3 ms·

> While their 2017 denial was technically correct So if you assume that their current denial is technically correct, what loop hole is there in it? Because the

• ig1 8y ago
  It could be trivially done through technicalities. For example if the exploit was found on the motherboard prior to it being deployed in servers that would be consistent with Apple's denial (not suggesting that's what happened here, but more as an illustration of how Apple being specific actually leaves more wiggle room than broad statements).
• qaq 8y ago
  Was discussed in previous thread. They make very narrow statements: "Apple has never found malicious chips, “hardware manipulations” or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server." This holds true if it was found by a 3rd party. "Apple never had any contact with the FBI or any other agency about such an incident." This holds true if private 3rd party was handling the incident. "We are not aware of any investigation by the FBI, nor are our contacts in law enforcement." This is meaningless it might not be FBI them not being aware doesn't mean there is no investigation and so on.
  • radicalbyte 8y ago
    Wouldn't this fall under the remit (and expertise) of the NSA? I thought that the FBI were like Interpol - i.e. federal-level cops. The NSA being the technical spooks (and the CIA being the meat-based spooks).
    • e12e 8y ago
      I believe there's been a bit of a shake up since 90s - at the time secret service got the hacker beat, because: wirefraud. But also the FBI, because: felony crossing state borders. The nsa were signals intelligence first, but their civilian mandate had (has) to do with protecting national interests in the "signaling" world (ie: the Internet etc). Arguably they were never very good at that... ("Snowden", "crypto backdoor"...). But I believe "cyberspace" is now accepted as an actual thing, and so falls naturally under the FBI (cross border, spying on us soil) and police ("crime").
  • eridius 8y ago
    The Bloomberg article claimed Apple employees found the chip. So even if what you're saying is true, the article is at least wrong about how it was discovered, and that casts the rest of it into doubt as well. Also my recollection is the article claimed Apple was talking to the FBI, not Apple was contracting with a 3rd party who talked to the FBI. Similarly regardless of whether Apple was talking to the FBI directly or was going through a 3rd party, both constitute Apple "being aware" of an FBI investigation. So this only works if Apple contracted a private 3rd party to audit their servers, the 3rd party found the chips, didn't tell Apple, and talked to the FBI all without informing Apple of the issue. This strikes me as extremely implausible. Also, I don't think I'd accept the claim that "Apple has never found" is telling the truth if it was a 3rd party that found it. Because if a 3rd party informs Apple, that report right there constitutes Apple finding it.