Groo (charlie.delete@this.semiaccurate.com) on October 6, 2018 7:01 am wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on October 4, 2018 8:23 am wrote:
> > Bloomberg released a fantastic report on Chinese intelligence inserting malicious
> > HW into supply chains for servers: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies?srnd=premium
> >
> > It sure gives a different angle to the move to a hardware root-of-trust by the industry. In reality though,
> > I'm not sure if HW RoT is sufficient. You can always sniff capacitance across an exposed wire!
> >
> The more I dig into this the more I think it is BS. Why? Other than the obvious denials
> from the companies involved, I have dealt with Bloomberg on many occasions:
>
> https://www.semiaccurate.com/2012/10/08/bloomberg-wrong-about-intels-woes/
>
> The above is the one public one but the emails I have are a lot more damning but I can't print those. I don't
> trust the company as far as I can throw them. When they screw you and you question them, they say some pretty
> curious things. When you call them on it with their written code of conduct, they stop responding.
>
> I can say that I have directly seen Bloomberg reporters ignore direct factual statements and
> evidence from the source to write a piece that ultimately proved to be dead wrong. Based on the
> Apple and other statements, I am heavily leaning toward this being another case like that.
>
> -Charlie
>
>

Given the various denials and the thus far complete lack of hard evidence, it is not obvious that this story is factual. That however makes it hard to understand why Bloomberg published it.

Bloomberg has enough business sense to know this report damages China's reputation, something the Chinese government is quite sensitive about. There will be long term negative consequences for Bloomberg in China. What could Bloomberg gain to offset that?