141–150 of 289 posts
There should be hundreds of thousands or millions of these hacked motherboards, and nobody has found a single one despite hardware geeks worldwide searching like it was Willy Wonka's final golden ticket. This story was bogus, it most likely came from a ton of rumors that got conflated, hence why they had to go with anonymous sources as opposed to any physical evidence. I'd be surprised if Bloomberg has any credibilit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There should be hundreds of thousands or millions of these hacked motherboards" No, the boards would be selectively hacked. And we know it happens because 'we' do it as well. Surely there is evidence floating around but it's also unlikely that companies would want to admit the breach. I kind of believe Apple and Amazon though, there's too much risk if they were to be caught lying. This is a weird one ...
You just need ONE board to be able to prove it. Surely Bloomberg or their sources can get their hand on a single piece?
As a press outlet they have a pretty solid defense in the first amendment
There should be hundreds of thousands or millions of these hacked motherboards, and nobody has found a single one despite hardware geeks worldwide searching like it was Willy Wonka's final golden ticket. This story was bogus, it most likely came from a ton of rumors that got conflated, hence why they had to go with anonymous sources as opposed to any physical evidence. I'd be surprised if Bloomberg has any credibilit…
>most likely came from a ton of rumors that got conflated, hence why they had to go with anonymous sources Just noting that anonymous sources aren't unknown sources — if Bloomberg says that these are people working in US Intelligence then they've very likely validated it, but are protecting their identities by request. Also worth noting that Amazon and Apple have a tremendous amount to lose here. That doesn't mean th…
The other way around. Apple and Amazon have very strong incentives to tell the truth. This has significant implications for their business (i.e. stock price) and if there is one thing that executives want to avoid, it's SEC filings based on false information given to the market.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg has the reputation of journalists with patchy histories of security news reporting. Perhaps they've been fed a line by government sources, but there is little financial incentive to fix any errors.
There should be hundreds of thousands or millions of these hacked motherboards, and nobody has found a single one despite hardware geeks worldwide searching like it was Willy Wonka's final golden ticket. This story was bogus, it most likely came from a ton of rumors that got conflated, hence why they had to go with anonymous sources as opposed to any physical evidence. I'd be surprised if Bloomberg has any credibilit…
>most likely came from a ton of rumors that got conflated, hence why they had to go with anonymous sources Just noting that anonymous sources aren't unknown sources — if Bloomberg says that these are people working in US Intelligence then they've very likely validated it, but are protecting their identities by request. Also worth noting that Amazon and Apple have a tremendous amount to lose here. That doesn't mean th…
Bloomberg is wrong. Apple and Amazing have every incentive to strongly deny the story.
Bloomberg is right. Multiple employees up to executive level at 30 US companies and the government know about it and are actively leaking to Bloomberg about it. Numerous boards are out there at 30+ companies as physical evidence. There’s no way Apple and Amazon could risk denying this so strongly. It’s already being widely leaked - according to Bloomberg - the cat is well and truly out of the bag and wailing it’s ass off.
It just doesn’t make any sense for Apple and Amazon to put their reputations on the line in that second scenario.
Elephant in the room: we shouldn't trust journalists to begin with.
This is a pretty cavalier comment for a brand new poster. Welcome to Hacker News, where deep discussion is welcome. The issue with trust in journalism is a real one, and as "deepfakes" and the current problems with the perceptions of "fake news" and "anything I don't like to hear is probably made up", the question of faith/trust in journalism and reporting is huge. I don't think trust in journalism should go down. I…
“Journalistic integrity” is quickly on its way to becoming a pejorative term, if it’s not already there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they had to go with anonymous sources as opposed to any physical evidence What do you mean by the second part of this? Bloomberg should have received examples of comprised boards?
Or gone to AWS/Apple and club and asked them to investigate before publishing...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supermicro is a fairly large player (4th largest) and they still manufacture servers. If this story were indeed true, none of these companies or any other company buy their servers. The story is simply fake news.
Big companies are now scandal proof. No amount of negligence or criminality is bad enough to bring one down. Wells Fargo committed millions of counts of bank fraud, yet they still exist and people buy their services. BP destroyed a large part of the economy and ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, yet they still exist and people buy their products. One of their top lawyers just became Assistant Attorney General for the D…
I know nothing specific about the issue per se, but I am convinced that Andy Jassy is speaking the truth here, for two reasons:
1) I've never seen a company as obsessed with security as AWS, and/or with such a big budget for security.
2) There's so many actors/employees involved in the audits, security, etc, that convincing some of them to "hide" a fact like this would be just too risky for a company that big. If that were really the case, I would rather work on a contingency plan, assuming that sooner or later the "leak" would come out.
There is a tiny chance that something bad happened, and that Amazon's magic PR twist managed to still provide a truthful statement (Steve Schmidt) while hiding that. "A chance", because of the various back and forth business between AWS and Chinese companies. "Tiny", because other scenarios are much more probable and plausible.
This looks like a very poor example of journalism, on Bloomberg's side.
On a different note, I still believe that weird/illegal stuff keeps going on between companies and governments worldwide, for the simple reason that these things keep coming up when there's a new leak, or when secrecy on certain classified documents gets lifted or expires.
As a press outlet they have a pretty solid defense in the first amendment
Well yes, haha, but if they knew or should've known that what they were reported was false and it causes monetary damages, then they can be taken to civil court. So, if they are sued they will be fighting to prove that they believed this article was true when they published it. Since Joe Fitzpatrick, one of the sources, has already come out and said that he speculated some hypotheticals that then made it into the sto…