Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Super Micro says review found no malicious chips in motherboards

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 355 posts

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

#171

Post by dpwm »

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?

Yes.

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

#172

Post by pjc50 »

dragontamer wrote: post #166
pjc50 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, when looking at this, we have to remember that reporters aren't analysts ; they're not expected to have subject-specific background and make personal judgement calls as to what the underlying truth is. If you want that you can certainly get it - for a much higher price than a newspaper. That's what firms like Gartner are for. Reporters to a very large extent report what sources say . Their judgement comes in cons…

This is a case of c) Reporters were completely reckless. They bought a small 0402 decoupling capacitor, put it on pencil tip, and then claimed that it was a chip that could hack your device. Any EE worth their salt knows exactly what 0402 decoupling capacitors do, and that there's no way you can hack from that angle. It has to do where that particular chip is placed: usually on power-lines... not really signal-traces…

A lot of people got hung up on the photos, but did the text actually state what they were or were they just "for illustrative purposes" like stock photos?

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

#173

Post by ohithereyou »

pjc50 wrote: post #155
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…

So, when looking at this, we have to remember that reporters aren't analysts ; they're not expected to have subject-specific background and make personal judgement calls as to what the underlying truth is. If you want that you can certainly get it - for a much higher price than a newspaper. That's what firms like Gartner are for. Reporters to a very large extent report what sources say . Their judgement comes in cons…

> [T]hey're not expected to have subject-specific background [...] Their judgement comes in considering the credibility of the source.

Which they are unqualified to do if they do not have subject-specific background.

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

#174

Post by FerretFred »

mtgx wrote: post #47
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…

The companies/shareholders being affected by this are free to sue the paper over defamation. Something tells me they won't.

Maybe Super Micro could demand a full-page retraction, just to put the record straight in public. Either that or Super Micro could sue them for $1 just to get a point across. If Bloomberg were wrong they need to admit it.

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

#175

Post by TeMPOraL »

narrator wrote: post #168
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…

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.

Amid all the fake news / paid troll armies dramas, "anonymous government agent" is a pretty old-school approach.

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

#176

Post by onemoresoop »

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…

"It's capitalism, let's all compete. But wait, if you're getting better than me you're the enemy. " It goes both ways. US Capitalism vs meets Chinese Capitalism with C.

Does anyone pay attention to the media in China? It's an equally bad actor.

Now seriously, Bloomberg lost a lot of credibility publishing this. Let's see if they say anything about it in the coming days.

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

#177

Post by PascLeRasc »

pjc50 wrote: post #155
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…

So, when looking at this, we have to remember that reporters aren't analysts ; they're not expected to have subject-specific background and make personal judgement calls as to what the underlying truth is. If you want that you can certainly get it - for a much higher price than a newspaper. That's what firms like Gartner are for. Reporters to a very large extent report what sources say . Their judgement comes in cons…

“If someone says it’s raining & another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the fking window and find out which is true.”

https://twitter.com/Klujypop/status/1018217609010012160

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

#178

Post by Despegar »

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…

Bloomberg is in the process of re-reporting the story according to Erik Wemple. They've assigned a new reporter to find out what's going on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/11/...

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

#179

Post by indigochill »

pjc50 wrote: post #155
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…

So, when looking at this, we have to remember that reporters aren't analysts ; they're not expected to have subject-specific background and make personal judgement calls as to what the underlying truth is. If you want that you can certainly get it - for a much higher price than a newspaper. That's what firms like Gartner are for. Reporters to a very large extent report what sources say . Their judgement comes in cons…

c) report it as what it is: unsubstantiated hearsay.

A story can be interesting and relevant but impossible to prove, and you can still report it honestly by simply making it clear what came from an anonymous source and what is verifiable fact. But it's very easy (and appears to have happened all over the place in this particular article) to cite what someone tells you as fact without making it clear you're just reporting what somebody said.

In fact, the article in a couple of places appends "sources say" at the end of some statement, making you think you're reading a fact until you've reached the end of the sentence. Which IMHO is a "journalism anti-pattern".

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

#180

Post by TeMPOraL »

pjc50 wrote: post #172
dragontamer wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a case of c) Reporters were completely reckless. They bought a small 0402 decoupling capacitor, put it on pencil tip, and then claimed that it was a chip that could hack your device. Any EE worth their salt knows exactly what 0402 decoupling capacitors do, and that there's no way you can hack from that angle. It has to do where that particular chip is placed: usually on power-lines... not really signal-traces…

A lot of people got hung up on the photos, but did the text actually state what they were or were they just "for illustrative purposes" like stock photos?

I wish news services would stop placing pictures "for illustrative purposes". Either show the real thing, or don't show anything at all. Otherwise, people who aren't experts in the subject domain will have no way to determine which aspects of the picture matches reality, and will implicitly assume most of them do (the alternative, unseeing a picture, is harder).

I know I had this problem in this particular case. I assumed the chip on the photo was real, and only learned on HN that it wasn't.

Post reply on HN