4 ms·

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/10/08/security-researcher-cited-in-bloombergs-china-spy-chip-investigation-casts-doubt-on-storys-veracity https://appleinsi

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/10/08/security-researcher-cited-in-bloombergs-china-spy-chip-investigation-casts-doubt-on-storys-veracity https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/10/08/security-research... One guy named as a source in the original article does not accept the story as written.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
One guy named as a source in the original article claims the backdoor sounds too complicated too him, not that he "doesn't accept the story as written".
- close04 8y ago
  This hack is suggested to be an almost 1:1 copy of the a didactic PoC attack the source security researcher devised. The implication being that the article is based on his story rather than on any real fact. To this point Bloomberg has presented 0 evidence of any of this. You have to understand how the burden of proof works, you can't throw a rock in the pond and expect others to jump in and retrieve it. Bloomberg made the claim, Bloomberg has to support it. Until they do I will take everything they write/claim with a tablespoon of salt. From my perspective it may very well be an attempt to hit Supermicro and nothing more. The fact that Apple or Amazon are expected to show evidence that a yet unsubstantiated claim from Bloomberg is not real shows how low people set the bar for what reliable information means.
  - _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
    I love your commanding tone, reminds me of my time with the military. "You have to understand how the burden of proof works, [...]" I don't HAVE to do anything you say, thank god.
    - close04 8y ago
      And you’re doing a great job at that. I was giving you a hand when you obviously needed it, a thank tou would have sufficed. But in all honesty not understanding how something works makes your opinion on the topic about as valuble as a turd in the rain. Understanding how things work before attempting to pass judgement is “just” a matter of common sense and decency. But since no superior ordered them and you don’t have to have them, here we are.
wlesieutre 8y ago
What the source actually said, according to that article: When asked what, exactly, he found strange about Bloomberg's claims, Fitzpatrick said, "It was surprising to me that in a scenario where I would describe these things and then he would go and confirm these and 100% of what I described was confirmed by sources." You could take that to mean "Bloomberg took a scary hypothetical and pretended it was real," but if they did have other sources telling them "There are these backdoor chips in servers" this is exactly what you'd expect Bloomberg to do: go to a security expert and ask "Hey, does this really work?" It doesn't particularly read like evidence one way or another to me.
- 4684499 8y ago
  If you want evidence, you should ask BBG for it first, who has provided none at the moment, even the picture they used is likely for illustration only, and they didn't make any declaration about that. Technically possible doesn't mean it happened. You could be punched by your wife, does that mean she did punch you? Sorry for the inappropriate analogy, but you get the idea.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

One guy named as a source in the original article claims the backdoor sounds too complicated too him, not that he "doesn't accept the story as written".

close04 8y ago
This hack is suggested to be an almost 1:1 copy of the a didactic PoC attack the source security researcher devised. The implication being that the article is based on his story rather than on any real fact. To this point Bloomberg has presented 0 evidence of any of this. You have to understand how the burden of proof works, you can't throw a rock in the pond and expect others to jump in and retrieve it. Bloomberg made the claim, Bloomberg has to support it. Until they do I will take everything they write/claim with a tablespoon of salt. From my perspective it may very well be an attempt to hit Supermicro and nothing more. The fact that Apple or Amazon are expected to show evidence that a yet unsubstantiated claim from Bloomberg is not real shows how low people set the bar for what reliable information means.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  I love your commanding tone, reminds me of my time with the military. "You have to understand how the burden of proof works, [...]" I don't HAVE to do anything you say, thank god.
  - close04 8y ago
    And you’re doing a great job at that. I was giving you a hand when you obviously needed it, a thank tou would have sufficed. But in all honesty not understanding how something works makes your opinion on the topic about as valuble as a turd in the rain. Understanding how things work before attempting to pass judgement is “just” a matter of common sense and decency. But since no superior ordered them and you don’t have to have them, here we are.

wlesieutre 8y ago

What the source actually said, according to that article: When asked what, exactly, he found strange about Bloomberg's claims, Fitzpatrick said, "It was surprising to me that in a scenario where I would describe these things and then he would go and confirm these and 100% of what I described was confirmed by sources." You could take that to mean "Bloomberg took a scary hypothetical and pretended it was real," but if they did have other sources telling them "There are these backdoor chips in servers" this is exactly what you'd expect Bloomberg to do: go to a security expert and ask "Hey, does this really work?" It doesn't particularly read like evidence one way or another to me.

4684499 8y ago
If you want evidence, you should ask BBG for it first, who has provided none at the moment, even the picture they used is likely for illustration only, and they didn't make any declaration about that. Technically possible doesn't mean it happened. You could be punched by your wife, does that mean she did punch you? Sorry for the inappropriate analogy, but you get the idea.