Apple Denies Wi-Fi Flaw, Researchers Confirm

Glenn Fleishman writes "Apple tells Macworld.com that the Wi-Fi exploit demonstrated at Black Hat 2006 in a video doesn't show a flaw in their hardware or software. A third-party USB adapter with different chips and drivers was used, and Apple says the two researchers haven't provided Apple with code or a demonstration showing a working exploit on Apple equipment. The researchers added a note at their Web site confirming that only an unnamed third-party adapter was used. This doesn't mean the researchers have no flaw to show, but rather that their nose-thumbing at Apple users who were too secure in their security was misplaced, at least at present. The researcher's claim that they were providing information to Apple now seems off-base, too."

Comments

Well let me join karma suicide

[Ilgaz]

Can you imagine a "real" (not lamely coded) OS X worm/spyware released 1 hour later to the public by some black hat? What would happen? There are security tools for OS X but they are used by people generally switched from other OSes and know how evil things can get if you got zero defence. Lets check download numbers of cheapest (and working great) application firewall on versiontracker: Downloads (this version): 16,753 (Little Snitch)

So if you code a spyware sending everything from users home directory to some third party site, 16.000 people will get alerted.

There isn't a heuristics performing OS X Antivirus too. I mean like those disassembling scripts and run them in virtual machine to check what is going on by running it before actually running it.

What saves OS X is Unix rights and clever choices by Apple but it can't stop a evil script/application to send your home directory to third party server. Also: Popularity.

As Macbook (ew that name) made Apple marketshare explode, one day, one of those sick minded (but clever) will think about coding a worm/trojan which really works. No Redmond conspiracy needed too. Mac zealots continuous trolling and personal attacks to anyone mentioning security will feed such a lamer.

As a OS X running Quad G5 owner I sometimes found myself posting as AC to mac related stories knowing they will hit -1. Some security companies must have same feeling after what happened to Intego, Symantec and even totally individual bloggers which has no agenda in their mind spoke about pseudo "I am secure because I run mac" feeling by end users.

Well as I see the production machines used all over DTP/TV without zero security measures (even ones running os 9! it really has viruses!) I can make you sure that if such nightmare scenario happens, we will all hear it somehow. It will also create a huge mess to fix. Apple can't sue all Dell trolls laughing about daily newspaper not being printed as result of it yes?

Just giving 20 mins to this story get "FUD" tag and we go -1 levels by some Mac zealot moderator ;)

Re:What a relief.

[Mister Whirly]

"If no one likes it, then tough shit. I refuse to apologize or be meek about heightened security of my OS preference simply because windows users are pissed off"

Well good thing the statements about Mac users being "smug" about security is all sour grapes - otherwise I'd have to point out that your response sounded pretty, well, "smug".

PS - for the rcord, this is how I define smug -

Function: adjective
Etymology: probably modification of Low German smuck neat, from Middle Low German, from smucken to dress; akin to Old English smoc smock
1 : trim or smart in dress : SPRUCE
2 : scrupulously clean, neat, or correct : TIDY
3 : highly self-satisfied
- smugly adverb
- smugness noun

Numbers 1 & 2 aren't the context I was using, but #3 seems to nail it.