5 ms·

German telecom employee here. I've seen a number of sneaky backdoors and intercepting devices at all levels in my career. The most interesting thing was a ser

German telecom employee here. I've seen a number of sneaky backdoors and intercepting devices at all levels in my career. The most interesting thing was a server where TCP connections that were about to close (TCP FIN) were suddenly intercepted to dump additional (encrypted) data that was't part of the original flow. Obviously there was something out there that was seeing both sides of the flow and intercepted parts of it. We successfully confirmed the problem was on our (in)side by booting the affected server on a USB stick and made it generate controlled traffic to controlled destinations on the internet that were synchronized using a LFSR. The server was decommissioned and the issue was escalated above my paygrade with clear instructions not to talk about it. I won't give an exact year for this incident but it happened in this decade but before Snowden. Personally I'm confident Bloomberg's reporting is accurate to a high degree. Based on prior experience with investigative journalism there's no way they would go all in with a story like this if they weren't standing on firm ground. Every single sentence would've been vetted. For each statement made there would be someone whose job would be to reject it unless you could back it up properly. This is also why you don't see these entities defending their story against random criticism that pops up. Most if not all decisions have already been made by the time it goes public. The fact that there's now a second story on the same topic is a good sign. The reporting of these things are usually followed up by additional pieces to increase the impact (and revenue of course). They claim they have 17 independent sources. That's pretty impressive in itself. It also means that they probably worked real hard verifying their sources' claims and inputs. I find it unlikely that they would've acquired all those sources unless the thing was real.

WillPostForFood 8y ago
There is a big difference between claiming 17 sources, a claiming all 17 sources corroborate the full story. The Apple letter to Congress highlight that Bloomberg is relying on a single source for the specific claims about compromised servers being found at Apple.
phil21 8y ago
> Based on prior experience with investigative journalism there's no way they would go all in with a story like this if they weren't standing on firm ground. Every single sentence would've been vetted. And based on my prior experience I would make the exact opposite conclusion. Technical writers are rarely technical, and they seem to be happy to make stuff up and mislead - even if unintentionally - so long as they make their deadlines. Every tech article written about a subject I was directly involved in has not even gotten the spirit of the topic remotely accurate, much less minute technical details such as what chip is used where. That said - I fully believe supply chains are entirely compromised. I just don't think in this case I'd really put much stock into this specific reporting - they've already been caught blatantly misleading their readers by putting up a photo of a stock Mouser part and not denoting it as such.
- hashtag11ben 8y ago
  I agree that technical details sometimes gets misrepresented or come out plain wrong. That's my observation as well and it's annoying when you're knowledgeable in the subject and try to make sense of what you've read (or read between the lines). I think a contributing factor is that it's generally hard to write about things you don't fully understand with the correct nomenclature. Especially when you might not be able to talk/ask for help about specifics with people more knowledgeable because of the secretive process. Things could've been dumbed down, intentionally or unintentionally, by those involved. It wouldn't be hard to imagine a conversation like: "-So it was sort of a coupler thing? -You could say that, yes". Or what if the technical detail came from a Chinese source and Google translate mangled it? The coupler thing is dumb and so is the picture (assuming it was a random product picture) but at least they might serve as a way of communicating the big picture: a hard to spot electronic "coupler" thing.
  - pishpash 8y ago
    Not in this case. One of the sources was interviewed and said the technical details were only suggestive: https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/ https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/ Maybe there is something there, and/or there is a reason to talk/substitute in vague terms, but insofar as the explicit technical details are concerned, they don't appear credible. Then you're left with an empty allegation that you will have to decide to believe or not based on no other ground than potentiality.
jackconnor 8y ago
Interesting experience and thank you for the first-hand perspective! I do have to disagree about the competency of Bloomberg, though, they publish a lot of speculative, low-tech AI/ML scare articles that can be described at best as "inaccurate" and, more realistically, as "making stuff up". They used to have a good reputation, probably from their financial journalism, but their tech work is not good but any reasonable measure, in my personal opinion.
pupdogg 8y ago
I am not sure if you're just a German telecom employee based out of US or an actual native German working for this German telecom company in Germany. If latter, your english is extraordinarily above and beyond what I've generally exhibited with a lot of my personal German friends. Just a naive observation so please don't take this in any wrong or defamatory manner.

WillPostForFood 8y ago

There is a big difference between claiming 17 sources, a claiming all 17 sources corroborate the full story. The Apple letter to Congress highlight that Bloomberg is relying on a single source for the specific claims about compromised servers being found at Apple.

phil21 8y ago

> Based on prior experience with investigative journalism there's no way they would go all in with a story like this if they weren't standing on firm ground. Every single sentence would've been vetted. And based on my prior experience I would make the exact opposite conclusion. Technical writers are rarely technical, and they seem to be happy to make stuff up and mislead - even if unintentionally - so long as they make their deadlines. Every tech article written about a subject I was directly involved in has not even gotten the spirit of the topic remotely accurate, much less minute technical details such as what chip is used where. That said - I fully believe supply chains are entirely compromised. I just don't think in this case I'd really put much stock into this specific reporting - they've already been caught blatantly misleading their readers by putting up a photo of a stock Mouser part and not denoting it as such.

hashtag11ben 8y ago
I agree that technical details sometimes gets misrepresented or come out plain wrong. That's my observation as well and it's annoying when you're knowledgeable in the subject and try to make sense of what you've read (or read between the lines). I think a contributing factor is that it's generally hard to write about things you don't fully understand with the correct nomenclature. Especially when you might not be able to talk/ask for help about specifics with people more knowledgeable because of the secretive process. Things could've been dumbed down, intentionally or unintentionally, by those involved. It wouldn't be hard to imagine a conversation like: "-So it was sort of a coupler thing? -You could say that, yes". Or what if the technical detail came from a Chinese source and Google translate mangled it? The coupler thing is dumb and so is the picture (assuming it was a random product picture) but at least they might serve as a way of communicating the big picture: a hard to spot electronic "coupler" thing.
- pishpash 8y ago
  Not in this case. One of the sources was interviewed and said the technical details were only suggestive: https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/ https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/ Maybe there is something there, and/or there is a reason to talk/substitute in vague terms, but insofar as the explicit technical details are concerned, they don't appear credible. Then you're left with an empty allegation that you will have to decide to believe or not based on no other ground than potentiality.

jackconnor 8y ago

Interesting experience and thank you for the first-hand perspective! I do have to disagree about the competency of Bloomberg, though, they publish a lot of speculative, low-tech AI/ML scare articles that can be described at best as "inaccurate" and, more realistically, as "making stuff up". They used to have a good reputation, probably from their financial journalism, but their tech work is not good but any reasonable measure, in my personal opinion.

pupdogg 8y ago

I am not sure if you're just a German telecom employee based out of US or an actual native German working for this German telecom company in Germany. If latter, your english is extraordinarily above and beyond what I've generally exhibited with a lot of my personal German friends. Just a naive observation so please don't take this in any wrong or defamatory manner.