Re: Not confirmed?
>"Well done, you have succeeded in turning the issue upside down. Rather it is like a doctor stating >there might be cancer so we will make a thorough check."
that is not the same as:
>"Okaaaaay? And have the journalists here contacted the Norwegian government office that, well, >confirmed Bloomberg?"
You are saying that they have confirmed it, no they haven't. They have confirmed that they have known about the possibility of a compromise, That is the problem Trygve appears to be having with what has been said (me too). A compromise hasn't been confirmed, just that they new of the possibility (probably due to them being contacted in June before the Bloomberg article was release).
If you work in a sensitive sector (which I do), when you receive information on a possible compromise, you investigate. If you believe that it is a credible threat, you isolate / remove said threat. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, depending on the result being proved or disproved, you then can reinstate or carry on course with the removal of systems if you believe that its a possible future threat.
Forsvaret will be doing exactly this, they have scraped 1 or 2 supermicro servers that they were testing (~533000kr in servers), In the sector that I am working, we have purchase multiple supermicro servers, each of which cost close to that price.
Everything in the VG article can be 100% true, each statement printed can be exactly what was said, and likely is, otherwise they would be stupid. But what is printed isn't everything that is said and can in what context.
What should be printed is the complete transcript of the conversation.
> "You are selective. The point is that they confirm they have been aware of an issue in June. "
And there it is again, the context. What is the issue they have been aware of? Have they been aware of a compromise, have they been aware that there could have been a compromise, have they been aware of the issues Bloomberg were going to bring up in the article since June?
That last one of mine can be interpreted 2 ways also, they knew about the problems before they knew about the article, they knew about the issues Bloomberg were going to public as they had been told what was in the article.