Slashdot Mirror


Apple Worries Spy Technology Has Been Secretly Added To Computer Servers It Buys (businessinsider.com)

An anonymous reader writes: According to Business Insider, "[Apple] worries that some of the equipment and cloud services it buys has been compromised by vendors who have agreed to put "back door" technology for government spying, according to a report from The Information's Amir Efrati and Steve Nellis." With many of its cloud-based services like iTunes, the App Store, and iCloud requiring enormous data center to operate, Apple hasn't been able to build all the data centers it needs, and has instead been using services from its rivals, namely Amazon Web Services and Microsoft. Google recently landed Apple as a customer for the Google Cloud Platform. "Meanwhile, [Apple] has embarked on yet another attempt to build more of its own data centers to handle all of that, called Project McQueen, reports Jordan Novet at VentureBeat, and the project is having a rough go of it, reports The Information." Apple suspects that backdoors have been added to many of the servers it has been ordering from others. "At one point, the company even had people taking photographs of the motherboards in the computer servers it was using, then mark down exactly what each chip was, to make sure everything was fully understood."

166 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Here's a solution... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know it's a crazy idea, but maybe if Apple built their own servers, they wouldn't have to worry about that. Maybe they could even sell a few of them to other companies.

    Nah. Crazy idea. Forget I mentioned it.

    1. Re:Here's a solution... by sg_oneill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those things where great little units. Expensive, but really well built. We had a couple of them back in the day and they had to be some of the most elegantly designed rack fodder I've come across.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    2. Re:Here's a solution... by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 2

      Apple execs: "If only we knew someone who could build the servers we need..." [looking around hopelessly]

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    3. Re:Here's a solution... by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anyone who read the article would realise that they were planning on doing exactly that. There is, in fact, a 6-prong plan to make Apple entirely independent of third parties. Part of this involves designing and building their own servers.

      Personally I'd be interested in knowing if they're going to use ARM processors... Those A9X are pretty darn good in terms of computing power per watt.

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    4. Re:Here's a solution... by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Guess you didn't read about the NSA program where they intercept hardware during shipping and install backdoors or othewise cause tampering.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    5. Re:Here's a solution... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anyone who read the article would realise that they were planning on doing exactly that.

      Assuming what you say plays out - and I read it exactly the same way you did - it will be interesting to see if, at some point, Apple decides to re-enter the server market. I mean, if they're going to be building their own servers anyway, why not see if you can sell a few? There might be people willing to spend the necessary bucks for an Apple-built server, given their stance on privacy and the current lack of trust many techies have for the US government (or most other governments, for that matter).

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Here's a solution... by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apple could start rebuilding its own Xservers but it wouldn't be able to afford the purchase price :)

    7. Re:Here's a solution... by currently_awake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you care about security, don't have your headquarters or manufacturing in the USA. Don't buy American anything, and build everything yourself, using your own designs.

    8. Re:Here's a solution... by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Part of this involves designing and building their own servers.

      Others do. Not so much for security, I think, as for cost management and optimizing data center operations.

    9. Re:Here's a solution... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      It will be interesting to see if they do but given the previous sales numbers I don't find it likely. With the x-server you could buy more for less in the PC space and that will likely remain true.

    10. Re:Here's a solution... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know it's a crazy idea, but maybe if Apple built their own servers, they wouldn't have to worry about that.

      Or they can buy a rack-mountable chassis for Mac Minis and Mac Pros from Other World Computing.

      http://eshop.macsales.com/search/mac+rack

    11. Re:Here's a solution... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you can buy Chinese components and be hacked by the PRC.

      Unless you're fabricating everything, and writing you're own microcode, there's always a chance someone is going to slip a backdoor in somewhere.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Here's a solution... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I know it's a crazy idea, but maybe if Apple built their own servers, they wouldn't have to worry about that. Maybe they could even sell a few of them to other companies.

      Nah. Crazy idea. Forget I mentioned it.

      First I was nodding my head, yeah that's a good idea. But wait... does Apple build any of their own hardware?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    13. Re:Here's a solution... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      So, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that the servers will be built in China just like the servers they're currently buying? I mean, mightn't it be something as simple as changing the sign at the Foxconn assembly line to read "Apple" instead of some other vendor?

      Mind you, I used to do admin on those (noisy!) Apple 1U servers way back when, and they didn't suck. But I don't think there's a chance in hell of Apple building servers in the US. At least on the long term. So although I commiserate (welcome to our world, Apple!) and wish them luck, I don't see a substantial difference.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    14. Re:Here's a solution... by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So you can buy Chinese components and be hacked by the PRC.

      Or go to any Five-Eyes nation, and get the same experience. Ditto Russia. Anywhere else, bribery is all the NSA needs.

      Unless you're fabricating everything, and writing you're own microcode, there's always a chance someone is going to slip a backdoor in somewhere.

      That won't help. One of your key employees works for the NSA. It's practical to introduce a change to a mask (after all reviews etc) that subverts the on-chip random number generator, which is all the NSA really needs. There's real worry this has already happened at Intel (I can't remember whether the Snowden revelations included this, or it just seemed logical to crypto geeks).

      There were long discussions on Bruce Schneier's blog about how building a hardware RNG from discrete components you soldered together yourself was the only way to be sure (resistor thermal noise is a pretty good hardware entropy source).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Here's a solution... by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      There are some absolutely necessary and needed components: audit, router and firewall tech.
      To some degree this is a different class of tech than most consider as needed for a server farm.

      In a capability based deployment design some of the risks and attacks can
      be compartmentalized and squashed. A single level breach would be limited
      and with good design manageable and near worthless.

      I wondered why Facebook went public on their rack level router project.
      https://code.facebook.com/post...
      Such projects do not exist in a vacuum. Cost or risks drive a software company to build hardware (or too much money).

      It is no longer sufficient to have a hard candy outside and a soft gooey center security model.
      It is the novice system engineer that does not understand the risks of monoculture and the
      lessons learned by the virus attack on the American chestnut trees. In house systems are
      often monoculture box canyons.

      Any and all the layers need attention in today's hostile networking context.
      N.B.
            The FBI added two Syrian hackers to its most-wanted list for cybercriminals, charging them with attacking
            dozens of U.S. companies, media organizations, and even the White House.
      and
            I might note that the FBI wants to diminish security on a very common device. Hmmm....

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    16. Re:Here's a solution... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      There is, in fact, a 6-prong plan to make Apple entirely independent of third parties.

      Does that plan include in-house fab and foundry? If not, then they can never be truly sure of the "loyalty" of their servers.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    17. Re:Here's a solution... by FrozenGeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      My favourite quote from Armeggedon: Russian components, American components, all made in Taiwan.

      --
      linquendum tondere
    18. Re:Here's a solution... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      There wasn't a lot of point to having full-blown OS X on a server - the GUI is mostly useless for real admin needs. But they could do their own hardware, but put one of the BSDs on it (or Linux, or even the Unix underpinnings of OS X) and still have an offering they can vet from end to end.

      I don't think they'd ever be a major player in the server space, still. But the world has changed somewhat since they last sold the XServe; plus there wouldn't be a lot of additional cost involved with selling a piece of hardware they'd already chosen to make for strategic reasons.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    19. Re:Here's a solution... by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      They still need to buy components and these components could be security compromised.

    20. Re:Here's a solution... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That reminds me. Dell didn't build much and they got blindsided when ASUS who did build a lot of their stuff got their own distribution channel.
      I wonder when we can get the Foxcon mini?

    21. Re:Here's a solution... by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

      If I was the US my primary target would be Intel. Easy to strong-arm them or simply pay them off. They have their own fab facilities which are currently leading the world. They produce the most used processors, chipsets, and network interfaces in PC servers. Easy enough to get them to produce drop in replacement spy chips. They could even get them to copy other manufacturers chips and clone them. Network chips are DMA devices so have access to all computer memory. Easy enough to swap out in all sorts of devices. This means you can watch keyboard buffers too. Any chip on the PCI bus can do this regardless of the operating system.

      A processor could even have something as sophisticated as public key signed code that would allow privileged escalation. This wouldn't be something that would be in all processors. Easy enough to swap out processors in shipment or even onsite. Something any mook could do.

    22. Re:Here's a solution... by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

      Undoubtedly Russia and China would understand all the above so I would image they would have canary protocols in place with false security information that wold alert them to these technologies if the US acted on the info. Things such as credentials to get to other secure computers all of which are honeypots.

    23. Re:Here's a solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My favourite quote from Armeggedon: Russian components, American components, all made in Taiwan.

      And by the lowest bidder.

    24. Re:Here's a solution... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      And if enough people assume they did that, then they don't even have to do it.

    25. Re:Here's a solution... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      But US authorities can when they crack into these backdoors.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    26. Re:Here's a solution... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I dunno... With everything virtualized, in a docker, a container, a jail, a VM, running on VMWare, or ESX, or whatever - does the bare metal really matter all that much any more?

      That is actually a real question. I don't really know. I haven't done much at all (outside of for my own use where I use VMWare religiously and have been for years) in a server room. When I was last doing it because we still didn't have enough people we were doing things like clustering, blades where getting popular, distributed computing was taking hold (but wasn't really entirely new), and we needed giant disk arrays. Circa 1999 - 2000.

      So, no... I don't really know. I've been *in* the server room since then - it was mine, I'll go in it if I want. Well, that's what they used to let me think, at any rate. Seriously, they were good people and I didn't need to babysit them - that'd be dumb of me 'cause they knew more about it than I did. That'd be why I hired them. Try to never hire anyone dumber than you are and make sure you treat 'em like they're smart.

      At any rate, I'd been in there. Hell, I have some server equipment at home and mine is almost all virtual machines and storage. There's some software on the bare metal but I don't usually need to bother with it. They happily chug along running various servers and if I burn one down I can spin it up again. If I cheat and don't reformat ~/ then I can usually bounce between quite a few distros and not actually have to change much of anything - my settings are right there.

      So, that's what I do at home and with the small colo that I have for friends. Sorry for the novella but I figured I'd try to make sure you knew it was an actual question and not me trolling. I guess the gist of it is, if Apple where to make and sell servers then I can't really think of any reason why not to buy them. When you're buying a bunch of enterprise scale hardware, it's going to cost some money.

      But... One caveat... Another question for which I do not know the answer for. What is the current MTBF and refresh rates and does longevity really matter?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    27. Re:Here's a solution... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Wow, I didn't know they built those all the way up to 2010. I thought they died out way earlier. I do like the idea of some 1RU box stuffed with A9X chips and drives. Or maybe some A9X variant that ditches the GPU part, Apple is certainly big enough to make something like that work. I wonder if they would sell them or keep them for internal use only.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    28. Re:Here's a solution... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I believe they already make some of their own chips. Even if they couldn't make their own chips, they could buy a chip manufacturer tomorrow. They might have to dig a few dollars out of the change in between their couch cushions if they wanted to buy a good one. They've already got some manufacturing ability - I think it goes in the iPhone or iPad - one or even both of them. They don't make a whole lot of them (I'm going from memory here so I might be mistaken) but they make some. There was a bit of an ado about it not long ago. Depending on the model iDevice you got, you got either a Samsung(?) or a chip made by Apple themselves.

      I seem to recall that Apple doesn't always release the MHz on their CPUs but that's just a limited one or two things I may be conflating. I'm really too lazy to look. I think they gave estimates or compared it to another device for one or two of them - maybe more. I think it's just specifically for the chips they make themselves that they've done that. I am not positive. I really could be conflating two things.

      I'm pretty sure about the first part, that I've read about a few times now. I'm pretty damned sure they've not only got chip making manufacturing capacity and I'm damned sure they could buy more if they wanted to. They have more money than some nations. That's just on-hand. They could buy the entire Caribbean Islands, and surrounding areas, and fill it full of nothing but hookers and blow for 365 days a year - and still have money left over when the heat death of the universe occurs.

      Well, I might be a little bit off with the amount they have on-hand but it's a lot.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    29. Re:Here's a solution... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I doubt it.

      Google, Microsoft and Facebook also built their own servers, they aren't selling them.

      These are servers built for specific (set of) tasks.

      I would rather see them join the open compute project (where you already have some of the designs from companies like Facebook and Microsoft):
      http://www.opencompute.org/

      Obviously, they could do both. But selling open source hardware that would be weird for Apple, I think ?

      Anyway, other companies do sell hardware from opencompute designs.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    30. Re:Here's a solution... by Lennie · · Score: 2

      If I remember correctly:

      The design by Intel was supposed to be something at least Intel could check if Intel built the CPU's correctly, so they could have an extra layer of certainty.

      But a white hack hacker came up with a way to produce the RNG/CPU in such a way to fool the inspection methods.

      Thus Intel can't as easily check if what they are producing is actually correct.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    31. Re:Here's a solution... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      What is the legality of putting spyware into Apple servers? I believe this would qualify as a search, and therefore require a warrant.

    32. Re:Here's a solution... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Mac Pros are built in Texas. For high value / low quantity items such as servers, they can make those in Texas too.

    33. Re:Here's a solution... by tentenone · · Score: 2

      bare metal really matter all that much any more

      Yes, it does. There are still hardware level functions that VMs will pass through for efficiency, e.g., 3d rendering via hardware graphics. Unless you're talking about QEMU level virtualization, VMs will still use the hardware to the extent possible. Intel has capabilities built into it's architectures to support these things. http://www.intel.com/content/w...

    34. Re:Here's a solution... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I know it's a crazy idea, but maybe if Apple built their own servers, they wouldn't have to worry about that. Maybe they could even sell a few of them to other companies.

      Nah. Crazy idea. Forget I mentioned it.

      Hell, even that wouldn't necessarily do it. They'd literally have to build every chip in the box AND the entire tool chain starting from the IC designer software (AND the OS/hardware it ran on) in order to get a sterile, trusted base from which to work. They'd have to write their own compilers and every other bit to really know it was clean, and they'd have to build their own IC fabs including the fabrication equipment from scratch to ensure they were producing untainted chips. This would also include most of the software and firmware that runs the fab production line like the masking gear, lithography or ebeam etching machines, etc etc etc.

      I think it's damn near impossible to say with any certainty these days that a given chip or IC of any complexity is "clean" or free of a back door.

      To be clear, I'm not saying any given chip or processor is tainted or has been subverted, I'm saying it's gone past the point where we can tell.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    35. Re:Here's a solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you talking about X-Serve they had single power supplies and had some bizarre racking hardware. Not to mention they were PPC and had soft RAID. But hey, it looked nice in the rack, very Apple Shiny!!!!!!!

    36. Re:Here's a solution... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yes but how *much* does that matter? Assuming, of course, that Apple allows similar access.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    37. Re:Here's a solution... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Then perhaps that'd be a good reason for someone to make trusted hardware, such as Apple - like we're discussing. Hmm... Curiouser and curiouser...

      I'd consider an Apple server for my home use. I really would - so long as it was easy to get any OS I wanted on it and so long as they maintained their quality controls. My server stuff is pretty old now. I've got (in my house!) a couple of blade servers. ;-) I've even got racks - two of 'em. I'd slap an Apple box in there but, with my luck, it'd be some proprietary thing and need its own rack. That's okay, a bunch of the stuff isn't racked and some of it is just desktop systems sitting on the floor or on a large bench.

      Hell, I even have two older phones in there and hooked up. I never did finish configuring them. They're for entirely odd reasons and a long story.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    38. Re:Here's a solution... by mitcheli · · Score: 1

      Problem with this is, unless you're pretty damn good at canary protocols, odds are the adversary that is interrupting the supply chain is pretty damn good at detecting and circumventing the canary protocol.

      --
      Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
    39. Re: Here's a solution... by kungfuj35u5 · · Score: 1

      Nonredundant power supplies I'd agree is kind of a showstopper, but honestly the other two things you mentioned wouldn't have been relevant then or today. Architecture doesn't much matter for a server app built on Posix APIs that isn't FLOPs critical or GPU dependent. And software raid really hasn't been a hamper to performance or reliability since 2001 or so.

      I do believe that they made Intel xserves toward the end of the lifespan of the product.

    40. Re:Here's a solution... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Really? Do a google search sometime, you might find things that are actually true.

      Later units (Intel "nehalem" Xeon based 2009 Xserve) actually did have redundant power supplies. And the racking hardware wasn't too bizzare - you mount the rails, then you feed the chassis into the rails where it locks into the rails, and then there are thumbscrews on the front to secure it in the rack.

      There was an optional hardware raid board you could get that would replace the SATA backplane with SATA / SAS. And they sold fiber channel controllers so you could hook it up to as much SAN as you could pack in.

      The Xserve had some issues, but none of the things you posted even come close.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    41. Re: Here's a solution... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It depends on the scale of the enterprise. Cloud providers by blade chassis because they get a shit ton of density for virtualization, and they buy giant SAN / NAS hardware for storage. Large enterprise buys blade chassis because they get a shit ton of density for their VMware clusters, and buy giant SAN / NAS hardware for storage.

      For sufficiently large enterprises, there is very little different about the hardware.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    42. Re:Here's a solution... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      It will be interesting to see if they do but given the previous sales numbers I don't find it likely. With the x-server you could buy more for less in the PC space and that will likely remain true.

      Remember, those were PPC-based. They never made an Intel-Based XServe. In fact, the point at which they killed the product line was when they would have logically upgraded XServe to Intel.

      However, they MIGHT go against the grain, and build an ARM-based Server. The power usage (or lack thereof) is damn-nigh incredible on ARM, and if they are truly building purpose-built servers (rather than as a toe back into the XServe market), then they only have to get a certain number of software packages working on ARM, rather than an entire OS X or Linux stack. (And yes, I am aware that Linux exists for ARM already).

    43. Re:Here's a solution... by macs4all · · Score: 3, Informative

      Their servers were ARM stuff, so wouldn't work with VMs like you are talking about because ARM is not compatible with 90% of the software out there. Very likely though, they would go Intel instead of ARM for a new offering.

      You're full of shit.

      Apple's Servers were NEVER ARM, they were PowerPC G5s running OS X Server. And LONG before the XServe, Apple made some (non-rack-mount) Servers that ran AIX, and those were 68k-based.

    44. Re:Here's a solution... by macs4all · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe they already make some of their own chips.

      Apple has never had a fab line. They certainly design many of their own chips (even up to the SoC level); but do not "fab" any of them. But you're right, they certainly could purchase a fab-line if they wanted to get into that headache.

      Depending on the model iDevice you got, you got either a Samsung(?) or a chip made by Apple themselves.

      Nope. It was either you got an iPhone with an SoC that was fab-ed by Samsung or TSMC; both of which were simultaneously producing the same ARM SoC under contract from Apple to meet demand (and to give Apple the advantages of having a "second source").

      I seem to recall that Apple doesn't always release the MHz on their CPUs

      Nope. Look in the "Tech Specs" section of any Apple Product Page.

    45. Re:Here's a solution... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The way everything is wave soldered, and with a cpu having hundreds of really small terminals, cpu swapout is not easy. They gave up IC sockets decades ago.

      Not too much SMT soldering is done with wave. Most of it uses solder-paste and IR Reflow.

    46. Re:Here's a solution... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Does that genuinely change what I was saying? Arm and PowerPC are RISC based processors, which means that they are not Intel compatible. So, how is that really any different that I used the incorrect term? How is that full of shit? Is the system compatible with 90% of the software out there? Can you run Windows on it like the Intel based Macs?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    47. Re: Here's a solution... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Have you, ever run an apple product. And blocked the transmission to the Internet? Except for a tablet, they usually take seconds to respond to your request, not milliseconds, seconds, what is the device doing? It's playing ET.

      What are you trying to use? iTunes Store? App Store? Safari? Mail? Help? Spotlight with the "Suggestions" feature enabled? iCloud-"Sharing"?

      That's about "it" for OS X when it comes to "Applications that depend to some extent on the Internet".

      What you MAY be experiencing is also a Third-Party App (or apps) that want to phone-home. Many do. Apple has no control over those, of course. But you certainly can .

    48. Re:Here's a solution... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Does that genuinely change what I was saying? Arm and PowerPC are RISC based processors, which means that they are not Intel compatible. So, how is that really any different that I used the incorrect term? How is that full of shit? Is the system compatible with 90% of the software out there? Can you run Windows on it like the Intel based Macs?

      Please don't try to rationalize your ignorance. Instead, embrace it and maybe you'll actually learn something.

      BTW, it isn't just "Intel and then Everything Else". What are you, like 8 years old? Hand in your Geek Card, immediately.

    49. Re:Here's a solution... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      It makes a big difference. ARM has always been way behind Intel, whereas at the time when Apple was building PPC-based servers, it was kicking the living snot out of Intel in floating-point performance, though a bit slower at integer performance. So for some types of workloads, it was considerably better than an Intel server would have been (assuming a similar number of cores). Unfortunately for Apple, 3D-rendering compute farms aren't a top seller. :-)

      Besides, servers don't run off-the-shelf Windows in any sane universe. Yes, you can build a server to run Windows, but that's a bit like building a Ferrari that runs on diesel. It just isn't a good match for the job. If you're going to run servers, you should use an OS that is actually designed for servers, e.g. Linux, *BSD, etc. And Linux ran pretty well on PowerPC systems, in two different forms—MkLinux, which ran Linux on top of OSFMK (Mach 3), and LinuxPPC, which ran Linux natively on the hardware. The XServe hardware never supported MkLinux, and for performance reasons, you probably would not have wanted to go that way anyway, but LinuxPPC should have been solid, I think. (By that time, I was mainly using OS X, and thus wasn't paying much attention to the Linux world.) NetBSD and OpenBSD also had PPC ports, though I never ran them, so I can't comment on them.

      OS X is a decent server OS, though IIRC Linux tended to have better raw performance—particularly on PowerPC. It all depends on what you're trying to do, and on whether being able to run Mac software on your server is of any benefit. Of course, with the Intel transition, that entire question becomes moot. If you need to run Windows or Mac software, you just run Linux on your server box as the main OS, and run an OS X or Windows guest on top of it. But that is a pretty unusual requirement unless your server is also somebody's desktop PC in an office somewhere....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    50. Re:Here's a solution... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Wow, just wow, the ignorance of your post is astounding.

      Intel compatible is much of the PC and Mac market. ARM campatible is phones and tablets. The xservs were RISC computers which were incompitble with most of the software in the world. How am I wrong? And how is misstating the CPU manufacturer of a computer I haven't touched in 10 years something that means I am not a Geek?

      You really are a fanboy, can't have anyone saying anything FROM EXPERIENCE, that looks bad to Apple huh?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    51. Re:Here's a solution... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      They never made an Intel-Based XServe. In fact, the point at which they killed the product line was when they would have logically upgraded XServe to Intel.

      Really? Wikipedia would disagree with you, and I seem to recall encountering them personally, so I disagree with you, too. In fact, the last model (released in 2009) is able to run El Capitan. XServe wasn't discontinued until January of 2011 (announced in late 2010 to give folks a couple of months to buy up as much hardware as they needed).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    52. Re:Here's a solution... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The servers were incompatible with most of the software binaries in the world. However, and you might want to sit down for this, there have been and are C compilers that spit out PPC code, so it was possible to compile the software to run on Apple's servers. Much top-rate server software is open source, and a lot of the rest is from vendors that will run another compiler on their source if it'll raise sales a bit.

      As far as mixing the CPUs up, ARM is a low-performance energy-saving design, which is obviously going to have effects on how the server works. PPC was high performance, at the time better than Intel chips for many things, There's differences between ARM and PPC that are very significant when discussing servers. Not remembering which is which shouldn't autodestruct your geek code, but assuming all processors not from Intel or AMD are functionally the same should.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    53. Re:Here's a solution... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I'd probably consider such for home use - longevity would be nice. As it is, I've got some servers that are pretty long in the tooth but they mostly run things like virtual machines and my network. My home in Maine is largely set up like a business would be - including an intranet with a variety of self-hosted services including test servers and web servers. Err.. Doesn't everybody run their own services? ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    54. Re:Here's a solution... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Cool. I knew they designed them but I'd thought they'd bought into a chip fab company. I went and did a look to see where I'd have come up with such an idea and it was indeed a rumor a while back. I'd thought they'd gone through with it but it would appear that they haven't. This page is not (I don't think) the source of the rumor - not the source that I read. I think the source that I read was here on Slashdot. But, here's one of those rumor pages:
      http://appleinsider.com/articl...

      They could, at the drop of a hat, buy Taiwan Semiconductor. There are also a bunch of ARM fabs out there, IIRC, that could be scooped up but they'd probably be better off going with someone a bit more forward. Taiwan Semiconductor would make a good choice - in my humble opinion.

      I'm kind of surprised that they don't. I think that's why I believed the rumor that they *had* bought their way into one. I'm sure they're probably invested in some (corporations often hold shares in other companies, like Microsoft used to own a good sized chunk of Apple back in the day). I do believe that Microsoft is completely divested from Apple shares at this point but I'd not swear to it. It's probably in an SEC filing somewhere out there but I'm too lazy to look.

      I'd be a sound investment - maybe. Maybe... Capacity, output capacity, would be what mattered. It'd have to be able to produce enough to fill all their needs and not much more - unless they intended to sell to others, which seems unlikely. Then, there's little/no redundancy. With the way things are, they can rely on multiple suppliers if they absolutely had to. Like the Samsung and TSMC thing you mentioned. I guess they could produce some on their own and still have another company manufacture some too - and ready to scale up production if something happens to their fab.

      It'd be interesting and I was pretty sure that they'd already done so. That's what I get for not verifying rumors. ;-) Thanks for the update.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    55. Re:Here's a solution... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      They never made an Intel-Based XServe. In fact, the point at which they killed the product line was when they would have logically upgraded XServe to Intel.

      Really? Wikipedia would disagree with you, and I seem to recall encountering them personally, so I disagree with you, too. In fact, the last model (released in 2009) is able to run El Capitan. XServe wasn't discontinued until January of 2011 (announced in late 2010 to give folks a couple of months to buy up as much hardware as they needed).

      Huh, you're right! Ya learn something new every day! Thanks!

    56. Re:Here's a solution... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Not to reply to my own post; but I see they could even be ordered with Redundant Power Supplies, negating one of the most-often-quoted memes regarding XServes.

      Wow! I didn't know that they had given the XServe so much love during its all-too-short lifespan in the Intel world. Shame they killed it off; it sounded like it was really getting its act together near the end. I particularly like the idea of an SSD Boot Drive that didn't occupy a drive bay. That's pretty innovative...

    57. Re:Here's a solution... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      That's why racks come with doors. You should be leaning against your servers anyways.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    58. Re:Here's a solution... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Cool. I knew they designed them but I'd thought they'd bought into a chip fab company.

      Perhaps you are thinking of when they acquired PASemi, which was a Chip DESIGN (but still "fabless") company.

      Personally, I think Apple has been smart to stay out of the "fabbing" business. At the quantities they commit-to, I am SURE they get best-pricing anyway, and fab lines are not only expensive, but they are a gigantic maintenance and upgrade nightmare. Apple is wise to leave that to the "experts".

    59. Re:Here's a solution... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Wow, just wow, the ignorance of your post is astounding.

      That bears repeating.
      While looking in a mirror.

      Intel compatible is much of the PC and Mac market. ARM campatible is phones and tablets. The xservs were RISC computers which were incompitble with most of the software in the world.

      Here's a clue, for free. Most server software in world at the time of XServer was not Intel specific. In fact, there were a large number of different CPU types out there, and there still are. I know!!! Shocking!!!! Even more shocking, Intel servers weren't considered very good, not to say not good at all, 10+ years ago. There's a reason MS Servers are less than 25% of the market share. (Yes, there's 1 study in there that has a higher number, the rest are much lower)

      How am I wrong? And how is misstating the CPU manufacturer of a computer I haven't touched in 10 years something that means I am not a Geek?

      You really are a fanboy, can't have anyone saying anything FROM EXPERIENCE, that looks bad to Apple huh?

      You're wrong on several levels, not the least in your assumption that Intel matters on the server side at all. It shows a severe state of myopia.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    60. Re:Here's a solution... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I could see it as being something that's not only long-term fiscally advantageous but also something that enables them to push the envelope and thus give their products a lead. Part of the picture I have in my head means that they'd be selling the chips themselves instead of limiting them to their own devices. That sort of goes against business practices seen by Apple in the past but I guess it's possible, however unlikely. As a long-term strategy, it might be worthwhile.

      I did mention one of the larger drawbacks in my earlier reply. It puts them at a place of a single point of failure - unless another company *also* has the tech and can spin up the fab style/tech quickly in case of a crisis. I'm thinking that's really antithetical to typical corporate behavior with regards to Apple.

      That said, if Apple made server hardware that was not a fashion accessory and had the longevity, durability, and build quality associated with the consumer lines then I'd absolutely consider purchasing it for my home use. I don't refresh nearly as often, as a home user, so it's okay for me to buy a server and expect to get five to seven years out of it. Quality isn't so valuable a metric (but is still a metric - just not as valuable) when you're going to refresh in 2-3 years already and have already factored in the MTBF with your purchase.

      As a home user, that metric becomes more heavily weighted, at least it does in my choices, and I'd give Apple a serious consideration at that point. I'd SERIOUSLY want to be able to have some alternatives. I'd really rather a different operating system on the bare metal. It is BSD and is Unix-like so I could live with it but it is not my preferences. So long as it had a decent VNC server and I could get VMWare up and running then I'd almost certainly opt for it - if it were an option and I was in the market for one.

      I'm sure there's a VNC server application package that exists or could be converted easily enough. I want something better than SSH. RDP is nice but I prefer VNC. I'm not sure but I bet there's an RDP app for OS X so that's an option. I do insist on VMWare. I know that it is pricey but it's something that I absolutely insist on. If I could get VMWare to run on *BSD then I'd probably be a GhostBSD user today. VirtualBox is not, in fact, the same. I can use VirtualBox but I have acclimated to VMWare, am happy with it, prefer it, and it's something that I absolutely insist on. And, seeing as it's me making the choices and the choices are only impacting me, I get to decide such things. ;-)

      At any rate, I'd absolutely consider it. I am not, on the other hand, a business. Assuming it had the quality and subsequent longevity traditionally associated with Apple products then it might also be a viable solution for the small business market - where they're wanting to get longevity from devices. They are, to the best of my knowledge, not generally refreshing parts or the whole of their server room every couple of years.

      However, I don't think they'd have to manufacture their own chips for that. If Apple wanted to be in the chip fad industry, beyond that of simply designing, then they'd absolutely be in that market. They've capital enough to enter any market they want. I mean that quite literally. There is no industrial field that is where cost is a barrier to entry for Apple that I can think of. Those guys have some serious, serious assets and cash on-hand. It'd very impressive.

      As they do their own design, they probably do have some limited manufacturing capacity. You'd know more about that than I. They're not just designing and sending out to get a prototype built, are they? I'd expect they're prototyping in-house. It's obviously working well for them but if they're not prototyping in-house then I'd expect that to be eating into their time. Then again, maybe it's faster to have the fabs prototype than it is for them to do so in-house?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    61. Re: Here's a solution... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Ever price rack doors? Hard sell to bean counters. And then you end up with some gear including rails that prevents closing.

    62. Re:Here's a solution... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      > Apple made some (non-rack-mount) Servers that ran AIX, and those were 68k-based.

      PowerPC actually... 604/604e

      Yes, you are correct; sorry. I was thinking of the even older ones that ran Apple's A/UX (which was actually pretty cool). I'm pretty sure those were 68k-based.

    63. Re:Here's a solution... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I could see it as being something that's not only long-term fiscally advantageous but also something that enables them to push the envelope and thus give their products a lead. Part of the picture I have in my head means that they'd be selling the chips themselves instead of limiting them to their own devices. That sort of goes against business practices seen by Apple in the past but I guess it's possible, however unlikely. As a long-term strategy, it might be worthwhile.

      I did mention one of the larger drawbacks in my earlier reply. It puts them at a place of a single point of failure - unless another company *also* has the tech and can spin up the fab style/tech quickly in case of a crisis. I'm thinking that's really antithetical to typical corporate behavior with regards to Apple.

      But as I said before, fab lines are assininely-expensive, have to be continuously updated, and pretty-much have to be run 24/7/365 to make ends meet. Apple has wisely stayed out of that game, IMHO.

      That said, if Apple made server hardware that was not a fashion accessory and had the longevity, durability, and build quality associated with the consumer lines then I'd absolutely consider purchasing it for my home use.

      Apple has had many, many forays into the Server market throughout the years, including at least one home-grown variant of Unix, plus Dedicated (non-Mac) Server machines that ran IBM's AIX, and a short-lived Port of NEXTSTEP in 1999, branded as "OS X Server 1.0", and all of this long before the XServes. And I would hardly call any of them a "fashion accessory". That is a blatant slap-in-the-face to the hundreds of software and hardware engineers that worked long and hard to bring those very serious products to market.

      I don't refresh nearly as often, as a home user, so it's okay for me to buy a server and expect to get five to seven years out of it. Quality isn't so valuable a metric (but is still a metric - just not as valuable) when you're going to refresh in 2-3 years already and have already factored in the MTBF with your purchase.

      As a home user, that metric becomes more heavily weighted, at least it does in my choices, and I'd give Apple a serious consideration at that point. I'd SERIOUSLY want to be able to have some alternatives. I'd really rather a different operating system on the bare metal. It is BSD and is Unix-like so I could live with it but it is not my preferences. So long as it had a decent VNC server and I could get VMWare up and running then I'd almost certainly opt for it - if it were an option and I was in the market for one.

      Well, Macs can run VMWare, and VNC is the built-in "Screen Sharing" feature of OS X, so...

      Now the question remains: What do you really need from a home-server, and will you accept something that isn't in a 19" rackmount package as a "real server" (keeping in mind that HP and Dell sell many boxen they call "Servers" that are simply glorified tower designs).

      I'm sure there's a VNC server application package that exists or could be converted easily enough. I want something better than SSH. RDP is nice but I prefer VNC. I'm not sure but I bet there's an RDP app for OS X so that's an option.

      You can have all of that and more with OS X. Oh, and Apple has a spectacular Remote Admin package based on VNC, called "Apple Remote Desktop". It can also be used to admi

    64. Re:Here's a solution... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Hm. I wonder if it runs osx.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  2. So join the rest of us by Cederic · · Score: 4, Informative

    Assume your cloud service provider isn't secure.

    Fuck backdoors, you can't vet their security or admin staff, you can't adequately audit their processes, you can't believe the marketing bullshit they produce.

    So assume they're not secure.

    How you deal with it isn't paranoia. Don't be bloody stupid.

    Encrypt your data at rest. Control the keys yourself.
    Encrypt your data in transit. Control the keys yourself.
    Encrypt your keys. Fuck it, go whole hog if you're that worried about it.

    But Apple aren't in any different position to anybody else, and photographing motherboards? Fuck me, get a life.

    1. Re:So join the rest of us by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      rack your own server in the DC then and you have full control over the software running on it.

    2. Re:So join the rest of us by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

      rack your own server in the DC then and you have full control over the software running on it.

      Rack your own server in your office if security is actually important to you. At least, if you're capable of maintaining it.

    3. Re:So join the rest of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Once I worked for an industrial supplier. An international transport company was stealing our chips and inserting their own low-lifespan knockoffs. We would have never known if our customers didn't tell us. They found out by base-lining machines and realizing that some of the new chips coming in had markings that were in a different font.

      If they didn't take pictures of their known-good equipment to compare against, no one would have known and we would have taken the fall for selling bad equipment.

    4. Re:So join the rest of us by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      You don't need to alter the hardware to backdoor a modern server, you compromise the firmware on the motherboard. No hardware evidence, impossible to detect from software.

    5. Re:So join the rest of us by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Better Idea: Don't upload shit to the cloud in the first place.

      PlainTalk speech recognition worked fine on a Power Mac 5200 20 years ago, but Apple forced dictation to go through the cloud until 10.9. The Newton MessagePad 2000 had decent handwriting recognition (finally) and workable natural language analysis.

      All of these things can be performed locally using the crap-ton of processing power and RAM that today's devices have, but "Siri" sends it all to the cloud.

      Want location guessing? Store it locally. Download logic updates for the parsing of that data as Apple makes improvements.

      Need user data to iterate over? Surely there can't be a shortage of Bay Area interns with a variety of accents that Apple can bring in for voice recognition training.

      If Apple cared about user security, it wouldn't have this data going over the wire to begin with.
      If Apple wanted to stand up to intelligence services, it would be putting physical disconnect cut-off switches in front of all of its device sensors and recorders (and analog I/O) and make the battery removable.
      If Apple wanted to stand up to domestic law enforcement, well... no one elected Apple as a co-equal branch of government. We have the court system for that.

    6. Re:So join the rest of us by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      yep the paranoia from them sounds like they seriously don't understand security. They should ALWAYS be assuming others have access and that some of them may be people you don't want to have access. The way to correctly respond to that is by managing your security, keys, encryption and data correctly then what they have access to in equipment you don't control doesn't actually mater so much.

    7. Re:So join the rest of us by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      most server boards have pins to wire a switch in. Now macgyver or even a very Junior bomb tech should be able to bypass them but that may leave marks but that can be made to look like Wear and tear

    8. Re:So join the rest of us by Kjella · · Score: 2

      rack your own server in the DC then and you have full control over the software running on it.

      Long story short, if the military wouldn't put Top Secret information on it you probably don't have "full control". I'm sure Apple is fending off many casual hackers, but if you have to start worrying about hardware backdoors, targeted zero-day exploits, tampering during transport or in the data center, covert surveillance equipment, inside jobs and so on it takes an awful lot more than a dedicated server in a DC.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:So join the rest of us by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Wiping the firmware and replacing it with coreboot would help too (assuming coreboot ever gets useful, widespread hardware support).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  3. Then don't buy from American vendors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    try f.ex. Ericsson or another reputable manufacturer that doesn't conduct spying for the U.S government like Cisco etc. does.

    1. Re:Then don't buy from American vendors by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because everyone knows that the US is the only country that spies on people ;-) Surely those good EU countries would never stoop to things like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...

    2. Re:Then don't buy from American vendors by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Any 5 eye nation, NATO nation would welcome the design campus and teams in with a low tax rate. Then the same deep access would be requested.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. What a shame by ShaunC · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's quite sad that in the United States of America, of all places, this is now a legitimate and very real concern. What in the hell happened to this country?

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:What a shame by Gussington · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's quite sad that in the United States of America, of all places, this is now a legitimate and very real concern. What in the hell happened to this country?

      At what point in your version of history has industrial espionage never been a concern?

    2. Re:What a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The same thing that happens to every country.

      You see, there is a subset of humans that are interested in having power over other humans. That is their primary drive. Over time such people infect all levels of government, law enforcement, and the upper tier of wealthy business controllers. Each and every day, they find ways of using the power they have to gain even more power, and they never get tired of doing this, and they never give up when defeated.

      Your privacy is a degree of personal power that you would like to keep for yourself. Unfortunately, they want it, and you can't both have it. So, they have taken it.

      Everything that you (and the majority of your social class) aren't willing to violently defend will eventually be taken from you.

    3. Re:What a shame by jc42 · · Score: 1

      It's quite sad that in the United States of America, of all places, this is now a legitimate and very real concern. What in the hell happened to this country?

      Lessee, I seem to remember that there's a name for the logical error of thinking that the first time you notice something was the first time it ever happened. ... Maybe I should try to dig the term out again and post it here ...

      ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:What a shame by ThatAblaze · · Score: 1

      This is the closest thing I could find on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    5. Re:What a shame by cstdenis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pre-industrial history of course.

      --
      1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
    6. Re:What a shame by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      I am not sure how you get modded "Insightful" for equating the surveillance apparatus of the NSA and the very fact that Apple has these legitimate worries (while at the same time engaged in a show trial over FBI access to the IOS source code) to "industrial espionage". But you're right: OP was wrong to observe that this is a sad state of affairs in this nation, and I'm glad you were here to belittle his/her concerns. Thanks, citizen.

    7. Re:What a shame by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      At what point in your version of history has industrial espionage never been a concern?

      Pre-industrial history of course.

      Oh, please: everyone totally ripped-off the Nez Perce and didn't pay them bead-one.

  5. Wouldn't be the first time by BeerCat · · Score: 1

    Some years back, Virgin Airlines accused British Airways of "dirty tricks", which included unauthorised access to the Virgin (rented) space on the BA bookings computer

    British Airways improperly accessed confidential Virgin Atlantic flight information

    http://law.justia.com/cases/fe...

    VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS LIMITED, Plaintiff,
    v.
    BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC, Defendant.

    No. 93 Civ. 7270 (MGC).
    United States District Court, S.D. New York.

    December 30, 1994.

    --
    "She's furniture with a pulse"
  6. The times, they are a-changin' by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You guys remember when we'd read about some random individual doing paranoid crap like this, and our first response would be to make fun of the wacko?

    Those were the good old days...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:The times, they are a-changin' by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Not really, no. Because the paranoid guy was correct but we laughed at him. Now that we have real companies that are privacy minded raising this as a concern, we might actually see some action in this direction, and we might even see vendors stop locking free and open source software / firmware out of their chips for exactly this concern.

    2. Re:The times, they are a-changin' by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Well, no. I would have requested proof or evidence, or something that could have been checked.

      Any conclusion should be well grounded, and without contrary evidence is a matter of faith or belief.

      Making fun of a whacko presumes the whackiness, unless it is well known or proven. Until then, it is faith vs. faith.

  7. Little do they know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The iPhones they used to take the photos with had also been tampered with and edited the images

  8. Simple answer with some performance implications.. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    ...encrypt data with a distinct key per individual piece of content using a centralized key management system.

    --
    Loading...
  9. Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "At one point, the company even had people taking photographs of the motherboards in the computer servers it was using, then mark down exactly what each chip was, to make sure everything was fully understood."

    You know, 15 years ago, give or take, this would have been considered the most absurd tin-foil hat bullshit imaginable.

    Suddenly, we find ourselves in a world where this makes total sense ... which scares the shit out of me.

    It's like the nasty dystopian future, but without cool skater chicks and designer digital drugs.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's like the nasty dystopian future, but without cool skater chicks

      Yeah, instead of the cool skater chicks, we have prudish SJW's trying to subordinate us. In a way, it's even more dystopian than the dystopian sci-fi authors could have imagined.

    2. Re:Wow ... by swb · · Score: 2

      It may have been a paranoid fantasy 15 years ago, but how do you know it wasn't going on then, too?

      You would think that the idea of infecting computer hardware, firmware or installed software with built in backdoors would have been thought of and tried years ago, especially as multiuser or timesharing systems grew where terminals were distributed into lower security areas or had remote dialup access.

      All of this reminds me of the movie "The Conversation", which is a great study in surveillance paranoia.

    3. Re:Wow ... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was absurd paranoia back then because 30 years ago we were in a Cold War against an opponent notorious for limiting its citizens' freedoms and spying on everything they were doing. Our leaders had to constantly portray themselves as the polar opposite of that, or risk being voted out of office. Even after the Cold War ended, that mentality lingered.

      Then 15 years ago, 9/11 happened. And suddenly it became "important" for the government to know everything you were doing and saying in private, because Terrorism! It's pretty sad when you start to think the Cold War days were better.

    4. Re:Wow ... by DontHackMeBro · · Score: 1

      Fast forward another few years and America regresses into the Soviet Russia and East Germany it promised to never become.

    5. Re:Wow ... by DontHackMeBro · · Score: 1

      How to raise the morale of your country? Just go in reverse!

    6. Re:Wow ... by cfalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Suddenly, we find ourselves in a world where this makes total sense ... which scares the shit out of me.

      You've always been in a world where this makes total sense. You just didn't want to believe it until now. That's fair- none of us really did- but it's better to have our eyes open so we can fix the problem than just pretending it's not real.

    7. Re:Wow ... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      During the cold war, spying was done on supposed communists. During the '60's, spying was done on the hippies and socialists, at that spying on people who might be socialist or anarchist goes back to the beginning of the 20th century at least, with the Supreme Court at one point ruling that tapping phones did not violate the 4th as they weren't doing it to your physical possessions. Not long after they instituted prohibition and spied on potential bootleggers, which led to more prohibition and spying on the evil drug users.
      The electronic spying started with Lincoln ordering the tapping of the telegraph lines, which was more efficient then going through the mail. The big difference was it was socially acceptable as they only spied on evil people and of course they were limited in how much spying they were capable of.
      It has just become easier and easier to expand their net until today when they can record most every phone call and much of the internet traffic.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re: Wow ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      TBH, religious people, which included most until recently, happily used social pressure and threats of corporate boycotts (i.e social and financial ostracism) to not only keep gay marriage illegal, but homsexual activity. And many other things.

      If the shoe is on the other foot now, after thousands of years, sucks.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:Wow ... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      I remember when MS first announced "Windows Updates" and there were people who swore they would never let MS remotely download software onto their computer, and/or have processes running on their computers that would "phone home" to check for updates, etc;

      How could we know that software isn't something besides what MS claimed it was...?
      When was that, like the late 90's/early 2000's?

      If you extrapolate where we came from to where we are now, regarding things like privacy, the IoT, etc;, what do you think it will be like 15-20 years from now?
      I can guarantee you, if we did know, no one would believe it.
      Believe it.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    10. Re:Wow ... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Right, but everyone will have VR gaming to while away the hours.
      No one will care.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    11. Re: Wow ... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true." -James Branch Cabell

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    12. Re:Wow ... by xupere · · Score: 1

      It's like the nasty dystopian future, but without cool skater chicks and designer digital drugs.

      Only one thing to do then: we need to throw resources at advancing our cool skater chick and designer digital drug technologies to catch up and balance things out! Best place to start on both would probably be by forking the current EDM scene ...

    13. Re: Wow ... by Burz · · Score: 1

      Love the WASP bros running around /. pining about "SJWs! SJWs!" (oh, and my faaaavorite--- "cultural marxism") like we're gonna throw them in jail because of what they do in their bedrooms or who their mamma is. OTOH, if the shoe was really on the other foot they would be in a whole other different world of hurt right now.

    14. Re: Wow ... by Burz · · Score: 1

      Um, SJW is just a slang term for someone with morality you don't like, so its not clear who or what you're ranting about. The fact that you're comparing the tendency to discriminate and throw shade on people because of their background, with liking comic books and Harry Potter, should give a clue that your POV is mixed up.

      Funny, you say your friends were "stalked" but whenever I look at comment sections on various sites like Youtube, more often than not I see torrents of angry boys (who have quite a reputation for stalking other people) calling people "hoes, fags and n*ggers" thousands and millions of times. Funny that. Everyone in the world sucks except you, darling superhero-secret-agent-golden-boy-with-an-attitude-problem.

      I also happen to be a white male who dresses and acts conservatively, and have been around long enough to know that it is the WASP-y guys who try to recruit people into an irrational cult of hate against aforementioned "hoes, fags and n*ggers". And now that economic trends are biting even you, why not blame them for your problems?

    15. Re: Wow ... by Burz · · Score: 1

      Sir, you are obsessed and cowardly. Clearly you grew up in a bubble of denial which is bursting. If people lodging complaints about the way you behave (do you even know what that is?) and carrying picket signs terrifies you, then you need to grow up and do some introspection about what it really means to live in a diverse and prosperous society.

  10. that's what happens by hguorbray · · Score: 2, Insightful

    when you outsource everything

    -I'm just sayin'

    1. Re:that's what happens by dj245 · · Score: 1

      when you outsource everything -I'm just sayin'

      This actually increases the cost of doing business. When the quality of almost every product can not be assumed, the burden of quality shifts almost entirely to the purchaser. It takes a lot of manpower to write detailed Requests for Proposal, compare bids to those RFPs, evaluate them, and do additional QC checking since the vendor can't be trusted to do that. There are enough stories of companies with solid reputations throwing it all away in pursuit of slightly lower costs that you can't even trust "reliable" vendors anymore. Yesterday they were fine, today they might be fine, but tommorow? It all hangs on the whim of an upper level manager who may be solely incentivized to cut costs.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  11. Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Here's a crazier idea. All data uploaded to cloud servers is encrypted so that it is unreadable by servers. Backdoors should be irrelevant.

    1. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by msauve · · Score: 2

      So the servers which can't interpret this encrypted data process it how, exactly?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by perpenso · · Score: 2

      So the servers which can't interpret this encrypted data process it how, exactly?

      They don't. The point of a cloud server is to store user data, not Apple's data. User's word processing documents, spreadsheets, slideshows, photoshop documents, photos, etc. Whatever they stored to iCloud rather than the local HD.

    3. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by kav2k · · Score: 2

      By using homomorphic encryption, of course!

    4. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by msauve · · Score: 1

      So, how do they authorize/authenticate these users, if they only have encrypted usernames/password hashes which they can't decrypt? Do you understand how a server works?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      So, how do they authorize/authenticate these users, if they only have encrypted usernames/password hashes which they can't decrypt?

      Users authenticate on their Mac/iPhone/iPad to an AppleID that is optionally configured for iCloud. The AppleID authentication is something separate from iCloud. Once authenticated to an iCloud enabled AppleID their iCloud storage appears as just another storage device. Files saved to iCloud can be encrypted locally before upload. "Keychains" with the necessary keys are shared between Mac/iPhone/iPad.

    6. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by Pikoro · · Score: 2

      vs. the homeopathic encryption in use now.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    7. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Do you understand how a server works?

      Maybe does. I am however certain you dont understand cryptography.

      Almost no online service saves passwords. They save a one way hash of the password. When the user puts their own password in, if the hashes match then authentication happens. For basic cloud data theres no need to have any way at all for the *server* to decrypt it.

      It gets a bit more complicated when the data needs to be complicated, invoving row level encryption and all sorts of drama around how that stuff interacts, but its entirely possible.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    8. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      Do you understand how a server works?

      Maybe does. I am however certain you dont understand cryptography.

      Almost no online service saves passwords. They save a one way hash of the password. When the user puts their own password in, if the hashes match then authentication happens. For basic cloud data theres no need to have any way at all for the *server* to decrypt it.

      It gets a bit more complicated when the data needs to be complicated, invoving row level encryption and all sorts of drama around how that stuff interacts, but its entirely possible.

      Ah, but there's your problem - to compare a hash, you need the hash the user provides. But, you can't single out the file from the disk - a (fully) encrypted disk doesn't allow you to know where files start or end. So, your solution would be to unencrypt it with the key - but then you start processing the data unencrypted! Ultimately, having a separate service might work, but that would still require you to leave the filesystem itself unencrypted, if you never want to process the data. That would thus leave a lot of valuable metadata exposed, such as the name of the file, the size, the date it was created, etc. Ultimately, I'm suprised no one has mentioned monitoring the network traffic - for a chip to spy home to the NSA or whatever, it would have to send that information out over a network unless they send a Special Agent to collect it, and even then it'd be pretty easy to trace. All of your servers contacting the same IP address, one which doesn't store any info? Using a different security protocol than all of your consumer programs use? A well configured network sniffer should stand a good chance of detecting things like this, and presumably then you can intercept it.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    9. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by perpenso · · Score: 2

      Ah, but there's your problem - to compare a hash, you need the hash the user provides. But, you can't single out the file from the disk - a (fully) encrypted disk doesn't allow you to know where files start or end.

      Let's ignore the detail that Apple is not going to store the "hash" to an AppleID on a 3rd party server where the 3rd party can read it and just go with the above for the sake of argument. One solution is to store the "hash" outside the encrypted drive. Which is what happens on the iPhone itself. The decryption keys are stored outside of the user's storage.

      Now lets consider that the user needs no encrypted 3rd party disk on the cloud. The Mac/iPhone/iPad encrypts each file saved on the cloud before uploading it. Decrypts it after downloading it. There is no need for a 3rd party to ever see plaintext user files, they need only upload/download cyphertext. Similarly anyone intercepting the network traffic only sees cyphertext.

    10. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by Sique · · Score: 1

      Cloud services do much more than just store user data. Most cloud offerings include a whole stack of processing facilities. Basicly, cloud computing is distributed computer processing done in a standardized environment with dynamic resource allocation. Offsite storage is just the cheapest way to make use of cloud services in most cases.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    11. Re: Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by richardschaefer · · Score: 1

      That might make it hard to search emails on the server, browse your iCloud Photo Library, Apple Music collection and anything else that chooses to reside on the server rather than the device.

    12. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      Ah, but there's your problem - to compare a hash, you need the hash the user provides. But, you can't single out the file from the disk - a (fully) encrypted disk doesn't allow you to know where files start or end.

      Let's ignore the detail that Apple is not going to store the "hash" to an AppleID on a 3rd party server where the 3rd party can read it and just go with the above for the sake of argument. One solution is to store the "hash" outside the encrypted drive. Which is what happens on the iPhone itself. The decryption keys are stored outside of the user's storage. Now lets consider that the user needs no encrypted 3rd party disk on the cloud. The Mac/iPhone/iPad encrypts each file saved on the cloud before uploading it. Decrypts it after downloading it. There is no need for a 3rd party to ever see plaintext user files, they need only upload/download cyphertext. Similarly anyone intercepting the network traffic only sees cyphertext.

      That's one way of handling it, and I suppose it keeps the data itself secure from the processor, so I was wrong there. However, you still run into the problem of the metadata being available to the processor. I may not know the contents, but if I see Mr. Somebody is reading a file 3.6MB large that was created yesterday and has the name "SELFIE230316", it's not hard to deduce what it is. You can hash the name, but all of this done solely on the client side will slow down operations a lot, and might not be practical for a low end phone. And, ultimately, I could simply get a court order to have the hash you use to login in, brute force that, and have access to your entire library myself *shrugs*

      And, failing even that, I could at the very least record the IP address you use to login, get your ISP to tell me who's using it, come to your door, confiscate your computer / mobile devices, and read it at your end. That being said, that's pretty far outside the realm of a compromised processor, so I'll admit defeat on my point, I see my mistake. How useful that would be in the real world isn't very clear though - while it's nice if all you're doing is storing files, you can't process them in any way except for the local end, so no consumer would ever use it because of the lack of features. No company would want that either because of the lack of deduplication, so that leaves us screwed I suppose. Unless we start a collective Slashdot encrypted file server or something.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    13. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Mac/iPhone/iPad encrypts each file saved on the cloud before uploading it. Decrypts it after downloading it. There is no need for a 3rd party to ever see plaintext user files, they need only upload/download cyphertext. Similarly anyone intercepting the network traffic only sees cyphertext.

      The problem with that method is that it leaks a lot of metadata. File sizes, file IDs, frequency of access etc. You can mitigate it somewhat by archiving files in batches and compressing them before uploading them.

      Otherwise it becomes possible to do things like track the spread of a particular photo as users send it to each other, even if the photo itself is encrypted (with different keys) any time it is on the network/server.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, I suppose that the poster is envisioning something like an encrypted filesystem, where your machine, which you trust, encrypts filesystem blocks and stores them out on the cloud, which it doesn't trust.

      This solves the trust problem, but not necessarily the infrastructure problems they have. If they had oodles of server bandwidth to spare in their own data centers but not enough storage, that'd be the way to go. But if they can't process the data in their own data centers, it doesn't help.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    15. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by msauve · · Score: 1

      I understand cryptography much better than you can read. I specifically mentioned hashes. How does a cloud server compare a stored hash which has been encrypted (the GP said encrypt all data kept in the cloud) to the hash generated from a user provided password when it can't decrypt the stored hash?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    16. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      He's saying, store the user's data as a pre-encrypted big blob in the cloud. The cloud doesn't need to know how to decrypt it; the user does that locally on their own end, which reduces security to "if they have physical access to your system (your PC) you're screwed."

      Then the NSA or whoever can get their hands on the blob itself, but they'd still have to try to crack it without the keys, since those are on your local PC and never transmitted anywhere. Then you're basically talking about trying to crack TrueCrypt (user passphrase used to guard the asymmetric key, which encrypts the symmetric key you use to actually do the en/decryption).

      Of course, if you want to actually *do* anything with the data in the cloud modifying it in-place, you can't. You'd have to do a binary diff and figure out which chunks of the TC container to upload (or if the whole thing changes, just reupload the whole freakin' thing).

      But this is conversations we've had around here before.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    17. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Cloud services do much more than just store user data.

      Not the cloud service we are talking about, Apple iCloud.

    18. Re: Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      That might make it hard to search emails on the server, browse your iCloud Photo Library, Apple Music collection and anything else that chooses to reside on the server rather than the device.

      The index can be just another file created by the Mac/iPhone/iPad locally and stored remotely.

    19. Re:Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      I understand cryptography much better than you can read. I specifically mentioned hashes. How does a cloud server compare a stored hash which has been encrypted (the GP said encrypt all data kept in the cloud) to the hash generated from a user provided password when it can't decrypt the stored hash?

      Apparently you missed:

      Users authenticate on their Mac/iPhone/iPad to an AppleID that is optionally configured for iCloud. The AppleID authentication is something separate from iCloud. Once authenticated to an iCloud enabled AppleID their iCloud storage appears as just another storage device. Files saved to iCloud can be encrypted locally before upload. "Keychains" with the necessary keys are shared between Mac/iPhone/iPad.

      In other words your Mac/iPhone/iPad is not authenticating with the 3rd party server. Apple securely refers you to 3rd storage with whatever temporary credentials you need.

    20. Re: Why is non-encrypted data going to cloud? by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      That depends. Certain challenge-response protocols require passwords to use reversable encryption server-side.

  12. A proprietor fears the unsafety of proprietarism by jbn-o · · Score: 2

    So Apple fears that the servers it relies on for its business are not fully under Apple's control, as one's computers ought to be fully under the control of those who own the computer. The same would be true even if the servers weren't virtual. As I understand it, this is part of the reason why Google is keen to build their own hardware and takes some interest free software to run that hardware. As Edward Snowden pointed out in his recent LibrePlanet talk this is the same reason privacy-minded people can't use Apple's equipment either. Snowden mentioned this in terms of Microsoft ("I did not use Windows machines when I was in my operational phase because I couldn't trust them. Not because I knew there was a particular backdoor or anything like that but because I couldn't be sure." circa 5m54s or 8m33s in the prerelease video) but the same insecurity stemming from a lack of freedom issue applies to all proprietors, not just Microsoft.

    In other words there's quite an irony here: the proprietor is coming to terms with the same lack of freedom it imposes on its customers. Apple's iThings include phones that aren't under the owner's exclusive control allowing someone other than the owner to update software on the device. Some other devices (perhaps Apple's as well) don't allow the computer owner to fully control the cryptographic keys used to sign software installed on the device, so these keys are used to keep the owner locked out of full control (or the proprietor from being fully locked out). The updates can and do come in Apple and non-Apple systems without the owner's consent in the name of "convenience" and "safety" (one must ask whose safety is being assured in this scheme) or (as some proprietor sycophants are sure to point out) keeping non-technical users from messing something up. The technical details of precisely where the non-free software lies (on the main computer, on a modem controller, on some other bit of hardware one uses with the system) are no excuses for not providing documented hardware, a means to install a fully free software system, and thus a means to fully own one's own computer.

  13. No matter how cynical you become by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    it's never enough to keep up. Lily Tomlin

  14. PRISM was fun until? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Once a gov has splitters, weak crypto and friendly staff members at a generational design level in place in the past what can now be fixed?
    Hunt down the gov hardware at the optical level thats still part of ongoing investigations and has to be left in place and will be upgraded for many years?
    Thats under some security letter or a secret court has the color of law paperwork.. who even has the authority mention that within the wider brand?
    Clean room the next crypto with a brand new, more advanced team?
    Re fab the hardware from new with new staff?
    Side ways or promote any team members who worked with any gov team away from new crypto or other sensitive development areas?
    Find new consultants and contractors with a lack of working for govs/mil and have them restart generational projects again?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  15. can't do anything much with encrypted data by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While encryption in transit is good, unfortunately encryption on the server is typically more theatre/ marketing than it is useful security. There are only two things you can do with properly encrypted data - decrypt it or send it to someone who can decrypt it. If the server can decrypt it, and the concern is that the server may be compromised, there's little point in encrypting it.

    As a random example, let's consider the data of which users have purchased which songs on itunes. Apple uses that to know which songs you're allowed to stream. If it's encrypted, their server-side software can't do the lookup , so that can't be encrypted (or the server has to have the key, which amounts to the same thing).

    Essentially the only data that can be usefully encrypted is files sent from a customer's device which Apple doesn't want to read or understand, they just want to send back the exact same binary blob that they received. That CAN be encrypted before it's sent to Apple. But any data that Apple needs to query, change, record, or de-duplicate can't really be usefully encrypted, in general.

    It's an annoying problem, and a hard problem. There was a theory about encrypting data in such a way that you could do some very limited statistical processing on it without being able to actually read the data, but it's pretty limited so approximately nobody uses it. The one major use for data "encrypted" on the server is passwords, where you store a hash and can compare whether the password the person entered is the same as the stored hash. Though that's an important use case, it's only one use case. There aren't too many use cases for storing data you can't retrieve.

    1. Re:can't do anything much with encrypted data by Cederic · · Score: 2

      I know, it's a stupid facet of cloud services. Protect your data, but then you can't actually use it on the cloud service.

      Bumping into that one daily :(

    2. Re:can't do anything much with encrypted data by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 2

      Out af an academic interest, blind computation (remote execution of an encrypted client's program on encrypted client's data) is possible in theory, but it's very far from being todays' technology. It's possible both classically (with computational complexity assumptions), and quantum (unconditionally secure in theory).

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
  16. Network gear by Trogre · · Score: 1

    It's already done on Cisco equipment so why not servers?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  17. This already had happened at Google... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I worked at the Google help desk in 2008, the powers to be were talking about moving away from the Lenovo laptops because they suspected that the Chinese government were putting a backdoor into the BIOS. When I did contract work for a Google data center in 2011, the only laptops I saw were MacBook Pros from Apple.

    1. Re:This already had happened at Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      only laptops I saw were MacBook Pros from Apple

      where do you think those laptops were made? where were their ic parts fabricated? or assembled? where was the software loaded into firmware? on the storage device?

      how many hands do those laptops go through en route from factory to their destination? how many intermediate steps are their in their journey to actual final destinations?

      how many government entities are involved, or could be involved in either of the above? how many different companies and workers handle those shipments?

      captcha: secured

    2. Re:This already had happened at Google... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      captcha: secured

      Lenovo is owned by the Chinsese. Apple is not, and, presumably, has safeguards against the firmware being tampered with from there to here.

    3. Re:This already had happened at Google... by shawn2772 · · Score: 2

      When I worked at the Google help desk in 2008, the powers to be were talking about moving away from the Lenovo laptops because they suspected that the Chinese government were putting a backdoor into the BIOS. When I did contract work for a Google data center in 2011, the only laptops I saw were MacBook Pros from Apple.

      Google still uses PC laptops from a couple of vendors, as well as Macbooks and, obviously, Chromebooks. Employees pick which they want. They can pick a PC laptop with Linux or Windows, a Macbook with OS X, or a Chromebook. The most common choice is the Macbook, not due to security concerns, but because people really like Apple hardware. If Linux were offered on Macbooks, there probably wouldn't be any PC laptops around. As it is, those who want to run Windows (rare) or a regular Linux system (not ChromeOS), have to go with the PC. Those who like or are willing to live with OS X get a Macbook, and those who only need/want a browser go the Chromebook route (which is actually pretty popular).

      (I'm typing this on my Google-issued Macbook, which I wish was running Ubuntu or Debian, but I make do with OS X)

    4. Re:This already had happened at Google... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      FYI, the Macbooks are made by Quanta, a Taiwanese ODM which uses manufacturing factories in China. Nearly all laptops are made by ODMs - they're like OEMs except they also design the product. Quanta also happens to make most of HP's laptops. The entire industry is very hush hush about this. The reality is the name brand of the laptop doesn't really tell you much except how good the aftermarket service will be.

      The top of the line Sony Vaio laptops (Z series) used to be designed and manufactured in Japan (with later manufacturing in Mexico) instead of using an ODM, but then Sony sold the business and I don't know what the new owners are doing. The IBM Thinkpads were designed and made in the U.S. at one point. Dunno how that has changed with the sale to Lenovo. Those were the only two laptop lines I know weren't made by an ODM, and my info is now out of date.

    5. Re:This already had happened at Google... by rthille · · Score: 1

      A coworker was running Mint on his work MBP, but I think he's running QubesOS now.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    6. Re:This already had happened at Google... by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      A coworker was running Mint on his work MBP, but I think he's running QubesOS now.

      I didn't mean to say it's not possible to run Linux on Macbooks, just that it's not allowed/supported at Google.

    7. Re:This already had happened at Google... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Seems odd they would distrust Lenovo but be perfectly happy to buy MacBooks, also made in China. Why would Foxconn be any more trustworthy than Lenovo?

      More likely they just wanted Unix machines without the hassle of re-installing or compatibility issues.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:This already had happened at Google... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I'm typing this on my Google-issued Macbook, which I wish was running Ubuntu or Debian, but I make do with OS X

      I'm surprised that Goobuntu doesn't run on a Mac.

    9. Re:This already had happened at Google... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Seems odd they would distrust Lenovo but be perfectly happy to buy MacBooks, also made in China.

      They were looking at the BIOS for security issues and each new Lenovo BIOS raised questions about potential backdoors. I didn't hear of any issues regarding Apple BIOS.

    10. Re:This already had happened at Google... by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      I'm typing this on my Google-issued Macbook, which I wish was running Ubuntu or Debian, but I make do with OS X

      I'm surprised that Goobuntu doesn't run on a Mac.

      Me too. I don't have any plausible theories as to why that isn't an option.

    11. Re:This already had happened at Google... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I don't have any plausible theories as to why that isn't an option.

      Based on my recent experience with installing Linux on my 2006 MacBook, the process is a PITA. After installing an alternative boot loader (see link below) and partitioning the hard drive, not every version of Linux will install correctly. I installed Mint Linux because the installer recognizes that it was on a MacBook and booted up fine without issue.

      http://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/

    12. Re:This already had happened at Google... by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      True, but I have no doubt that Google's team could automate it and make it smooth, if it can be done. Macbooks will Netboot, so from there it's just a matter of writing a good script. Unless random component differences mean that some units just won't work, because they contain some piece of hardware for which there are no good drivers.

    13. Re:This already had happened at Google... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Can you even examine the Apple BIOS? Last time I checked they were encrypting at least part of it, as well as firmware updates for other systems like the battery management MCU.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  18. Apple is rich enough to choose its own fate by johnslater · · Score: 1

    If only Apple had the money to buy their own infrastructure...

    Apple is a very rich company with $200bn+ in the bank. They got that way by taking every opportunity to grow their business. Nothing wrong with that. But sometimes that entails doing things that might not be in their best long-term interests.

    Consider this: they chose to buy cloud services from other vendors because their business was growing beyond their ability to provision these services in-house. They could have chosen to do it themselves, preserving the integrity of their infrastructure, but that would run the risk of not being able to scale it out as fast as their customers demanded it, and limited their growth.

    So they made the choice to outsource, maximizing their growth but taking the risks that come with that approach.

    They could have taken the other path and kept their integrity. They are one of the few companies rich enough to do that. But it's not in their DNA, and their stockholders would take a dim view.

    So now they have to take pictures of motherboards in the hope that they catch the bad guys doing something. Pathetic really.

  19. they used to, and they can do it again by swschrad · · Score: 1

    but you have to have been in this racket at least 10 years to remember Apple Servers.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  20. Sounds familiar by tacarat · · Score: 1
    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"
  21. Where's the beef? by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 2

    There's nothing to see in the linked articles. Absolutely no interviews or attempt to verify. Idiotic.

  22. Ask for assistance by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Apple should ask the FBI to check them......oh, wait

  23. paradigm shift by Max_W · · Score: 1

    I actually saw by a freak chance an industrial grade eavesdropping equipment. It was still fourteen years ago. It was so incredibly tiny.

    I cannot see why it is not being pre-installed in all electric equipment which we buy: cameras, coffee makers, etc. by several services of several powers independently, and also by private entities. No chance whatsoever to find it.

    I think it is time to accept that every word which we say or write is seen and recorded by several governments and private organizations. There is no chance to resist this technology.

    I guess the data which is collected this way is used not only to fight crime, but also to plan policies by analyzing our reactions to events, speeches, etc. It is not the questions if it is being done on mass scale, but what we as individuals can do about it to mitigate the effects on the civilization.

    Perhaps, we should carry on important conversations outdoors in woods wearing only freshly washed t-shirts and shorts, or speak for several minutes indoors a nonsense to jam analyzing soft, etc.

  24. That's clearly a PR move by Kartu · · Score: 1

    That's clearly a PR move (and pretty effective one, it seems), it does not need to make any sense to tech savvy.

  25. Fully Homomorphic Encryption by sciengin · · Score: 1

    Processing Encrypted data is possible, it is called Fully Homomorphic Encryption.
    It was not until 2009 however that Craig Gentry proved that such a scheme exists at all in his PhD thesis. In terms of Cryptography it is still brand new.
    It is worth a read, not just for crypto experts, as it is well written and quite interesting.

    FHE is based on lattices instead of factorization, elliptic curves or discrete logarithms.
    The "fully" is because before that we had ways to process certain kinds of encrypted data, now it is possible to process any sort of data.

    Teeny, tiny drawback as of now: It slows down computation speed compared to computing on unencrypted data by about 2.3 billion times.

  26. the Cold War days were better. by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Well, except for the whole thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at the US and USSR on 30 minutes launch notice and let's hope no one makes a mistake thing.

  27. Dear Apple by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the club. Here is your tin-foil hat and badge to wear when you attend the meetings.

    This is the reality that greed and power bring about. No matter what we use, we all have to consider the very real possibility that the hardware or software is already compromised. Either by malice or incompetence. That feeling sucks doesn't it ? Makes you rethink about what sorts of information you're willing to entrust to the devices in question or if you're going to trust the devices at all.

    The masses, in general, are typically blind to the nefarious possibilities of the devices they utilize on a daily basis. Those that do understand how powerful
    information can be try to guard it as best they can.

    This is the thought process I have to go through every time I consider buying something. If I do end up buying it, I now have to become a detective to both
    spot and deal with any behaviors the device is exhibiting that I consider questionable.

    To be fair, it's not just your products. It's everyone's product.

    The computer I use.
    The software it runs.
    The routers and switches that connect them.
    The car I drive.
    The phone.
    My ISP.
    The list is nearly endless.

    Everything that is network connected at any point in its life is a risk and thus, subject to the question of " How much do I trust it ? "

    The sad answer is usually, " Very little. "

    I do what I can to limit what the devices can do, but I always wonder if I've done enough.

  28. Welcome by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Welcome to our world, Mr Big Corporation, where we used to worry about you monitoring our communications....but now it's your turn to do the worrying.

    Yeah, this whole "spy on people" thing ain't so fuckin' cool now, is it?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Welcome by marklark · · Score: 1

      Except that they don't: https://linux.slashdot.org/sto...

    2. Re:Welcome by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I don't see what your reference proves or is intended to show. (??)

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  29. Storage space vs processing power by Keybounce · · Score: 1

    When it comes to working with servers and cloud storage, there's two different issues.

    The first is just storing gobs and gobs of data. That should be considered solved.

    Backblaze had to solve that. They got a really good, scalable, cheap system -- and they tell you how they did it, with enough information to replicate what they did. See their blogs: https://www.backblaze.com/blog... for how to make cheap storage _hardware_, and https://www.backblaze.com/blog... for how to design the storage "file system" to spread load around.

    But data storage is only step one. You have to have the CPU power to search all that data. You have to have ways to read lots of data, and make it available for people to search through.

    That's Google's specialty. They haven't shared everything that they've learned. Other than saying that when you get to their size, all old problems become new ones again, and old solutions need to be challenged/rethought.

    How do you manage to replicate data across multiple data centers, such that you know how many copies of a file are still accessible, given that at that size, drive failures are a matter of rate rather than merely probably. How do you manage synchronized data writes when, even if the low-level data at a given site is a RAID that has low-level self correction, the high-level is 7 copies in 7 different data centers, and if you ever think you are down to 3 or fewer live copies you replicate new ones -- and still permit people to update and synchronize changes.

    And that's before you even begin to look at processing all that data.

    For Apple to be looking at this, they are basically saying, "we are becoming a significant fraction of Google's data/processing size, and starting to run into the same problems that Google had to solve".