This sounds like a lot of things were going wrong. Okay, first you had the guy committing fraud.
But why is the military sourcing its network hardware from random small resellers off Amazon? Like, even if the hardware were authentic, that seems like a route for potential trouble.
And it sounds like questionable stuff is getting into Cisco’s official supply chains, too:
That same year, Al Palladin, Cisco’s legal director of global brand protection, told CRN that even authentic Cisco channel partners were acquiring products outside of Cisco-authorized means because it was faster.
The military isn’t buying from Amazon, they buy from “xyz hardware supplies ltd”, who buy from Amazon and charge three times the price to the military.
Some will be companies that specialise in sourcing obsolete hardware, who just buy shit off Amazon/eBay and issue the correct paperwork.
I’ve read that the US government has to give preference in contract bids to small businesses, veteran owned, woman owned, etc, businesses, which is great in theory, but it can create situations like this.
It’s insane to me all the different ways the government procures things.
Just get it straight from the manufacturer. Then if anything ever goes wrong there isn’t the “who is REALLY to blame on this long chain of people” it’s “hey this shit is broken, YOU are responsible for it”
Of course sometimes they do it as a form of opsec, if you distribute parts across many small time sellers it’s easier to hide something than one big order from the primary source.
I suspect the plausible deniability of responsibility is a feature not a bug to many of the bureaucrats.
The beurocracy must expand to meet the increasing needs of the growing beurocracy.
And more complexity is always good for corruption, since every additional kind of complexity introduces gray areas where it’s unclear who’s to blame.
Did you not read the comment you’re replying to? They mentioned obsolete hardware. Cisco does not sell obsolete hardware.
but it can create situations like this.
Only if proper vetting of the contractor isn’t done. That part of the process should happen regardless of who the contractor is.
I’m sorry, but such things happen in countries with no preference to small businesses and veterans etc.
I’m almost confident that somebody involved in choosing that supplier got a cut.
After all, US military budget is so ridiculously big that not having such kinds of corruption would be weird.
Probably a fairly sophisticated espionage operation.
I’ve bought Cisco equipment from verified vendor partners before, put in legit Cisco SFPs, router bricked itself and when I opened the TAC case they said it was mimic device and sent me a new one to arrive within 4 hours since it had been ordered from an approved partner. This shit happens somehow
Al Palladin
These fake cisco devices might be less vulnerable than the real devices.
Love the sentiment but they were flashing old devices so the likely had lots of vulnerabilities.
That’s capitalism with a military contractor increasing their profits.
But capitalism good!
Or it’s a surveillance attempt by someone.
$$$$$ “The 2022 audit, released in November, marked the fifth year the Pentagon had failed its audit (the process started in 2017).”
Jon Stewart blasts ‘corruption’ in Pentagon spending
“Now, I may not understand exactly the ins and outs, and the incredible magic of an audit. But I’m a human being who lives on the Earth and can’t figure out how $850 billion to a department means that the rank and file still have to be on food stamps,” Stewart said. “To me, that’s fucking corruption. And I’m sorry. And, if like, that blows your mind and you think that’s like a crazy agenda for me to have, I really think that that’s institutional thinking, and that it’s not looking at the day-to-day reality of the people that you call the greatest fighting force in the world.”>
I wonder why they can’t just buy straight from Cisco, surely they are big enough and the equipment is sensitive enough for that to make sense.
nortel 2.0.
