5 ms·

If it was fake who decided that SuperMicro (down almost 50%) should be sacrificed for a trade war? Seems unlikely. If the story is not true, occam's razor woul

If it was fake who decided that SuperMicro (down almost 50%) should be sacrificed for a trade war? Seems unlikely. If the story is not true, occam's razor would suggest the journalists just got it wrong, maybe by turning a molehill (couple of hacked servers or server firmware) into a mountain (industrial scale espionage) .

inetknght 8y ago
What makes you think it would be the U.S. pulling the strings? In trade wars you want the enemy to sink their funds. What could be better to do that than to force every U.S. tech giant to audit their hardware?
- topmonk 8y ago
  You would sink your own reputation along with it. And there could be an argument made that you should be left the bill for the audits.
  - PakG1 8y ago
    In the parent's scenario, the initiator would be China. How would you make China pay the bill for the audits? By achieving the goals of the trade war, which was supposed to happen even without the audits? If China really pulled the long con like that, they'd win this round. But highly doubt they'd do that long con, there's too much to lose in terms of attack surface, like exposing your zero day to the world without using it first.
    - inetknght 8y ago
      ...and if it had been used first?
      - PakG1 8y ago
        If it had been used first, then the story would be true, not false. Jedi72's original thought experiment is no longer a thought experiment, and there'd be no point in asking what are the implications if the story was fake, nor who would have planted the fake story.
    - ra1n85 8y ago
      ??? China has far more to lose here. Companies losing money to cycles spent auditing hardware is trivial compared to companies permanently losing business due to loss of trust as a part or the supply/manufacturing pipeline.
      - PakG1 8y ago
        I'm not sure you're following this thread. Let's look at the whole conversation again. Jedi72: Posits possibility that the story could be fake and planted by the US as a propaganda tool for their trade war. steve19: Posits reasons for why it's not likely to be a propaganda lie planted by the US. inetknght: Posits that it could be China that planted the fake story for the sake of making US industry waste funds (again, this is all still a hypothetical conversation based on Jedi72's original contemplation of the possibility of the story being fake). topmonk: Posits that if China planted the story, China could lose reputation and should be given the bill for the audits. It's possible that topmonk misunderstood inetknght and was in fact referring to the US. But I'm assuming that topmonk understood inetknght to be referring to China and so posited that China should be left with the bill if the story turned out to be fake. Me: First, questions how the US would make China pay the bill. Second, notes reasons why it doesn't make sense for China to start spreading misinformation like this (again, going on Jedi72's contemplation of the possibility of the story being fake). Ironically, your reply actually bolsters my original contention against topmonk's comment. It makes no sense for China to want to plant a fake story like this.
        topmonk 8y ago
        > Ironically, your reply actually bolsters my original contention against topmonk's comment. It makes no sense for China to want to plant a fake story like this. I think you aren't understanding my comment, and you confused ra1n85 with your response to me. It's strange that you think I believe that it would make sense that China would plant a fake story. As you wrote yourself, "topmonk: Posits that if China planted the story, China could lose reputation and should be given the bill for the audits." I actually said "An argument could be made..." I meant that if there was a trade negotiation going on, the USA could bring this up as a way of trying to force China to give up something else. But, back on topic. I agree with you, as you said, "It makes no sense for China to want to plant a fake story like this." Can you tell me where I suggested otherwise? I reread the whole thread and I can't see why you'd think I thought that China might have planted a fake story, or it would be a good idea for China to do so.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  ">>In trade wars you want the enemy to sink their funds. What could be better to do that than to force every U.S. tech giant to audit their hardware? Tomorrow: Oh, your servers /parts /smartphones are made in China?
- mellow-lake-day 8y ago
  More like make US tech giants move their manufacturing to the US (at least those boards headed for the military or government)
  - jsoc815 8y ago
    Correct. I've expecting this to happen for years now, actually thought it odd that so much outsourcing was allowed at all. People should look what was deemed critical infrastructure and manufacturing during war time (e.g. WW I & WW II). It isn't particularly difficult to understand why certain companies were/are continually bailed out.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  And don’t forget there are third parties that benefit from spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.

inetknght 8y ago

What makes you think it would be the U.S. pulling the strings? In trade wars you want the enemy to sink their funds. What could be better to do that than to force every U.S. tech giant to audit their hardware?

topmonk 8y ago
You would sink your own reputation along with it. And there could be an argument made that you should be left the bill for the audits.
- PakG1 8y ago
  In the parent's scenario, the initiator would be China. How would you make China pay the bill for the audits? By achieving the goals of the trade war, which was supposed to happen even without the audits? If China really pulled the long con like that, they'd win this round. But highly doubt they'd do that long con, there's too much to lose in terms of attack surface, like exposing your zero day to the world without using it first.
  - inetknght 8y ago
    ...and if it had been used first?
    - PakG1 8y ago
      If it had been used first, then the story would be true, not false. Jedi72's original thought experiment is no longer a thought experiment, and there'd be no point in asking what are the implications if the story was fake, nor who would have planted the fake story.
  - ra1n85 8y ago
    ??? China has far more to lose here. Companies losing money to cycles spent auditing hardware is trivial compared to companies permanently losing business due to loss of trust as a part or the supply/manufacturing pipeline.
    - PakG1 8y ago
      I'm not sure you're following this thread. Let's look at the whole conversation again. Jedi72: Posits possibility that the story could be fake and planted by the US as a propaganda tool for their trade war. steve19: Posits reasons for why it's not likely to be a propaganda lie planted by the US. inetknght: Posits that it could be China that planted the fake story for the sake of making US industry waste funds (again, this is all still a hypothetical conversation based on Jedi72's original contemplation of the possibility of the story being fake). topmonk: Posits that if China planted the story, China could lose reputation and should be given the bill for the audits. It's possible that topmonk misunderstood inetknght and was in fact referring to the US. But I'm assuming that topmonk understood inetknght to be referring to China and so posited that China should be left with the bill if the story turned out to be fake. Me: First, questions how the US would make China pay the bill. Second, notes reasons why it doesn't make sense for China to start spreading misinformation like this (again, going on Jedi72's contemplation of the possibility of the story being fake). Ironically, your reply actually bolsters my original contention against topmonk's comment. It makes no sense for China to want to plant a fake story like this.
      - topmonk 8y ago
        > Ironically, your reply actually bolsters my original contention against topmonk's comment. It makes no sense for China to want to plant a fake story like this. I think you aren't understanding my comment, and you confused ra1n85 with your response to me. It's strange that you think I believe that it would make sense that China would plant a fake story. As you wrote yourself, "topmonk: Posits that if China planted the story, China could lose reputation and should be given the bill for the audits." I actually said "An argument could be made..." I meant that if there was a trade negotiation going on, the USA could bring this up as a way of trying to force China to give up something else. But, back on topic. I agree with you, as you said, "It makes no sense for China to want to plant a fake story like this." Can you tell me where I suggested otherwise? I reread the whole thread and I can't see why you'd think I thought that China might have planted a fake story, or it would be a good idea for China to do so.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
">>In trade wars you want the enemy to sink their funds. What could be better to do that than to force every U.S. tech giant to audit their hardware? Tomorrow: Oh, your servers /parts /smartphones are made in China?
mellow-lake-day 8y ago
More like make US tech giants move their manufacturing to the US (at least those boards headed for the military or government)
- jsoc815 8y ago
  Correct. I've expecting this to happen for years now, actually thought it odd that so much outsourcing was allowed at all. People should look what was deemed critical infrastructure and manufacturing during war time (e.g. WW I & WW II). It isn't particularly difficult to understand why certain companies were/are continually bailed out.
Sharlin 8y ago
And don’t forget there are third parties that benefit from spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.