11 ms·

Apple and Amazon probably have a small set of TS/SCI cleared employees who dealt with this mess. It’s likely 99.99% of the employees at those firms had no idea

Apple and Amazon probably have a small set of TS/SCI cleared employees who dealt with this mess. It’s likely 99.99% of the employees at those firms had no idea what was going on. The switching out of thousands of compromised servers was probably made to look like routine maintenance or upgrades and the whole affair was kept secret. That is, until some high level government employees intentionally leaked it to the media, probably under direction of the White House to garner support for a more aggressive stance on China - the trade war in particular. Read between the lines.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
Plus, they gain nothing by admitting that China hacked them. Your data is there and all.
simias 8y ago
That's a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions. It's also explicitly denied by both Amazon: >It’s untrue that AWS knew about a supply chain compromise and Apple: >we have conducted rigorous internal investigations based on their inquiries and each time we have found absolutely no evidence to support any of them. There's no in "between the lines" or ambiguous wording there, they flat out deny it. Unless this small set of "TS/SCI cleared employees" worked completely on their own without reporting to anybody else in the company this means that they are lying in these statements. It's possible that they do just that but it's a bit strange to me that they wouldn't find an easier way to deflect the issue without using such a strong and explicit language. Something vague like "we've been working with the authorities and have no reason to believe that any sensitive information has been leaked etc..." would be easier to spin if it turns out that somebody can prove that these attacks took place. Surely if the scale of the attack was as large as reported by Bloomberg in their article it should be possible to find one of these backdoored boards in the wild? Or at least have testimonies by employees in these company that could testify that batches of motherboards were suddenly replaced for no obvious reasons? And if trade war is the reason why deny it now? What do they have to gain from that, they're the victims in this story as far as I can tell.
- hendzen 8y ago
  Those employees wouldn't be authorized to talk about the information to anyone not cleared. Which includes the PR department or anyone tasked with crafting a statement.
- dannyw 8y ago
  Any TS/SCI cleared employees must deny the existence, even to their manager or even the CEO, unless they are also TS/SCI cleared.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    It'd be interesting to know how that interweaves with things like SEC requirements to disclose material information.
    - dannyw 8y ago
      Generally (and unfortunately) "national security" tends to override everything else.
      - astrange 8y ago
        Where did you get that from? This is well known to not be true in the US, the government can't even stop you from publishing nuclear secrets or the Pentagon Papers. See New York Times v. United States (1971) and United States of America v. Progressive, Inc.
  - drawnwren 8y ago
    That's not how TS/SCI works. You've been watching too many movies. Source: was TS/SCI cleared for 15 years. Information being classified just means you can't divulge the information, not that you can't divulge the existence of the info.
    - jnbiche 8y ago
      That's a bit misleading. There are code word programs and classified investigations where just revealing the existence of the info would be a serious violation. In this case, if a cleared employee is asked: is this information true, is there such an investigation? Then simply by saying they can't comment on the question, they reveal the info to be true. I think most people with high-level clearances would play it safe in such situations and just deny any knowledge of the situation.
resonanttoe 8y ago
So do you have anything to support these fairly fantastical claims?
Illniyar 8y ago
Security employees don't contact the FBI without consulting or at the very least informing the higher apps. PR departments don't vehemently deny, on point, an article from a major newspaper without consulting the higher apps. There is literally no chance that this happened and the response was made in ignorance. Either Apple and Amazon are lying or Bloomberg is wrong.
- jnbiche 8y ago
  > Either Apple and Amazon are lying or Bloomberg is wrong Apple and Amazon are compelled to lie. It's a classified investigation and likely only cleared employees are aware of it, and they have to deny its existence or stand to lose their clearance (worth $$$).
  - okket 8y ago
    How can companies be forced to issue such press statements? They may be forced to give incomplete answers when asked, but these statements go far beyond answering questions.
    - jnbiche 8y ago
      The people issuing press statements are almost certainly out of the loop. And of course, no one with knowledge of the situation is going to step forward, given they have a strong incentive to stay silent. I mean, think of your own company's PR team. If you've worked for a large company, you've likely had interaction with a PR team that was pretty ignorant about the inner workings of the company. Now, add to that the fact that this is a classified investigation being run by FBI counterintelligence, and interfacing only with cleared employees (none of whom work for the PR team).
      - Illniyar 8y ago
        You are a PR guy. A respected and big news agency puts out an article saying your company is involved in some secret stuff - stuff that you wouldn't know about. Do you release a press release denying everything without asking the guys who are supposed to know about it? Would those guys say to you it's all fabricated and urge you to deny it or will they evade answering it (or even more likely they'll go up the chain)? This is a CEO level incident.
wolfgke 8y ago
> Apple and Amazon probably have a small set of TS/SCI cleared employees who dealt with this mess. For those who are wondering: TS: Top Secret: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classified_information&oldid=862406939#Top_Secret_(TS) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classified_inform... SCI: Sensitive Compartmented Information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sensitive_Compartmented_Information&oldid=850138560 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sensitive_Compart...
exabrial 8y ago
I got a personal text from Trump yesterday confirming this.
- pouta 8y ago
  I simply can't decipher this comment
  - exabrial 8y ago
    Yesterday in America, an SMS message went out nationwide from FEMA. It was labeled a 'presidential alert' so many people assumed it was Trump that sent it. This went viral on social media and people began photoshooting funny messages that Trump or other theoretical leaders might send.
Symmetry 8y ago
Normally I'd assume this sort of leak would only be the result of orders from above. But there was recently the credible allegation that Trump backed off the ZTE sanctions after China threw a few million dollars at the Trump Organization in a real estate deal[1]. Whether that was a successful case of bribery or not I can see a highly placed employee looking at that and deciding they can't trust their superiors to do the right thing in this matter. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-zte-order-after-china-gave-millions-to-trump-organization-tied-project-2018-5?r=UK&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-zte-order-after-china-...
snowwrestler 8y ago
In corporations you don't address the federal government without your legal team in the conversation, and your legal team would also be in the approval path for any public statement about such an allegation. It's extremely unlikely that a public company would comment on something like this without connecting the dots internally first.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

Plus, they gain nothing by admitting that China hacked them. Your data is there and all.

simias 8y ago

That's a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions. It's also explicitly denied by both Amazon: >It’s untrue that AWS knew about a supply chain compromise and Apple: >we have conducted rigorous internal investigations based on their inquiries and each time we have found absolutely no evidence to support any of them. There's no in "between the lines" or ambiguous wording there, they flat out deny it. Unless this small set of "TS/SCI cleared employees" worked completely on their own without reporting to anybody else in the company this means that they are lying in these statements. It's possible that they do just that but it's a bit strange to me that they wouldn't find an easier way to deflect the issue without using such a strong and explicit language. Something vague like "we've been working with the authorities and have no reason to believe that any sensitive information has been leaked etc..." would be easier to spin if it turns out that somebody can prove that these attacks took place. Surely if the scale of the attack was as large as reported by Bloomberg in their article it should be possible to find one of these backdoored boards in the wild? Or at least have testimonies by employees in these company that could testify that batches of motherboards were suddenly replaced for no obvious reasons? And if trade war is the reason why deny it now? What do they have to gain from that, they're the victims in this story as far as I can tell.

hendzen 8y ago
Those employees wouldn't be authorized to talk about the information to anyone not cleared. Which includes the PR department or anyone tasked with crafting a statement.
dannyw 8y ago
Any TS/SCI cleared employees must deny the existence, even to their manager or even the CEO, unless they are also TS/SCI cleared.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  It'd be interesting to know how that interweaves with things like SEC requirements to disclose material information.
  - dannyw 8y ago
    Generally (and unfortunately) "national security" tends to override everything else.
    - astrange 8y ago
      Where did you get that from? This is well known to not be true in the US, the government can't even stop you from publishing nuclear secrets or the Pentagon Papers. See New York Times v. United States (1971) and United States of America v. Progressive, Inc.
- drawnwren 8y ago
  That's not how TS/SCI works. You've been watching too many movies. Source: was TS/SCI cleared for 15 years. Information being classified just means you can't divulge the information, not that you can't divulge the existence of the info.
  - jnbiche 8y ago
    That's a bit misleading. There are code word programs and classified investigations where just revealing the existence of the info would be a serious violation. In this case, if a cleared employee is asked: is this information true, is there such an investigation? Then simply by saying they can't comment on the question, they reveal the info to be true. I think most people with high-level clearances would play it safe in such situations and just deny any knowledge of the situation.

resonanttoe 8y ago

So do you have anything to support these fairly fantastical claims?

Illniyar 8y ago

Security employees don't contact the FBI without consulting or at the very least informing the higher apps. PR departments don't vehemently deny, on point, an article from a major newspaper without consulting the higher apps. There is literally no chance that this happened and the response was made in ignorance. Either Apple and Amazon are lying or Bloomberg is wrong.

jnbiche 8y ago
> Either Apple and Amazon are lying or Bloomberg is wrong Apple and Amazon are compelled to lie. It's a classified investigation and likely only cleared employees are aware of it, and they have to deny its existence or stand to lose their clearance (worth $$$).
- okket 8y ago
  How can companies be forced to issue such press statements? They may be forced to give incomplete answers when asked, but these statements go far beyond answering questions.
  - jnbiche 8y ago
    The people issuing press statements are almost certainly out of the loop. And of course, no one with knowledge of the situation is going to step forward, given they have a strong incentive to stay silent. I mean, think of your own company's PR team. If you've worked for a large company, you've likely had interaction with a PR team that was pretty ignorant about the inner workings of the company. Now, add to that the fact that this is a classified investigation being run by FBI counterintelligence, and interfacing only with cleared employees (none of whom work for the PR team).
    - Illniyar 8y ago
      You are a PR guy. A respected and big news agency puts out an article saying your company is involved in some secret stuff - stuff that you wouldn't know about. Do you release a press release denying everything without asking the guys who are supposed to know about it? Would those guys say to you it's all fabricated and urge you to deny it or will they evade answering it (or even more likely they'll go up the chain)? This is a CEO level incident.

wolfgke 8y ago

> Apple and Amazon probably have a small set of TS/SCI cleared employees who dealt with this mess. For those who are wondering: TS: Top Secret: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classified_information&oldid=862406939#Top_Secret_(TS) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classified_inform... SCI: Sensitive Compartmented Information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sensitive_Compartmented_Information&oldid=850138560 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sensitive_Compart...

exabrial 8y ago

I got a personal text from Trump yesterday confirming this.

pouta 8y ago
I simply can't decipher this comment
- exabrial 8y ago
  Yesterday in America, an SMS message went out nationwide from FEMA. It was labeled a 'presidential alert' so many people assumed it was Trump that sent it. This went viral on social media and people began photoshooting funny messages that Trump or other theoretical leaders might send.

Symmetry 8y ago

Normally I'd assume this sort of leak would only be the result of orders from above. But there was recently the credible allegation that Trump backed off the ZTE sanctions after China threw a few million dollars at the Trump Organization in a real estate deal[1]. Whether that was a successful case of bribery or not I can see a highly placed employee looking at that and deciding they can't trust their superiors to do the right thing in this matter. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-zte-order-after-china-gave-millions-to-trump-organization-tied-project-2018-5?r=UK&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-zte-order-after-china-...

snowwrestler 8y ago

In corporations you don't address the federal government without your legal team in the conversation, and your legal team would also be in the approval path for any public statement about such an allegation. It's extremely unlikely that a public company would comment on something like this without connecting the dots internally first.