4 ms·
How do you know for sure that the story is false? As you've mentioned Bloomberg hasn't corrected or retracted the story. Governments and companies have in the p
by neximo64 7y ago
How do you know for sure that the story is false? As you've mentioned Bloomberg hasn't corrected or retracted the story. Governments and companies have in the past denied things that have been true.
Do you seriously think Huawei vehemently denying that it has backdoors in its technology makes it true all of a sudden?
- longhorn_alum 7y ago> How do you know for sure that the story is false? That's not how journalism works, at least until fairly recently
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- crispyambulance 7y agoIf Bloomberg is going to make serious claims like that they NEED TO BACK IT UP with some evidence. Not a damn thing came out of the Supermicro story. And now this story about Huawei where it's unclear if they're talking about bugs, vulnerabilities or deliberate back-doors--- three very very different things. It's not that I trust Huawei either, but if Bloomberg is going to make claims like that they better be fucking true and verifiable.
- freeflight 7y agoBecause an actual review by Super Micro did not find any chips like that [0]. Unlike the Bloomberg article, they also released which company did the audit, while whoever was behind the Bloomberg article couldn't even supply a sample of these chips to any other security researches. Which was just very weird: On one hand you claim to have discovered this extraordinary thing trough physical evidence, yet when asked to produce said physical evidence, you can't. That alone was reason enough to trigger several red-flags. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-supermicro-chips/super-micro-says-review-found-no-malicious-chips-in-motherboards-idUSKBN1OA12R https://www.reuters.com/article/us-supermicro-chips/super-mi...