6 ms·

Technical possibility is one thing; proving the story has actually happened is another thing. Until now, what we get is a categorical denial of the story from a

Technical possibility is one thing; proving the story has actually happened is another thing. Until now, what we get is a categorical denial of the story from all related parties. And all the evidence Bloomberg can provide so far is just vague anonymous sources. Talk is cheap, show me the code/server/chip if they ever exist. Otherwise, the story is just a blunt lie fabricated by Bloomberg serving as a propaganda to bash China amid the Sino-America trade war.

panda888888 8y ago
I'm tempted to give Bloomberg the benefit of the doubt. Tech companies don't want to be hacked. And if they are, they want to be able to say "we cleaned things up and everything is safe now," not "we were infiltrated several years ago and have no idea what the malware does or even which systems it impacts."
- ezVoodoo 8y ago
  Funny! So if you own a company and I say your company is dirty, there is literally nothing you can do except to admit that your company really IS dirty. Because if you deny, you'd be lying, based on your own logic.
  - panda888888 8y ago
    No, but Facebook is already in deep trouble in terms of how the average American views the company. I find it likely that they want to protect their reputation at all costs (including lying to congress...)
ivirshup 8y ago
I don't think China planting malicious hardware is under question, whether Apple was breached is.
- ezVoodoo 8y ago
  You can let your imagination fly the way you want. But without hard evidence, it's just your imagination.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    Multiple posters have recounted issyes, and many more are published. It isn't proven, but it certianly isn't unusual.
ardy42 8y ago
> Talk is cheap, show me the code/server/chip if they ever exist. Bloomberg is a journalism organization. They'll report and cross-check testimony that there's been a chemical weapons attack in Syria, but they're not going to go there to collect samples of the chemicals. They aren't going to have "the code/server/chip" to show you, and they shouldn't be expected to. Furthermore, the people who talked to Bloomberg who may have access to the "code/server/chip" are anonymous and may not be able to have too many details released publicly without compromising their identities. Bloomberg may have more details than they have reported, but be unable to release them publicly while respecting their sources' confidence.
- briandear 8y ago
  Bloomberg wouldn’t, however publish a story about a chemical attack based on an anonymous source. They’d have independently verifiable evidence and not just some dude saying so.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > They’d have independently verifiable evidence and not just some dude saying so. This is where you misunderstand. An anonymous source isn't "just some dude" who called in "saying so." Journalists, in the case Bloomberg, knows exactly who their "anonymous" sources are.
- sianns 8y ago
  Still waiting on those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Lot of n American news companies reported that as a fact too.
makomk 8y ago
Yeah. Compare how this article describes its anonymous sources with the Bloomberg one. It makes it clear that their sources were directly involved in investigating the claims Bloomberg made - including a "senior security engineer directly involved in Apple’s internal investigation" - and that their claims were based on that internal investigation. The Bloomberg article just refers vaguely to "senior insiders" who knew about Apple finding malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards... somehow.
- jasonlotito 8y ago
  Given enough information about an anonymous source, you can figure out how they are. Keeping it as senior insiders is a way to protect the individuals. The question you have to ask yourself is whether you trust Bloomberg or not. If you trust them, then you trust that they did their due diligence. if you don't trust them, then nothing presented by them will get you to trust them. I swear, it's like people don't know how investigative journalism works. Anonymous sources aren't anonymous to the journalists. As for the companies denying this, this wouldn't be the first time they've lied in such a manner.

panda888888 8y ago

I'm tempted to give Bloomberg the benefit of the doubt. Tech companies don't want to be hacked. And if they are, they want to be able to say "we cleaned things up and everything is safe now," not "we were infiltrated several years ago and have no idea what the malware does or even which systems it impacts."

ezVoodoo 8y ago
Funny! So if you own a company and I say your company is dirty, there is literally nothing you can do except to admit that your company really IS dirty. Because if you deny, you'd be lying, based on your own logic.
- panda888888 8y ago
  No, but Facebook is already in deep trouble in terms of how the average American views the company. I find it likely that they want to protect their reputation at all costs (including lying to congress...)

ivirshup 8y ago

I don't think China planting malicious hardware is under question, whether Apple was breached is.

ezVoodoo 8y ago
You can let your imagination fly the way you want. But without hard evidence, it's just your imagination.
- justtopost 8y ago
  Multiple posters have recounted issyes, and many more are published. It isn't proven, but it certianly isn't unusual.

ardy42 8y ago

> Talk is cheap, show me the code/server/chip if they ever exist. Bloomberg is a journalism organization. They'll report and cross-check testimony that there's been a chemical weapons attack in Syria, but they're not going to go there to collect samples of the chemicals. They aren't going to have "the code/server/chip" to show you, and they shouldn't be expected to. Furthermore, the people who talked to Bloomberg who may have access to the "code/server/chip" are anonymous and may not be able to have too many details released publicly without compromising their identities. Bloomberg may have more details than they have reported, but be unable to release them publicly while respecting their sources' confidence.

briandear 8y ago
Bloomberg wouldn’t, however publish a story about a chemical attack based on an anonymous source. They’d have independently verifiable evidence and not just some dude saying so.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > They’d have independently verifiable evidence and not just some dude saying so. This is where you misunderstand. An anonymous source isn't "just some dude" who called in "saying so." Journalists, in the case Bloomberg, knows exactly who their "anonymous" sources are.
sianns 8y ago
Still waiting on those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Lot of n American news companies reported that as a fact too.

makomk 8y ago

Yeah. Compare how this article describes its anonymous sources with the Bloomberg one. It makes it clear that their sources were directly involved in investigating the claims Bloomberg made - including a "senior security engineer directly involved in Apple’s internal investigation" - and that their claims were based on that internal investigation. The Bloomberg article just refers vaguely to "senior insiders" who knew about Apple finding malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards... somehow.

jasonlotito 8y ago
Given enough information about an anonymous source, you can figure out how they are. Keeping it as senior insiders is a way to protect the individuals. The question you have to ask yourself is whether you trust Bloomberg or not. If you trust them, then you trust that they did their due diligence. if you don't trust them, then nothing presented by them will get you to trust them. I swear, it's like people don't know how investigative journalism works. Anonymous sources aren't anonymous to the journalists. As for the companies denying this, this wouldn't be the first time they've lied in such a manner.