Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Patches Wireless Drivers

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the back-on-track dept.

Frank writes "Apple quietly released a pair of patches today to its wireless drivers. The patches (one for PowerPC, one for Intel) address distinct buffer overflow vulnerabilities found during an internal audit in response to the claim that fuzzing the drivers resulted in an exploitable failure."

44 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Details by Lord+Grey · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those that like details, here is more specific information on the patch: About the security content of AirPort Update 2006-001 and Security Update 2006-005.

    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
  2. erhm by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple quietly released a pair of patches today to its wireless drivers.

    What, you expect them to loudly release a pair of patches? "Hey, everybody, our products have a flaw which allows them to be wirelessly rooted in under a minute! Better apply this patch!!!1!!one!"

    Somehow I don't think that would go over too well on Wall Street.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:erhm by bobalu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that's a bit harsh. And since I know both my neighbors and they're both developers who I'd trust with my network, and they're both over 200' away, I could give a flying rat's ass anyway.And if Wall Street gave f**** about network security Microsoft would be trading at $1/share.

      --
      The revolution will NOT be televised.
  3. Additional background info by richg74 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Brian Krebs, at the Washington Post, has some additional background information and comments in his "SecurityFix" blog.

    1. Re:Additional background info by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem with the whole story is that David Maynor was saying it was the Intel drivers that was at fault, which is an interesting problem because Apple's current notebooks use Aetheros wireless chips.

    2. Re:Additional background info by Sancho · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that nobody gets the story right.

      Maynor and Cache said that similar flaws existed on many platforms. They said that Intel's drivers had the flaw, and that it was funny that Intel had released a new driver version a week before Black Hat. They also said that the flaw was exploitable on the MacBook using the third-party device and drivers. And they also said that the flaw was exploitable on the Airport with Apple's own drivers.

      Now I don't know who to believe in this--both parties have a stake in it (Apple with their reputation as having a 'secure' platform, and Maynor/Cache have their reputations as security consultants). They are on opposing sides, and honestly, Maynor/Cache's statements are a little weaker since they still have not publicly demonstrated the vulnerability on anything but third-party Intel Macbook hardware. Nevertheless, it seems like almost no one writes the whole story (hell, I've probably missed a lot of it, but at least I'm not making allegations regarding anyone's character, here) and makes wild, flaming allegations about how "Maynor's full of shit because they didn't even USE an Apple card" (which, of course, was stated very clearly in the video, had anyone bothered to watch it) or your statement, which completely misses the fact that they claimed that the vulnerability was exploitable using Apple 1st party hardware.

  4. This does NOT make the SecureWorks story true! by macmaxbh · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'll let MacWorld say it for me:
    From http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/09/21/wireless/i ndex.php:
    Apple on Thursday released a Security and AirPort update for Mac OS X that fixes vulnerabilities found in the company's wireless drivers. Apple said the issues found were the result of an internal audit of the software drivers and that no known exploits exist for the issues addressed in this update.
    ...
    Apple has maintained that SecureWorks has provided no proof that Mac drivers are vulnerable in any way.
    "They did not supply us with any information to allow us to identify a specific problem, so we initiated an internal audit," Apple spokesman, Anuj Nayar, told Macworld. "Today's update preemptively strengthens our drivers against potential vulnerabilities, and while it addresses issues found internally by Apple, we are open to hearing from security researchers on how to improve security on the Mac."

    1. Re:This does NOT make the SecureWorks story true! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So now we should give credit to companies for announcing that there could be unspecified vulnerabilities in components!? Oooh. Oooh. There could be a vulnerability in Windows Vista's USB drivers! But I'm not going to say what it is! But now they have to credit me every time one is discovered and released!

      90% of the driver code processes wireless frames. Saying that there is a vulnerability in the wireless driver when processing malicious frames provides zero information on an actual vulnerability.

    2. Re:This does NOT make the SecureWorks story true! by GaryPatterson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would that be the thing SecureWorks claimed they found?

      It's trivial to catch Apple out - they can just release the communications they sent now that Apple have patched the drivers, and easily show Apple are lying when they said "They did not supply us with any information to allow us to identify a specific problem, so we initiated an internal audit."

      Let's hear from SecureWorks now. Unless... this is a different issue... and Apple aren't lying in such as easily provable way.

    3. Re:This does NOT make the SecureWorks story true! by Morphine007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      yer absolutely right *hangs head in shame* ... it was meant to be a joke... /sigh

      --
      Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
  5. There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IIRC, a few weeks ago they were adamant that there was no flaw. Seems even darling companies can make mistakes too.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by Rosyna · · Score: 5, Informative

      The "flaw" that SecureWorks reported did not exist. Apple wasn't told what the flaw was or really any details about it, and like a responsible company, audited all relevant code irregardless. They found three potential *crashers*. These may be impossible crashers, as in the requirements to get to that section of code means it is impossible for the data to be invalid, but they added an error check "just in case".

      The problem is now days everyone considers a crasher to be a security exploit, even if it can't be used to run any code.

      But none of these are what the SecureWorks guys "reportedly" found. Either way, they definitely and without a doubt lied on that video. The device they attached was not a wireless device seen by the system at all. The SecureWorks guys never even stated anything, other than the community didn't have the mental capacity to understand what the exploit was.

      They also said they would not release details until Apple fixed it. So I assume they'll now put up or shut up. It really all looks like a publicity stunt to sell their upcoming book.

    2. Re:There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by gabebear · · Score: 2, Informative

      The flaw announced by SecureWorks was supposedly in a third-party wireless driver for MacOS, not Airport. The article says SecureWorks never gave any proof of a flaw in Apple's drivers, but that they audited them because of SecureWorks announcement and that these patches are the result.

      Apple is still adamant that SecureWorks didn't find any flaws.

    3. Re:There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by martinbogo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually .. there *IS* a flaw, as stated by Apple in the release, that does exactly what the SecureWorks people stated.

      From the security release:

      CVE-ID: CVE-2006-3507

      Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9, Mac OS X v10.4.7, Mac OS X Server v10.4.7

      Impact: Attackers on the wireless network may cause arbitrary code execution

      Description: Two separate stack buffer overflows exist in the AirPort wireless driver's handling of malformed frames. An attacker in local proximity may be able to trigger an overflow by injecting a maliciously-crafted frame into a wireless network. When the AirPort is on, this could lead to arbitrary code execution with system privileges. This issue affects Power Mac, PowerBook, iBook, iMac, Mac Pro, Xserve, and PowerPC-based Mac mini computers equipped with wireless. Intel-based Mac mini, MacBook, and MacBook Pro computers are not affected. There is no known exploit for this issue. This update addresses the issues by performing additional validation of wireless frames.

      --
      "Don't worry about the problems you have in mathematics, I assure you mine are much greater." - Einstein c.1919
    4. Re:There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by Drishmung · · Score: 5, Informative
      The SecureWorks people claimed to have compromised a MacBook. That is, an Intel based machine.

      But, as you quote:

      Intel-based Mac mini, MacBook, and MacBook Pro computers are not affected

      IOW, this is evidently not the same vulnerability claimed by SecureWorks.

      Stumulated by the brouhaha, Apple have performed a code audit. (I'd suspect they did a remarkably thorough code audit too :) They have found some problems with the PPC drivers, and they have released a patch for them. They don't appear to have found any issues with the Intel code though.

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    5. Re:There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by catwh0re · · Score: 4, Informative
      "Apple is still adamant that SecureWorks didn't find any flaws."

      I believe just about everyone is adamant that SecureWorks didn't find any flaws.

      Since their initial statement which was launched on digg with a title that read something similar to: "Own a macbook in under 60 seconds". They have claimed the following:
      - Fault works on macbooks and most other wireless hardware, platform independent.
      - Apple had muscled them into not demonstrating it on apple hardware, instead 3rd party hardware.
      - They had informed Apple and other companies of the fault, gave the required details and instructions.
      - Will demonstrate the flaw on video as to protect the packets from being sniffed.

      Now since the demonstration of the video the following has come out of the woodwork
      - These updates do not patch intel based macs such as the macbook.. nor do they patch anything described by SecureWorks
      - Apple had never spoken with SecureWorks or it's employees about the "flaws" before the blackhat conference.
      - SecureWorks have not informed Apple or any other company of the flaws or gave required details to reproduce them.
      - The demonstration on video has been dubious and clearly shows 3rd party hardware being used, with there being no proof that this is a wireless flaw or just a hoax.
      - SecureWorks has gone mostly silent on the issue, and have changed their story several times, they have never released details to validate -any- of their claims.

      The whole thing has been a terrible farse with the perpetrators reeling into hiding after realising that this is something which the public would want proven and not just take their word for it.

      No one expects any platform to be 100% secure, but when you find a fault, particularly one as interesting as a remote wireless hack, you will instantly have a huge audience wanting it proven and demonstrated, they deserve being outcast like they have. Their methods are being publicy dealt with in the same way that a disgraced scientist would be.

    6. Re:There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by catwh0re · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just to correct the above, of the new patches (3 of them) only some are for the intel macs and some are for the ppc macs. Different flaws exist on different hardware configurations, one requiring 3rd party devices also.

    7. Re:There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by epee1221 · · Score: 2, Informative
      IOW, this is evidently not the same vulnerability claimed by SecureWorks. Stumulated by the brouhaha, Apple have performed a code audit. (I'd suspect they did a remarkably thorough code audit too :) They have found some problems with the PPC drivers, and they have released a patch for them. They don't appear to have found any issues with the Intel code though.
      Very true. I wonder why they didn't catch the code said to be responsible for Johnny Cache's exploit. Maybe that's because it's Atheros' driver code, not Apple's. Remember, everybody, they exploited an Atheros card -- an Atheros chipset running Atheros drivers. It's more or less abstracted away from the OS interacting with the card.
      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    8. Re:There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by powermacx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You highlighted the wrong part. Let me fix that for you:

      Impact: Attackers on the wireless network may cause arbitrary code execution Description: Two separate stack buffer overflows exist in the AirPort wireless driver's handling of malformed frames. An attacker in local proximity may be able to trigger an overflow by injecting a maliciously-crafted frame into a wireless network. When the AirPort is on, this could lead to arbitrary code execution with system privileges. This issue affects Power Mac, PowerBook, iBook, iMac, Mac Pro, Xserve, and PowerPC-based Mac mini computers equipped with wireless. Intel-based Mac mini, MacBook, and MacBook Pro computers are not affected. There is no known exploit for this issue. This update addresses the issues by performing additional validation of wireless frames.

      The same "no know exploit for this issue" line is on the other two CVEs. So, Apple is saying the the claim made by the SecureWorks guys to Krebs ("the same exploit works on the internal Airport card") is a BIG FAT LIE: they did not have an exploit or if they did, they lied when they said they had shared the details with Apple.

    9. Re:There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      There is no known exploit for this issue.


      This is like most "exploits." You find a crash situation, it's some overflow of somekind, you wouldn't seg fault other wise. Everyone freaks out, it might be possible to run arbitrary code, it might not be. OpenSSL had a fairly famous one about 3 years ago, the ASN.1 decoder had a crash when you put corrupt certificates in to it, at best it was a type of DoS situation and to this day nobody has ever run arbitrary code with it.


      This secureworks thing is the very worst kind of "security" out there. Thing is, just about all code of a certain size has flaws. This includes drivers. Potentially, a defect in a driver is really bad, it's trusted code that executes usually in ring-1 or ring-0. These most likely won't be the last security fixes Apple puts in to their wireless drivers, it's enough code and big enough that there will be more bugs that are found.


      Now I've written more and a couple wireless drivers myself and I happen to know that there is next to no way that the secureworks "exploit" works like they claim. I'd be a lot more willing to believe it if they explained that it was a microcode flaw they found or if the device was already associated with something. Some chips, like the Atheros, have a firmware that pretty much does everything and you write not a lot more than an ethernet driver on top of it and you can have wireless, you do another layer of stuff to control some of the tweakables (channel, b or g, etc.. but those are fairly static values you poke in to registers) their firmware will do WPA, WEP, all that crap. So their microcode engine isn't your normal microprocessor, crafting code for it, enough code to associate or send arbitrary packets is an impressive task. It's also rtos based, with no memory allocation, static buffers, and while it's possible that there are some overflows, I think it's pretty unlikely. It seems very believable that you could jam crappy frames in and cause it to hang or drop them in some way but overflow with enough code space to arbitrarily establish a connection to a remote machine? It's also a long way off from the OS. Crafting some frames that cause the OS to start doing that is almost more impressive, I think it's a lower hanging fruit in many ways but you have to trick the whole stack, there are checks along the way, does the OS think it's a raw socket? That never got constructed? It can't be going through the IP stack, data will get dropped at numerous places, not the least of which would be routing. If they crashed the microcode, color me stupid, but I don't see how that get's you to a userspace process or even close to it. There are a lot of things they could reveal about it if they have a real exploit that wouldn't completely reveal the hardware in question. But let's look at that too, how many 3rd party wireless parts are their for MacOSX? 2 or 3?

    10. Re:There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by dragonman97 · · Score: 5, Informative

      AirPort

      CVE-ID: CVE-2006-3508

      Available for: Mac OS X v10.4.7, Mac OS X Server v10.4.7

      Impact: Attackers on the wireless network may cause system crashes, privilege elevation, or arbitrary code execution

      Description: A heap buffer overflow exists in the AirPort wireless driver's handling of scan cache updates. An attacker in local proximity may be able to trigger the overflow by injecting a maliciously-crafted frame into the wireless network. This could lead to a system crash, privilege elevation, or arbitrary code execution with system privileges. This issue affects Intel-based Mac mini, MacBook, and MacBook Pro computers equipped with wireless. Power Mac, PowerBook, iBook, iMac, Mac Pro, Xserve, and PowerPC-based Mac mini computers are not affected. This update addresses the issue by performing additional validation of wireless frames. There is no known exploit for this issue. This issue does not affect systems prior to Mac OS X v10.4.

      It sure looks like it affects Intel-based Apple laptops to me. I don't buy the spin - I think it's quite likely the SecureWorks guys are right...and if they're wrong, well then these computers are just more secure. That sounds like a /really bad thing/ to me.

    11. Re:There's no flaw, but heres a patch anyway by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rather, Apple is adamant in stating that SecureWorks never contacted them. This is important because SecureWorks tried to make it look like they told Apple, but Apple leaned on them to hush it up.

      I'm with John Gruber of Daring Fireball on this: my money is on Apple telling the truth. The risks of them getting spanked should it be a lie are too high, and the number of times security companies pull stunts to drum up business doesn't look good for SecureWorks.

  6. Re:Why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We complain when Microsoft quietly releases patches, why would we ever expect less of Apple?

    Because Linux' security-fixes (about weekly since the flawed AOL-desktop-OS 2.6.* kernel-series) are always loudly announced, right?

    Fucking hipocrisy.

  7. Re:Why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fucking hipocrisy

    Welcome to Slashdot.

  8. Sounds like Politics by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It just sounds exactly the sort of thing politicians do, deny there is ever any problem, quietly legistlate, and then when it comes to an election they can say how wonderful they are at the problem they identified and fixed themselves.

    I wonder if Steve is planning on running ;)

    1. Re:Sounds like Politics by Firehed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well other than the national dress code of a black turtleneck and blue jeans and Lattes becoming the official drink of the country, it's not that bad of an idea.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  9. "Quietly" by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Apple quietly released..."

    It's in Security Update where every other update goes, and a spokesperson even talked with MacWorld about it. What's quiet about the release?

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:"Quietly" by ModernGeek · · Score: 4, Funny

      The fact that they didn't hold a secretive special event to announce it.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    2. Re:"Quietly" by richdun · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's Patchtime. (R)

    3. Re:"Quietly" by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 4, Funny

      The iPatch? Did they release this on the 19th of September or something?

      "Arr, matey -- it's International Dress Like a Pirate Day, too, dincha know?"

  10. Dell also released Wireless Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have a Core 2 Duo laptop with the Intel Wireless chipset. Yesterday I pulled down a "Critical" patch and installed it. It think both Apple and Dell are using the same Intel chipsets, so this is apparently an Intel fix.

  11. A near miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Luckily not enough people actually use Macs to make exploits worth using.

  12. Re:Medical Marijuana by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Funny

    What did you expect? Were you hoping for your Mac to suddenly start playing band music, move confetti across the desktop, and then pop up the words "CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE A PENDING PATCH AVAILABLE" over whatever you were trying to work with?

    ...

    I wish Windows did that. :(

  13. Mac OS X wireless is not robust by CyberSnyder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The one complaint I have about OS X is the way it handles wireless networks. I can't save the password on the keyring unless the the SSID is being broadcast. What the hell is up with that? With XP, it just works. (Kills me to say that, but it's true.) Hopefully they'll fix it in the next version, but I'm guessing they would rather make it easy for AirPort and a pain for linksys.

    I know disabling SSID broadcast doesn't really give you much security, but I live in a townhouse. Why make it easy?

    1. Re:Mac OS X wireless is not robust by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe I don't understand your problem, but I have a WiFi network at home that does not broadcast its SSID, and uses WPA-PSK and MAC filtering for additional security. My PowerBook and PPC iMac both use this network, and I never have to type a password in. I added my home network to the "Preferred Networks" list in Network preferences.

      --
      Vote for global prefs bug
    2. Re:Mac OS X wireless is not robust by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      WPA is not easy. Why make it difficult on yourself?

      But 99% of my headaches have been solved by simply adding networks I like to "preferred networks". Once I do that, all I have to do is "Turn AirPort On", and I'm connected.

      And while I was travelling with my father, he was using XP, I was using OS X, and I could get on the hotel network in three clicks: wireless menu, Comfort Inn (or whatever), then click "yes" to the agreement from a web browser. It took him a bit more time, and my mother's computer can't seem to connect to anything without being set up to always connect to that network...

      And then there's the fact that, yes, OS X is still much more secure than Windows. Ironic to say here, unless you RTFA -- the exploit seems to affect Windows, also. So, all around, OS X seems to be the best OS for wireless, at least until I find a nice gui for Linux wireless.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  14. Re:what gets me... by MoneyT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I crazy?

    To a degree yes. You, nor anyone else in the world is willing to pay what it costs for a fully secure system. It costs money, but more than that it costs time, and people don't want to wait. It is possible to design perfect and bug free software with no defects or attack vectors, but the costs and time associated with it would put it out of the price range of even the most succesful of corporations. And in the end, it would be worthless because it would be outdated by the time you released it. So people want it now, which means not testing for some of the more fringe cases. They also want it cheaper which means leaving out more testing. Witness the computers of today vs the ones of yesteryear. Many computers years ago were built to last, in part because they were expensive enough that a company needed to make them a good investment. These days no one has the stomach to pay for a $5,000 personal computer, even if it means better build quality. They want the latest, the greatest, and they want it now. Software is the same way. We want the latest and the greatest and we want it now, to hell with perfection we can iron the bugs out later.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  15. Re:what gets me... by Americano · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Be an apologist all you like ("But, it's HARD to write secure software! Wahh!") but we're not going to have secure systems unless the bugs are squashed BEFORE being discovered. Am I crazy?
    Problem is, what this implies is that your code must be *perfect* -- all bugs, gone, before release -- or you can't release it.

    So let's say you accomplish near-perfection in your code, and you have 1 bug in the entire program. Now, put that program on an operating system, made up of thousands of other binaries, each with only *1* bug in them. Individually, each one of those binaries is nearly perfect. Taken all together, you have a buggy, quirky, unpredictable system of interactions. So do you not release your software until everybody else in the universe also gets theirs right?

    Or do you just do the reasonable thing -- release it when it's "okay" so people can use it, and continue improving it via some patching or update process?

  16. Re:Why not... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does Hipocrisy have a sister?
    Cause I've been fucking Hypocrisy for years now.

    Just thought they might be related.
    Cause of the names you know.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  17. Re:what gets me... by anti-drew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speaking as someone who did five years at Apple, the company certainly does audit stuff before it's released -- particularly network and filesystem code. Patches and bugfixes also tend to get code-reviewed right inside the bug report by several people outside of the core group with good security experience, and reviewed again before they make it into a release. The main problem is that there are so many lines of code and only a finite amount of time, and the more subtle problems take longer to detect. There is a cost-to-profit tradeoff after a certain point.

    It's like microwave popcorn. You nuke it and in the first few minutes you can get almost all of the kernels (exploits) popped. Then the rate of popping slows down. After a while, you simply have to stop or else you'll burn right through your profit (of warm, yummy popped corn).

    And that's just not worth it. No matter what there will always be a few hiding way down in the bottom of the bag. You can burn through the whole thing and still never pop them all.

  18. Some more interesting Links by LKM · · Score: 3, Informative

    As always, daringfireball.net has an interesting article on this. And The Macalope chimes in, too, with a link to an article by Glenn Fleishman. Enjoy.

  19. 12% of new laptops by argent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    12% of new laptop sales isn't enough people?

    The "market share" dog don't hunt, coward.

  20. I don't think there's much of a story here. by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm just glad Apple is actually finding bugs in their own code and fixing them in a reasonable period of time.

    I bought a Macbook Pro recently, and it does still have its share of problems. First of all, it's a new platform for Apple so it's almost bound to have a few issues that they didn't predict. Just because OSX has really been running for years on Intel platform, doesn't mean it's optimized for it yet.

    This wireless patch deals with a couple of issues they've found. I installed the patch last night, and I sincerely hope that it does fix the "beachball of death" wireless issue that seems to have hit a fair number of MBP owners myself included. The wireless is pretty damned good, the antenna in the machine is significantly better than my other Dell laptop. However, it's not perfect, and it's known to cause problems in the right (wrong?) circumstances. I can't nail down precisely what those circumstances are, but it will freeze Finder with SBOD problems. Thankfully, EscapePod comes to the rescue for me or it would be that big fat power button of death for my MBP.

    I reiterate... I am a Mac owner and I'm proud to say that Apple is at least proactively fixing their code. Secureworks identified one problem, Apple fixed three. That speaks volumes to me about how serious Apple are about squashing bugs.

  21. Easy for Secureworks to prove their exploit now by lergnom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So . . . now that Apple has patched the code, why doesn't secureworks demonstrate their exploit with an unpatched Apple MacBook? Can they? It seems an easy test. If they have an exploit, show it. The code is fixed.