The "Hack chip" they've shown us only got 3 pins. I'm not an EE, but integrated Circuits usually have way more pins than that, especially a "spy chip that communicates to the CCP". You'll need the ground and the voltage supply to work, then just one pin for data?
The "Hack chip" they've shown us only got 3 pins. I'm not an EE, but integrated Circuits usually have way more pins than that, especially a "spy chip that communicates to the CCP". You'll need the ground and the voltage supply to work, then just one pin for data?
We live in an age when for political advantage, the whole of the media regularly gets labelled as fake news. Bloomberg may have believed its story, and so initially was just woefully incompetent, but its actions since are letting us all down.
It's actually a good thing that most educated people have grown skeptical of the mainstream news media. We can now be more selective about what media we consume. With that said, the tech media that focuses on 90%+ on tech (i.e., AppleInsider) has little to do with politics and as such there is little fake news in the tech news versus the mainstream media, which is why politicians don't take shots at the tech news. It's usually just the NYT, Washington Post, and CNN pitted against Fox -- all of whom are not dedicated to tech news. Bloomberg isn't really tech-focused so we who consume tech media shouldn't give much credit to it. I honestly couldn't care less. I learned about the Bloomberg article reading AppleInsider, and I honestly had forgotten about it until AppleInsider mentioned it again today.
The story was well researched and accurate as reported (as opposed to how it got spun -- which is a neat way to refute a story: Spin it a certain way then refute the spin).
Let’s also not forget that one of the only named source in their story, a security expert, had come out to say he was uncomfortable with how they presented all the hypotheticals he abstractly described, as facts.
That Bloomberg never retracted their made up story and in fact promoted one of its authors to security czar speaks really poorly of their judgement. They seem to be a pro-troll when it comes to all things Apple.
Honestly I heard about compromised machines years before Bloomberg published. It became a national security manner real quick. I’m actually surprised Bloomberg was able to dig anything up on this manner.
There's no security professional disputing that such a thing could happen. The dispute is that it DID happen to Apple, Amazon and Super Micro.
And the article never did claim that it DID happen. It did report that intelligence sources thought it might have happened or likely happened when servers being manufactured in China were off-loaded to unmonitored secondary production facilities when the primary manufacturers reached capacity. In fact, it never even claimed that Apple servers were affected -- only that Apple may have been affected (probably because they were operating off of AWS servers at the time). Further, it stated that Apple had purchased potentially affected servers as they were attempting to build out their server farm(s) but quickly discarded them.
Let’s also not forget that one of the only named source in their story, a security expert, had come out to say he was uncomfortable with how they presented all the hypotheticals he abstractly described, as facts.
That Bloomberg never retracted their made up story and in fact promoted one of its authors to security czar speaks really poorly of their judgement. They seem to be a pro-troll when it comes to all things Apple.
Honestly I heard about compromised machines years before Bloomberg published. It became a national security manner real quick. I’m actually surprised Bloomberg was able to dig anything up on this manner.
There's no security professional disputing that such a thing could happen. The dispute is that it DID happen to Apple, Amazon and Super Micro.
And the article never did claim that it DID happen. It did report that intelligence sources thought it might have happened or likely happened when servers being manufactured in China were off-loaded to unmonitored secondary production facilities when the primary manufacturers reached capacity. In fact, it never even claimed that Apple servers were affected -- only that Apple may have been affected (probably because they were operating off of AWS servers at the time). Further, it stated that Apple had purchased potentially affected servers as they were attempting to build out their server farm(s) but quickly discarded them.
Comments
Even the picture is fishy enough.
Maybe there are 3 more pins on the other side(?)
AI needs to drop its vendetta.