Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #28136 > unrolled thread

Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor?

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded

Contents

  Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-05 09:29 +1000
    Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 01:14 +0100
    Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-05 07:27 +0000
      Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Gene Filatov <evgeny.filatov@ieee.org> - 2018-10-05 11:12 +0300
        Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-05 08:41 +0000
    Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-10-05 16:28 +0100
      Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2018-10-05 09:34 -0700
        Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-10-05 20:59 +0100
      Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:37 -0700
      Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-05 20:12 -0700
        Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-06 13:42 +1000
          Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-05 21:02 -0700
            Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 04:09 -0700
          Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? <698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> - 2018-10-06 06:03 +0000
            Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 04:22 -0700
        Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-06 08:45 +0000
          Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-06 08:51 -0700
            Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-06 16:42 +0000
              Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2018-10-06 19:55 +0300
                Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 19:29 +0100
                  Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DLUNU <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> - 2018-10-06 22:41 +0000
                    Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2018-10-07 02:07 +0300
                    Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-10-07 11:56 +1100
                      Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2018-10-07 03:46 +0000
                Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DLUNU <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> - 2018-10-06 22:40 +0000
                  Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2018-10-07 02:05 +0300
                  Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2018-10-07 01:36 +0100
              Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-06 20:14 -0700
                Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-10-07 08:07 +0100
                Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DLUNU <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> - 2018-10-07 14:09 +0000
                  Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2018-10-07 08:55 -0700
                    Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-08 00:50 +0000
                    Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-08 00:51 +0000
        Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2018-10-06 08:50 +0000
        Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 04:02 -0700
    Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? julio@diegidio.name - 2018-10-06 22:22 -0700
    Re: Supermicro server motherboards with hardware backdoor? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-10-12 08:21 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#28163

Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> wrote in news:ppauu1$11ja$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

> I wouldn't touch win 10 with yours, never mind my own. Completely
> untrustworthy if you value personal or even corporate privacy.
> Modern systems are getting so complex, who can verify what's been
> hidden in either the hardware or software ?.
> 

Ummm...  the millions of folks using it.  Particularly the pro 
installations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28165

On 07.10.2018 г. 01:41, DLUNU wrote:
> Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> wrote in news:ppauu1$11ja$1
> @gioia.aioe.org:
>
>> I wouldn't touch win 10 with yours, never mind my own. Completely
>> untrustworthy if you value personal or even corporate privacy.
>> Modern systems are getting so complex, who can verify what's been
>> hidden in either the hardware or software ?.
>>
>
> Ummm...  the millions of folks using it.  Particularly the pro
> installations.
>

Millions or billions of users do not change the facts.
Yes, millions are hooked and have no reasonable escape option,
which is why windows 10 still has a market share - and why nobody
cares to try to make something to replace it, because the effort
looks (is) doomed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28167

On 07/10/18 09:41, DLUNU wrote:
> Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> wrote in news:ppauu1$11ja$1
> @gioia.aioe.org:
> 
>> I wouldn't touch win 10 with yours, never mind my own. Completely
>> untrustworthy if you value personal or even corporate privacy.
>> Modern systems are getting so complex, who can verify what's been
>> hidden in either the hardware or software ?.
>>
> 
> Ummm...  the millions of folks using it.  Particularly the pro
> installations.

Microsoft doesn't have users. They have hostages.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28169

On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 11:56:53 +1100, Clifford Heath wrote:

> On 07/10/18 09:41, DLUNU wrote:
>> Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> wrote in news:ppauu1$11ja$1
>> @gioia.aioe.org:
>> 
>>> I wouldn't touch win 10 with yours, never mind my own. Completely
>>> untrustworthy if you value personal or even corporate privacy. Modern
>>> systems are getting so complex, who can verify what's been hidden in
>>> either the hardware or software ?.
>>>
>>>
>> Ummm...  the millions of folks using it.  Particularly the pro
>> installations.
> 
> Microsoft doesn't have users. They have hostages.

 Succinctly put! :-)

 The last of Microsoft's customers who could still regard themselves as 
"Users" were running win2kSP4. After that with winXP, Microsoft's 
customers were on the downhill slope to becoming hostages. It started 
gently at first becoming a cliff like plummet into the depths of what 
Microsoft rather ironically named "Vista", after which it somehow just 
kept going from bad to worse.

-- 
Johnny B Good

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28162

Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in news:ppapdd$s8$1@dont-email.me:

> 
> At that frequency of "updates" I hear windows 10 is doing backing up a
> a few terabytes all the time sounds the practical thing to do, yeah.
> 

The word for today is "Incremental"

  No guarantees that it will get properly interpreted.

  Still not convinced that it ws the update that caused it.  Perhaps there 
was activity taking place during the update that should not have been.

  I set all my machines to manual and update regularly with that being all 
that runs during the update.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28164

On 07.10.2018 г. 01:40, DLUNU wrote:
> Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in news:ppapdd$s8$1@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>> At that frequency of "updates" I hear windows 10 is doing backing up a
>> a few terabytes all the time sounds the practical thing to do, yeah.
>>
>
> The word for today is "Incremental"
>
>    No guarantees that it will get properly interpreted.
>
>    Still not convinced that it ws the update that caused it.  Perhaps there
> was activity taking place during the update that should not have been.
>
>    I set all my machines to manual and update regularly with that being all
> that runs during the update.
>

Do you claim you can switch autoupdate on windows 10 and go manually?
That would be news I suppose.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28166

On 10/06/18 23:40, DLUNU wrote:
> Dimiter_Popoff<dp@tgi-sci.com>  wrote in news:ppapdd$s8$1@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>> At that frequency of "updates" I hear windows 10 is doing backing up a
>> a few terabytes all the time sounds the practical thing to do, yeah.
>>
>
> The word for today is "Incremental"
>
>    No guarantees that it will get properly interpreted.
>
>    Still not convinced that it ws the update that caused it.  Perhaps there
> was activity taking place during the update that should not have been.
>
>    I set all my machines to manual and update regularly with that being all
> that runs during the update.

Good luck with that, wading back through all the incrementals for
system recovery. Sounds like seriously hard work for present day
sysadmins :-)...

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28168

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 16:42:01 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in 
>news:gskhrdtud3u1jf0fi8un1si04cja0t9382@4ax.com:
>
>>>Always backup first for one thing, and I still 
>>>think you did something to cause the loss.
>> 
>> The first step to solving a problem really is to blame someone, but
>> never blame the person in charge of fixing the problem.  They might
>> get angry and do nothing.

>Especially when the FIRST thing they are ALWAYS supposed to do is perform a 
>backup.  Yeah...  you might get angry and...  start blaming Microsoft for 
>your missteps.

Well, ok.  If you need a detailed procedure on how to assign the
blame, I can provide one.

1.  The first step is to deny that there's a problem.  If the problem
goes away, you win, and can stop right here.  If not, precede to the
next step.
2.  The next step is to misidentify the problem in a manner that
deflects the blame from the obvious culprit and delivers it to your
worst enemy.  For example, if Microsoft delivers a self destructive
Windoze update, it must be President Trump's fault.
3.  When blaming your worst enemy no longer draws the necessary
attention, the next step is to blame the innocent.  The could mean a
former employee, another department, the janitor, or anyone who is
incapable of properly defending themselves.  
4.  Blaming the innocent will inevitably fail, but should give you
time for the next step, which is appoint a committee of luminaries,
experts, academics, and con artists who will approach the problem from
as many directions as there are members, and reach an equal number of
conclusions.  Extra credit for also providing an equal number of
useless solutions to the problem.
5.  When the committee inevitably fails, a very expensive consultant
will be hired to properly assign the blame.  Of course he will be
hired by the obvious culprit who cannot be blamed or the consultant
might not get paid. 
6.  The absence of a suitable culprit is not a sufficient reason to
bypass the punishment phase of the process.  No progress can be made
unless someone has been punished for allowing things to gone wrong.
Generally, it will be someone already scheduled for early retirement,
or perhaps someone who is disliked by management.  Once out of the
way, this person can also be blamed for a variety of other things that
have gone wrong.  Don't worry, they won't talk because they are
collecting their golden parachute retirement pay off.

I forgot to mention if someone accidentally finds the initiative to
make a proper backup, the backup media will soon disappear to insure
that the backup thief gets credit for finding the all important
backups after a frantic search.

I hope this help you understand the process should anyone actually
trust you do solve a computer problem.

(Hint:  File by file incremental backups suck and are a giant time
burn.  Backing up only user data is worse.  The only backup that
really works for me are image backups and rsync type backups).


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28171

On 07/10/18 04:14, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 16:42:01 +0000 (UTC),
> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
> 
>> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
>> news:gskhrdtud3u1jf0fi8un1si04cja0t9382@4ax.com:
>>
>>>> Always backup first for one thing, and I still
>>>> think you did something to cause the loss.
>>>
>>> The first step to solving a problem really is to blame someone, but
>>> never blame the person in charge of fixing the problem.  They might
>>> get angry and do nothing.
> 
>> Especially when the FIRST thing they are ALWAYS supposed to do is perform a
>> backup.  Yeah...  you might get angry and...  start blaming Microsoft for
>> your missteps.
> 
> Well, ok.  If you need a detailed procedure on how to assign the
> blame, I can provide one.
> 
> 1.  The first step is to deny that there's a problem.  If the problem
> goes away, you win, and can stop right here.  If not, precede to the
> next step.
> 2.  The next step is to misidentify the problem in a manner that
> deflects the blame from the obvious culprit and delivers it to your
> worst enemy.  For example, if Microsoft delivers a self destructive
> Windoze update, it must be President Trump's fault.
> 3.  When blaming your worst enemy no longer draws the necessary
> attention, the next step is to blame the innocent.  The could mean a
> former employee, another department, the janitor, or anyone who is
> incapable of properly defending themselves.
> 4.  Blaming the innocent will inevitably fail, but should give you
> time for the next step, which is appoint a committee of luminaries,
> experts, academics, and con artists who will approach the problem from
> as many directions as there are members, and reach an equal number of
> conclusions.  Extra credit for also providing an equal number of
> useless solutions to the problem.
> 5.  When the committee inevitably fails, a very expensive consultant
> will be hired to properly assign the blame.  Of course he will be
> hired by the obvious culprit who cannot be blamed or the consultant
> might not get paid.
> 6.  The absence of a suitable culprit is not a sufficient reason to
> bypass the punishment phase of the process.  No progress can be made
> unless someone has been punished for allowing things to gone wrong.
> Generally, it will be someone already scheduled for early retirement,
> or perhaps someone who is disliked by management.  Once out of the
> way, this person can also be blamed for a variety of other things that
> have gone wrong.  Don't worry, they won't talk because they are
> collecting their golden parachute retirement pay off.
> 
> I forgot to mention if someone accidentally finds the initiative to
> make a proper backup, the backup media will soon disappear to insure
> that the backup thief gets credit for finding the all important
> backups after a frantic search.
> 
> I hope this help you understand the process should anyone actually
> trust you do solve a computer problem.

That lot is also true for political problems, e.g. nomination processes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28172

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in 
news:jvsirdhfd1vgt8c8a78b6o0sd0im2s3bt7@4ax.com:

> I hope this help you understand the process should anyone actually
> trust you do solve a computer problem.
> 

You are worse than a troll.  You actually believe that bullshit you spewed.
Man, the truth must have had some hellish sting to it for you to get so 
angry over it.

  I understand computer science, so getting your thumbs up on my 
capabilities is hardly my goal.  You do not see me blaming the scientists.
Especially not those whom have been doing it decades longer than you have. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28173

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 14:09:31 +0000 (UTC), DLUNU
<DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@DLU.org> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in 
>news:jvsirdhfd1vgt8c8a78b6o0sd0im2s3bt7@4ax.com:
>
>> I hope this help you understand the process should anyone actually
>> trust you do solve a computer problem.

>You are worse than a troll.

Ah, my favorite topic... me.

Please keep things simple.  I am a troll.  I like to write provocative
and inflammatory drivel and poetry.  Oddly, you're the only person who
seems to be provoked or inflamed.

>You actually believe that bullshit you spewed.

Well yes, I wrote it, therefore it's a fair assumption that I believe
what I write.  I only have one requirement.  Whatever I write must be
worth reading.  With the exception of this message, I suspect that
I've done rather well.

>Man, the truth must have had some hellish sting to it for you to get so 
>angry over it.

Hardly.  If I write something, by definition it is my truth.  Whether
you believe my truths is optional.  I don't pretend to have any effect
on your version of the truth.  I simply add some entertainment value
while trying to understand how you think.  It's much like shooting
neutrons into a fissionable atom, hoping to hit the tiny nucleus, and
then take inventory of what comes flying out.  Judging by the debris
trail behind your logic, that could become a major project and
possibly the topic of a research report.

>I understand computer science, so getting your thumbs up on my 
>capabilities is hardly my goal.  You do not see me blaming the scientists.

I am not a computah scientist.  I perform damage control on the
mistakes of computah scientists.  I don't blame them for anything
because I'm profiting from their mistakes.  I much prefer to blame
government agencies, large corporations, and industry organizations.

>Especially not those whom have been doing it decades longer than you have. 

Doing what?  I've been fixing computahs to support my decadent and
lavish lifestyle since 1983.  That's 3.5 decades experience saving
customers from the end products of computer science.  Longer if you
include my computah hobby phase.  What is "it" that you have been
doing?


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28174

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in 
news:fo8krd9ev9copdrltj8tgb4tgj492hnj3r@4ax.com:

> I am not a computah scientist.  I perform damage control on the
> mistakes of computah scientists.  

Yer an idiot, at best.  Reputah Le Buta...  I'd kick you right in the knee, 
green teeth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28175

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in 
news:fo8krd9ev9copdrltj8tgb4tgj492hnj3r@4ax.com:

> That's 3.5 decades experience saving
> customers from the end products of computer science.  

You are so utterly full of shit, child.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28154

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in 
news:n07grdlc3jdr2ssnej54fakvilrdka07u1@4ax.com:

> Microsoft's October 2018 Windoze 10 update destroying customer data.

Bullshit.  Operator error.  Always backup first for one thing, and I still 
think you did something to cause the loss.  And you do not have an 
instantaneous mirror on another machine for their data?

  Sounds like something Trump would say.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28155

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:12:30 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On 05 Oct 2018 16:28:21 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> >In comp.arch.embedded Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote:
> >> Whether it turns out to be true or not, this will be the biggest 
> >> security blockbuster of the decade.
> >> 
> >> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies>
> 
> >This is my analysis:
> >https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2018/10/05/making-sense-of-the-supermicro-motherboard-attack/
> >Theo
> 
> Thanks.  Nicely thought out blog article.  I agree that putting the
> chip on the SPI bus would be the ideal location.  I might add that is
> would be possible to add microcode instructions to the CPU via the SPI
> bus (depending on how the added chip is wired into the system). 
> 
> Some deficiencies and unanswered questions in the original Bloomberg
> article:
> 
> 1.  Since Bloomberg apparently has possession of several of these
> mystery chips, why haven't anyone done an autopsy or xray analysis on
> what's inside?  From the few photos, it looks like a resistor network.
> <https://www.siricomindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Chip-Resistor-array-300x300.jpg>

Actually it looks very little like those types of parts.  The article mentioned that it looks like a specific type of device.  I'm confident they made this look exactly like some specific device. 


> 2.  If I wanted to compromise a server, it would much easier to add a
> few more undocumented instructions to an existing chip, such as a bus
> controller (which sees the entire data bus), than to add a new device
> that might be detected by the production equipment that uses optical
> comparators to detect missing, backwards, and misaligned components. A
> white alumina or porcelain chip, among the usual brown ceramic chips,
> would be easily visible.

AOI (Automated Optical Inspection) works by being trained on a known good board.  It looks at and for expected chips.  I'm pretty sure they don't have built in any capability of looking for extraneous parts although I'm sure they are adding that now. 


> 3.  The photos of the mystery chip seems a little odd:
> <https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i9VdsjZLS_Pk/v1/-1x-1.jpg>
> The solder pads on the sides of the chip look slightly oxidized and do
> not look like anything that has been unsoldered by a hot air SMT
> desoldering station, where the solder would be shiny and tends to
> collect near the PCB side of the chip.

Most units are built to RoHS standards and the solder is definitely not very shiny.  It typically is very grainy just as in the photo.  


> 4.  What is a "signal conditioning coupler"? 
> <http://www.samsungsem.com/global/product/passive-component/chip-resistor/array/index.jsp>
> <https://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2018/10/eb42add4-0827-4831-b6c7-8409fb539eb1.jpg>

I believe they are talking about EMI filters.  Notice the similarity to the device on this page. 

https://www.murata.com/en-us/products/emiconfun/emc/2014/04/24/en-20140424-p1


> 5.  With a PCB and chip in Bloomberg's possession, it would be fairly
> easy to determine how it was connected into the server.  This should
> have been done before announcing to the world that they had discovered
> a spy chip, rather than discovering a capacitor or termination
> resistor.

I don't think Bloomburg was doing any of the work and I seriously doubt they have possession of any spy chips.  More likely is that every device you see in the pictures are the commercial chips the spy chip was designed to look like.  


> 6.  There seems to be nearly zero demonstratable information on how
> the chip could actually do something useful.  Plenty of theoretical
> possibilities, but nothing that an SPI or serial bus analyzer couldn't
> handle.
> 
> etc...
> 
> Not currently having the answers to these questions doesn't bother me.
> The lack of anyone close to the source actually bothering to answer
> them does bother me.

Maybe that's because it is spy stuff and they don't wish to reveal every detail of what they know.  


> Sorry to be so vague but I've had a rotten day dealing with
> Microsoft's October 2018 Windoze 10 update destroying customer data.
> This has not been a good day.
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+10+update+erase+user+files&tbs=qdr:w>

Yeah, I've been reading a bit about that.  Don't they back up data before performing updates? 

Rick C. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28170

On Friday, 5 October 2018 01:30:01 UTC+2, Clifford Heath  wrote:

> Whether it turns out to be true or not, this will be the biggest 
> security blockbuster of the decade.

Whether that turns out to be true or not, this whole thread is yet another
exercise in utter bullshit...

*Plonk*

Julio

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28185

Am 05.10.2018 um 01:29 schrieb Clifford Heath:
> Whether it turns out to be true or not, this will be the biggest
> security blockbuster of the decade.
> 
> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies>
> 
> 
> Clifford Heath

While er don't know enough that much this case, the idea of implanting
backdoors in hardware to be shipped to other countries is not new. The
NSA has been doing so for a long time (as we know from Snowden since 2014):

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/12/glenn-greenwald-nsa-tampers-us-internet-routers-snowden

Philipp

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded

csiph-web