
No. I generalized Chinese hardware shops. Not all Chinese companies. Having spent years working with software, and sometimes rewriting it, from said companies I'm perfectly content with the generalization I've made.
The title is not really an interesting subject of discussion. After reading the article (ignoring the title), I find the author is neither descriptively weak or unnecessarily confrontational.
