9to5Mac58%

New lawsuit alleges unpatchable Apple chip exploit was developed using stolen trade secrets 34%

By Marcus Mendes29%

7/25/2026, 12:53:03 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Burden of Proof, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 45.1% saturation with 215 hits. Analysis detected 961 faulty-reasoning hits from 477 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.1% and a BS Rank of 34% (14,480 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.20% of the article peer group.

Magnet Forensics is suing Paradigm Shift Technology over its publication of usbliter8, alleging that the unpatchable exploit affecting several Apple SoCs was developed using trade secrets misappropriated by a former engineer. 
Here are the details. 
Magnet claims former engineer disclosed proprietary exploit research 
Last month, researchers at Paradigm Shift published the technical details of usbliter8, a new unpatchable iPhone BootROM vulnerability that enables arbitrary code execution on devices powered by Apple’s A12 and A13 chips. 
The bug, which affects the A12, S4, S5, and A13 SoCs, relies on specially crafted data that confuses the device’s USB controller, and gives an attacker physical access to the device and control over its startup process. 
From there, the attacker can run their own code before iOS loads, bypass signature checks, and boot modified system software. 
Because usbliter8 targets the BootROM, it cannot be fixed through a software update. 
Its practical impact is somewhat limited, however, as it only affects older Apple chips introduced in 2018 and 2019. 
At the time, Paradigm Shift said the disclosure of the exploit had been coordinated with Apple Product Security. 
Now, Magnet Forensics claims usbliter8 was derived from confidential work performed by a former engineer who later joined Paradigm Shift. 
From the lawsuit: 
Defendant Mario Del Gaudio worked as an Exploit Engineer placed with Magnet Forensics from November 2023 through November 2024. 
[…] During his tenure, Del Gaudio was assigned to work on one of Magnet Forensics’ most sensitive proprietary capabilities: a zero day access capability internally designated as “MSG.” 
After his placement with Magnet Forensics ended, Del Gaudio became affiliated with Defendant Paradigm Shift, an entity in the technology and cybersecurity industry in the business of monetizing access capabilities. 
On June 18, 2026, Paradigm Shift published a detailed technical blog post titled “Introducing usbliter8: An A12/A13 SecureROM Exploit” […], which disclosed extensive technical details regarding a proprietary access capability that is, in substance, the same capability Del Gaudio worked on at Magnet Forensics under the MSG designation. 
Magnet Forensics claims it has proof that Del Gaudio is directly linked to the publication of the usbliter8 exploit, and says that Paradigm Shift has ignored multiple cease-and-desist demands to pull the publication and proof-of-concept code. 
In addition to wanting the usbliter8 publication and related materials removed, Magnet Forensics is seeking financial compensation and a court order preventing any further use or disclosure of its alleged trade secrets. 
To read Magnet Forensics’s full complaint and its associated documents, follow this link. 
(H/T Gui Rambo) 
Worth checking out on Amazon 
* Geoffrey Cain  ‘Steve Jobs in Exile’ 
* David Pogue  ’Apple: The First 50 Years’ 
* MacBook Neo 
* Logitech MX Master 4 
* AirPods Pro 3 
* AirTag (2nd Generation)  4 Pack 
* Apple Watch Series 11 
* Wireless CarPlay adapter 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 32.7%Marcus Mendes: 2.3%9to5Mac: 2.7%Confirmation Bias32.7%This article: 2.7%Marcus Mendes: 1.2%9to5Mac: 2.2%Anchoring Bias2.7%This article: 10.9%Marcus Mendes: 2.6%9to5Mac: 2.8%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.8%9to5Mac: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Marcus Mendes: 5.2%9to5Mac: 5.3%Framing Effect13.2%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.7%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.7%9to5Mac: 3.4%Optimism Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.1%9to5Mac: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 45.1%Marcus Mendes: 3.3%9to5Mac: 4.6%Negativity Bias45.1%This article: 3.8%Marcus Mendes: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias3.8%This article: 5.9%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 6.3%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 3.7%9to5Mac: 3.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Marcus Mendes: 1.8%9to5Mac: 1.8%Recency Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.8%Marcus Mendes: 3.0%9to5Mac: 3.6%Appeal to Authority3.8%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.0%9to5Mac: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.7%9to5Mac: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 2.2%9to5Mac: 4.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.9%Marcus Mendes: 1.6%9to5Mac: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion5.9%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.1%Marcus Mendes: 1.8%9to5Mac: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.1%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 22.6%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Burden of Proof22.6%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 2.2%9to5Mac: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.1%Marcus Mendes: 1.7%9to5Mac: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.1%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 2.6%9to5Mac: 2.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 4.0%9to5Mac: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.5%9to5Mac: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Marcus Mendes: 11.5%9to5Mac: 15.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.5%

477 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers30%attributed speech332writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMagnet Forensics • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMagnet Forensics • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageParadigm Shift • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMagnet Forensics • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageMagnet Forensics • 36 words • 0.0% coverageMagnet Forensics • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Magnet Forensics

75%flagged-word coverage
127 attributed words88% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.1 ptsWriter: 15.1%Magnet Forensics: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.