blog.washingtonpost.com — A follow up by the author of the Washington Post article about the MacBook wireless hack."he also admitted that the same flaws were resident in the default Macbook wireless device drivers, and that those drivers were identically exploitable. And that is what I reported."
Aug 3, 2006 View in Crawl 4
grizAug 3, 2006
This article is inaccurate???? The other article is inaccurate!! Most of these comments are inaccurate!! This whole damn website is inaccurate!!
Closed AccountAug 3, 2006
Not even the same driver. The 3rd party card was atheros based. i think the airport extreme devices are broadcom based. I call bulls**t on this whole debacle.
swabthedeckAug 3, 2006
More inaccuracies about inaccurately inaccurate stories here: <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_users_INACCURATELY_claim_INACCURACY_is_INACCURATE">http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_users_INACCURATELY_claim_INACCURACY_is_INACCURATE</a>
tao52nycAug 3, 2006
Can't we just let this go?? It'll probably be fixed within 48 hours. The sky isn't falling, go back to sleep, jeez...
f3l1xAug 3, 2006
Welcome to user-submitted content.
zacmccormickAug 3, 2006
@LaughingMan11I agree with you on that, it is a very big advantage to have your architecture based on open software like Unix. I think security is one arena where an open source model has some advantages. But I also think these advantages are typically only gained for ubiquitous back end technologies like SSL and HTTPD, where there is guaraneteed to be a very dedicated community of developers and engineers. Of course, that's not to say that a secure closed source HTTPD isn't possible. (example: IIS, no I'm not trying to incite an apache vs iis security war, anyone who is invincibly ignorant towards IIS please refrain from replying to this)