Supermicro Backdoor Skepticism

Are you referring to the debunked Bloomberg story about magical backdoors in chips?

I am skeptical of the story. Bloomberg should have at least had pictures of the chips on a board, something from reality. Instead they had illustrations. These were commercially available products, they should have independently found a smoking gun board sample with such chips and analyzed it, and not take their sources' word for it. This seems like a planted story to me.

There should be hundreds of thousands or millions of these hacked motherboards, and nobody has found a single one despite hardware geeks worldwide searching like it was Willy Wonka's final golden ticket. This story was bogus, it most likely came from a ton of rumors that got conflated, hence why they had to go with anonymous sources as opposed to any physical evidence. I'd be surprised if Bloomberg has any credibility in tech journalism by the end of the year, and a good chance they ma

Absolutely correct, but extraordinary claims require proof. I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong, and of course I could be, but there is no indication that this is anything other than Bloomberg being misled at this point. Location of clearly exploited hardware, acknowledgement by anyone involved, or analysis of traffic from one of these boards would all corroborate the story.

This is Bloomberg, the same news site that made outrageous and still-unsubstantiated claims about hardware backdoors in Supermicro's motherboards. Sadly this kind of media drives profits and with no repercussions has become par for the course with companies like Bloomberg.

[dupe]Some more in the Business Insider article which is even more on point because they weren't "sure" if it was real: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40162523

Has Bloomberg retracted their chip hack story from 4 years ago?

Looks like Bloomberg is doing the same as with the "implant" rumors and Supermicro a few months ago.Gruber has a very nice disclaimer at the bottom of posts mentioning Bloomberg now:"Bloomberg, of course, is the publication that published “The Big Hack” last October — a sensational story alleging that data centers of Apple, Amazon, and dozens of other companies were compromised by China’s intelligence services. The story presented no confirmable evidence at all, was vehement

Too bad that nobody ever managed to find any of those tiny super spy chips, even three years later.But hey: The poop was thrown, some of it stuck, and now you are repeating it as established fact, when even the sources named in the Bloomberg piece found it quite lacking after publication [0]So the narrative successfully did it's FUD job, and here we are under a post about yet another Bloomberg headline that nobody even questions in the slightest.[0] <a href="https://9to5m

warning: this article is originally from Bloomberg. I have never trusted them since the SuperMicro/Apple Big Hack unverified story.