News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Big Hack: Statements From Amazon, Apple, Supermicro, ... by dannyw on Thursday October 04, 2018 @09:10AM (#18139532)
Any TS/SCI cleared employees must deny the existence, even to their manager or even the CEO, unless they are also TS/SCI cleared.
Re:The Big Hack: Statements From Amazon, Apple, Supermicro, ... by drawnwren on Thursday October 04, 2018 @09:48AM (#18139821)
That's not how TS/SCI works. You've been watching too many movies. Source: was TS/SCI cleared for 15 years. Information being classified just means you can't divulge the information, not that you can't divulge the existence of the info.
Re:The Big Hack: Statements From Amazon, Apple, Supermicro, ... by jnbiche on Thursday October 04, 2018 @09:54AM (#18139877)
That's a bit misleading. There are code word programs and classified investigations where just revealing the existence of the info would be a serious violation.

In this case, if a cleared employee is asked: is this information true, is there such an investigation? Then simply by saying they can't comment on the question, they reveal the info to be true.

I think most people with high-level clearances would play it safe in such situations and just deny any knowledge of the situation.

Re:The Big Hack: Statements From Amazon, Apple, Supermicro, ... by drawnwren on Thursday October 04, 2018 @12:09PM (#18141157)
I can't comment is exactly what they can and do say very frequently. Apple could have not commented on any investigation or not responded to a request for comment. This would have been completely normal. "That's not something I can talk about" is a very common phrase.
Re:The Big Hack: Statements From Amazon, Apple, Supermicro, ... by addicted on Thursday October 04, 2018 @12:22PM (#18141295)
Frequently is not the same as always. And, if true, this situation would almost certainly fall outside the common scenario.
Re:The Big Hack: Statements From Amazon, Apple, Supermicro, ... by drawnwren on Thursday October 04, 2018 @03:53PM (#18143121)
Absolutely correct, but extraordinary claims require proof. I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong, and of course I could be, but there is no indication that this is anything other than Bloomberg being misled at this point. Location of clearly exploited hardware, acknowledgement by anyone involved, or analysis of traffic from one of these boards would all corroborate the story.
Re:The Big Hack: Statements From Amazon, Apple, Supermicro, ... by grecy on Thursday October 04, 2018 @09:59AM (#18139928)
I would say it depends on the thing.

I worked at Defense Science & Technology for a year, and there were levels of classification I wasn't even cleared to know about.

It was very common for someone to be working on something they could not tell their direct boss about, because their boss was not cleared for it.

Re:The Big Hack: Statements From Amazon, Apple, Supermicro, ... by onetimemanytime on Thursday October 04, 2018 @02:07PM (#18142171)
>>just means you can't divulge the information, not that you can't divulge the existence of the info.

The existence of it is important. I can't tell the content of x letter sent from China's Amb to the mother ship but I can tell you that we intercepted the letter. How was it intercepted? That in itself means a lot.

Re:The Big Hack: Statements From Amazon, Apple, Supermicro, ... by ceejayoz on Thursday October 04, 2018 @09:31AM (#18139679)
It'd be interesting to know how that interweaves with things like SEC requirements to disclose material information.
Re:The Big Hack: Statements From Amazon, Apple, Supermicro, ... by dannyw on Thursday October 04, 2018 @09:39AM (#18139751)
Generally (and unfortunately) "national security" tends to override everything else.
Re:The Big Hack: Statements From Amazon, Apple, Supermicro, ... by astrange on Saturday October 06, 2018 @07:33AM (#18154597)
Where did you get that from? This is well known to not be true in the US, the government can't even stop you from publishing nuclear secrets or the Pentagon Papers. See New York Times v. United States (1971) and United States of America v. Progressive, Inc.