Seriously if I could make evil semiconductors I would just replace one which is already present rather than adding it. Show me a picture of its alleged placement and then maybe we will have something to work with here, otherwise zero evidence.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @AndreaBarisani
Rich Felker Retweeted Hector Martin
Here is the alleged placement:https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1047806561760890880 …
Rich Felker added,
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
That is loose interpretation based on a GIF animation of a board which doesn’t even appear to be the one involved in the article.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AndreaBarisani @RichFelker
And don’t get me wrong,
@marcan42 is awesome and knows is stuff, one of the few that knows what he his talking about. But this is only an alleged placement and still no facts are on the table.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @AndreaBarisani @RichFelker
The GIF from the article does match the blades used in the later diagrams. I'm only saying the theory has some internal consistency, which at least means if the story is made up, someone tried reasonably hard. It's walking a fine line of plausibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
But yes, personally, I think it makes a hell of a lot more sense to just replace the actual SPI flash IC with an MCM containing the implant right inside. Good luck noticing that without xraying every chip.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Hector Martin Retweeted Hector Martin
Alternate take: they stuck a fake coil on top of a more standard chip package, and the whole photoshoot is based on Bloomberg getting the wrong kind of "signal conditioning coupler".https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1047938864579469312 …
Hector Martin added,
Hector Martin @marcan42That said... *this* is also a signal conditioning coupler, and *that* is a Supermicro motherboard. Note how, conveniently, it's a coil on top of an IC-like package. Maybe it's *this* is what they were talking about, and the specific type got lost in journalization. pic.twitter.com/m4Zs98YHu5Show this thread1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @marcan42 @RichFelker
It would be so much easier if we didn’t have to speculate...everyone is looking too hard because the article is scarce of facts :(. I am sure we can make up dozens ways on how what is described could be accomplished. And we wouldn’t be closer to the truth. This is the core issue.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @AndreaBarisani @RichFelker
This. It's sad, because presumably
@BW is a reputable publication, so we're inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt, but they aren't helping us at all. If some random were making these claims in a similar way I'd mostly likely write them off without further evidence.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @marcan42 @AndreaBarisani and
Even then, we've seen cases of knowledgeable security professionals develop mental illness and delusions. Just because you can articulate a plausible supply chain attack coherently doesn't mean it actually happened.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
Absolutely. The only reason I'm giving this more credibility upfront than *that* incident is because I'm *assuming* multiple people were involved here and this doesn't all stem from one person's delusions.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.