4 ms·

All this from Bloomberg, who published an explosive piece on Chinese spies infiltrating "America’s technology supply chain". [1] Then when it became clear that

All this from Bloomberg, who published an explosive piece on Chinese spies infiltrating "America’s technology supply chain". [1] Then when it became clear that the story was bogus, refused to admit they made a mistake. [2] [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h... [1] https://pxlnv.com/blog/one-year-after-big-hack/ https://pxlnv.com/blog/one-year-after-big-hack/

wnevets 7y ago
you say bogus, I say its entirely possible. https://www.wired.com/story/plant-spy-chips-hardware-supermicro-cheap-proof-of-concept/ https://www.wired.com/story/plant-spy-chips-hardware-supermi...
- jdminhbg 7y ago
  Lots of things are entirely possible; many fewer have any tangible evidence that they actually happened.
  - wnevets 7y ago
    If you trust Edward Snowden (a lot of HN users appear to), wouldn't his leaks be tangible evidence?
    - jdminhbg 7y ago
      Those would be tangible evidence that it's possible, again, not that it happened in the Chinese supply chain as alleged in the Bloomberg story that hasn't been retracted yet.
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  Bloomberg didn't say possible, though. They said it had happened, and been discovered. Specifically, they said "A major U.S. telecommunications company discovered manipulated hardware from Super Micro Computer Inc. in its network". And then that manipulated hardware was never produced and verified, Bloomberg provided no evidence for the claim, every outside investigation disagreed with it, and their primary source criticized the story (in favor of an even broader, equally unproven assertion). It's an interesting theoretical attack, but Bloomberg made specific, concrete assertions which are, according to all available evidence, bogus. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/new-evidence-of-hacked-supermicro-hardware-found-in-u-s-telecom https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/new-evide...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rasvj 7y ago
Supermicro never sued Bloomberg despite having lost a chunk of their valuation because of that article. Just saying.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  This rarely works. And it's not the company that would lead such a lawsuit, it's the shareholders.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    That's not true. The company would have plenty of damages to their reputation that a lawsuit would be perfectly reasonable. Not to mention the fact that lost market cap also damages the companies ability to hire and retain talent.
- jdminhbg 7y ago
  The problem is that they would have to prove that Bloomberg wasn't just incompetent, but rather malicious. It's entirely possible (and imo the most likely scenario) that Bloomberg didn't fabricate the story, but were duped.

wnevets 7y ago

you say bogus, I say its entirely possible. https://www.wired.com/story/plant-spy-chips-hardware-supermicro-cheap-proof-of-concept/ https://www.wired.com/story/plant-spy-chips-hardware-supermi...

jdminhbg 7y ago
Lots of things are entirely possible; many fewer have any tangible evidence that they actually happened.
- wnevets 7y ago
  If you trust Edward Snowden (a lot of HN users appear to), wouldn't his leaks be tangible evidence?
  - jdminhbg 7y ago
    Those would be tangible evidence that it's possible, again, not that it happened in the Chinese supply chain as alleged in the Bloomberg story that hasn't been retracted yet.
Bartweiss 7y ago
Bloomberg didn't say possible, though. They said it had happened, and been discovered. Specifically, they said "A major U.S. telecommunications company discovered manipulated hardware from Super Micro Computer Inc. in its network". And then that manipulated hardware was never produced and verified, Bloomberg provided no evidence for the claim, every outside investigation disagreed with it, and their primary source criticized the story (in favor of an even broader, equally unproven assertion). It's an interesting theoretical attack, but Bloomberg made specific, concrete assertions which are, according to all available evidence, bogus. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/new-evidence-of-hacked-supermicro-hardware-found-in-u-s-telecom https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/new-evide...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rasvj 7y ago

Supermicro never sued Bloomberg despite having lost a chunk of their valuation because of that article. Just saying.

pathseeker 7y ago
This rarely works. And it's not the company that would lead such a lawsuit, it's the shareholders.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  That's not true. The company would have plenty of damages to their reputation that a lawsuit would be perfectly reasonable. Not to mention the fact that lost market cap also damages the companies ability to hire and retain talent.
jdminhbg 7y ago
The problem is that they would have to prove that Bloomberg wasn't just incompetent, but rather malicious. It's entirely possible (and imo the most likely scenario) that Bloomberg didn't fabricate the story, but were duped.