I'd have to go back and read the Apple and GCHQ (and .. was it .. Google?) denials more closely, but...
I found it really interesting how pointed and specific the denials were, rather than blanket denials or refusals to say anything.
I wonder if the technical details that were wrong in the article ended up giving cover to the denials. Maybe the hack never was in hardware, and Bloomberg totally screwed that part up, due to a misunderstanding of what it means to "manufacture a board with vulnerabilities" and that ended up giving inadvertent cover to those parties wishing to deny that a hardware hack was found in products in their datacenters?
EDIT:
Okay, maybe my theory's not so great.
>On this we can be very clear: Apple has never found malicious chips, “hardware manipulations” or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server. Apple never had any contact with the FBI or any other agency about such an incident. We are not aware of any investigation by the FBI, nor are our contacts in law enforcement.
I found it really interesting how pointed and specific the denials were, rather than blanket denials or refusals to say anything.
I wonder if the technical details that were wrong in the article ended up giving cover to the denials. Maybe the hack never was in hardware, and Bloomberg totally screwed that part up, due to a misunderstanding of what it means to "manufacture a board with vulnerabilities" and that ended up giving inadvertent cover to those parties wishing to deny that a hardware hack was found in products in their datacenters?
EDIT:
Okay, maybe my theory's not so great.
>On this we can be very clear: Apple has never found malicious chips, “hardware manipulations” or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server. Apple never had any contact with the FBI or any other agency about such an incident. We are not aware of any investigation by the FBI, nor are our contacts in law enforcement.