But to intentionally publish such an inflammatory article, knowing to be false, which implicates two of America's most influential corporates just seems like absolute professional suicide to me.
Would that create the appropriate incentive to explain this behavior?
It's a niche-specific metric for rewarding the same thing every publication does - reader interest. If a reader is interested in a financial article, pretty much by definition it will alter their market behaviour.
I actually agree, as with all journalism, that there is some incentive to write exaggerated articles. But it rarely causes respectable journalists to fabricate stories, and I can't see how this would be any different.
Independent 3rd party review is needed.
- Chinese did in fact make firmware implants, but purely software based (no chips).
- hacks were highly targeted, aimed at Elemental (CIA drone feeds) AMAZON (aws) APPLE (iCloud).
Both denied by Apple in 2016, "Apple spokesperson has denied there was any security incident", but "miraculously" confirmed right now https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/what-businessweek-got..., admitting 2016 deny was a lie after all, but we arent lying this time, promise!
- CIA detected these attacks early and managed to inject itself into the data patch between hacked systems and China. Just imagine the power of welding such a tool. You have the ability to cut the hack at any moment you like, block certain information from leaking, INJECT your own misinformation, and most importantly you get to keep all the data being exfiltrated. Win win win win.
- and all of a sudden some stupid unpatriotic journalists spoil one of your biggest, most successful counter intelligence operations.
One is that there is some secret keeping happening. Either only a handful of people actually know and they aren't talking and the people issuing denials aren't them, or there is some kind of significant pressure from the US or China to keep this quiet and the companies are complying.
Or there could be some kind of misunderstanding. The story is half true but some details are wrong so people are looking in the wrong places or asking the wrong people. This happens sometimes with anonymous sources. You get fifteen people confirming most of the details but only one is offering the name of the company or some specific detail of the attack and that person got that detail wrong, something like that.
Or the entire story could be unadulterated crap. The problem with this one is that we can't ever be really sure it was the case, and it will be at least a couple of months without any form of hard evidence or corroboration before it makes sense for people to stop looking for it.
Also, why the need to make up a false story to make China look bad? There are plenty real issues that make China look bad. Before I get accused of some anti-China bias, the same could be said of the US. If I wanted to make the US look bad I'd focus on any myriad of foreign policy or domestic concerns that show it's failings before I concocted a story that would soon be discovered to be a fabrication.
Besides, it's more shocking if the Chinese hacked an American manufacturer rather than a Chinese one (where they would't necessarily have to "hack" anything, just compel the manufacturer to do it)
Bloomberg would not be lying purposely but they might got "owned".
Those corporation might have been instructed to lie, and they might have an interest to.
To put into context, I usually take peer reviewed reports as 95% as true (academic standards are even higher). Use those benchmarks as you will to adjust your priors.
> Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards.
> Apple has never found malicious chips, “hardware manipulations” or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server.
Why did they say "purposely planted" here? Were they trying to exclude the possibility of malicious chips being accidentally planted in any server? Is that even a thing? If so, why? If not, then why include those qualifiers if they are unnecessary?
Every webstory is quoting that same excerpt - if the entire letter was printed somewhere, I can't find it.
Not sure what to make of the current hardware backdoor story, anon sources are practically useless, but I study this stuff and the VP is being charitable on the real subjects.
One can only wonder if this story is due to the other.
Not that long time ago the bosses of tobacco industry sweared that smoking have nothing todo with cancer..
words come and go.. and noone listens. or remembers.
btw there's no bad advertisement, only a missing one..
Sounds like some weasel wording to me, and of course they can't admit it because of their huge push to be seen as a 'secure' company to store your data with.
Weasel wording is what a bad salesman does. It doesn't fly in court or in congress.
I think this was a warning to some companies to return their fab processes to the USA or at least vouch to better the anti-tampering verification methods to protect from foreign state actors.
If the breaches are confirmed there will be a lot more damage to the stock market, but it all depends on how that would happen.
I really hope they don't throw the baby out along with the bathwater.
(The statute of limitations for charging Clapper has now run out.)
The “under oath” part is just farce now.