You only know that because the source wasn't anonymous. If the source was anonymous, the reporter would have asked you or me if it was possible, we would have said yes...
-
-
Replying to @taviso @cynicalsecurity and
If the source had been multiple IC officials in two administrations AND senior sources inside the affected companies, I would not have ruled it out. What happened with BadBIOS is one random person made an unsubstantiated claim, then nobody and nothing corroborated it.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @taviso and
Plus the source then released evidence that didn’t make any sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @cynicalsecurity and
Yes, but if that hadn't happened, and instead it was quietly discussed behind closed doors, would look exactly like what we have here, no? Qualified, intelligent well-connected people who work in threat intelligence could spin a plausible delusion, no?
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @taviso @matthew_d_green and
Or it is a case of the journalists connecting their dots in the wrong way. E.g.: there were hardware backdoor(s) found on mainboards & discussed at that meeting, maybe technically different than described, and the timing of Apple and Amazon activities was a spurious correlation.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @frank_rieger @taviso and
This isn’t some quick speculative Ars Technica piece. Getting this wrong after the denials potentially means Bloomberg’s ass on a platter. I think they asked their sources “are you sure about this”.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @frank_rieger and
In what way exactly is Bloomberg’s ass on the platter? All their sources are anonymous… at worst they get sued by SuperMicro for making their stock tank, assuming they survive long enough to do so. They settle out of court and continue as always.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cynicalsecurity @frank_rieger and
SuperMicro can claim hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Lawyers don’t let you gamble with that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @frank_rieger and
And you are certain Bloomberg never ever wrote an article which turned out to be dramatically wrong in other fields and survived to tell the story?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cynicalsecurity @frank_rieger and
I just think that *in this particular case* they confirmed with their sources very carefully before they published these words.pic.twitter.com/ovyhNyFoIA
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Buzzfeed has three "very" senior executive apple insiders saying the exact opposite. But bonus, they say they have more insiders as well, so Buzzfeed win, right?
pic.twitter.com/RMjZCaKgwq
-
-
Replying to @taviso @matthew_d_green and
Tavis Ormandy Retweeted Patrick Gray
And don't pull any reputation claims on me, these Bloomberg reporters have a history of posting articles with anonymous sources that later turn out to be untrue. I think fake/mentally ill/exaggerating sources are a real possibility.https://twitter.com/riskybusiness/status/1048350456349483008 …
Tavis Ormandy added,
2 replies 2 retweets 18 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.