That's a
lot of unsubstantiated assumptions. It's also explicitly denied by both Amazon:
>It’s untrue that AWS knew about a supply chain compromise
and Apple:
>we have conducted rigorous internal investigations based on their inquiries and each time we have found absolutely no evidence to support any of them.
There's no in "between the lines" or ambiguous wording there, they flat out deny it. Unless this small set of "TS/SCI cleared employees" worked completely on their own without reporting to anybody else in the company this means that they are lying in these statements.
It's possible that they do just that but it's a bit strange to me that they wouldn't find an easier way to deflect the issue without using such a strong and explicit language. Something vague like "we've been working with the authorities and have no reason to believe that any sensitive information has been leaked etc..." would be easier to spin if it turns out that somebody can prove that these attacks took place.
Surely if the scale of the attack was as large as reported by Bloomberg in their article it should be possible to find one of these backdoored boards in the wild? Or at least have testimonies by employees in these company that could testify that batches of motherboards were suddenly replaced for no obvious reasons?
And if trade war is the reason why deny it now? What do they have to gain from that, they're the victims in this story as far as I can tell.
>It’s untrue that AWS knew about a supply chain compromise
and Apple:
>we have conducted rigorous internal investigations based on their inquiries and each time we have found absolutely no evidence to support any of them.
There's no in "between the lines" or ambiguous wording there, they flat out deny it. Unless this small set of "TS/SCI cleared employees" worked completely on their own without reporting to anybody else in the company this means that they are lying in these statements.
It's possible that they do just that but it's a bit strange to me that they wouldn't find an easier way to deflect the issue without using such a strong and explicit language. Something vague like "we've been working with the authorities and have no reason to believe that any sensitive information has been leaked etc..." would be easier to spin if it turns out that somebody can prove that these attacks took place.
Surely if the scale of the attack was as large as reported by Bloomberg in their article it should be possible to find one of these backdoored boards in the wild? Or at least have testimonies by employees in these company that could testify that batches of motherboards were suddenly replaced for no obvious reasons?
And if trade war is the reason why deny it now? What do they have to gain from that, they're the victims in this story as far as I can tell.