What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.118 Comments
- f3l1x, on 10/12/2007, -5/+68no,, this is a new article. read.
timeline: (correct me as needed)
1. article posted that macbooks (not macbook pros right?) were vulnerable to a wireless exploit.
2. another article that stated "oh they are using 3rd party driver so that's misleading. this gets the first article flagged as inaccurate.
3. Another story gets posted that says something to the effect of "oh yea well we could 'sploit the apple drivers if we wanted to its the same thing". well in classic digg fashion this puts the 2nd story as inaccurate.
4. In more digg fun another post gets posted claiming that diggers inaccurately flagged an inaccurate story inaccurate. This is when it starts to get real old.
then comes this story.. which just proves what everyone knew in the first place had people who don't know what the hell they are talking about are allowed to use the Internet to post information... stop littering for crying out loud.
what pisses me off is this was out yesterday and its still not on the front page nor has anyone used the damn search before posting an article.
http://www.digg.com/apple/MacBook_Wi_Fi_hack_didn_t_use_Apple_drivers_4
http://www.digg.com/apple/MacBook_Is_Safe_From_Wi_Fi_Exploit_After_All
http://www.digg.com/apple/MacBook_Wi_Fi_hack_didn_t_use_Apple_drivers_3
http://www.digg.com/apple/MacBook_Wi_Fi_hack_didn_t_use_Apple_drivers_2
http://www.digg.com/apple/MacBook_Wi_Fi_hack_didn_t_use_Apple_drivers - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48Their claim that Apple told them not to try the exploit on the built-in wireless is false. That's the big new. These guys are liars trying to take a cheap shot at Apple.
Further, there is no proof that the wireless hardware/software Apple uses is exploitable by their methods and they have not come forward with any proof. - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42@net
We actually don't know if the native wireless driver and card is flawed as SecureWorks didn't use it them for their "exploit". My guess is they didn't use them because their trick wouldn't have worked if they had tried. This was a cheap way for them to get press since if they had used a WinPC, everyone would have yawned and said so what?
It was dishonest on their part to do this, UNLESS they CAN do the same using native Apple hardware and software. - S1mba, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38"SecureWorks clearly stated that the exploit was not a flaw in the MacBook, but merely could be executed on a MacBook, as well as a windows PC."
They didn't state it until after they started catching a bunch of heat for it. Originally, they implied that it was an exploit in the MacBook, and they failed to do anything to dispell that rumor until they started to seriously get questioned over it.
Yes, it was dishonest, and a huge embarassment. - netburnr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40Wait, your saying this article is innacurate? How can the original front page and this one both be innacurate?
The built in wireless on a Mac is not exploitable, never has been, and it was just idiots that don't know anything about computers that said it was. - grunherz5x5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28The fact that it was 3rd party hardware and drivers was known from the start. The fact that this was being ignored was also being pointed out from the very beginning. Those who wanted to, ignored it, those who didn't pointed it out. It depended on your agenda.
The guys who "wanted to poke smug Mac users in the eye with a cigarette" were just looking for publicity.
It worked.
Same as it ever was. - tomkyd, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33I don't think this is outdated or inaccurate -- check the Macworld article at http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/08/17/wirelesshack/index.php -- it's dated today, and it quotes an Apple rep directly. The point is, the SecureWorks folks demoed the flaw on the Mac because of what they saw as the “Mac user base aura of smugness on security," which has now actually been reinforced by this news...
- ultmast, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24"You just can't handle the truth about your crappy computers.
We don't want to join your Mac Cult. Go drink some poison koolaid and hop on the next comet passing the earth. Your all about that wacky."
I love the logic here. Apple catches some hell because of the implication that their new laptop can be compromised easily. Now we find out that the laptop was secure after all, but can't just undo the PR damage that may have been caused (however slight it may actually be). Someone then calls out the trolls for harping on this issue, so I guess in consideration of all that, clearly, in fact, he "just can't handle the truth about [his] crappy computer".
Maybe he likes his koolaid, but it sounds like what you've been drinking was something you found under the sink. - ultmast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18"My friend uses a third party card because the built in card sucks. So shut the ***** up moron."
How convenient that the biggest troll in this thread has a "friend" that has a MacBook and is using a third party card because the Airport card "sucks". - MacDork, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21The reason there are so many dupes is NOT because people "forget" to use the search feature, it's that users are *rewarded* for submitting stories.
As long as that remains true and there continues to be no dupe-detecting automated system, we'll continue to have dupes. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20They say Apple requested it. Why would you believe them? What have they done to deserve any trust?
- inkhead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT I ***** SAID THIS 2 WEEKS AGO WHEN EVERY ***** WAS UP IN ARMS... IT was a 3rd PARTY CARD. AND NOBODY USES 3rd PARTY wifi cards on a mac, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE BUILT IN WIFI, and an expresscard slot.
They refused to show it on a macbook, and COULDN'T, they just wanted to make macs look less safe. Annoying way to get attention. - ultmast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"Hit a nerve? Go bow down to your God...Mac Book Pro."
I'm stunned by the quality of your response. Once again, you've completely disarmed me with your intelligent, well-spoken, evidence backed assertions. We're all smarter for having read this post. Thank you, sir. - stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I saw their presentation at DEFCON and they caveatted their findings saying it was only the third-party card that was really the issue. They are Mac fans themselves and didn't state that they were "hacking the Mac". BTW, the exploit is very elegant. It was one of the better talks during the con.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13You would have to enter in the admin password in such a case which should be enough to tip you off.
- yoshitx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14It sure seems like the press is out to get Apple. They loved Apple as the comeback kid, but being the press, they sure love to see the strong stumble.
The stories seem to be:
Mac no longer immune from viruses...
iPod Sales have stalled.....
Mac no longer immune from viruses (honest this time)...
Microsoft has an iPod killer......
Mac no longer immune from viruses (ok we were wrong last time, but this time...)
Mac wifi Hack demonstrated...
Mac no longer immune from viruses (Ok so no one cares about the mac so there are no viruses) [If the mac is 3% of the market shouldn't it be 3% of the viruses?]
Don't we have some dirt on Steve Jobs?
Mac no longer immune from viruses ... - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11It does contain new information. It contains a statement from Apple themselves regarding the problem, and it contains a confirmation from SecureWorks that the problem is 3rd party hardware and software, not Apple bundled software.
- The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"Anyone with a brain would instantly know that they couldn't possibly be talking about MacBook native hardware"
Or maybe it's because they said it effected the MacBook's native hardware/driver.
Nah, that's crazy talk, your rant makes much more sense. - KJay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11They are citing this text,
"This video presentation at Black Hat demonstrates vulnerabilities found in wireless device drivers. Although an Apple MacBook was used as the demo platform, it was exploited through a third-party wireless device driver - not the original wireless device driver that ships with the MacBook. As part of a responsible disclosure policy, we are not disclosing the name of the third-party wireless device driver until a patch is available."
As usual, anything else in the article description is the submitters opinion. - seattle98104, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10yeah... my friend drives a lambourgini and he dropped a hemi in there cause the stock engine totally blows...
- ultmast, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17"1. Apple is not perfect. Get over it."
It's not about being perfect, it's about being better.
"2. Windows has a greater market share. Get over it."
Ford has a greater market share than BMW. So what?
"3. People have their preferences. Stop trying to prove how one is better and the other is worse."
Completely aside from personal preferences, the idea that one might not in fact be better than the other is naive.
"4. SHUT UP."
Or you could just uncheck the Apple section of digg and stop reading/posting here. Oops, looks like that's what you did. Congrats.
"I'm done with the Apple section of Digg. I'm sick of superiority complex mac users, and windows users who just can't keep using what they're using without feeling the need to defend it instead of realizing that they use it because it suits their needs, which trumps any argument any smug superior mac user could make."
I hate the people who won't even acknowledge their own bias. All Mac users have a smug, superior air about them, but all PC users are just normal, friendly people, having to "defend" their completely normal and rational computer choice. It actually very clearly goes both ways. If only you were genuinely telling people to use what suits their needs ..
"Guess what? One of my favorite flavors of Ice Cream is Vanilla. You like chocolate? You say chocolate is better because it has a higher sugar content, as well as caffeine, plus it's CHOCOLATE, how can you not like chocolate? Guess what, I just don't. Leave me alone."
You smug, superior vanilla users just drive me crazy. I'm going to uncheck the ice cream section. - njren78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9You are correct, however...
In an attempt to prod Apple loyalists, they decided to use a Mac, instead of a PC. Being that Macs comes with AirPort (for the last few years), most Mac users do not use a third-party card. Further, this exploit would affect more Windows users than Mac users.
Why not use a Windows machine, instead of a Mac? Simple, to attack the smugness of Mac users. If you think that the guys responsible for this didn't know that the press would run with a story about the Mac being vulnerable, rather than reporting it correctly, you are sadly mistaken. They knew what would happen, and loved the press coverage.
After all, that's what this was about, wasn't it? It was about press coverage, and doing this sort of thing on a Mac gets you that press coverage. Forget about the fact that it's highly unlikely that a Mac user is using a third-party wireless driver.
It may not have been an lie, but it was certainly intentionally misleading. They deserve whatever bad press coverage they get now for irresponsible behavior. If they want to attack the smugness of Apple users...oh, I don't know...FIND A REAL FLAW AND POST IT, maybe? - njren78, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"The OS still isn't secure, If 3rd party drivers makes the OS insecure, then the OS wasn't secure to begin with. I mean, that's 99% of the problems with MS is 3rd party drivers, so I really don't see where all the hate is coming from for either OS."
Where did you get that figure?
99% of the problem with Windows' security model has NOTHING to do with third-party drivers. Although it's not "99%", a large number of the security issues with Windows come from Internet Explorer. You pulled that 99% number out of your ass, and thought people would let you get away with a completely unfounded assertion. You, sir, are full of *****. - xswag, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I was looking all over the Secure Works site and can't find that "Apology".
I went to SecureWorks and they are still linking to the video of the laptop being compromised. This article is a total lie unless someone can find me the so called apology.
http://www.secureworks.com/newsandevents/blackhatcoverage.html - greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7So this was marked inaccurate because the original claim that the MacBook WIFI was hacked was inaccurate? Is this accurate?
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Guys, the point is that they didn't use the built-in wireless card (which is no better or worse than most anyone else's wireless card) that comes standard in every Mac now being built. While you can order one without to save some money (seems silly since the third-party add on costs about the same), I can't imagine why a Mac user would.
If they had indeed hacked the MacBook using it's native card and driver, this WOULD have been news. They didn't so I see them as just seeking publicity. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ummm... “As part of a responsible disclosure policy, we are not disclosing the name of the third-party wireless device driver until a patch is available.”
Well, you weren't being very responsible when you suggested the MacBook had serious security flaws.
I wouldn't trust their company as far as I could kick "Johnny Cache". - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Here's what you said:
"Apple is aware and making a patch."
Here's what Apple says:
"Further, SecureWorks has not shared or demonstrated any code in relation to the Black Hat-demonstrated exploit that is relevant to the hardware and software that we ship.”
Read here:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/08/17/wirelesshack/index.php - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@NSMike, So you're saying that deliberately misrepresenting an article as innacurate is a legitimate form of debate for the so-called Windows fanboys?
You can digg down comments that you think are wrong. That is what that function is for. Marking an article that you believe to be accurate as innacurate to make some kind of point about manners is another matter entirely.
And I'm not seeing all that many outrageous apple fanboy comments in this thread. Lot more from the other end, actually. - seattle98104, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6digg is falling prey to fanboy histeria. there are so many fanboys (on any side of a pc vs. mac vs. ubentu) that the digg algorithms can't account for their article killing via flagging.
the truth is this article is straight forward and accurate, but sadly it will be buried in less than an hour. - S1mba, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Anyone with a brain would instantly know that they couldn't possibly be talking about MacBook native hardware..."
Why would anyone with a brain know that? You do realize that Apple does not build their own wifi cards right? They use a third party vendor, just like PC makers do. So no, they did not give any indication at all that the exploit did not affect the native Mac hardware. - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You so desperately want to believe the hack is real, don't you?
Why? - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6When this stuff was on digg to begin with it was presented as though Apple wouldn't let them demonstrate their exploit with built-in wireless hardware/software. I was under the impression after reading about it at the time that they claimed the same exploit would work on an unmodified MacBook but they didn't do it at Apple's request. I'd be happy for someone to proove me wrong. I didn't have much luck finding the old articles.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The Digg algorithm should be redesigned to give less weight to article flagging by users with a preponderance of negative comment feedback within a specific topic.
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7http://www.varbusiness.com/sections/news/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=192201898
"As part of a responsible disclosure policy, we are not disclosing the name of the third-party wireless device driver until a patch is available."
A responsible demonstration policy would have forbidden the installation of flawed drivers to make a point.
Have to agree with this point. - d00d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"This video presentation at Black Hat demonstrates vulnerabilities found in wireless device drivers. Although an Apple MacBook was used as the demo platform, it was exploited through a third-party wireless device driver - not the original wireless device driver that ships with the MacBook. As part of a responsible disclosure policy, we are not disclosing the name of the third-party wireless device driver until a patch is available."
http://www.secureworks.com/newsandevents/blackhatcoverage.html
How does that grab you? - njren78, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The Mac is not "underexposed". All the press coverage for anything that hints that there MIGHT be a flaw in the Mac security model proves that. Hackers want fame, as these idiots with their 3rd party wifi card have shown. If you want fame, hack a Mac, not a Windows PC. Macs are anything but underexposed. They may have a small user base, but damaging Apple's credibility in the security arena gets you more attention than damaging Microsoft's, because, frankly, they don't have any. And if you disagree with that statement about MS's lack of credibility, you must not be paying attention.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ziadoz:
Not so much... T
That is what the "hackers" said. Those unconfirmed statements appear to be false. - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It was probably the reporter who wrote the original article. Those guys LOVE to sensationalize anyting beyond reason.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think that a user who's posts are regularly hammered with negative diggs would be a reasonable criteria for lowering the weight of article flagging by those users. I'm not saying they should be banned or that thier responses should be.
This article has been flagged as innacurate, which does not seem to be the case. I'm guessing that flagging was done by people with a serious axe to grind. the people most likely to have thier comments dugg down. - nacs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ziadoz -- "The flaw actually exists in Apples wireless drivers as well."
No moron. It doesn't. RTFA.
The ''security professionals" basically ***** and said Apples built in cards were vulnerable when they weren't to get attention. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"that's 99% of the problems with MS is 3rd party drivers"
And 99% of Mac users don't install 3rd party drivers. - njren78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"My friend uses a third party card because the built in card sucks. So shut the ***** up moron."
Your opinion about the card is just that, opinion. It seems to work for millions of users, so perhaps your friend has issues, not the card. Also, your friend is in a small minority, and is certainly not representative of the general Mac user base. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Not to mention that these guys did this on a mac to try to get rid of the smugness of OSX users. I guess we can remain smug. I thought everyone knew this was not an OSX driver, that's the way I read the original article. I guess people get all excited thinking there is some mythical huge hole in OSX.
- njren78, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5WOW. We have a self-proclaimed hacker in here. Bow down to this moron, everyone.
It's been my experience that people who make these sorts of claims are full of lots and lots of *****. You may be the god of your high school library's computer system, but that's about all you probably amount to. - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Last comment, this is like when some exploit is shown on XP that hasn't been upgraded or patched with the latest security downloads. Someone claiming an exploit in that circumstance is being dishonest and would be slammed unmercifully when it was discovered (rightfully so) by XP users.
Fanboyism aside, that's what has most sane Mac users (there are a few) ticked off - ultmast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"This is an idiocy at it's best, and shows your SMUGNESS and bias towards Apple.
A better analogy would be Mercedes has greater market share than BMW."
No. Mercedes is not any more commodity than BMW. This isn't necessarily a quality issue (although you could make that argument as well).
You can get the Ford service you need at almost any mechanic, and can get the parts from several places (compare to random PC repair shops, and Fry's/CompUSA/etc), whereas with the BMW you may have to go to your dealer or a special shop to get service or parts (compare to Apple Store or authorized reseller).
Also, that would be "idiocy at _its_ best". How ironic. - Fabulous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4How is this inaccurate?
http://www.secureworks.com/newsandevents/blackhatcoverage.html
"This video presentation at Black Hat demonstrates vulnerabilities found in wireless device drivers. Although an Apple MacBook was used as the demo platform, it was exploited through a third-party wireless device driver - not the original wireless device driver that ships with the MacBook. As part of a responsible disclosure policy, we are not disclosing the name of the third-party wireless device driver until a patch is available." - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3By the way, chiller. This story is more complex than you are giving credit. This is not about some security advisors trying to improve overall security. It's about some hackers with a chip on their shoulders giving a disingenuous demonstration. There was no valid reason to put a 3rd party wireless device in a Mac to show it's insecurities (And Macs do have them). Very few people use 3rd party wireless cards because Airport cards work very well. I have a MBP and it's reliability is higher than and it's range is as good as the Linksys and Netgear cards my wife has used in her Dell.
- cwoolf34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This was already on the podcast. They used a USB Wifi Adapter made by Belkin.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is