Tests of Super Micro equipment find no malicious chips in current or older-model motherboards

“Computer hardware maker Super Micro Computer Inc told customers on Tuesday that an outside investigations firm had found no evidence of any malicious hardware in its current or older-model motherboards,” Joseph Menn reports for Reuters.

“In a letter to customers, the San Jose, California, company said it was not surprised by the result of the review it commissioned in October after a Bloomberg article reported that spies for the Chinese government had tainted Super Micro equipment to eavesdrop on its clients,” Menn reports. “A person familiar with the analysis told Reuters it had been conducted by global firm Nardello & Co.”

“Nardello tested samples of motherboards in current production and versions that were sold to Apple Inc and Amazon.com Inc, which were both named in the [Bloomberg] article, the person said,” Menn reports. “He said the company was still reviewing its legal options.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Bloomberg Businessweek should retract their report.

Bloomberg Businessweek should retract or unequivocally prove their Super Micro spy chip yarn – November 29, 2018
Apple official statement: What Bloomberg Businessweek got wrong about Apple – October 5, 2018
UK cyber security agency backs Apple, Amazon China hack denials
Friday, October 5, 2018

Apple strongly disputes Bloomberg BusinessWeek report that Chinese ‘spy’ chips were found in iCloud servers – October 4, 2018


  1. While I don’t have a reason to not believe the results, there is the taint of Impropriety by having supermicros higher it’s on third-party investigators. It be the same as having Volkswagen hire a third-party emissions testers.
    It would’ve been better to have Apple and Amazon hire their own third-party firms.

    1. Surely if one is cynical they would all want to ‘not’ find any such evidence so if you can’t trust an independent tester then not sure why who is employing them would make a significant diference to the apparent reliability of the report. Either this company is independent or it isn’t.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.