Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards • Hacker News Board

Re: Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards

#221

Post by acct1771 » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 6:54 PM UTC

ryanmercer wrote: post #10

assblaster wrote: post #2

The question I have is: is it possible that there was such an incredible threat to national security that even an auditor could be convinced by a federal agency to give a false report? If it really didn't happen, how could a reputable news agency get a report so wrong? What exactly is going on here?

>is it possible that there was such an incredible threat to national security that even an auditor could be convinced by a federal agency to give a false report? Absolutely possible, even somewhat plausible but unlikely. Conspiracies are hard to maintain "2 can keep a secret if 1 of them is dead". You could outright threaten someone with any number of means to get them to comply with your wishes, this is how espionag…

> Conspiracies are hard to maintain

An oft repeated trope that holds no place in the repertoire of someone that's read history.

Look as recently as the Manhattan Project for an example starkly to the contrary of your assertion.

Large groups of people can conspire. It does happen, more than we can ever know.

Re: Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards

#222

Post by TomMckenny » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 6:56 PM UTC

neya wrote: post #28

Let's say Super Micro is right and there were no malicious hardware at all for sure. What are the consequences for Bloomberg for this incompetence? I mean, there needs to be something.. Just because you're a news organization, you can't simply escape with "Oh, my bad". This had real implications on stock prices of so many companies and wiped off shareholder value on many of them, including Super Micro. If Bloomberg's…

Any individual merely accused of a salacious crime has his face spread all over the evening news just to pump ratings. Guilt, innocence, evidence or trial outcome are utterly irrelevant. So it's quite wide spread.

Of course the power dynamic between an ordinary joe and broadcasters is far different than between large corporations and broadcasters. This and worries around sponsors means there is already considerable self censorship when criticizing the latter. But I would not be surprised if industry lobbyist ultimately craft legislation to allow the former while preventing the latter through some high bar liability laws in such away that they get five already sympathetic SCOTUS justices to sign on.

Re: Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards

#223

Post by freeflight » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 6:56 PM UTC

na85 wrote: post #162

freeflight wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing, just like nothing will happen to the outlets who are currently pushing this "Huwai is spying on everybody" narrative with not an ounce of evidence for it except for unfounded and unsourced claims by FiveEyes intelligence services [0]. Afaik that whole Bloomberg/Super Micro thing was similarly set up, referring to "anonymous intelligence/industry services", not even naming the company that supposedly did the…

Regarding the five eyes sources, are we really expecting that intelligence agencies will give sources/proof?

If they want their claims to be taken seriously, then they really should.

Without that, it's just hearsay, hearsay by agencies who have deceit as part of their job description and as such should be taken with a massive grain of salt.

Imho they've also become shy about openly sharing sources because it allows them plausible deniability, they don't want an Iraq style curveball [0] all over again, where the attribution of the misinformation can be too easily traced back straight to them.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

Re: Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards

#224

Post by Drdrdrq » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

asituop wrote: post #189

freeflight wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing, just like nothing will happen to the outlets who are currently pushing this "Huwai is spying on everybody" narrative with not an ounce of evidence for it except for unfounded and unsourced claims by FiveEyes intelligence services [0]. Afaik that whole Bloomberg/Super Micro thing was similarly set up, referring to "anonymous intelligence/industry services", not even naming the company that supposedly did the…

Not that Huawei is the only and surely some other brands are even worse, but still Huawei phones are full of spyware, just open NetGuard or another example here : https://mobile.twitter.com/fs0c131y/status/10515681807480135... But once again surely other brands, Western companies included, are also spying, but it doesn't change the fact that Huawei does it too.

Can't open the link because of rate limiting - hn effect?

Anyway, is any phone-home spying? What if it phones US servers, say Google's? Unfortunately I can't think of a popular brand that doesn't spy on its users (no matter what the reasons are).

Re: Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards

#225

Post by timecube » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 7:07 PM UTC

Drdrdrq wrote: post #224

asituop wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that Huawei is the only and surely some other brands are even worse, but still Huawei phones are full of spyware, just open NetGuard or another example here : https://mobile.twitter.com/fs0c131y/status/10515681807480135... But once again surely other brands, Western companies included, are also spying, but it doesn't change the fact that Huawei does it too.

Can't open the link because of rate limiting - hn effect? Anyway, is any phone-home spying? What if it phones US servers, say Google's? Unfortunately I can't think of a popular brand that doesn't spy on its users (no matter what the reasons are).

Twitter's mobile site does that all the time, just refresh and it'll work.

Re: Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards

#226

Post by moftz » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 7:08 PM UTC

Bartweiss wrote: post #205

narrator wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like anonymous sources inside the intelligence agencies is how a lot of the news gets generated these days. Anonymous figures don't have to worry about their reputation or credibility and can just leak occasionally true information to keep getting published.

When to grant anonymity is a complex question, but I'm immensely frustrated by how many reporters don't even stop to question why a source might want anonymity. In particular, why a source who's part of the government, making a claim that supports a government narrative, via unclassified data, would have any need for anonymity if they had faith in their claim. Conor Friedersdorf summarized matters very nicely years a…

Agencies always have official spokespeople and anyone making comments to the press about things they shouldn't be talking about (like an active investigation) can get in a lot of trouble if that agency finds out it was them who leaked to the press.

Re: Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards

#227

Post by r00fus » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 7:08 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #193

narrator wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like anonymous sources inside the intelligence agencies is how a lot of the news gets generated these days. Anonymous figures don't have to worry about their reputation or credibility and can just leak occasionally true information to keep getting published.

They do have a reputation, to the journalist. It's not as far reaching, but you bet that journalist isn't going to trust that source again if they are caught lying. Or even that agency.

The journalists should lose whatever credibility they have as well as their news org that shamelessly supported the "story". I sure as hell don't trust Bloomberg nearly as much as I used to.

Re: Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards

#228

Post by User9991 » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 7:12 PM UTC

neya wrote: post #28

Let's say Super Micro is right and there were no malicious hardware at all for sure. What are the consequences for Bloomberg for this incompetence? I mean, there needs to be something.. Just because you're a news organization, you can't simply escape with "Oh, my bad". This had real implications on stock prices of so many companies and wiped off shareholder value on many of them, including Super Micro. If Bloomberg's…

>If Bloomberg's story was false, they shouldn't just walk away like that because "it's the free press".

So failure is fine, as long as it's Silicon Valley.

Imagine what the world would be like if journalists investigating stories had to be 110% certain of their work? That if someone said, "that's not true" they'd have to ditch the story altogether?

This controversy, and the aftermath (which isn't over, hence it's in the news today) sounds like "working as intended".

>This had real implications on stock prices of so many companies

Can you provide some references of the "so many" companies that were effected by this? What do you suggest as punishment?

Re: Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards

#229

Post by Bartweiss » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

na85 wrote: post #162

freeflight wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing, just like nothing will happen to the outlets who are currently pushing this "Huwai is spying on everybody" narrative with not an ounce of evidence for it except for unfounded and unsourced claims by FiveEyes intelligence services [0]. Afaik that whole Bloomberg/Super Micro thing was similarly set up, referring to "anonymous intelligence/industry services", not even naming the company that supposedly did the…

Regarding the five eyes sources, are we really expecting that intelligence agencies will give sources/proof?

They do provide sources sometimes - even when their stories are false - which makes credulity without proof that much more surprising.

They're not inviting anyone into Langley, and if this were a claim about e.g. cyberattacks on Ukraine we might not expect evidence. But for something evaluated domestically, especially with physical evidence like SuperMicro, it's relatively common for intelligence sources to point to people who can confirm key elements. That might be a non-government firm which examined the physical evidence, a non-intelligence researcher who can assess the context of a factual claim, or an affected business which can verify what they experienced.

When a CIA source told Judy Miller that Iraq was buying aluminum tubes to centrifuge uranium, they claimed that Oak Ridge nuclear scientists had confirmed their assessment of what the tubes were for. They hadn't, but she apparently didn't bother to check.

When "U.S. officials" told the Washington Post that Russian Grizzly Steppe malware had infected the US electric grid, they provided the name of the utility company which had been attacked - Burlington Electric. Again, this was untrue (the code was found on one laptop unconnected to 'the grid'), but the reporter involved didn't check.

In the SuperMicro case, there doesn't seem to have even been a name given to check, just vague assertions that some company had performed an audit. That ought to have been a warning sign, but it looks like Bloomberg accepted source diversity in place of concrete or verifiable details - we're told of six national security officials, three Apple insiders, two AWS sources (and a partridge in a pear tree).

Re: Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards

#230

Post by ghostly_s » Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

scarhill wrote: post #49

assblaster wrote: post #2

The question I have is: is it possible that there was such an incredible threat to national security that even an auditor could be convinced by a federal agency to give a false report? If it really didn't happen, how could a reputable news agency get a report so wrong? What exactly is going on here?

WRT the how could they get it so wrong question, I guess it's time for the obligatory link to Michael Crichton's essay "Why Speculate?" and his discussion of the "Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect" [1] Money quote: "You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either t…

To be clear, this is not an actual 'effect' that anyone has done any research on to demonstrate it exists or has real implications. It's just something that some pop-science writer idly speculated about once, so I question why you would introduce it into this discussion.