rob53
About
- Username
- rob53
- Joined
- Visits
- 273
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 9,125
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 3,383
Reactions
-
Department of Homeland Security chimes in on iCloud server spy chip allegations
mwhite, who are you to dispute gatorguy's statements? Declare your real name and your experience in this issue. gatorguy's been around a long time and has some inside and informative information even though I don't always agree with him or his political ideals. As for me, I have >30 years working as a subcontractor for a branch of the US government so I've seen boards checked out when they arrive.mwhite said:
So who are you the all seeing and all knowing gator??? I don't think so.....gatorguy said:
The "firmware issue" you mention was reportedly finding a non-matching and non-official firmware version on one of the servers in a lab. When the suspicious software was reported to Supermicro Apple said it came directly from Supermicro hosted files on their secure site. Supermicro said no it didn't, it was not a valid version number and asked for further information and clarification. I'm 100% sure Apple would have been just a tad curious at that point how it got there if it wasn't official firmware just as Supermicro would have been. But instead Apple stopped cooperation and communication at that point.tmay said:
So, Bloomberg decided to implicate Amazon and Apple, not the other 28 companies, just to create the more menacing hardware story, all the while lacking specific data on what actually happened to the hardware, if anything?gatorguy said:AI: "Thursday's story claimed Chinese operatives managed to sneak a microchip the size of a grain of rice onto 7000 motherboards produced by Supermicro, which supplied those compromised parts for use in Apple's iCloud data centers."
Didn't Bloomberg actually say it wasn't known if any of the 7000 servers already in use were compromised? I don't them saying anywhere in the article that they were, only that Apple had 7000 in use that potentially could have been. Of note Apple claims no servers were sent back to Supermicro, but in 2015 the supplier themselves said exactly that, Apple was returning recently purchased servers. No reason for Supermicro to say Apple sent servers back unless they had.
After reading the article, I was under the impression that Apple shipped the servers back due to firmware issues, not any hardware shortcoming.
That's an odd response if true, and that didn't originate from the Bloomberg story either. Those statements of supposerd fact were made by Supermicro themselves.
So three current incongruences stand out to me as of this morning:
-Apple said they didn't send servers back, just cancelled further purchases sometime later. Supermicro themselves says that's not correct, Apple was already sending back servers previously sold to them.
- According again to Supermicro executives speaking on the record:
When a suspicious firmware update was discovered on an Apple server previously purchased from Supermicro in 2015 and were advised it did not come from them despite what Apple believed at the time Apple stopped communication on the issue rather than pursuing it with Supermicro to get to the bottom of it.
-No current Apple executive has been willing to be quoted on the record disputing the Bloomberg story, only communicating "anonymously" with any statements from Apple coming only from the PR department AFAIK.
Apple's former Chief Legal Officer Bruce Sewell was offered as evidence and spoke on the record, but he's retired and no longer represents them. Where's the current Chief Legal Officer's statement? Or Cook's for that matter?
Still siding with Apple and Amazon but not nearly as convinced as I was 48 hours ago.
My original statement on a previous article was Bloomberg is simply trying to disrupt the stock market, going after Apple and Amazon, with speculation based on hearsay. Let's see some actual proof in the form of actual computer boards sold to any US company with the nefarious chip. As for firmware, everyone who's ever dealt with Symantec knows all about corrupted downloads that brick computers. Microsoft, and others, do the same thing as do disk drive vendors with their collection of toxic software installed on drives destined for consumers who usually haven't the faintest idea what they're getting.
-
Does Apple have any premium buyers left for the iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max?
I bought an 8 plus last September and will probably order the Xs (Apple shows it as iPhone Xs and Xs Max on the tech spec page so not sure why forums are using the capital S and all caps for MAX). I like the smaller form factor especially since the display area is the same size. The XR actually is the same physical size as my 8 Plus, which I like but it's also awkward in my front pocket. I'll either sell my 8 Plus back to Apple (their website is saying $400 right now) or sell it to a family member. I'll wait until my Costco cash reward comes in February to buy it since it will pay for a large portion of it. As for the cost, it's less expensive than buying a new Mac and I'm finding I use my phone for more things than my Mac.wood1208 said:Yes, but how many ? Will find out in a year!! Within iPhone ecosystem when iPhone 8 Plus users want to upgrade, which one they will upgrade to ? Only problem is iPhone XR to take away buyers from XS and XS MAX.
As for all the nimrod analysts spouting garbage I could care less. They're like stock brokers--they make money whether they sell or buy so they always win. And there's no use trying to compare Apple products to any other hardware company because nobody, and I mean nobody, has anywhere near the quality and security line of products that Apple does. Everyone knows it and those who don't buy Apple products either are in constant denial or are comfortable buying cheap garbage. (Saw an article about the latest Samsung something catching fire again.)DAalseth said:The question though, is will this hold true if there is another 10%-25% on top of the list prices. Tariffs throw a whole different complication into the mix.
Tariffs will affect the cost but they're affecting the cost of everything. I noticed on the Grizzly website, they're listing the tariff as a line item so people know where the extra cost is coming from.
-
Privacy not absolute: US among consortium of nations calling for encryption back doors
The only chance for a secure backdoor isn't a back door at all, it's simply government control of every computing device using typical device management software, complete with a "secure" certificate (haha) that allows a second person to access your device. This is done all the time in government agencies and many commercial businesses but it's because the data on these devices is owned by the company running them. Personal devices are totally different but these five (stupid) governments just don't seem to get the difference. They've always had someone else monitoring what they have on their devices so they don't know the difference. As for stronger encryption, managed systems don't need anything stronger, they just need adequate firewalls and edge protection devices that protect systems from outside intrusion. As for personal devices, forget it. We will lose any protection of everything we own because too few people actually care about it. It's only the people on forums like this who actually understand what the lose of protection actually means to us and everyone else.blastdoor said:A secure "backdoor" for governments to lawfully obtain personal/private information in order to pursue criminals and protect law-abiding citizens would be a very good thing
An insecure "backdoor" that criminals or hostile governments could use to access the private information of law-abiding citizens (or companies, or governments) would be a very bad thing
The problem is that a "secure backdoor" simply may not exist, and any attempts to create one might land us in the second case.
I wonder if a solution might be to have variation in encryption schemes with respect to the computational cost of breaking the encryption. So, encryption of personal communication among ordinary folks (iMessage, mail, social media, etc) uses encryption that is strong enough that it can't be broken using, say, a $10k computer crunching for a week but can be broken using, say, a $1 million computer crunching for an hour or two.
Then use progressively stronger (aka, more costly to break) encryption for higher value data and for more trusted individuals/groups.
I used to be one of those people who monitored the improper use of government devices.
-
Apple's iPhone estimated third on units, number one in revenue in China
Why should Wall Street gamblers get any of this money? Apple's profits don't impact any income investors get other than through dividends. None of Apple's profits are "paid" to Wall Street. Wall Street is one big gambling pot paid for by stock buyers, not by any profits by corporations. Apple doesn't owe Wall Street anything, especially since Wall Street is so corrupt in the way it manipulates AAPL stock.nunzy said:Apple doesn't care about market share. They suck up all the profitss instead. The real trick is how they can get that money back into the US so it can be paid to Wall Street.
-
Intel's next iPhone cellular modem could completely replace Qualcomm chips
Who else makes mobile phone modems other than Qualcomm and Intel? Not counting China-only modems. I don't believe anyone else makes CDMA modems other than Qualcomm, at least not until Intel comes out with one. You can say Qualcomm makes the best modems but they appear to have cornered the market, legally or illegally.Koll3man said:
Yeah big win for Apple, not so much for future iPhone users but who cares Qualcomm makes the best mobile phone modems? These are just unimportant details.nunzy said:Bye bye, Qualcomm. Maybe suing Apple was a bad idea, eh?
