>more likely than not a cover. And this is where reasoned debate turns into conspiracy theories. > we already know from Snowden that the bios bit is a lie Do

>more likely than not a cover. And this is where reasoned debate turns into conspiracy theories. > we already know from Snowden that the bios bit is a lie Do we? So because they discovered a vulnerability in a particular Dell server in 2007 (discovered != introduced) this means that they could not have possibly disclosed details of a different bios vulnerability to tech giants years later? > Not entirely sure why I'm being downvoted for this Because you are claiming opinion and speculation as fact.