Business Week: China reportedly infiltrated Apple using ‘spy’ chips on servers (+ Apple response)

[Arlen Holder]

Business Week: China reportedly infiltrated Apple and other US companies using spy chips on servers.
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies>
<https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/04/china-reportedly-infiltrated-apple-and-other-us-companies-using-spy-chips-on-servers/>

Apple Amazingly Fast Response: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple
<https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple/>

It's extremely rare, if even unheard of, for Apple to ever respond to an
issue of any import so quickly ... which ... tells us something (just as
Apple taking four months the last time they got caught told us something),
where, shockingly for once, Apple must feel pretty confident that they
don't have to spend months spinning this story into "We have always been at
war with Eurasia"... (thank God).

Of course, Apple had 12 months to prepare their story, and, they even had
it prepared well _before_ Business Week published their counter story ...
so, as always with Apple ... time will tell (but this time, Apple, for
once, isn't spewing obvious doublespeak like they normally do by insisting
that 1 + 1 = 3).

In fact, if you compare Apple's response to the prior bullshit response to
their secret throttling of CPUs, the tone is completely different.

This one actually _sounds_ like it's not full of bold-faced lies!

For the first time, ever, it seems, Apple might actually be telling the
truth, as shocking as that may sound given their sordid history.

(Time will tell.)

[Alan Browne]

On 2018-10-05 06:57, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <pp6r9k$cn5$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen    Holder
> <a%rlenh...@no.spam.net> wrote:
>
> [ snip bollocks ]
>
> <filters updated to prevent more cock from this nymshifting troll>

We don't really need plonk reports. Perfection will be when nobody
replies to it, nor about it.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-10-05 01:02, Arlen Holder wrote:

> Apple Amazingly Fast Response: What Businessweek got wrong about Apple
> <https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple/>

Actually it was Bloomberg that came out with the story first.

And it wasn't just Apple who quickly provided a response showing the
article was bogus, Amazon and Supermicro also did. All debunked the idea
that they had reported this to FBI and that there was an investigation.

The real question is why Bloomberg ran with this story knowing it was
false. I smell political pressure to smear China.

Normally, one would never release the fact that some national defense
depatrtment bought servers from company X. Yet, somehow Bloomberg got
that info and allowed to release it.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:51:37 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> Actually it was Bloomberg that came out with the story first.

Hi JF Mezei,

As usual, when I break the news to Apple users, all I care about are facts.

Since you're not an Apple Apologists, we can speak with you like an adult.
It's good that you understood that the original post is 100% factual, as
all my posts are.

Apparently Apple asked Bloomberg not to publish the story, but Bloomberg
did anyway, where Apple's statement was a year in the making, and which was
provided to Bloomberg _before_ Bloomberg published their story.

At the moment, Apple says they were infected, but only once, while
Bloomberg seems to indicate a wider scope than Apple has yet admitted to.

Time will tell, where the comments are equally strong from each party,
hence, for example, sentient adults will have to make their own judgment on
the patently false statements, for example, this one:
"A spokesperson for China's foreign ministry told Bloomberg
that the country is a defender of cybersecurity."
<https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-amazon-deny-report-that-chinese-spy-chips-infiltrated-their-hardware/>

> And it wasn't just Apple who quickly provided a response showing the
> article was bogus, Amazon and Supermicro also did. All debunked the idea
> that they had reported this to FBI and that there was an investigation.

Actually, Apple yesterday admitted to at least one infection...
"That one-time event was determined to be accidental and not a
targeted attack against Apple," the iPhone maker was quoted as saying."

> The real question is why Bloomberg ran with this story knowing it was
> false. I smell political pressure to smear China.

I agree with you that Bloomberg published a story that they _knew_ would be
refuted by Apple, but you have to admit that Apple has been caught in some
really big public lies (e.g., the unsigned letter "explaining" why they
secretly throttled CPUs).

The main difference here, is that for once, Apple *signed* the letter,
where it's as telling as chocolate all over a child's face that Tim Cook
blatantly publicly lied multiple times about the CPU throttling issues.

The fact is that Apple is clearly not above a blatantly public lie.
Hence nothing Apple ever says can be trusted since we know they lie.

The question is really whether Bloomberg is more trustworthy or not.

> Normally, one would never release the fact that some national defense
> depatrtment bought servers from company X. Yet, somehow Bloomberg got
> that info and allowed to release it.

All I care about are the facts.
Everything below is a direct quote from the reference above.

"The Bloomberg story noted that six current and former senior national
security officials offered details of the discovery of the chips and a
government investigation into the matter."

"We stand by our story and are confident in our reporting and sources," a
Bloomberg News spokesperson said in a statement provided to CNET.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:04:59 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> We don't really need plonk reports. Perfection will be when nobody
> replies to it, nor about it.

*Apple Apologists have no defense against facts.*

That you _close your eyes to facts_ is why you're ignorant to facts.
<https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-amazon-deny-report-that-chinese-spy-chips-infiltrated-their-hardware/>

*Both of you _hate_ facts so much, that you both don't want to see facts.*

Meanwhile, these are the facts from Apple:
"In a statement to Bloomberg, Apple suggested its reporters may have
confused an earlier incident that involved an infected driver"

And from Bloomberg:

"We stand by our story and are confident in our reporting and sources,"
a Bloomberg News spokesperson said in a statement provided to CNET.

Intelligent people will learn the facts (but not Streater nor Browne).

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-10-05 10:54 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:51:37 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
>
>> Actually it was Bloomberg that came out with the story first.
>
> Hi JF Mezei,
>
> As usual, when I break the news to Apple users, all I care about are facts.
>
> Since you're not an Apple Apologists, we can speak with you like an adult.
> It's good that you understood that the original post is 100% factual, as
> all my posts are.

'#1: BLOOMBERG’S CLAIM APPEARS TO BE A ‘FRIEND OF A FRIEND’ STORY

#2: THE TECHNICAL CASE AGAINST THE CLAIM SEEMS STRONG

#3, #4 & #5: THE THREE PROBLEMS WITH THE ‘APPLE IS LYING’ THEORY'

<https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/05/chinese-spy-chip/>

[Alan Baker]

'#2: THE TECHNICAL CASE AGAINST THE CLAIM SEEMS STRONG

McCarthy lays out some objections to the idea of the specific claims
about the Chinese spy chip. Three of them seem particularly persuasive
to me.

"Why go to the bother of smuggling another chip on the board, when a
chip already due to be placed in the circuitry could be tampered with
during manufacturer, using bribes and pressure? Why not switch the SPI
flash chip with a backdoored one – one that looks identical to a legit one?

[And] The chip allegedly fits on a pencil tip. That it can intercept and
rewrite data on the fly from SPI flash or a serial EEPROM is not
impossible. However, it has to contain enough data to replace the
fetched BMC firmware code, that then alters the running operating system
or otherwise implements a viable backdoor. Either the chip pictured in
Bloomberg’s article is incorrect and just an illustration, and the
actual device is larger, or there is state-of-the-art custom
semiconductor fabrication involved here.

One final point: you would expect corporations like Apple and Amazon to
have in place systems that detect not only unexpected network traffic,
but also unexpected operating system states. It should be possible that
alterations to the kernel and the stack of software above it should set
off alarms during or after boot."'

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:58:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> '#1: BLOOMBERG¢S CLAIM APPEARS TO BE A ¡FRIEND OF A FRIEND¢ STORY
>
> #2: THE TECHNICAL CASE AGAINST THE CLAIM SEEMS STRONG
>
> #3, #4 & #5: THE THREE PROBLEMS WITH THE ¡APPLE IS LYING¢ THEORY'
>
> <https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/05/chinese-spy-chip/>

Well, that makes it three Apologists children who have posted their drivel:
a. Alan Browne
b. Tim Streater
c. Alan Baker

*These 3 Apple Apologists _prove_ they prefer to ignore actual facts.*

The fact is that both Bloomberg and Apple seem adamant, where Apple has
been caught in many a public lie, so nothing Apple says can ever be
trusted.

However, Apple, for the first time, doesn't seem to be playing doublespeak:
*"We have always been at war with Eurasia"*

So the net will be that sentient adults will need to figure out whether
Apple is lying yet again, or whether Bloomberg is misinformed.

Time will tell for sentient adults who can comprehend logical detail.

--
The Apologists listed above will _remain_ ignorant children throughout.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-10-05 11:08 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:58:15 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> '#1: BLOOMBERG¢S CLAIM APPEARS TO BE A ¡FRIEND OF A FRIEND¢ STORY
>>
>> #2: THE TECHNICAL CASE AGAINST THE CLAIM SEEMS STRONG
>>
>> #3, #4 & #5: THE THREE PROBLEMS WITH THE ¡APPLE IS LYING¢ THEORY'
>>
>> <https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/05/chinese-spy-chip/>
>
> Well, that makes it three Apologists children who have posted their drivel:
> a. Alan Browne
> b. Tim Streater
> c. Alan Baker
>
> *These 3 Apple Apologists _prove_ they prefer to ignore actual facts.*
>
> The fact is that both Bloomberg and Apple seem adamant, where Apple has
> been caught in many a public lie, so nothing Apple says can ever be
> trusted.

I've posted a link to an article that argues persuasively that Apple
should be believed in this case:

'#2: THE TECHNICAL CASE AGAINST THE CLAIM SEEMS STRONG

McCarthy lays out some objections to the idea of the specific claims
about the Chinese spy chip. Three of them seem particularly persuasive
to me.

"Why go to the bother of smuggling another chip on the board, when a
chip already due to be placed in the circuitry could be tampered with
during manufacturer, using bribes and pressure? Why not switch the SPI
flash chip with a backdoored one – one that looks identical to a legit one?

[And] The chip allegedly fits on a pencil tip. That it can intercept and
rewrite data on the fly from SPI flash or a serial EEPROM is not
impossible. However, it has to contain enough data to replace the
fetched BMC firmware code, that then alters the running operating system
or otherwise implements a viable backdoor. Either the chip pictured in
Bloomberg’s article is incorrect and just an illustration, and the
actual device is larger, or there is state-of-the-art custom
semiconductor fabrication involved here.

One final point: you would expect corporations like Apple and Amazon to
have in place systems that detect not only unexpected network traffic,
but also unexpected operating system states. It should be possible that
alterations to the kernel and the stack of software above it should set
off alarms during or after boot."'

That describes the situation very well, don't you think?

No... ...seriously... ...don't you THINK?

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:59:30 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> One final point: you would expect corporations like Apple and Amazon to
> have in place systems that detect not only unexpected network traffic,
> but also unexpected operating system states.

Let's speak facts, Alan Brown. Yes. Facts. Adults facts.

Apple openly shipped a security update in iOS 10.x so full of holes that
Apple _knew_ they'd be begging millions of people to destroy it just 10
days later (i.e., Apple had the broadcom-bug fix in their hands _before_
they shipped the highly touted release for Christs' sake).

HINT: Apple customers only want to _feel_ safe (hence, as many releases as
Apple can ship makes them feel safer - even when Apple _knew_ their release
was so full of security holes you could drive a bus through it).

Likewise, let's not forget that, for the Mac, Apple shipped an update that
basically removed the root password protection mechanism, also at about the
same time that Apple knowingly shipped out the broadcom bug release to iOS.

Those are facts.
*That Apple Apologists don't like facts, doesn't make facts not facts.*

--

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-10-05 11:16 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:59:30 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> One final point: you would expect corporations like Apple and Amazon to
>> have in place systems that detect not only unexpected network traffic,
>> but also unexpected operating system states.
>
> Let's speak facts, Alan Brown. Yes. Facts. Adults facts.

My name is not Alan Brown. So you're starting out by not speaking facts.

>
> Apple openly shipped a security update in iOS 10.x so full of holes that
> Apple _knew_ they'd be begging millions of people to destroy it just 10
> days later (i.e., Apple had the broadcom-bug fix in their hands _before_
> they shipped the highly touted release for Christs' sake).

Which is irrelevant to this case.

I note that you've snipped the relevant points for discussion and
replaced them with your irrelevancies.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:10:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> I've posted a link to an article that argues persuasively that Apple
> should be believed in this case:

That you, Alan Baker, are immune to facts, doesn't make fact not fact.


> you would expect corporations like Apple ... to

> have in place systems that detect not only unexpected network traffic,
> but also unexpected operating system states.

You'd think "corporations like Apple" wouldn't secretly throttle CPUs and
then lie about it too.

The fact is, Apple can't be trusted to ever tell the truth.

*The open question, for adults here, is whether Bloomberg can be trusted.*

--
HINT: I said "adults" ... that instantly knocks out the Apple Apologists.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-10-05 11:20 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:10:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I've posted a link to an article that argues persuasively that Apple
>> should be believed in this case:
>
> That you, Alan Baker, are immune to facts, doesn't make fact not fact.

So why are you snipping what was written in that article rather than
refuting it factually?

<rest of your irrelevance snipped>

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:18:44 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> My name is not Alan Brown. So you're starting out by not speaking facts.

While I openly admit to confusing the Apple Apologist Alan Browne with the
patently indistinguishable Apple Apologist Alan Baker, you're just playing
silly games by intimating that my post doesn't contain facts.

*None of you Apple Apologists have an _adult_ defense against facts.*

> I note that you've snipped the relevant points for discussion and
> replaced them with your irrelevancies.

The fact that Apple openly lied about the secret CPU throttling, and the
fact that Apple openly lied about shipping the broadcom-bug release and
that Apple accidentally shipped a release that basically opened up the Mac
to children with respect to root ... is relevant to your quote of:
"you would expect corporations like Apple... to have in place systems
that detect... unexpected operating system states."

*The fact you always miss such facts doesn't make those facts not facts.*

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:21:43 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> So why are you snipping what was written in that article rather than
> refuting it factually?

All you _can_ do, Alan Baker, is play your silly childish games.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-10-05 11:26 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:18:44 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> My name is not Alan Brown. So you're starting out by not speaking facts.
>
> While I openly admit to confusing the Apple Apologist Alan Browne with the
> patently indistinguishable Apple Apologist Alan Baker, you're just playing
> silly games by intimating that my post doesn't contain facts.

It is not a game.

My name is not Alan Brown.

>

> *None of you Apple Apologists have an _adult_ defense against facts.*
>
>> I note that you've snipped the relevant points for discussion and
>> replaced them with your irrelevancies.
>
> The fact that Apple openly lied about the secret CPU throttling, and the
> fact that Apple openly lied about shipping the broadcom-bug release and
> that Apple accidentally shipped a release that basically opened up the Mac
> to children with respect to root ... is relevant to your quote of:
> "you would expect corporations like Apple... to have in place systems
> that detect... unexpected operating system states."
>
> *The fact you always miss such facts doesn't make those facts not facts.*
>

When you actually wish to discuss the facts of THIS ISSUE, let me know.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

You've snipped all the relevant points I made without addressing them in
any way:

'Why go to the bother of smuggling another chip on the board, when a

chip already due to be placed in the circuitry could be tampered with
during manufacturer, using bribes and pressure? Why not switch the SPI
flash chip with a backdoored one – one that looks identical to a legit one?

[And] The chip allegedly fits on a pencil tip. That it can intercept and
rewrite data on the fly from SPI flash or a serial EEPROM is not
impossible. However, it has to contain enough data to replace the
fetched BMC firmware code, that then alters the running operating system
or otherwise implements a viable backdoor. Either the chip pictured in
Bloomberg’s article is incorrect and just an illustration, and the
actual device is larger, or there is state-of-the-art custom
semiconductor fabrication involved here.

One final point: you would expect corporations like Apple and Amazon to

have in place systems that detect not only unexpected network traffic,

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:30:19 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You've snipped all the relevant points I made without addressing them in
> any way:

The facts are what is relevant.
1. *Bloomberg's assertion*
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies>
2. *Apple's rebuttal*
<https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple/>
And perhaps...

3. *Amazon's denial*
<https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/setting-the-record-straight-on-bloomberg-businessweeks-erroneous-article/>
4. *Super Micro's refutal*
<https://www.supermicro.com/newsroom/pressreleases/2018/press181004_Bloomberg.cfm>
5. *National Cyber Security Center backing*
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-cyber-britain/uk-cyber-security-agency-backs-apple-amazon-china-hack-denials-idUSKCN1MF1DN>

Apple is on record for opining that perhaps Bloomberg got an earlier Apple
server infestation confused with latter incidents in Bloomberg reports.

"In a statement to Bloomberg, Apple suggested its reporters may have

confused *an earlier incident that involved an infected driver*"

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:28:51 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> When you actually wish to discuss the facts of THIS ISSUE, let me know.

The facts are what are relevant.

1. *Bloomberg's assertion*
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies>
2. *Apple's rebuttal*
<https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/10/what-businessweek-got-wrong-about-apple/>
And perhaps...

3. *Amazon's denial*
<https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/setting-the-record-straight-on-bloomberg-businessweeks-erroneous-article/>
4. *Super Micro's refutal*
<https://www.supermicro.com/newsroom/pressreleases/2018/press181004_Bloomberg.cfm>
5. *National Cyber Security Center backing*
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-cyber-britain/uk-cyber-security-agency-backs-apple-amazon-china-hack-denials-idUSKCN1MF1DN>

Apple is on record for opining that perhaps Bloomberg got an earlier Apple
server infestation confused with latter incidents in Bloomberg reports.

"In a statement to Bloomberg, Apple suggested its reporters may have

confused *an earlier incident that involved an infected driver*"

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, but those are bare links.

Post the text that you believes supports your claim...

...as I've already done.

[Alan Baker]

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:49:48 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Post the text that you believes supports your claim...

From Apple:

"In a statement to Bloomberg, Apple suggested its reporters may have

confused an earlier incident that involved an infected driver"

And from Bloomberg:

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:49:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Post the text that you believes supports your claim...

From Apple:

"In a statement to Bloomberg, Apple suggested its reporters may have

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-10-05 14:30, Alan Baker wrote:

> 'Why go to the bother of smuggling another chip on the board, when a
> chip already due to be placed in the circuitry could be tampered with
> during manufacturer, using bribes and pressure? Why not switch the SPI
> flash chip with a backdoored one – one that looks identical to a legit one?

Counter argument: because large ships will typically reflash the
firmware as part of their instalation of the server. So the compromised
flash in shipped unit would be overwritten well before server is put in
production.


BMC interfaces are almost always given non routable IP addresses that
are accessible only from intranet. So a compromised BMC might try all it
wants to send back to its spies, but routers would block that traffic
not only at corporate level, but every step along the Internet where
addresses like 10.* or 192.168.* get stopped by every router on the
Interhjet (no route to host).

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-10-05 11:52 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:49:48 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Post the text that you believes supports your claim...
>
> From Apple:
> "In a statement to Bloomberg, Apple suggested its reporters may have
> confused an earlier incident that involved an infected driver"

How does that support your claim that Apple is lying about this issue,
"Arlen"?

>
> And from Bloomberg:
> "We stand by our story and are confident in our reporting and sources,"
> a Bloomberg News spokesperson said in a statement provided to CNET.
>

Great.

And everyone who's responded to their story stands by their statements
that the Bloomberg story is wrong.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-10-05 11:52 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

How do those support your claim that Apple is lying about this issue,
"Arlen"?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:59:31 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> How do those support your claim that Apple is lying about this issue,
> "Arlen"?

*You prove every time you post that your mind is that of a child.*
Comprehnd my words, Alan Baker.

I never said Apple was lying this time.

I said both Tim Cook himself, & Apple, were caught lying last year
That means Apple can't be believed, ever again.

Every _adult_ on the planet, comprehends that simple sentient logic.
Except you, Alan Baker.

You can't comprehend even the _simplest_ of logical constructs.
*You prove every time you post that your mind is that of a child.*

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:58:08 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> How does that support your claim that Apple is lying about this issue,
> "Arlen"?

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-10-05 6:24 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 13:59:31 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How do those support your claim that Apple is lying about this issue,
>> "Arlen"?
>
> *You prove every time you post that your mind is that of a child.*
> Comprehnd my words, Alan Baker.
>
> I never said Apple was lying this time.

Then what IS your claim?

>
> I said both Tim Cook himself, & Apple, were caught lying last year
> That means Apple can't be believed, ever again.

So then, you're not saying they're lying...

...but you believe they're lying?

Is that right?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:28:11 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> So then, you're not saying they're lying...
>
> ...but you believe they're lying?
>
> Is that right?

All you _can_ do, Alan Baker, is play your silly games.
What I said is clear to every sentient _adult_.

It's just not clear to you.
That should tell you something, Alan Baker.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:25:19 -0400, in comp.sys.mac.system you wrote:

> You and Arlen thought about getting room?

What's kind of funny is that Alan Baker thinks he's "sparring" with me.

I'm an adult.
I use logic.
And facts.

Hence, it's _impossible_ for an Apple Apologist, to "spar" with an adult.
It only proves to all, exactly what the Apple Apologists are.

*The dozen Apple Apologists prove they are children every time they post.*
- Alan Baker
- Tim Streater
- Alan Browne
- Jolly Roger
- BKatOnRamp
- Lewis
- Savageduck
- nospam
- Hemidactylus
- Your Name
etc.

These dozen Apple Apologists prove to own the mind of a fifth-grade child.
They have no defense against facts.

Hence, I only speak facts.

[B...@onramp.net]

Bullshit. You say that I'm an Apple apologist. The only thing that
I've ever posted about you has been that I think you're a low life
scum troll who doesn't belong here.
We have never had a discussion so you're just pissed that I called you
out, not that I've argued with you.

However I've followed all of the others who have argued with you and
they've made you look the fool. Very easily. There is a FACT.

Go away. I'm tired of KF your nyms.

[Alan Baker]

You're the one who:

Won't clearly state your position.

Won't address the arguments I've raised.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:57:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You're the one who:
>
> Won't clearly state your position.
>
> Won't address the arguments I've raised.

What's shocking, actually, Alan Baker, is that you don't comprehend
anything that normal adults clearly comprehend.

You exhibit the mind of a child, Alan Baker.

You can't seem to comprehend that:
a. Bloomberg says one thing, and,
b. Apple says another.
Both strenuously insist that their position is factually correct.

It's a _classic_ case where _adults_ need to use comprehensive skills.
Yet, you prove, time & again, you can't possibly comprehend the facts.

You do not possess the mind of an adult, Alan Baker.
You possess the mind, of a child.

--
HINT: I simply present the facts; you prove you can't comprehend them.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-10-05 9:24 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:57:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You're the one who:
>>
>> Won't clearly state your position.
>>
>> Won't address the arguments I've raised.
>
> What's shocking, actually, Alan Baker, is that you don't comprehend
> anything that normal adults clearly comprehend.

I comprehend things just fine, "Arlen".

Fact: you refuse to clearly state your position.

You say you haven't said that Apple is lying...

...but then you follow it immediately with a statement that Apple can
never be believed.

Explain.

Stop running away, and explain.

My prediction: you'll snip all this out like the little coward you are.

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 21:26:13 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> I comprehend things just fine, "Arlen".
>
> Fact: you refuse to clearly state your position.
>
> You say you haven't said that Apple is lying...
>
> ...but then you follow it immediately with a statement that Apple can
> never be believed.
>
> Explain.
>
> Stop running away, and explain.
>
> My prediction: you'll snip all this out like the little coward you are.

hehhehheh ...

The fact is, you haven't comprehended even the original post.
Nor anything said subsequently.
All of which were facts.

That you fail to comprehend all of that, is clear to all adults.

It's only not clear to you, Alan Baker.
What does that fact clearly tell you, Alan Baker?

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-10-05 9:30 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 21:26:13 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I comprehend things just fine, "Arlen".
>>
>> Fact: you refuse to clearly state your position.
>>
>> You say you haven't said that Apple is lying...
>>
>> ...but then you follow it immediately with a statement that Apple can
>> never be believed.
>>
>> Explain.
>>
>> Stop running away, and explain.
>>
>> My prediction: you'll snip all this out like the little coward you are.
>
> hehhehheh ...
>
> The fact is, you haven't comprehended even the original post.

I had no trouble comprehending it.

I also comprehend that you still won't state what your position actually is.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 21:32:11 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> I had no trouble comprehending it.
>
> I also comprehend that you still won't state what your position actually is.

The fact that you can't comprehend what everyone else comprehends, is a fact.

[Alan Baker]

You won't present your position.

Too bad... ...for you.

[Arlen Holder]

Apple tells Congress that it has found no sign of microchip tampering

Reuters obtained a letter written by George Stathakopoulos, Apple¢s Vice
President for Information Security, which he sent to the commerce
committees for both the US Senate and US House.
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-cyber-apple/apple-tells-congress-it-found-no-signs-of-hacking-attack-idUSKCN1MH0YQ>

What's amazing is that Apple is actually _signing_ these letters, which is
completely different from how Apple handled the secret throttling excuses.

The fact that Apple is willing to put a name on the line, is telling.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-10-07 22:21, Arlen Holder wrote:
> Apple tells Congress that it has found no sign of microchip tampering

Homeland Security told Reuters that it has found Apple's, Amezon's and
Supermicro,s statements to be accurate. Sorry dodn't have URL anymore
it was a story that ran this morning.


If the motherboard was designed to have this optional chip installed, it
is possible that they produced servers with the chip on it and shipped
those to customers who had ordered the version without the chip. It
doesn't mean the chip would have been loaded with malware.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 23:03:36 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> Homeland Security told Reuters that it has found Apple's, Amezon's and
> Supermicro,s statements to be accurate. Sorry dodn't have URL anymore
> it was a story that ran this morning.

Hi JF Mezei,
I agree it's puzzling to adults why the two stories are so different.
(The Apologists had already come to a conclusion before the story hit.)

If Apple is telling the truth, then it's puzzling why Bloomberg would not.
If Bloomberg is telling the truth, then it's far less puzzling since Apple
is well known to spin quite a yarn to cover their tracks; but, I must admit
openly that the last big yarn that Apple spun about us always being at war
with Eurasia was *unsigned*, which was extremely telling in and of itself.

Plus, the yarn that they spun was _months_ in the making, after _secretly_
throttling the CPUs and after quietly post-editing the release notes.

In this case, Apple clearly _signed_ their response - and, even as this
response was a year in the making, at least Apple published it immediately
after the Bloomberg story broke; so Apple must be feeling confident, I
agree (and I never said otherwise).

I realize that you _comprehend_ everything I say, even as the Apologists
never will.

Adults don't argue these facts since they are obvious facts.
Facts are funny that way, just as adults are funny that way.

> If the motherboard was designed to have this optional chip installed, it
> is possible that they produced servers with the chip on it and shipped
> those to customers who had ordered the version without the chip. It
> doesn't mean the chip would have been loaded with malware.

While there are childish Apple Apologists here, you and I are adults.
We can easily comprehend that something is puzzling in that
a. Bloomberg says x + y = z
b. Apple says x + y = -z

Who is right?
You or I will never have the resrouces available to us to figure that out.
As adults, we'll just have to await an in-depth *independent* analysis.

That is, for now, I think we have all the information we're going to have,
until someone not implicated who is reputable works out exactly why the
Bloomberg and Apple stories are, essentially, opposites of each other.

Time will tell...

[Alan Baker]

And yet, you threw your weight behind "Apple must be lying" already.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 22:14:19 -0500, B...@Onramp.net wrote:

> Bullshit. You say that I'm an Apple apologist. The only thing that
> I've ever posted about you has been that I think you're a low life
> scum troll who doesn't belong here.
> We have never had a discussion so you're just pissed that I called you
> out, not that I've argued with you.
>
> However I've followed all of the others who have argued with you and
> they've made you look the fool. Very easily. There is a FACT.
>
> Go away. I'm tired of KF your nyms.

You, BKatOnRamp, perfectly embody the well-known traits of the Apologists:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

Every single post from you, in fact, BK@OnRamp, is that of the Apologist.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 18:06:24 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> And yet, you threw your weight behind "Apple must be lying" already.

That you just proved you completely fail to comprehend everything ever
written in this thread, is why you are an Apple Apologist, Alan Baker.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-10-08 20:38, Arlen Holder wrote:

> If Apple is telling the truth, then it's puzzling why Bloomberg would not.

Your obsession with Apple is unhealthy. It isn't just Apple, but Apple,
Amazon and Supermicro that denied the story from Bloomberg, and they
have been suppoeted by the liked of Homeland Security.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 23:31:35 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> Your obsession with Apple is unhealthy. It isn't just Apple, but Apple,
> Amazon and Supermicro that denied the story from Bloomberg, and they
> have been suppoeted by the liked of Homeland Security.

Hi JF Mezei,

Let me state, again, two facts, again, that you missed the first few times.

1. This thread is about Apple.
2. Even so, I provided _all_ the statements from _all_ the affected parties
_numerous_ times.

That you keep ignoring that I provided their statements and their URLs and
that this is an Apple thread, simply means either one of two things:
a. You are not comprehending facts, or,
b. You don't wish to comprehend facts.

But the fact you don't comprehend facts doesn't make those facts not facts.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-10-08 23:35, Arlen Holder wrote:

> Let me state, again, two facts, again, that you missed the first few times.
>
> 1. This thread is about Apple.

You are trying to smear Apple and discredit their statement that denied
the allegation by Bloomberg. But the fact that a lot of parties denied
this gives much crediubility to Apple's denial, especially when you
consider that even Trump's dept of Homeland Security agrees with the
aserrtyions by Apple, Amazon and Supermicro.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 00:00:08 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> You are trying to smear Apple and discredit their statement that denied
> the allegation by Bloomberg. But the fact that a lot of parties denied
> this gives much crediubility to Apple's denial, especially when you
> consider that even Trump's dept of Homeland Security agrees with the
> aserrtyions by Apple, Amazon and Supermicro.

Hi JF Mezei,

Let me state, again, two facts, again, that you missed the first few times.

1. This thread is about Apple.

2. Even so, I provided _all_ the statements from _all_ the affected parties
_numerous_ times.

If you choose to ignore those facts, that doesn't mean I didn't state them.

[Alan Baker]

Must I provide you the exact quote...

...which you'll just snip anyway?

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:30:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Must I provide you the exact quote...

This thread is _perfect_ proving exactly how _stupid_ Apple Apologists are!
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com/26HhpfRQ/ios-12-0-1>
o *Chris in Makati* -> From: Chris in Makati <ma...@nospam.com>
o *BK@onRamp* -> From: B...@Onramp.net
o *Meanie* -> From: Meanie <M...@gmail.com>
o *Your Name* -> From: Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o *Hemidactylus* -> From: Hemidactylus <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>

That thread contained trivial facts.
Easily proven facts.
Really _simple_ facts.

And yet, each of the Apple Apologists above, got those simple facts wrong!
Consistently.
Repeatedly.

Not only did they get those simple facts wrong though.
They _ridiculed_ the two people on this thread who had their facts right!

What's amazing, actually, is that the Apologists above act like children.
o They got even the _simplest_ of facts dead wrong
o Every one of their conclusions, as a result, was dead wrong
o They ridiculed the two people who had their facts right!

This thread is _perfect_ to prove Apple Apologist are not normal people!
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lG4eI7QeEbw>

*Actual facts have absolutely no place to fit in their belief system.*

All you Apple Apologists whoosh on even the _simplest_ of basic facts!
o First, BK@OnRamp jumped to completely erroneous conclusions:
> The idiot must be referring to 12 not 12.0.1.
o Then, Chris in Makiti jumped to completely erroneous conclusions:
> What an arse he is. Confusing 12 with 12.0.1
o Then, Meanie jumped to completely erroneous conclusions:
> Ignore the ass. You'll never win.

Meanwhile, the only adults here were Ant, and me, both of whom used facts.

What's amazing is that you Apple Apologists can't comprehend simple facts.
Worse, you Apple Apologists jump to conclusions supported by _zero_ facts.
You make everything up - your thought process is entireley fictional.

You brazenly fabricated what clearly never happened.
*And yet, you actually _believe_ your brazen imaginary fabrications!*

If this thread alone doesn't prove that Apple Apologists are children,
you'll never comprehend why you're not at all like normal adults.