NY Times: WiFi hack in 60 seconds or less

[Dr Mordrid]

We have precisely two wifi capable laptops and both are wired in the house, but are wireless if we're using them on the deck or in the back yard....maybe a couple of hours a week if that. We also turn off the wireless in the routers setups unless we're actually using it.

[Nowhere]

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments_opinion/defending_windows_over_mac_a_sign_of_mental_illness

Hmmm...I can see Gurm's rebuttal already...

[Gurm]

Well, nothing, but it does have a great deal to do with a recent issue I had with an IT department head at a company with which I was consulting recently. I won't get into the specifics, but you know the drill, this guy hated Macs for some reason, made outright fun of Macs using all of the usual myths (too expensive, no software, no one uses them, Apple's going out of business, etc.), but was getting pounded by his company's workers and management as his network repeatedly failed due to viruses and patches and just plain Windows crashes.

Let's see. So the guy was an ****ole, acting unprofessionally towards his end-users, AND he doesn't know how to run or secure a network? See, it's a DISEASE that Macheads think that this guy is indicative of PC admins.

Macheads (and the writer of this article) cling to all the "usual myths", such as the foolish notion that "windows crashes", "viruses", and "patches" make PC networks insecure and anger end-users.

[Jessterw]

Well the problem is that you have guys administrating Windows-based setups without any background in networks or security. Windows made it so 'easy' to do that any knowledge required elsewhere could be overlooked. Sadly, a large majority of these admins never take the time to educate themselves on the finer details, instead they gourge themselves on fluff books and manuals.

I've seen it more times than I'd care to think about. Granted, most of these admins are not working with large-scale setups, so they're not indicative of true, trained admins (or at least those who cared to learn those finer details).

The point, however, wasn't that all Windows admins are this fellow, but rather that there are Windows users and admins who eat, sleep, and sh*t Microsoft. They're just as bad as the Mac zealots who worship Jobs (most Mac users don't, they think he's an ass, but they still respect what he can do) and think the Mac is holy grail of computing (which it's not, it's a tool).

Oddly enough, or maybe not so, I kept thinking about the level of crap Mac users are also willing to tolerate because they are invested in the systems. The difference is that they're usually pretty damn vocal about what they're having to tolerate. Which is something Windows users once did as well and appear to be starting to do again.

[Gurm]

Sadly, I don't see many people administrating Mac-based setups at all. Mac made it TOO easy. Plug two macs into a switch and they see each other. WOO! Umm... security? What's that? Macs don't get viruses or spyware, so who needs SECURITY?

*sigh*

It goes back and forth needlessly. The problem, of course, is that the vocal element on both sides is the idiots. But it does rankle me that both sides refuse to admit the weaknesses of their OS. Windows isn't pretty, and has nearly zero investment in the end-user experience. Every time Microsoft releases something that is supposed to be for the end-user's benefit, it's hideous and poorly thought out. I'm hopeful about the Vista UI, but not terribly so considering the hardware needed to run it.

On the other hand, Mac users refuse to admit that there are GOOD reasons for all the jokes and cliches. They spout phrases like "oh that Admin used all the tired old cliches" but there's a reason they're cliches. Y'know the Gus Cerolla "switch" ad? "Hi, I'm Gus Cerolla, and I'm a gamer... well... I used to be..." It's like all generalizations. They're based in truth. But there's a flipside. If the ONE program of its kind on a Mac does everything the users need... then why do they need 10 programs? Fair enough, although in this day and age of enforced-DRM and software monopolies (Microsoft's fault, admittedly) I'm leery of a single point of influence in any industry sector.

Oh well. Once again, it's just a silly article written by retarded monkeys. Mac monkeys, but monkeys nonetheless.

[Jessterw]

Erm... okay. I guess we can agree it's a silly article. Then again, you lost me about halfway...

[Jessterw]

Interesting, if not amusing, challenge for Maynor and Ellch:

http://daringfireball.net/2006/09/open_challenge

[Jessterw]

Just as a bit of an update, Maynor and Cache have posted this little tidbit:

Recently we gave a public demonstration of an exploit in a wireless device driver. We thought it was timely, important, but most importantly it was super cool. Since the first details of our demo were reported two camps instantly formed, people who thought the work and research was good and people thought we faked everything and we are horrible people. How could opinions differ go greatly? What is the story behind exactly what happened and more importantly what does this response mean for the security industry as a whole? This presentation won't be a typical as it will cover the complete story, but it will also offer analysis and commentary of public responses while at the same time giving anyone who has a question a chance to have it answered.

In other words they're going to whine about people being skeptical and exaggerate things to the point that people were either for them or against them (as opposed to just being skeptical and wanting more details). Though, to be fair, they did receive a lot of rather rude and hateful email from some of the less-intelligent Mac users.

They've likely chosen to 'come forward' now because Apple has released updates for the wi-fi adapters in their PPC and Intel-based systems. Which, one should note, Apple is saying do not address any publicly known and exploited vulnerabilities. Guess we'll see.

As an aside, here's some further commentary on this from Gruber:

http://daringfireball.net/2006/09/airport_security_update

and from MacJournals publisher Matt Deatherage:

If Maynor and Ellch had demonstrated it or shown code to just one Mac expert who could have verified their claims, they’d rightly be lionized for their work. Instead, they took credit for “hacking a MacBook” at security shows and in the international press while refusing to provide even the barest proof that they’d actually accomplished what they said they had, or at least what they wanted you to believe they’d said. Now that bugs and fixes are in the real world, there’s no way of ever knowing if what they say they found matches those bugs or not — when they had the chance to prove it, they refused. It’s like saying after the fact that you knew the answer to Final Jeopardy — you have to say it before it’s revealed to get credit for knowing it.

Obviously these two are Mac users and are on the outside looking in, but the points raised are certainly valid.


Update: The closest to a rebuttal from Apple we're likely to get for at least the time being, http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=328