MacBook Wi-Fi Hijack Details Finally Released

Wick3d Gam3s writes "Hacker David Maynor attempted to put the strange tale of the Macbook Wifi hack to rest, and offered an apology for mistakes made. All this and a live demo of the takeover exploit was made at a Black Hat DC event yesterday. Maynor promised to release e-mail exchanges, crash/panic logs and exploit code in an effort to clear his tarnished name. Said Maynor: 'I screwed up a bit [at last year's Black Hat in Las Vegas]. I probably shouldn't have used an Apple machine in the video demo and I definitely should not have discussed it a journalist ahead of time ... I made mistakes, I screwed up. You can blame me for a lot of things but don't say we didn't find this and give all the information to Apple.'"

Comments

Proof in the pudding

[Thrudheim]

I await the promised publishing of the email exchanges with Apple on his blog. If he shows that he actually did provide Apple with details on the exploit, then he might restore some credibility. As it stands, however, his demo yesterday sounds like more of the same obfuscation that has characterized this whole incident.

1) In the original demo, he gained command-line access to the target machine (using a third-party wireless card). The claim was made to Brian Krebs in the Washington Post that the built-in wireless was similarly vulnerable (which would be far more relevant, since all MacBooks have built-in wireless). Yesterday's demo showed a crash of the target machine. That's bad, but he still has not demonstrated a takeover of the MacBook using the built-in wireless after all this time.

2) The fact that Apple's patch addresses the flaw that caused the crashing does not prove that Maynor engaged in responsible disclosure. Apple has said that Maynor provided them with no code or other details about the exploit, and that they did their own investigation. The investigation, according to Apple, revealed a flaw, leading to the patch. The issue is NOT whether a flaw existed. All Maynor demonstrated was that Apple's security patch works, which is really not that enlightening.

Re:Proof in the pudding

[TPIRman]

This is the same bullshit please-connect-the-dots-for-me reasoning that Maynor has come up with all along. The question at issue is not whether there was a bug that allowed remote code execution. Yes, Apple has said as much. The question is whether Maynor had actually discovered such a bug. So far he has done nothing to dissuade objective observers that he's anything but an attention-grabbing fraud.

Doesn't it strike you as the least bit shifty that Maynor, eager to clear his name and prove that he was right, suddenly doesn't "feel the need" to demo the hijack he originally claimed? Oh, but don't worry, he could hijack the MacBook if he really wanted to! According to Maynor, Apple has been lying and covering up through this whole ordeal, but now we are supposed to essentially take Apple's word for it that his crash demo = hijack. Please.

Let's apply Occam's Razor here. Did Maynor fail to demo a hijack -- despite the fact that it would restore at least some his credibility -- because he thought it was just as convincing to piece together circumstantial evidence from Apple press releases? Or did he fail to demo a hijack because he can't? Are we supposed to believe that after all this time and humiliation, Maynor really doesn't "feel the need" to back up his inflammatory words? I don't buy it, and I don't see how any rational observer can.

As the GP said, the proof is in the pudding -- all we've got here is a box that says "pudding mix, really!" and a promise from Maynor. Same as before. The guy is a charlatan.

Re:Proof in the pudding

[TPIRman]

If the bug allows remote code execution, which Apple plainly states is possible, the difference in a crash and a hijack is only a matter of a few bytes of shell code.

You are buying into Maynor's fundamental misdirection here. He wants you to assume that the bug he is exploiting is the same as the bug that Apple says could allow remote code execution. But there is no evidence to support this assumption. Apple has fixed multiple AirPort bugs since 10.4.6. There is no way of knowing that Maynor is exploiting an AirPort bug that allowed a hijack rather than a crash.

If it would only take "a few bytes of shell code" and the "easiest 1%" to make this exploit into a hijack, why not do it? His original claim was that he could hijack a MacBook, period. Now, supposedly given the chance to prove it, he just couldn't be bothered to slap together some shell code? Really? It's hard to believe that you don't find Maynor's "I can do that, I just don't feel like it" argument fishy at all.

Re:Proof in the pudding

[TPIRman]

Whether or not he can do it is not the issue!

As I said above, that is, in fact, the issue. Nobody is disputing that a remote AirPort exploit was possible; that matter has been settled by Apple. You can be as sarcastic and triumphant as you want, but I already agree that there were documented remote-exploit bugs in Apple's code. Everybody does.

The issue here is Maynor's reputation. A responsible security researcher has to be able to back up his claims. Maynor said he could hijack a MacBook. He never provided evidence that he could. Now he says, "Look, they fixed this AirPort bug, so I was telling the truth!" But he still doesn't demo the hijack, even on an unpatched machine.

The debate over whether there were serious AirPort bugs has been settled. But Maynor has never demonstrated that he had the goods. He has left it to insinuation and sleight-of-hand. You have bought into his misdirection, and you still haven't answered the central question: If, as you claim, a remote takeover required only a bit of shell code, why not just do it?

(Boldface added to that last bit purely out of love.)

Re:apple can iFuck off

[Space cowboy]

So, let me get this straight

1) he finds a bug, but he can't quite manage to exploit it. He can crash the machine (and that's a bad thing) but it doesn't *necessarily* mean he can exploit it.

2) There's a big conference coming up, and he knows he'll get the headlines if he announces anything bad about Apple. That's just the way of the world. Dammit, he *still* can't find the exploit.

3) The deadline arrives, he can't exploit the machine, but he goes ahead and gives the demo (faking the evidence with a different machine), confident that he'll get there eventually.

4) He hides behind "legal issues" (even now, he won't reveal emails) to prevent himself from being exposed as the liar he appears to be.

This series of events is just about the worst thing a researcher can do. It's like an athlete taking steroids - there will be no forgiveness, no olive-branch will be offered; his reputation is irredeemably tarnished, because he lied for personal gain. We *need* to be able to trust people publishing exploits, and if this means his career is in ruins, I say "Hurrah!" The less people like this around in the business, the better.

I just want to also point out that I don't recall any lawyers being involved at any time in this dispute - neither party claimed lawyers were involved (he said Apple "leaned on" his employers, whatever that means, but lawyers were never mentioned.)

Apple claim he released insufficient technical details to them to help them in their investigation, so they had to go to the trouble of doing a full internal audit of a large source tree (and all the time, he's spreading disinformation and tarnishing their name). They find and fix some bugs, and now he's in an even worse position - his crash "exploit" won't work.

So, now, he releases the "details" - he's given up trying to exploit the original OS, and brushes that small point aside in the "details". He tries to save as much face as possible instead of admitting he was just plain wrong - he's basically covering his ass. Does anyone else think "details" ought to actually show the information he claimed to have (like being able to take control of a Mac in 60 seconds) ?

In science, there are two fundamental maxims

      1) Don't falsify the data.
      2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (*)

He failed, on both of these, as far as the world can tell.

(*) "Extraordinary" here means in the technical sense - the first exploit of any kind requires unequivocal proof. I don't care if it's OSX, Windows XP, or Linux - show the data. Prove the case. Don't wave your hands around and babble.

Simon.

Re:apple can iFuck off

[Fahrenheit 450]

No. That is a link to a story with a great lack of details and a number of still unsubstantiated claims.
There is still no public supporting evidence for his clams -- he hasn't even posted his personal correspondence with Apple yet, something he'd been free to do since day one.

Maybe he'll get around to it someday... who knows. But for now it's still just a lot of words with no support.