About

Archives

01 Jul - 31 Jul 2006
01 Aug - 31 Aug 2006
01 Sep - 30 Sep 2006
01 Oct - 31 Oct 2006
01 Nov - 30 Nov 2006
01 Dec - 31 Dec 2006
01 Jan - 31 Jan 2007
01 Feb - 28 Feb 2007
01 Mar - 31 Mar 2007
01 Apr - 30 Apr 2007
01 May - 31 May 2007
01 Jun - 30 Jun 2007
01 Jul - 31 Jul 2007
01 Aug - 31 Aug 2007
01 Oct - 31 Oct 2007
01 Nov - 30 Nov 2007
01 Dec - 31 Dec 2007
01 Jan - 31 Jan 2008
01 Feb - 28 Feb 2008
01 Mar - 31 Mar 2008
01 Aug - 31 Aug 2009
01 Sep - 30 Sep 2009
01 Jan - 31 Jan 2010
01 May - 31 May 2010
01 Jun - 30 Jun 2010
01 Aug - 31 Aug 2010
01 Sep - 30 Sep 2010

Links

Search!

Last Comments

Alvaro Oliver (StackBook Part 4 …): Hey! nice post. I just bo…
Tiago Gomes (Let's start again…): ok, now feel happy, you a…
Tiago Gomes (Let's start again…): ok, now feel happy, you a…
ir0nhide (StackBook Part 4.…): Very cool, nice work
Toby (Gigabyte, LCDs, a…): Good stuff, although now …
luke (StackBook part 3 …): what are you planing to u…
Toby (A quick rant...): Bastards
Hugh (StackBook Part 2 …): Nicely done, but you now …
gm (StackBook Part 2 …): Hmm, I plan to go a littl…
luke (StackBook Part 2 …): i cant help but wonder if…

Stuff

Powered by Pivot - 1.40.4: 'Dreadwind' 
XML: RSS Feed 
XML: Atom Feed 

« In related news... | Home | More screenshots... »

Some answers, at least...

01 03 07 - 14:40 Remember this?

cnet article:
""I screwed up a little bit," he said. There was a lot of confusion around the Mac hack because the original presentation used a third party Wi-Fi card. However, Maynor and Ellch had in fact also found flaws in Apple's own hardware, he said."

That explains point 3, and partially 2. None of the others though.

Still, "Apple fixed that particular problem in September with Mac OS X 10.4.8, Maynor said.", is the interesting line. At least we know it was patched now then.

I wonder if it was the same exploit released during MoAB? Hmmm.

Apparently he provided Apple with code and packet dumps, and the issue was still not fixed. This may have been the exploit that Apple claimed was found by an internal audit...

There was (and still largely seems to be) a large cloud of misinformation surrounding the whole thing. And why was C|Net always the first to cover the issue (and ZDNet the first to attempt to scare everyone with it)? Hmmm, Microsoft having a large share in advertising at both of these?
No comments

Trackback link: http://gm.stackunderflow.com/blog/pivot/tb.php?tb_id=70

  
Remember personal info?

Emoticons / Textile

To prevent automated comment spam, the answer to this rather simple question is required...

 

  (Register your username / Log in)

Notify:
Hide email:

Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.

 

Linkdump