Department of Homeland Security Has 'No Reason to Doubt' Apple's Denial of Supply Chain Compromise

[v3rlon]

I think they "Apple" should have taken some time to at-least run a thorough diagnostic test on their servers before saying no.

You mean the servers they no longer have because they pulled them all three years ago?

“Hey Bob, I need you to UNrecycle Appleserver2407 so we can run some tests. How long will it take to reassemble the parts that were melted down and put the thing back online?”

Yeah, pretty sure that isn’t coming.

How about Bloomberg producing a compromised motherboard? They had pictures of the supposed location. Could they not find one in any of the ~30 affected companies?

 

[jtara]

Notably, NSA hasn't denied. But, I wouldn't expect them to - they aren't politicized like DHS, which also does not really have much of a relevant role is this sort of thing. DHS's primary role, IMO, is to make citizens feel secure. FEEL secure. And to trumpet the administration's viewpoints in it's areas of supposed expertise.

My experience with "management chips" is rather out of date, going back to the early 2000's when I was involved with high-frequency trading, and had a couple IBM (pre-Lenovo) servers installed on "wall street". I used to build my own Linux/Windows boxes, as well, and I think sometime not long after that they started appearing in consumer-oriented boards e.g. that you can buy at Fry's etc.

To educate a bit with admittedly out-of-date information...

Back in the day, it was a "management board" rather than chip (wasn't on the mother board yet). It basically let you do most anything you could do in person. It had a physically-separate Ethernet interface, as well as a serial port that could be connected to a phone modem. (Probably absent today!)

It was powered even when the rest of the motherboard was powered down. One of the things you could do from the management interface was to power the server on and off. (We also had an external power controller, BTW, that allowed us to physically cycle power to the server, as well as other equipment, router, etc.)

You could reboot, interact with BIOS boot, e.g. see BIOS messages, provide keyboard responses. You could boot from a remote "floppy" or "CD". You could load a new BIOS image, or other firmware images, again from a remote "floppy" or "CD". Load a processor firmware update if needed (I remember some multiplication bug or some-such...)

As a practical matter, all datacenter-deployed servers have such functionality today, but now built on to the motherboard.

Being able to "piggyback" somehow onto the management chip, then, could give one a great deal of power. And would not be so easily detected as a mod to the management chip itself. It might be disguised as e.g. a surface mount capacitor, which seems to be the implication suggested by the photos we have seen of the chip on the fingertip. (Which I assume is NOT an actual photo of the actual chip.)

One might alter firmware in the management chip itself, BIOS, other firmware, etc. but that would be easily detected by diagnostics.

As I understand it, this is not a chip for mass surveillance - and it's not a chip that's expected to do a lot of work. So, suggestions that it's "too small" are nonsense. The modest processor needed for this could easily be put in such a small package.

The "management bus" on these servers is serial, so there is not a need for a large lead count on the package. It wouldn't be that hard to make a 3-terminal device that looks like a 2-terminal device, with a hidden through-hole underneath, or even an inductive coupling. One might disguise the inductive coupling in the circuit board design cleverly so it is not so obvious as a little coil in one of the layers under the chip. There, now you have access to the management bus.

"Who, me? I'm just a power supply filter!"

-----
Not sure what the point was, but a couple people mentioned Apple and Microsoft's non-use of their own products. Unfortunately, neither makes suitable products. By Microsoft's own admission, BTW, > 50% of Azure servers are running Linux. Microsoft eats a bit of their own dog food, their Azure customers eat even less. In any case, Microsoft has no suitable hardware. (Racks of Surface tablets? Racks of X-Box, LOL! FWIW, though, when working at Sony a few years back, we actually DID have racks of Playstations! It was for a specific game, most servers were Linux.)

Mac Mini is in no way suitable for serious work in a datacenter. Underpowered, insufficient thermal design, and no management chip. (Yes, I know there are companies that offer racked Mac Minis.) Mac Pro is a poor match due to the goofy form factor, expense, and unused/unusable features (powerful GPU - if you need GPUs in a datacenter, you will have dedicated GPU boxes...).

---
I was curious what Alex Jones/Infowars had to say, since he was brought up. There's only one article there right now, buried, since that site right now is so single-issue on the Supreme Court right now. The article seems neutral, just reporting what Bloomberg and the companies are saying, and offers no opinions. But I suggest that Jones won't support the prevailing opinion being expressed here of "nothing to see here, move along!". If for no other reason than his feud with Apple/Tim Cook, and will use this as an opportunity to try to drag down Apple and Cook and brand him a liar.

Sometimes, I think Alex Jones may accidentally stumble into congruence with the truth. Will be an interesting show to watch!

 

[idunn]

Me thinks they protest too much.

 

[dogslobber]

DHS. Very trustworthy!

 

[Labeno]

Sensationalized news wether true or fake makes more money for the media. If they are desperate for money like all businesses and people, then fake news is easier to write.

 

[Braderunner]

Why trust any of the fake news coming from any part of the government. When called out, the story changes to...”I (We) misspoke. I (We) meant to say.....”

 

[jtara]

"Fake news" does not come from the amount of effort put into this story, or, e.g. the WSJ story on Trump's finances. Why assign 3 reporters full-time working from a locked office for 18 months (as in the case of the Trump story), and then embed a film crew from another organization (as in the case of the Trump story) who will have to be fooled or colluded-with, when you could just make it up?

Unfortunately, few new organizations have the money to pursue stories like this which require so many resources. There is little money to be had from sensationalized headlines. And what there is goes to e.g. The New York Post, The Sun, etc. the remains of the tabloid business.

One outtake from that reality is that the organizations that are able to do this sort of investigative journalism are subsidized altruistically or otherwise, as often happened also in the early part of the 20th century. So, yes, these organizations tend to have the biases of their backers. But I believe the bias comes primarily in selection of what stories to pursue.

Fake news is made up, takes a great deal less effort, and most often comes from the side that constantly complains about fake news.

 

[cmaier]

Perhaps I've missed something, but the UK statement, and now DHS's statement, makes no sense to me. Why are either of those entities coming out publicly, on their own, to say they consider the statements by Apple, Amazon, etc. to be creditable? Who asked them? And further, who cares? The question isn't what they think of Apple's statement; the question is: what do they know, themselves, about the sabotage? Bloomberg's story indicated that gov't agencies knew about all this. In fact, gov't sources are primary providers of information for the story, supposedly. Personally, I can't fathom how the Bloomberg editors would print a story this explosive without a single source that's willing to identify themselves.

On a different note, I have a subscription to Bloomberg, and one thing has really stuck out about their publishing platform: there is no mechanism to comment on a story, any story.

Literally thousands of people and reporters have asked these agencies for comments. These agencies routinely comment on issues of corporate security.
[doublepost=1538942014][/doublepost]

Notably, NSA hasn't denied. But, I wouldn't expect them to - they aren't politicized like DHS, which also does not really have much of a relevant role is this sort of thing. DHS's primary role, IMO, is to make citizens feel secure. FEEL secure. And to trumpet the administration's viewpoints in it's areas of supposed expertise.

My experience with "management chips" is rather out of date, going back to the early 2000's when I was involved with high-frequency trading, and had a couple IBM (pre-Lenovo) servers installed on "wall street". I used to build my own Linux/Windows boxes, as well, and I think sometime not long after that they started appearing in consumer-oriented boards e.g. that you can buy at Fry's etc.

To educate a bit with admittedly out-of-date information...

Back in the day, it was a "management board" rather than chip (wasn't on the mother board yet). It basically let you do most anything you could do in person. It had a physically-separate Ethernet interface, as well as a serial port that could be connected to a phone modem. (Probably absent today!)

It was powered even when the rest of the motherboard was powered down. One of the things you could do from the management interface was to power the server on and off. (We also had an external power controller, BTW, that allowed us to physically cycle power to the server, as well as other equipment, router, etc.)

You could reboot, interact with BIOS boot, e.g. see BIOS messages, provide keyboard responses. You could boot from a remote "floppy" or "CD". You could load a new BIOS image, or other firmware images, again from a remote "floppy" or "CD". Load a processor firmware update if needed (I remember some multiplication bug or some-such...)

As a practical matter, all datacenter-deployed servers have such functionality today, but now built on to the motherboard.

Being able to "piggyback" somehow onto the management chip, then, could give one a great deal of power. And would not be so easily detected as a mod to the management chip itself. It might be disguised as e.g. a surface mount capacitor, which seems to be the implication suggested by the photos we have seen of the chip on the fingertip. (Which I assume is NOT an actual photo of the actual chip.)

One might alter firmware in the management chip itself, BIOS, other firmware, etc. but that would be easily detected by diagnostics.

As I understand it, this is not a chip for mass surveillance - and it's not a chip that's expected to do a lot of work. So, suggestions that it's "too small" are nonsense. The modest processor needed for this could easily be put in such a small package.

The "management bus" on these servers is serial, so there is not a need for a large lead count on the package. It wouldn't be that hard to make a 3-terminal device that looks like a 2-terminal device, with a hidden through-hole underneath, or even an inductive coupling. One might disguise the inductive coupling in the circuit board design cleverly so it is not so obvious as a little coil in one of the layers under the chip. There, now you have access to the management bus.

"Who, me? I'm just a power supply filter!"

-----
Not sure what the point was, but a couple people mentioned Apple and Microsoft's non-use of their own products. Unfortunately, neither makes suitable products. By Microsoft's own admission, BTW, > 50% of Azure servers are running Linux. Microsoft eats a bit of their own dog food, their Azure customers eat even less. In any case, Microsoft has no suitable hardware. (Racks of Surface tablets? Racks of X-Box, LOL! FWIW, though, when working at Sony a few years back, we actually DID have racks of Playstations! It was for a specific game, most servers were Linux.)

Mac Mini is in no way suitable for serious work in a datacenter. Underpowered, insufficient thermal design, and no management chip. (Yes, I know there are companies that offer racked Mac Minis.) Mac Pro is a poor match due to the goofy form factor, expense, and unused/unusable features (powerful GPU - if you need GPUs in a datacenter, you will have dedicated GPU boxes...).

---
I was curious what Alex Jones/Infowars had to say, since he was brought up. There's only one article there right now, buried, since that site right now is so single-issue on the Supreme Court right now. The article seems neutral, just reporting what Bloomberg and the companies are saying, and offers no opinions. But I suggest that Jones won't support the prevailing opinion being expressed here of "nothing to see here, move along!". If for no other reason than his feud with Apple/Tim Cook, and will use this as an opportunity to try to drag down Apple and Cook and brand him a liar.

Sometimes, I think Alex Jones may accidentally stumble into congruence with the truth. Will be an interesting show to watch!

“I was curious what Alex Jones/Infowars had to say” - something no one on his proper dose of meds ever said. (Please take this for what it is - commentary on Alex Jones, not on you)

 

[now i see it]

This article linked below paints a very different picture

https://www.electronicdesign.com/embedded-revolution/your-motherboard-hacked

 

[jtara]

This article linked below paints a very different picture

https://www.electronicdesign.com/embedded-revolution/your-motherboard-hacked

Thanks.

It corroborates what I've been saying about the viability of the hack described.

Even easier than I'd thought, given that the article points out that many of these boards do NOT today use a physically separate Ethernet connection for the management interface.

IF you have a separate interface, then it is up to the owner as to level of security.

- Leave it disconnected, roll a cart down the isle to plug in and update
- Add a locking plug in the Ethernet socket...
- Separate wiring to separate management switch
- Just put on a separate VLAN, on the same router as normal traffic
- Nothing special at all, just throw it on your network. It's just another IP address
- etc.

You can imagine that different companies have different levels of sophistication and understanding.

Not sure what's behind the head-in-the-sand attitude so widely expressed here. It is truly "sad" when sources like Bloomberg, who COULD NOT CARE LESS about YOUR advertising dollars (they are after bigger fish, and -gasp- even CHARGE hefty sums for most of their services) are impugned on basis of sensationalism pandering to the general public.

But some knucklehead with a GoPro (if that), a green screen, and an Internet connection can have his incoherent rants given the same weight. (Still eagerly waiting to see said knucklehead's take on this - I suspect it will NOT make most of the posters here happy...)

SO glad I choose to go into software development instead of journalism. Those (along with electrical engineering) were the choices I considered back in high school/college. There is no room for journalists any more. Only "influencers".

 

[Macintoshrumors]

Bloomberg Businessweek's reputation is indefinitely tainted in my eyes.

Idk, the tech companies have a lot to loose, billions are at steak that will affect the stock price. I think it’s possible that this happened and is being taking care of behind the scenes.

 

[AgentAnonymous]

Bloomberg Businessweek's reputation is indefinitely tainted in my eyes.

It is helpful to employ critical thinking before jumping to conclusions. Do you really think Bloomberg they just invented all of this from thin air, or trusted the word of a random person? Why are they still standing by the story? Although it's not certain, a more likely scenario is that Bloomberg reported on something that is being actively investigated, and western governments don't want China to know that they know.

 

[nebo1ss]

How many of you remember this story.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/15/world/the-bugged-embassy-case-what-went-wrong.html

 

[AsherN]

Thanks.

It corroborates what I've been saying about the viability of the hack described.

Even easier than I'd thought, given that the article points out that many of these boards do NOT today use a physically separate Ethernet connection for the management interface.

IF you have a separate interface, then it is up to the owner as to level of security.

- Leave it disconnected, roll a cart down the isle to plug in and update
- Add a locking plug in the Ethernet socket...
- Separate wiring to separate management switch
- Just put on a separate VLAN, on the same router as normal traffic
- Nothing special at all, just throw it on your network. It's just another IP address
- etc.

Every single server I've used with a OOB management interface, unless a very basic model, has it's own network interface. And while I don't run the kind of secure environments that Apple, Google and Amazon do, I never expose those ports to the outside world. Most often they are on a non-routable VLAN.

 

[Nicky G]

Aren’t almost all media outlets ?

Based on what?
[doublepost=1539047051][/doublepost]

Ok guys we understand it’s fake. It’s starting to look more suspicious that so many people are releasing denials.

Is the fact that they're releasing denials what makes this fake? Because I doubt they would acknowledge it if the basic premise of the story was true.
[doublepost=1539047211][/doublepost]

There’s literally no evidence it is true, and tons of evidence that it is false. Among the most compelling arguments against it being true is that it’s so technically infeasible as to border on impossible.

Well that's simply not true.
[doublepost=1539047347][/doublepost]

Where are the photos of the actual compromised boards and the demonstrations of the exploits?

As someone who is very open to the possibility of this story being true... I think this is a valid question to ask. But if the story is true... many of these boards may indeed be out there, and you may indeed need to peel apart the board to detect, or at least run through an xray. Let's give this story a few months. I think this will be a very useful aspect to revisit -- have any boards actually surfaced?
[doublepost=1539047456][/doublepost]

For once?

I would just love to hear what your other favorite examples of blatant fake news might be.
[doublepost=1539047636][/doublepost]

Apple probably does not want to be put in the position of having to explain why the trillion dollar Mac maker would use anything other than Mac server computers running macOS Server in those huge data centers all over the world.

I see you are a recent forum member in relative terms, so I will forgive you a more limited experience. For most of us who have been paying attention, Apple has not made server-class computers in years, has not claimed to, and has not put forth any public relations efforts whatsoever to back up this perspective. They really don't care. They may have reasons to lie about this, but those would have nothing to do with your hypothesis.
[doublepost=1539047777][/doublepost]

Department of Homeland Security Has 'No Reason to Doubt' Apple's Denial of Supply Chain Compromise

Doesn’t mean it's not happening; just saying

I'd say if it were true, they would have EVERY REASON to "publicly doubt" the story -- because it would be one of the most classified intelligence operations in technology history, I imagine. Which means that the denials of the DHS of the *ahem* Trump Administration mean... little.
[doublepost=1539047978][/doublepost]

It's amusing that you give the "professional media" so much credit. The media process lends itself to manipulation, and the more restricted the content the easier it is to manipulate the reporter in question.

May I ask what direct experience with working for the media industry this perspective is based on?
[doublepost=1539048093][/doublepost]

Regardless of the truth,if any government/departments want to cover it up, this is what they'd exactly do.

I think the other thing people aren't realizing is... If this story is true, there is a chance Tim Cook is one of the sources for the story. Do people really not understand how this stuff works? Oh, yeah, no... they don't.
[doublepost=1539048252][/doublepost]

I find that very interesting and at this point I think is key. Why are they so quick to put out definitive statements of denial. Very atypical.

Considering that if this story was true, and proved to be so, it may well crash the global economy, I'd say the vehemence, again, if it's true, is understandable. Maybe not right, but understandable.
[doublepost=1539048481][/doublepost]

Denials are not evidence of lying. That’s a crazy thought process. I can’t strongly deny anything else it shows that the thing I am denying is true?

This is true. However, I think it would be reasonable for Apple, and certainly SuperMicro, to sue Bloomberg -- EVEN if they didn't think they would win the case, by proving "intent to harm." You don't want people putting this kind of stuff out, you want to make it really painful to them. You sue them. Apple is engaged in huge lawsuits WITH THEIR BIGGEST VENDORS all the time. They have armies of lawyers. I still submit that if the named parties do not sue -- it will be telling. Again, they don't have to think they will win, to make a lawsuit worthwhile.

 

[cmaier]

Based on what?
[doublepost=1539047051][/doublepost]
Is the fact that they're releasing denials what makes this fake? Because I doubt they would acknowledge it if the basic premise of the story was true.
[doublepost=1539047211][/doublepost]
Well that's simply not true.
[doublepost=1539047347][/doublepost]
As someone who is very open to the possibility of this story being true... I think this is a valid question to ask. But if the story is true... many of these boards may indeed be out there, and you may indeed need to peel apart the board to detect, or at least run through an xray. Let's give this story a few months. I think this will be a very useful aspect to revisit -- have any boards actually surfaced?
[doublepost=1539047456][/doublepost]
I would just love to hear what your other favorite examples of blatant fake news might be.
[doublepost=1539047636][/doublepost]
I see you are a recent forum member in relative terms, so I will forgive you a more limited experience. For most of us who have been paying attention, Apple has not made server-class computers in years, has not claimed to, and has not put forth any public relations efforts whatsoever to back up this perspective. They really don't care. They may have reasons to lie about this, but those would have nothing to do with your hypothesis.
[doublepost=1539047777][/doublepost]
I'd say if it were true, they would have EVERY REASON to "publicly doubt" the story -- because it would be one of the most classified intelligence operations in technology history, I imagine. Which means that the denials of the DHS of the *ahem* Trump Administration mean... little.
[doublepost=1539047978][/doublepost]
May I ask what direct experience with working for the media industry this perspective is based on?
[doublepost=1539048093][/doublepost]
I think the other thing people aren't realizing is... If this story is true, there is a chance Tim Cook is one of the sources for the story. Do people really not understand how this stuff works? Oh, yeah, no... they don't.
[doublepost=1539048252][/doublepost]
Considering that if this story was true, and proved to be so, it may well crash the global economy, I'd say the vehemence, again, if it's true, is understandable. Maybe not right, but understandable.
[doublepost=1539048481][/doublepost]
This is true. However, I think it would be reasonable for Apple, and certainly SuperMicro, to sue Bloomberg -- EVEN if they didn't think they would win the case, by proving "intent to harm." You don't want people putting this kind of stuff out, you want to make it really painful to them. You sue them. Apple is engaged in huge lawsuits WITH THEIR BIGGEST VENDORS all the time. They have armies of lawyers. I still submit that if the named parties do not sue -- it will be telling. Again, they don't have to think they will win, to make a lawsuit worthwhile.

Suing requires a good faith basis in the cause of action. Libel is difficult to prove when the publisher is a news organization and the victim is a newsworthy entity.

 

[KGB7]

What boggles my mind, is that Bloomberg, didn’t go straight to FBI, with motherboard model numbers and serial numbers of the motherboards that were used in the infiltration.

Almost everything now days has a serial number, except for but not limited to, shower curtains and flip flops at the dollar store.

Furthermore, Bloomberg article would have far more credibility, if they went to FBI first with all their evidence and got turned away.

Every article such as this one, has to be approved and consulted with a legal team inside of Bloomberg. Because if the article is fake, it could and will have a significant backlash and opens a door for a law suit.

IMHO, wait few month and see what happens. We might not know the full truth for another year or two.

 

[yadmonkey]

I would just love to hear what your other favorite examples of blatant fake news might be.

The tone of your response makes me reluctant to engage you. The sarcastic use of "love" (italicized) tells me that you are poised to preemptively reject my answer. Also, you added the word "blatant", setting me up to prove a point I didn't make. For these reasons, investing time in a detailed response would seem an exercise in futility. Alas, I'll give you the cliff notes.

Suffice to say that the combination of misleading, sensationalist headlines (at best designed to entice clicks), combined with the fact that an alarming percentage of people never read beyond headlines, makes for a cycle of actual misinformation. At times the depth of the deception reveals a disturbing level of bias that makes the designation of "fake news" more than fair. Here's the first example that comes to mind:

Time Magazine story about Charles Koch (note the tag in the story about changing the headline. Their tweet-link to the article (I captured this screenshot before they deleted it):

The original headline read: Charles Koch: US Can Bomb Its Way To $100,000 Salaries

Being conditioned to think critically, my initial reaction was along the lines of: this guy is a ruthless bastard, but there's no way he's stupid enough to represent himself this way. So I read the article. Here's the context for the actual quote:

How many people simply saw those headlines and allowed them to run right through their filter of confirmation bias? Sure, Time changed the headlines eventually, but damage done, mission accomplished. To most people, they only confirmed what an evil, horrible man Charles Koch is. To those of us who see the world in a more nuanced fashion, this is not so much about how it hurts Koch, but more so how it harms the truth. I don't particularly like Koch, but the more I've learned of him, the less I see him as a cartoon villain and the more I see him as a human being I sometimes disagree with.

And I deeply dislike Donald Trump, but will give him credit when deserved. In cases like this, it's almost like the media (Left and Right) is bending over backwards to make him right about their phoniness.

I could provide more examples, but I've already spent too much time on this. Keep an open mind, check your confirmation bias, and read beyond the headlines, and you will find that the deceit is impossible to miss.

 

[Tech198]

You mean the servers they no longer have because they pulled them all three years ago?

“Hey Bob, I need you to UNrecycle Appleserver2407 so we can run some tests. How long will it take to reassemble the parts that were melted down and put the thing back online?”

Yeah, pretty sure that isn’t coming.

How about Bloomberg producing a compromised motherboard? They had pictures of the supposed location. Could they not find one in any of the ~30 affected companies?

Bloomberg Is/WAS a trusted source as well. So, we go for the 'little guy'' "Oh ya,, he's wrong" How could all companies who looked ito this be covering it up ? That must be like 4,000 people right there.

 

[pankajdoharey]

And how do you know they didn't? Just asking.

It should take a couple of days before doing a thorough check of an entire data center. Thats like thousands if not million of servers.
[doublepost=1539163406][/doublepost]

You mean the servers they no longer have because they pulled them all three years ago?

“Hey Bob, I need you to UNrecycle Appleserver2407 so we can run some tests. How long will it take to reassemble the parts that were melted down and put the thing back online?”

Yeah, pretty sure that isn’t coming.

How about Bloomberg producing a compromised motherboard? They had pictures of the supposed location. Could they not find one in any of the ~30 affected companies?

Do you hear yourself? Your entire argument rests of the premise that Bloomberg is capable of manufacturing a motherboard let alone a spy motherboard with a special purpose chip hidden in plain sight that sends data back to China. In philosophy there is a saying, that simplest answers are also the most probable. I for one find it hard to believe that Bloomberg manufactured a spy motherboard for the story, the easier answer is there is some truth to the story because Chinese are indeed capable of manufacturing a spy motherboard exactly to the tune that was described in the article.

 

[Martyimac]

It should take a couple of days before doing a thorough check of an entire data center. Thats like thousands if not million of servers.
[doublepost=1539163406][/doublepost]

Seems to me that 3 years, which is when this was actually discovered, would easily cover "a couple of days".

 

[Nicky G]

The tone of your response makes me reluctant to engage you. The sarcastic use of "love" (italicized) tells me that you are poised to preemptively reject my answer. Also, you added the word "blatant", setting me up to prove a point I didn't make. For these reasons, investing time in a detailed response would seem an exercise in futility. Alas, I'll give you the cliff notes.

Suffice to say that the combination of misleading, sensationalist headlines (at best designed to entice clicks), combined with the fact that an alarming percentage of people never read beyond headlines, makes for a cycle of actual misinformation. At times the depth of the deception reveals a disturbing level of bias that makes the designation of "fake news" more than fair. Here's the first example that comes to mind:

Time Magazine story about Charles Koch (note the tag in the story about changing the headline. Their tweet-link to the article (I captured this screenshot before they deleted it):

The original headline read: Charles Koch: US Can Bomb Its Way To $100,000 Salaries

Being conditioned to think critically, my initial reaction was along the lines of: this guy is a ruthless bastard, but there's no way he's stupid enough to represent himself this way. So I read the article. Here's the context for the actual quote:

How many people simply saw those headlines and allowed them to run right through their filter of confirmation bias? Sure, Time changed the headlines eventually, but damage done, mission accomplished. To most people, they only confirmed what an evil, horrible man Charles Koch is. To those of us who see the world in a more nuanced fashion, this is not so much about how it hurts Koch, but more so how it harms the truth. I don't particularly like Koch, but the more I've learned of him, the less I see him as a cartoon villain and the more I see him as a human being I sometimes disagree with.

And I deeply dislike Donald Trump, but will give him credit when deserved. In cases like this, it's almost like the media (Left and Right) is bending over backwards to make him right about their phoniness.

I could provide more examples, but I've already spent too much time on this. Keep an open mind, check your confirmation bias, and read beyond the headlines, and you will find that the deceit is impossible to miss.

Oh, I know how the media works. I’m impressed you understand it to be the actually-nuanced thing it is, and appreciate you taking the time to respond.

I would also submit that the majority of the media slants significantly corporatist and oligarchical — even as they vilify corporatist oligarchs like Koch. The vast majority they do not. Most people using the term “fake news” would argue that media bias is very “liberal.” That is about the farthest away from truth one could be. One might say — fake news!

 

[yadmonkey]

Oh, I know how the media works. I’m impressed you understand it to be the actually-nuanced thing it is, and appreciate you taking the time to respond.

I would also submit that the majority of the media slants significantly corporatist and oligarchical — even as they vilify corporatist oligarchs like Koch. The vast majority they do not. Most people using the term “fake news” would argue that media bias is very “liberal.” That is about the farthest away from truth one could be. One might say — fake news!

Fair enough. I try hard not to use "liberal" as a label because it has lost its meaning as a word, as has "conservative". Words matter and the political conversation needs those words back.

 

[v3rlon]

It should take a couple of days before doing a thorough check of an entire data center. Thats like thousands if not million of servers.
[doublepost=1539163406][/doublepost]

Do you hear yourself? Your entire argument rests of the premise that Bloomberg is capable of manufacturing a motherboard let alone a spy motherboard with a special purpose chip hidden in plain sight that sends data back to China. In philosophy there is a saying, that simplest answers are also the most probable. I for one find it hard to believe that Bloomberg manufactured a spy motherboard for the story, the easier answer is there is some truth to the story because Chinese are indeed capable of manufacturing a spy motherboard exactly to the tune that was described in the article.

Yes, I hear myself just fine. A company that makes money based on clicks produces a WILD STORY that generates oodles of clicks and not one shred of evidence to support it. They claim that 30 companies are impacted by these motherboards with a physical piece of hardware that could be detected easily if you knew where to look (and they have images that show exactly where to look), but no one has been able to find even one one these motherboards. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence is there? Bloomberg alleges anonymous sources. Hell, a Tarot card reader can do better than that.

Their sources are all anonymous, so no way to back that up, but actual named sources at Apple, Amazon, the Homeland Security, and the UK Cyber Security Centre have collectively said they never heard of these chips or any investigation into these chips. Remember Bloomberg claims there was a Homeland Security investigation, so presumably, the Homeland Security would have heard of the Homeland Security investigation, just like Apple would have heard of the reason they scrapped those servers.

Yeah, at some point, Bloomberg needs to materialize proof. Putting a chip inline like that is not trivial. Boards are tested, and it would need to come out in the clear. They are visually inspected, so you'd need to be sure one of the bad ones didn't lose the lottery. Now you have a LOT of people involved. You need to be sure none of them get drunk and tell someone, or decide to see what Apple/Amazon would pay them.

Finally, should a board fail, it is directed to find out why. Every component is checked, and chips are even de-processed to find out EXACTLY which transistor in which chip caused the problem. You think that chip is small? Customers go looking for 10 NANOMETER particles inside failed chips. Supermicro would need to be absolutely certain that none of the bugged boards would ever fail for any reason, because it would be found out right then.

All of this could have been done much easier and much harder to trace with software (see Student, for example). So this begs the question why would anyone want to do it in t he hardest, least productive, most expensive, easiest to get caught, least practical, most physically obvious way?

Meanwhile, your entire premise is based on the opinion that Bloomberg, a company that has been caught playing fast and loose with facts in the past, isn't doing it again now.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/1...-investigation-casts-doubt-on-storys-veracity

 

[jtara]

A company that makes money based on clicks produces a WILD STORY that generates oodles of clicks and not one shred of evidence to support it

The problem with your theory is that Bloomberg makes only a very tiny part of it's revenue from "clicks".

Most of their revenues come from subscription-based services, most of which you or I have never seen and can't afford. A Bloomberg Terminal rental, for instance, goes for $24,000/month.

In 2011 Bloomberg Terminal subscriptions made up 85% of their revenues. Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Government subscriptions are even more costly ($5700/MONTH for Bloomberg Government!)

Bloomberg doesn't give a rat's behind about your clicks.