A lot of things are “plausible” but accusing people of having done the thing versus, it would be possible doesn’t rise to the standards necessary to maintain journalistic integrity.
Enough with printing anonymously sourced speculation as fact! Good journalists get sources on the record and, if they use anonymous sources, use them for background and not as primary sources. See Woodward and Berstein’s work on Watergate on how to use anonymous sources correctly.
If this article were true it would have been the first public volley in WWIII.
Spy work happens all the time; it's a normal state of affairs. One country or company stealing secrets from another country or company happened today, whether or not the Bloomberg report holds water.
It's only the first volley in WWIII if world militaries choose to escalate in response.
> They offered no proof, story kept changing, and showed no interest in our answers unless we could validate their theories
If that's really the case then it seems likely that their source may have indeed deceived them. But don't they have multiple sources?
> The article also claims ... we conducted a network-wide audit of SuperMicro motherboards and discovered the malicious chips in a Beijing data center.
Bloomberg's source for this claim must be distinct from the Israeli security researcher, right?
Perhaps, if this was a Russian HUMINT attack, it's another glorious success for GRU.