Supermicro CEO Joins Cook in Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Supply Chain Hack Story

[ThatGuyInLa]

We get news of software hacks actually affecting and damaging 1000s if not 10s of 1000s of people. (from a pool of 10s of millions hacked mind you) all too often, but software hacks aren’t “sexy.”

Slipping in Paul Greengrass levels of thriller with dashes of Mission: Impossible ‘hardware’ with fancy graphics giving a touch me and feel piece of diabolical tech, now THAT is sexy! “Run it!”

Still convinced this was thought up by Wallstreet. They need to recoupe their failed shorts on Tesla which are in the billions.

 

[BvizioN]

Instead
Cook said "there's no truth to their claim"
Liang said "they should retract its unsupported allegations"

Are you serious?
What else do you expect them to say? Saying "there's no truth to their claim" is just as good as calling them, liars (which they appear to be at this stage unless they come up with some facts)
Silly journalists think they can get away with just about any ridiculous claim, without facts and not be challenged.

 

[antonis]

Do not worry, NSA. You are still the #1 in privacy rights violation.

 

[dilbert99]

Wait, so Apple said:

How's that not a direct rebuttal????

I just wish statements are clearer, people could pick some of the wording below because it seems to qualify the statements.


"Apple has never found malicious chips, "
Did they find some non malicious chips
"hardware manipulations"
What type of manipulation are we talking about
"or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server."
Is a snooping chip that is not malicious ok?

They could have said "we did not find any unexpected chips in any of our hardware".

 

[Spectrum]

I think there is more to this than meets the eye.

 

[Dave245]

I bet it’s the last time Bloomberg get an invite to an Apple event.

 

[SarcasticJoe]

Over the years we've read stories about rice grain sized smart sensors and the sinister potential of this technology in the wrong hands, how the NSA has actually been intercepting network CISCO network equipment to install bugs in them, SuperMicro having firmware vulnerabilities so bad security-conscious companies have actually removed their hardware and an almost constant stream of stories about Chinese cyber attack and espionage by government and private actors.

Throw all of these into a blender and you basically get this story. More importantly, even if it's a made up story, it's still all true if you break it down into small pieces meaning that it's practically impossible to prove that at least something similar has never happened when something that fits every individual piece has actually happened.

 

[smaffei]

Ask yourself… Why aren't the big companies that are named in this story (like Apple and Amazon) suing Bloomberg for defamation if it is patently false?

Because they ARE afraid that a deeper public examination of the story will reveal some unpleasant truths. It made not be "the hack" per se, but it begs the question of "What do they have to hide?".

 

[gwaizai]

But you think people even care? One thing most people have accepted is that all news is fake essentially. So, I bet people hear the story and go "yeah...right..." and move on.

One reason the powers that be don't shut down the internet is that so many voices, so many opinions, so much fake news out there muddies all the water, and nobody knows what to believe anymore, so we just dismiss
everything as click bait. Tim's harping on it keeps the story alive, if he stopped, after a few days, people
would move on to something else.

 

[timber]

I just wish statements are clearer, people could pick some of the wording below because it seems to qualify the statements.


"Apple has never found malicious chips, "
Did they find some non malicious chips
"hardware manipulations"
What type of manipulation are we talking about
"or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server."
Is a snooping chip that is not malicious ok?

They could have said "we did not find any unexpected chips in any of our hardware".

They said exactly what your last sentence said.
They couldn't say anything different, motherboards are by definition filled with non malicious chips (the board part of the name comes from that), sometimes they are even filled with useless chips as they may be cheaper to mass produce along a broad range.
They can't deny absolutely all vulnerabilities, hardware and software are filled with known, patched and to be patched, and yet unknown vulnerabilities (spectre and meltdown for a recent example).
In a complex system you can't in all honesty issue a large and all encompassing denial.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

Are you serious?
What else do you expect them to say? Saying "there's no truth to their claim" is just as good as calling them, liars (which they appear to be at this stage unless they come up with some facts)
Silly journalists think they can get away with just about any ridiculous claim, without facts and not be challenged.

But Bloomberg had 17 sources' are they not facts to you?

 

[laptech]

If Apple do not sue Bloomberg for defamation then it means there must be some legitimacy to Bloomberg's article.

 

[BvizioN]

But Bloomberg had 17 sources' are they not facts to you?

I can say I have millions of sources that man never stepped on the Moon. Do you call that a fact?
Fact is when you provide your sources and sources have some evidence to back up such claims.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

I can say I have millions of sources that man never stepped on the Moon. Do you call that a fact?
Fact is when you provide your sources and sources have some evidence to back up such claims.

You can say what you want. Do you think a 37-year old news organisation straight up lied?

 

[BvizioN]

Do you think a 37-year old news organisation straight up lied?

Of course, I do.
If they have lied on the past, why would they not be lying now?
It takes one or 2 fake stories for me to lose credibility.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

Of course, I do.
If they have lied on the past, why would they not be lying now?
It takes one or 2 fake stories for me to lose credibility.

If that's what you believe. good luck to you. But ask yourself was Bloomberg lying in 1981? 1982 ? 1983? etc etc

 

[BvizioN]

Oh great! Just because they have not lied for three years on a row, that makes it impossible for them to ever lie!
Dude, feel free to believe them. I myself know exactly what to believe. Things that come with facts and a lot of evidence, not baseless claims.
Apple and Amazon should just go ahead and sue their ass so they learn the lesson.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

Oh great! Just because they have not lied for three years on a row, that makes it impossible for them to ever lie!
Dude, feel free to believe them. I myself know exactly what to believe. Things that come with facts and a lot of evidence, not baseless claims.
Apple and Amazon should just go ahead and sue their ass so they learn the lesson.

But they haven't and don't intended to. I wonder why?

 

[BvizioN]

But they haven't and don't intended to. I wonder why?

That must mean that they have something to hide, right?
Or perhaps giving time the liers to pull their fake news and come up with an apology? That would be more classy for some.
So far there has been no one I know to support Bloomberg's claim.
As for the part where you say they don't intend to, I wonder how do you know their intentions?

 

[acblue94]

Last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook called on Bloomberg to retract a highly controversial story suggesting Chinese spies planted microchips in the Supermicro server motherboards used in Apple's data facilities, saying there was no truth to Bloomberg's claims.

Today, Supermicro Charles Liang joined Cook in calling for a retraction. In a statement shared by CNBC, Liang said that Supermicro has not found malicious hardware components in its products, nor has Bloomberg produced an affected Supermicro motherboard. Bloomberg, he says, should "act responsibly" and retract its "unsupported allegations."

Liang's full statement:Supermicro, like Apple and other companies involved, has denied all of Bloomberg's claims since the story was first released. Supermicro previously said it was not aware of any investigation nor any companies that had found illicit hardware in their Supermicro products.

Amazon Web Services CEO Andy Jassy also spoke out against Bloomberg today, saying that the story is "wrong about Amazon, too." Like Cook, Jassy says Bloomberg at no point offered proof or listened to what Amazon had to say about the situation.

​

Cook last week said that Apple "turned the company upside down" and dug "very deep" but could find absolutely no evidence that such an attack took place. "Each time we came back to the same conclusion: This did not happen," said Cook. "There's no truth to this."

Since Bloomberg released its report, Apple has refuted the site's claims in multiple clearly worded statements denying it happened. Bloomberg continues to stand by its original reporting, which, citing 17 sources, said Apple, Amazon, and other tech companies had purchased and installed Supermicro servers that had been tampered with by the Chinese government.

Along with Apple, Amazon, and Supermicro, multiple other sources have cast doubt on the information shared in Bloomberg's story. The UK's Cyber Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, former FBI general counsel James Baker, and NSA Senior Advisor Rob Joyce, for example, have all questioned the veracity of Bloomberg's claims and have denied knowledge of such an investigation.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Supermicro CEO Joins Cook in Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Supply Chain Hack Story

Far left liberal tech giants victims of fake news. Gotta love this. There isn’t any retracting of stories. That’s how this works. And it sucks. Journalist can print all they want and there is nobody there to have accountability when it’s wrong.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

That must mean that they have something to hide, right?
Or perhaps giving time the liers to pull their fake news and come up with an apology? That would be more classy for some.
So far there has been no one I know to support Bloomberg's claim.
As for the part where you say they don't intend to, I wonder how do you know their intentions?

But you/re saying Blooberg is "guilty until proved innocent" is that a society you want to live in?

 

[BvizioN]

But you/re saying Blooberg is "guilty until proved innocent" is that a society you want to live in?

In my book, if you make a claim you have to have some facts/evidence to back it up. They could say pigs do fly, why should I prove that pigs don't fly? They are the ones who make the claim, they should have facts to prove it. I have no time for fake news.
That is all I am saying.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

In my book, if you make a claim you have to have some facts/evidence to back it up. They could say pigs do fly, why should I prove that pigs don't fly? They are the ones who make the claim, they should have facts to prove it. I have no time for fake news.
That is all I am saying.

OK we're never going to see eye to eye. You mean you dismiss the 17 sources Bloomberg has for this story? You mean you dismiss the 18 months they worked on this story?

 

[Carnegie]

Ask yourself… Why aren't the big companies that are named in this story (like Apple and Amazon) suing Bloomberg for defamation if it is patently false?

Because they ARE afraid that a deeper public examination of the story will reveal some unpleasant truths. It made not be "the hack" per se, but it begs the question of "What do they have to hide?".

I'm not sure it would make sense for such companies to sue in these circumstances (i.e. even if the claims made by Bloomberg are false).

But if they were going to sue, or were considering suing, there are strategic reasons why it would make sense for them to wait to do so. There are legal reasons why they would first want to ask for a retraction and give Bloomberg a chance to either retract or stand behind what it had reported.

Some states have retraction laws which require would-be plaintiffs to request a retraction and allow the would-be defendant a period of time to issue a retraction, or else those plaintiffs aren't able to collect certain kinds of damages. Even in the absence of such laws, requesting a retraction before suing can help would-be plaintiffs. For instance, if actual malice is the appropriate standard (which is likely the case here), the failure to retract can help to demonstrate it. (Note: Actual malice, in this context, doesn't carry the same meaning as malice does in common use. It's a term of art which means knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth. Ill will or an intent to harm isn't required in order for a defendant to have acted with actual malice.)
[doublepost=1540306392][/doublepost]

OK we're never going to see eye to eye. You mean you dismiss the 17 sources Bloomberg has for this story? You mean you dismiss the 18 months they worked on this story?

Bloomberg reportedly having 17 sources doesn't mean much unless we know what those 17 sources were for. Were there 3 sources who said Apple used to use Supermicro hardware? And 4 more who said Apple no longer does? And 3 others who said certain things are technically possible? And 2 who said that Apple discovered some problem with Supermicro hardware? And 3 others who said...

Or were there 17 sources who confirmed all of the details reported by Bloomberg?

Seventeen sources could mean only one or two sources who confirmed the really important details, with most of the sources addressing periphery (or not-in-dispute) details. Or it could mean a lot of sources confirming the details that really matter. We don't know, but the 17 means little in and of itself.

 

[IG88]

I really don't understand the dodging! If you're clean, why not claim your cleanliness the most convincing way and say "we are not hacked"?

I feel like he's said in about as many different ways possible that this didn't happen.

How many more different ways does he have to say it before you'll believe him?