4 ms·

John Gruber at Daring Fireball has covered the meta-story of the publication of these articles extensively. Here's his take on the most recent update: https:/

John Gruber at Daring Fireball has covered the meta-story of the publication of these articles extensively. Here's his take on the most recent update: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/02/12/bloomberg-big-con https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/02/12/bloomberg-big-c...

amanzi 6y ago
Gruber is the least likely to have an unbiased opinion on this since Apple was part of the story. I don't know what to make of this, but I'm finding it more difficult to believe that the story is not true.
- PixyMisa 6y ago
  I don't trust Gruber to be free of bias, but on the other hand, everything he says in his response is correct. This is a non-followup to a non-story.
jstrong 6y ago
Gruber's article says > Today’s follow-up from Bloomberg offers no evidence either. The follow-up article actually has quite a bit of evidence. e.g. > “In early 2018, two security companies that I advise were briefed by the FBI’s counterintelligence division investigating this discovery of added malicious chips on Supermicro’s motherboards,” said Mike Janke, a former Navy SEAL who co-founded DataTribe, a venture capital firm. maybe there are reasons not to believe the testimony of Janke. but saying the article "offers no evidence" is just bunk.
- lorenzhs 6y ago
  The word of someone who's not an expert in the subject, who wasn't in the meetings and only heard about them via an unspecified number of intermediates, and doesn't even work there but "advises" the companies? Forgive me, but for the only sourcing of their main claim, that's a bit too weak to clear my standard of evidence.
  - jstrong 6y ago
    it's not the "only" sourcing of the main claim, merely an example. (did you read the article?) > Alarmed by the devices’ sophistication, officials opted to warn a small number of potential targets in briefings that identified Supermicro by name. Executives from 10 companies and one large municipal utility told Bloomberg News that they’d received such warnings. While most executives asked not to be named to discuss sensitive cybersecurity matters, some agreed to go on the record. > “This was espionage on the board itself,” said Mukul Kumar, who said he received one such warning during an unclassified briefing in 2015 when he was the chief security officer for Altera Corp., a chip designer in San Jose. “There was a chip on the board that was not supposed to be there that was calling home—not to Supermicro but to China.”
    - musicale 6y ago
      > There was a chip on the board that was not supposed to be there that was calling home—not to Supermicro but to China An extra chip on the board sounds like pretty solid physical evidence. What other information do we have about this chip and what it was doing?

amanzi 6y ago

Gruber is the least likely to have an unbiased opinion on this since Apple was part of the story. I don't know what to make of this, but I'm finding it more difficult to believe that the story is not true.

PixyMisa 6y ago
I don't trust Gruber to be free of bias, but on the other hand, everything he says in his response is correct. This is a non-followup to a non-story.

jstrong 6y ago

Gruber's article says > Today’s follow-up from Bloomberg offers no evidence either. The follow-up article actually has quite a bit of evidence. e.g. > “In early 2018, two security companies that I advise were briefed by the FBI’s counterintelligence division investigating this discovery of added malicious chips on Supermicro’s motherboards,” said Mike Janke, a former Navy SEAL who co-founded DataTribe, a venture capital firm. maybe there are reasons not to believe the testimony of Janke. but saying the article "offers no evidence" is just bunk.

lorenzhs 6y ago
The word of someone who's not an expert in the subject, who wasn't in the meetings and only heard about them via an unspecified number of intermediates, and doesn't even work there but "advises" the companies? Forgive me, but for the only sourcing of their main claim, that's a bit too weak to clear my standard of evidence.
- jstrong 6y ago
  it's not the "only" sourcing of the main claim, merely an example. (did you read the article?) > Alarmed by the devices’ sophistication, officials opted to warn a small number of potential targets in briefings that identified Supermicro by name. Executives from 10 companies and one large municipal utility told Bloomberg News that they’d received such warnings. While most executives asked not to be named to discuss sensitive cybersecurity matters, some agreed to go on the record. > “This was espionage on the board itself,” said Mukul Kumar, who said he received one such warning during an unclassified briefing in 2015 when he was the chief security officer for Altera Corp., a chip designer in San Jose. “There was a chip on the board that was not supposed to be there that was calling home—not to Supermicro but to China.”
  - musicale 6y ago
    > There was a chip on the board that was not supposed to be there that was calling home—not to Supermicro but to China An extra chip on the board sounds like pretty solid physical evidence. What other information do we have about this chip and what it was doing?