What Businessweek got wrong about Apple • Hacker News Board

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#41

Post by dannyw » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:23 AM UTC

amf12 wrote: post #13

onetimemanytime wrote: post #8

Very strong denial. Frankly, if true and Apple is saying this kind of a "no" shareholders will sue. Two possibilities: Left hand doesn't know (or can't know) what the right hand is doing at Apple. Top secret? Bloomberg was a victim of a hoax, some nation state (huh huhm!) wants to target China for something so they need a story. Based on what I've read here these past days, I'm leaning towards the second one. Apple c…

> Two possibilities: Left hand doesn't know (or can't know) what the right hand is doing at Apple. Top secret? I am sure the CEO must know both the hands, if the hands don't know each other. Also that Apple is going to release a strong denial must also have been known to Tim. I don't think that's the case here. Your second possibility looks more plausible.

If you talk to anyone with a TS/SCI clearance, you'll know that it is very common to be unable to discuss or divulge what you're working on to your superiors.

There are MANY material things that CEOs do not know about TS/SCI information.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#42

Post by raverbashing » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:25 AM UTC

Jerry2 wrote: post #12

Both Apple and Amazon have released VERY STRONG denial statements that bring the whole Bloomberg narrative into question. It's also convenient that no one has yet been able to verify or find any of these mysterious Chinese chips on any of the Supermicro servers in the wild. So what is the real story here? Did Bloomberg reporters deliberately deceive everyone or were they deceived by the US IC ("intelligence community…

> Finally, in response to questions we have received from other news organisations since Businessweek published its story, we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations.

That to me is the icing on the cake. Companies are usually not direct like that.

(Unless this is some kind of new NDA that allows/mandates itself to be denied)

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#43

Post by hrktb » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:27 AM UTC

guywhocodes wrote: post #35

Jerry2 wrote: post #12

Both Apple and Amazon have released VERY STRONG denial statements that bring the whole Bloomberg narrative into question. It's also convenient that no one has yet been able to verify or find any of these mysterious Chinese chips on any of the Supermicro servers in the wild. So what is the real story here? Did Bloomberg reporters deliberately deceive everyone or were they deceived by the US IC ("intelligence community…

I'm not convinced which story is strictly the correct one yet but I don't think the strength of the denial is an argument for either. It just shows that it's important that your narrative wins, truth or not.

The burden of proof should be on the side pushing the accusations.

In that sense, Apple’s denial puts it squarely back to Bloomberg to prove it’s not bulshit. Until then it would be fair to discard their narrative.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#44

Post by kerng » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:27 AM UTC

This will be interesting to follow, it's very unlikely there is not some truth to this. The fact that Apple and others are pushing so strongly against the story (very defensive) which makes me believe they are hiding something for sure.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#45

Post by matchagaucho » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:30 AM UTC

mikekchar wrote: post #38

Jerry2 wrote: post #12

Both Apple and Amazon have released VERY STRONG denial statements that bring the whole Bloomberg narrative into question. It's also convenient that no one has yet been able to verify or find any of these mysterious Chinese chips on any of the Supermicro servers in the wild. So what is the real story here? Did Bloomberg reporters deliberately deceive everyone or were they deceived by the US IC ("intelligence community…

My general response whenever there is something like this: Look at the past stories by the reporter. Bloomberg handily lists them for you. https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AQrv1y2ieI0/jordan-roberts... Take a look at those stories in the strong light of being able to see them in retrospect and decide for yourself if this reporter is prone to going to press without a full understanding of the situation. I have my opi…

hmmm... definitely a trend of reporting on hacks. And perhaps with sensationalist clickbait headlines.

But they are confirmed hacks (Equifax, FB, Cambridge Analytica).

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#46

Post by cm2187 » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:30 AM UTC

peterlk wrote: post #30

Jerry2 wrote: post #12

Both Apple and Amazon have released VERY STRONG denial statements that bring the whole Bloomberg narrative into question. It's also convenient that no one has yet been able to verify or find any of these mysterious Chinese chips on any of the Supermicro servers in the wild. So what is the real story here? Did Bloomberg reporters deliberately deceive everyone or were they deceived by the US IC ("intelligence community…

To be clear, there is a very real threat of China embedding chips that do "bad things" inside chips that are sold to the US (source: I once worked on a government contract and saw such chips - they were, to my knowledge, unrelated to this specific case). I'm not sure where that points, but there are strong motivations at play.

Not the least because since Snowden we know the NSA does it.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#47

Post by ternaryoperator » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:33 AM UTC

jdorfman wrote: post #11

Stupid legal question, could this end up becoming a defamation lawsuit?

Generally, for defamation to be actionable (that is, viable for a lawsuit) there needs to be either an intent to defame or a neglect of facts so severe that it is tantamount to intent.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#48

Post by matchagaucho » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:33 AM UTC

Jerry2 wrote: post #12

Both Apple and Amazon have released VERY STRONG denial statements that bring the whole Bloomberg narrative into question. It's also convenient that no one has yet been able to verify or find any of these mysterious Chinese chips on any of the Supermicro servers in the wild. So what is the real story here? Did Bloomberg reporters deliberately deceive everyone or were they deceived by the US IC ("intelligence community…

"before servers are put into production at Apple they are inspected for security vulnerabilities"

A chip smaller than a grain of rice nested between motherboard layers.

What tools could detect such a chip?

While I don't doubt Apple inspects, the zero-day threat always exists.

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#49

Post by sterlind » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:34 AM UTC

Jerry2 wrote: post #12

Both Apple and Amazon have released VERY STRONG denial statements that bring the whole Bloomberg narrative into question. It's also convenient that no one has yet been able to verify or find any of these mysterious Chinese chips on any of the Supermicro servers in the wild. So what is the real story here? Did Bloomberg reporters deliberately deceive everyone or were they deceived by the US IC ("intelligence community…

Remember when Clapper gave the "least untruthful answer possible" about domestic bulk collection? [0]

It's naive to think Apple and Amazon couldn't lie in response to the article, if the intelligence was highly-classified. They may be under extremely strict gag orders (e.g. "give no response whatsoever, including silence, other than denial") and protected by promises of indemnity, as telcos were in the wake of the NSA disclosures.

Bloomberg is exquisitely specific and detailed about the chip, including photos and placement (on the baseboard management bridge, disguised as a shielding element.) There's two possibilities, then: someone cajoled dozens of officials across several companies to lie to Bloomberg, or the tech companies have been cajoled into lying.

Either way, the proof is in the pudding: every hardware pentesting shop will be going after these boards like they're looking for golden tickets. Either we'll get our die shot, or Bloomberg's getting their pants sued off.

0. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkb5FKlETqY

Re: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple

#50

Post by charlysl » Fri, Oct 05, 2018, 7:38 AM UTC

Regardless of whether this particular case is true or not, given the crucial role of computer systems in so many key institutions, it seems to me extremely risky to trust Chinese suppliers not to try to compromise critical infrastructure.

Then again, I understand that it could be argued that, if this is confirmed, to me it would seem quite rash from the Chinese, given that they would have known all along that such a scheme would be discovered sooner or later. It is one thing to plant a device as part of a spy operation, quite another to consistently compromise a whole supply chain.

Whichever is the case, the national interest and commercial interests seem to be seriously incompatible with one another when it comes to outsourcing such critical infrastructure to China, this seems obvious to me, regardless of the China policy of who is in government in US.