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

351–355 of 355 posts

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

#351

Post by exolymph »

hannasanarion wrote: post #130
scarhill wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not that Michael Crichton should be treated as an authority on truth in reporting. He believed there was a vast worldwide conspiracy to defraud poor innocent oil companies by manufacturing evidence of global warming.

Michael Crichton himself doesn't need to be any type of authority for the reasoning in that specific quote to make sense.

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

#352

Post by hannasanarion »

exolymph wrote: post #351
hannasanarion wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that Michael Crichton should be treated as an authority on truth in reporting. He believed there was a vast worldwide conspiracy to defraud poor innocent oil companies by manufacturing evidence of global warming.

Michael Crichton himself doesn't need to be any type of authority for the reasoning in that specific quote to make sense.

The point is that "the baloney you just read" is not necessarily baloney if your "expertise" derives from conspiracy theory blogs and propaganda.

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

#353

Post by reissbaker »

jake_the_third wrote: post #301
reissbaker wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just a phone-home. It's sending your entire browsing history (unencrypted!): every web request you make gets sent back to servers in China.

I am having a very hard time believing this statement is in any way true. If you have a link to details, now is the time to provide it.

Check the Twitter link posted elsewhere in this thread of a security researcher finding exactly that.

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

#354

Post by asituop »

davb wrote: post #271
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.

I see people say this a lot, but I'm using an Honor 10 and have spent a bit of time this week alternately MITM proxying connections from the phone and capturing DNS at the router. I found very infrequent calls to HiCloud (Huawei's cloud service), almost always using a HiCloud enabled app where it would make perfect sense to communicate with the service. On the other hand, I seen third party apps (none of which were p…

"Seeing HiCloud request while having HiCloud app enabled" -> and so ... ? The question "if I refuse all their services, do they still collect my data". No surprise your phone makes request if you are using their services.

"Third Party apps are not privacy respecting and sending data to Google" -> yes nothing new, we're not talking about the spyware you can install from the playstore yourself, you have a lot of choice there too indeed, we're talking about pre-installed apps.

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

#355

Post by ohithereyou »

danso wrote: post #246
ohithereyou wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [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.

The journalist behind the Theranos expose, John Carreyrou, does not have a bio medical or startup/VC background.

Unqualified does not mean incorrect or wrong, and somebody who is unqualified can employ the services of somebody who is in order to overcome that deficiency.
Post reply on HN