That the theory presented (inserting a microcontroller INSIDE a circuit board) is absolutely the hardest way to do things, especially when the article (esp. the article's graphics) heavily implied this chip was implanted right next to the empty pad of an SOT-8 footprint that was used for boot flash for the BMC. You could just put a chip on that empty footprint and hardly anyone would catch it.
Or there are the specific quotes from the Bloomberg piece -- "the microchip altered the operating system's core so it could accept modifications" -- is so obtuse that it not only fails to inform the reader, but also sounds like some sort of pseudo-technobabble from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Ostensibly, if this story were true, the sources would say something like, "this chip contained a code that overwrote settings, allowing remote access". You know, something that seems like it passed through an editor.
Or there is the fact that the source checking on the story amounted to going to one guy, asking a question, having him say, "yeah, that's possible", coming back a few weeks later with another question, having the source say, "yeah, that's possible too", and assuming these possibilities add up to a certainty.
The bloomberg big hack story is the worst researched and most poorly presented piece of writing in recent memory. It is idiocy in the classical greek sense -- it is disconnected from the polis and any semblance of reality. The authors are still writing for Bloomberg, too.
> That the theory presented (inserting a microcontroller INSIDE a circuit board) is absolutely the hardest way to do things, especially when the article (esp. the article's graphics) heavily implied this chip was implanted right next to the empty pad of an SOT-8 footprint that was used for boot flash for the BMC. You could just put a chip on that empty footprint and hardly anyone would catch it.
Except if they were looking for it. An implant inside the board would be persistent across swapping out or re-imaging the the flash, _and_ wouldn't benoticable unless you were x-raying the board.
And yeah, the graphics weren't perfect, welcome to journalism.
> Or there are the specific quotes from the Bloomberg piece -- "the microchip altered the operating system's core so it could accept modifications" -- is so obtuse that it not only fails to inform the reader, but also sounds like some sort of pseudo-technobabble from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Ostensibly, if this story were true, the sources would say something like, "this chip contained a code that overwrote settings, allowing remote access". You know, something that seems like it passed through an editor.
IDK, it sounds like the implant would override one of the keys built into the image, whether that's an update key or a remote access key.
> Or there is the fact that the source checking on the story amounted to going to one guy, asking a question, having him say, "yeah, that's possible", coming back a few weeks later with another question, having the source say, "yeah, that's possible too", and assuming these possibilities add up to a certainty.
> The bloomberg big hack story is the worst researched and most poorly presented piece of writing in recent memory. It is idiocy in the classical greek sense -- it is disconnected from the polis and any semblance of reality. The authors are still writing for Bloomberg, too.
I still haven't heard a legitimate reason from you what doesn't make sense here other than vague "this doens't make sense, I'm so much more intelligent than them".
And I'm an FPGA developer who's personally screwed up SPI flashes via a very similar mechanisms just from bugs.
The entire comment seemed constructive to me. The part I assume you take issue with was constructive, if not worded as nicely as it could have been. The comment appears at least to have been made in good faith, and it's possible that one portion wasn't meant as negatively as you took it. In any case, it's a small minority of the original content of the comment.
I would be interested in your response, as it seems you both present yourself as having good information regarding what is likely or possible in n this space, yet seem to have very different ideas as to what that is.
