seanismorris said: Something attached to the “network port” is not the spy chip described.
This is what happens when non-technical writers get involved in technical writing. They probably don't even know what a network port is. Perhaps they are referring to the network interface adapter. We can probably rule out physical network ports such as ethernet connections or network port numbers which are in the operating system software.
They do appear to be both qualified and reputable. Of course they might have a business reason for pushing a story of tampered hardware so not 100%.
The domain is .systems
I’ve heard of it, but that’s the first time I’ve seen a “reputable” company use it.
I expect to see lawsuits any day now. Don’t be surprised if this company doesn’t exist in 6 months.
Companies that are worth more than some countries can’t take a joke. Bloomberg will be fine... except for their reputation.
Impressive connections if nothing else, and they have been established a couple of years now. Your dismissal of them because they use" .systems " seems a bit silly considering there's new master domains too numerous to count anymore. Using .systems in their case makes perfect sense. It's part of their name.
I'm not saying at all that this changes anything other than Bloomberg perhaps starting to roll out sources that support some of the storyline, at least roughly, so it may not be entirely fabricated.
Still clinging to your FUD, are you... Nope, this doesn’t establish jack shit.
Has anyone considered that the US government may have asked Apple to conceal the events?
No because that’s fucking stupid, since Apple wouldn’t lie to their investors and customers and ruin their credibility just because some beauracy wanted them to.
They do appear to be both qualified and reputable. Of course they might have a business reason for pushing a story of tampered hardware so not 100%.
The domain is .systems
I’ve heard of it, but that’s the first time I’ve seen a “reputable” company use it.
I expect to see lawsuits any day now. Don’t be surprised if this company doesn’t exist in 6 months.
Companies that are worth more than some countries can’t take a joke. Bloomberg will be fine... except for their reputation.
Impressive connections if nothing else, and they have been established a couple of years now. Your dismissal of them because they use" .systems " seems a bit silly considering there's new master domains too numerous to count anymore. Using .systems in their case makes perfect sense. It's part of their name.
I'm not saying at all that this changes anything other than Bloomberg perhaps starting to roll out sources that support some of the storyline, at least roughly, so it may not be entirely fabricated.
Still clinging to your FUD, are you... Nope, this doesn’t establish jack shit.
They do appear to be both qualified and reputable. Of course they might have a business reason for pushing a story of tampered hardware so not 100%.
The domain is .systems
I’ve heard of it, but that’s the first time I’ve seen a “reputable” company use it.
I expect to see lawsuits any day now. Don’t be surprised if this company doesn’t exist in 6 months.
Companies that are worth more than some countries can’t take a joke. Bloomberg will be fine... except for their reputation.
Impressive connections if nothing else, and they have been established a couple of years now. Your dismissal of them because they use" .systems " seems a bit silly considering there's new master domains too numerous to count anymore. Using .systems in their case makes perfect sense. It's part of their name.
I'm not saying at all that this changes anything other than Bloomberg perhaps starting to roll out sources that support some of the storyline, at least roughly, so it may not be entirely fabricated.
Still clinging to your FUD, are you... Nope, this doesn’t establish jack shit.
"But it was surprising to me that in a scenario where I would describe these things and then he would go and confirm these and 100 percent of what I described was confirmed by sources."
This is simply more chaff from Bloomberg. They can continue to spin this or they can pony up a single article of physical evidence, just one, and we can put all the speculation to bed one way or the other. Until they do this, their articles should be relegated to the comic pages.
Has anyone considered that the US government may have asked Apple to conceal the events?
No because that’s fucking stupid, since Apple wouldn’t lie to their investors and customers and ruin their credibility just because some beauracy wanted them to.
You mean the bureaucracy that has the power to require Apple to turn its property (including software source code) over to them? That one?
Yes, a Constitutional take. Yes, just compensation. Yes, you can appeal that to the US Supreme Court. And no, I won't post a manifesto on that.
They do appear to be both qualified and reputable. Of course they might have a business reason for pushing a story of tampered hardware so not 100%.
The domain is .systems
I’ve heard of it, but that’s the first time I’ve seen a “reputable” company use it.
I expect to see lawsuits any day now. Don’t be surprised if this company doesn’t exist in 6 months.
Companies that are worth more than some countries can’t take a joke. Bloomberg will be fine... except for their reputation.
Impressive connections if nothing else, and they have been established a couple of years now. Your dismissal of them because they use" .systems " seems a bit silly considering there's new master domains too numerous to count anymore. Using .systems in their case makes perfect sense. It's part of their name.
I'm not saying at all that this changes anything other than Bloomberg perhaps starting to roll out sources that support some of the storyline, at least roughly, so it may not be entirely fabricated.
Still clinging to your FUD, are you... Nope, this doesn’t establish jack shit.
You’re really struggling now. Nope, Gruber wasn’t late because he doesn’t break news, he’s a commentator. The reason I linked to DF’s version is for his selective use of the transcript and his succinct conclusion.
Your agenda has boxed you into a corner and you’ll clinging to the wrong horse. There is absolutely no indicator that Bloomberg has any evidence or credible sources whatsoever, and even their only named source has called bullshit on them. There are no indicators that “it may not be entirely fabricated” as you claim. That’s just a FUD pellet. Mmm, FUUUUD....
Has anyone considered that the US government may have asked Apple to conceal the events?
No because that’s fucking stupid, since Apple wouldn’t lie to their investors and customers and ruin their credibility just because some beauracy wanted them to.
You mean the bureaucracy that has the power to require Apple to turn its property (including software source code) over to them? That one?
Yes, a Constitutional take. Yes, just compensation. Yes, you can appeal that to the US Supreme Court. And no, I won't post a manifesto on that.
Again, that’s just fucking stupid. It’s so beyond fucking stupid to suggest that Apple is being blackmailed by the government so they just rolled over and are doing whatever they say including lying to investors and customers that there’s nothing really more to say on that.
They do appear to be both qualified and reputable. Of course they might have a business reason for pushing a story of tampered hardware so not 100%.
The domain is .systems
I’ve heard of it, but that’s the first time I’ve seen a “reputable” company use it.
I expect to see lawsuits any day now. Don’t be surprised if this company doesn’t exist in 6 months.
Companies that are worth more than some countries can’t take a joke. Bloomberg will be fine... except for their reputation.
Impressive connections if nothing else, and they have been established a couple of years now. Your dismissal of them because they use" .systems " seems a bit silly considering there's new master domains too numerous to count anymore. Using .systems in their case makes perfect sense. It's part of their name.
I'm not saying at all that this changes anything other than Bloomberg perhaps starting to roll out sources that support some of the storyline, at least roughly, so it may not be entirely fabricated.
Still clinging to your FUD, are you... Nope, this doesn’t establish jack shit.
You’re really struggling now. Nope, Gruber wasn’t late because he doesn’t break news, he’s a commentator. The reason I linked to DF’s version is for his selective use of the transcript and his succinct conclusion.
Your agenda has boxed you into a corner and you’ll clinging to the wrong horse. There is absolutely no indicator that Bloomberg has any evidence or credible sources whatsoever, and even their only named source has called bullshit on them. There are no indicators that “it may not be entirely fabricated” as you claim. That’s just a FUD pellet. Mmm, FUUUUD....
Sometimes you're just so precious. You're cute when you're angry.
I’m not angry. But I’ll take your pitiful ad hominem as a sign that you’re out of pretend-logic to support your claim that there may still be truth to Bloomberg’s account that is so weak that even their only named source called bullshit on it.
Cling to that floating FUD life raft, man! Hold it tight, now! Don’t let it get away from you!
This guy claiming he can not tell you the company but tell everything else is not a violation of his NDA, he has anything coming, a lawsuit, most NDA do not even allow you to say what you were hired to do.
Apparently you're saying he's lying then. I think.
I've not ever read "most NDA's", limited to only three in my entire business life that I can remember, so I'll take your word for it.
Yeah consider I have done 100's of NDA with suppliers and service providers. All the ones I have done they are not allow to talk about anything conversations we have with them unless it is public knowledge put out by the company and many NDA said they could not tell anyone they are working with the company and what was being discussed. Many were two way so the it applied in both directions. I had one supplier who want to share internally at a sales meeting they won business and I have to seek legal and The Presidents of the business approval to share the information internal to their own company since the NDA was specific to that person and the company.
If Bloomberg it trying to imply this guy did work for Apple and this guy told them about his work but left out Apple's name specifically I would say Apple would have bar him from saying anything. I work with Suppliers who worked with Apple it was know since their parts were in Apple products. When we asking them about this they said they could not comment on anything they may or may not be doing with Apple. Some suppliers even said they had not idea their parts were selected for an Apple product until it showed up in the product.
We all know Apple is very good at keeping secrets and if they told this guy to keep his mouth shut with an NDA it barred him from any conversations.
This guy claiming he can not tell you the company but tell everything else is not a violation of his NDA, he has anything coming, a lawsuit, most NDA do not even allow you to say what you were hired to do.
Apparently you're saying he's lying then. I think.
I've not ever read "most NDA's", limited to only three in my entire business life that I can remember, so I'll take your word for it.
Yeah consider I have done 100's of NDA with suppliers and service providers. All the ones I have done they are not allow to talk about anything conversations we have with them unless it is public knowledge put out by the company and many NDA said they could not tell anyone they are working with the company and what was being discussed. Many were two way so the it applied in both directions. I had one supplier who want to share internally at a sales meeting they won business and I have to seek legal and The Presidents of the business approval to share the information internal to their own company since the NDA was specific to that person and the company.
If Bloomberg it trying to imply this guy did work for Apple and this guy told them about his work but left out Apple's name specifically I would say Apple would have bar him from saying anything. I work with Suppliers who worked with Apple it was know since their parts were in Apple products. When we asking them about this they said they could not comment on anything they may or may not be doing with Apple. Some suppliers even said they had not idea their parts were selected for an Apple product until it showed up in the product.
We all know Apple is very good at keeping secrets and if they told this guy to keep his mouth shut with an NDA it barred him from any conversations.
The story clearly didn't imply his client was Apple. They're not a "US Telecom".
This is a different claim, this Appleboum guy is claiming the enet connecter was compromised. Now this sounds more plausible than putting a chip on the logic board. The logic board hack would take a lot more work to pull off and risk of failure is very high.
This guy claiming he can not tell you the company but tell everything else is not a violation of his NDA, he has anything coming, a lawsuit, most NDA do not even allow you to say what you were hired to do.
You are trying to cover his lies? What NDA? If he is telling the truth, won't he get immunity because this is a national security issue. I think you are trying to cover up him so he will not be discovered by his fabrication.
I think its is a reach to think apple server farms pose a national security risk. Yes NDA can not stop a whistle blower. An NDA can not protect a company from illegal activities. If Apple's servers farms were compromised what laws are being broken by hiring someone to do a network security check.
They do appear to be both qualified and reputable. Of course they might have a business reason for pushing a story of tampered hardware so not 100%.
The domain is .systems
I’ve heard of it, but that’s the first time I’ve seen a “reputable” company use it.
I expect to see lawsuits any day now. Don’t be surprised if this company doesn’t exist in 6 months.
Companies that are worth more than some countries can’t take a joke. Bloomberg will be fine... except for their reputation.
Impressive connections if nothing else, and they have been established a couple of years now. Your dismissal of them because they use" .systems " seems a bit silly considering there's new master domains too numerous to count anymore. Using .systems in their case makes perfect sense. It's part of their name.
I'm not saying at all that this changes anything other than Bloomberg perhaps starting to roll out sources that support some of the storyline, at least roughly, so it may not be entirely fabricated.
Still clinging to your FUD, are you... Nope, this doesn’t establish jack shit.
You’re really struggling now. Nope, Gruber wasn’t late because he doesn’t break news, he’s a commentator. The reason I linked to DF’s version is for his selective use of the transcript and his succinct conclusion.
Your agenda has boxed you into a corner and you’ll clinging to the wrong horse. There is absolutely no indicator that Bloomberg has any evidence or credible sources whatsoever, and even their only named source has called bullshit on them. There are no indicators that “it may not be entirely fabricated” as you claim. That’s just a FUD pellet. Mmm, FUUUUD....
Sometimes you're just so precious. You're cute when you're angry.
I’m not angry. But I’ll take your pitiful ad hominem as a sign that you’re out of pretend-logic to support your claim that there may still be truth to Bloomberg’s account that is so weak that even their only named source called bullshit on it.
Cling to that floating FUD life raft, man! Hold it tight, now! Don’t let it get away from you!
An even better response as it’s void of typical bullshit.
Has anyone considered that the US government may have asked Apple to conceal the events?
Did you see my comment that apple is publicly traded company and if they just made a factually wrong statement they would be open to lawsuits even if the US government said to keep their mouth shut. Do you think the SEC cares what the NSA or CIA think.
This is kind of like the issue which Intel had an issue with their processors and a small group of companies and the government knew about, everyone agree to keep their mouths shut until Intel and others had a chance to address the issue.
This is not the case here, Apple made a public statement that Bloomberg facts specific to Apple were wrong. Apple never said the hack did not exist, only they had no servers which were effected and they check all their equipment to verify this was the case.
China has access to every major US company’s network. You are foolish to think otherwise - how else could a country catch up to decades of technical know how in a matter of years. They will use every tactic possible, embedded chips, Trojans, virus software, spoofing, counterfeit products, intercepting network communications, planting moles in companies, espionage, they are masters at it. I work with Chinese companies and it’s frustrating because any ‘state owned’ company knows your product costs. ‘Made in China 2025’ is here already!
They do appear to be both qualified and reputable. Of course they might have a business reason for pushing a story of tampered hardware so not 100%.
The domain is .systems
I’ve heard of it, but that’s the first time I’ve seen a “reputable” company use it.
I expect to see lawsuits any day now. Don’t be surprised if this company doesn’t exist in 6 months.
Companies that are worth more than some countries can’t take a joke. Bloomberg will be fine... except for their reputation.
Impressive connections if nothing else, and they have been established a couple of years now. Your dismissal of them because they use" .systems " seems a bit silly considering there's new master domains too numerous to count anymore. Using .systems in their case makes perfect sense. It's part of their name.
I'm not saying at all that this changes anything other than Bloomberg perhaps starting to roll out sources that support some of the storyline, at least roughly, so it may not be entirely fabricated.
Still clinging to your FUD, are you... Nope, this doesn’t establish jack shit.
You’re really struggling now. Nope, Gruber wasn’t late because he doesn’t break news, he’s a commentator. The reason I linked to DF’s version is for his selective use of the transcript and his succinct conclusion.
Your agenda has boxed you into a corner and you’ll clinging to the wrong horse. There is absolutely no indicator that Bloomberg has any evidence or credible sources whatsoever, and even their only named source has called bullshit on them. There are no indicators that “it may not be entirely fabricated” as you claim. That’s just a FUD pellet. Mmm, FUUUUD....
Not only boxing him into a corner, it also showing he’s not really that smart. Clearly not as smart as he think he is if he bet on this Bloomberg story. Personally I’d say he’s quite dumb since everyone here can see his agenda from 5 miles away.
Comments
And this story is even more damning:
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/10/09/big-hack-doubts
No because that’s fucking stupid, since Apple wouldn’t lie to their investors and customers and ruin their credibility just because some beauracy wanted them to.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/207666/security-researcher-cited-in-bloombergs-china-spy-chip-investigation-casts-doubt-on-story/p1
Exactly!
Yes, a Constitutional take. Yes, just compensation. Yes, you can appeal that to the US Supreme Court. And no, I won't post a manifesto on that.
Your agenda has boxed you into a corner and you’ll clinging to the wrong horse. There is absolutely no indicator that Bloomberg has any evidence or credible sources whatsoever, and even their only named source has called bullshit on them. There are no indicators that “it may not be entirely fabricated” as you claim. That’s just a FUD pellet. Mmm, FUUUUD....
Cling to that floating FUD life raft, man! Hold it tight, now! Don’t let it get away from you!
If Bloomberg it trying to imply this guy did work for Apple and this guy told them about his work but left out Apple's name specifically I would say Apple would have bar him from saying anything. I work with Suppliers who worked with Apple it was know since their parts were in Apple products. When we asking them about this they said they could not comment on anything they may or may not be doing with Apple. Some suppliers even said they had not idea their parts were selected for an Apple product until it showed up in the product.
We all know Apple is very good at keeping secrets and if they told this guy to keep his mouth shut with an NDA it barred him from any conversations.
I think its is a reach to think apple server farms pose a national security risk. Yes NDA can not stop a whistle blower. An NDA can not protect a company from illegal activities. If Apple's servers farms were compromised what laws are being broken by hiring someone to do a network security check.
Did you see my comment that apple is publicly traded company and if they just made a factually wrong statement they would be open to lawsuits even if the US government said to keep their mouth shut. Do you think the SEC cares what the NSA or CIA think.
This is kind of like the issue which Intel had an issue with their processors and a small group of companies and the government knew about, everyone agree to keep their mouths shut until Intel and others had a chance to address the issue.
This is not the case here, Apple made a public statement that Bloomberg facts specific to Apple were wrong. Apple never said the hack did not exist, only they had no servers which were effected and they check all their equipment to verify this was the case.
Personally I’d say he’s quite dumb since everyone here can see his agenda from 5 miles away.