Then why didn't he conduct the hack without the third party USB adapter? I can take your word that it is technically feasible, but as a non-technical person, I'd rather see it in action rather than taking a technical person's theoretical explaination of how it "would" work had we used the stock wireless. It's kind of the staple of good research to make the assumption that it would work because it is the same chipset, but you still have to test those assumptions. Anything short makes the work biased. After reading the findings in the links of the article, I'm shocked at what passes as "research" in the technical field (if this is at all representative of technical research).
In short, the only way this guy could clear up his lack of credible research findings would be to have hacked the actual built-in wireless card, or some other extremely popular (or stock) configuration AND removed all the cutesy, gimmicky biased remarks about Mac users in general. Instead, he used a third-party work-around to get in, then put all his eggs in the basket that assures us all it could be done without the work-around, as well...I promise...no seriously!
Too bad Apple patched it and he hid behind the NDA, because now we'll never know for sure if a stock MacBook could have been hacked.
If you click the link to the original story, it clearly indicates that this guy hacked a third party wireless card. If you click on the link to this story, however, the story claims that he found a way to hack the built-in AirPort wireless adapter. Shoddy journalism?
So what happened? The original story was a lie? The new story doesn't have their facts straight? IF this guy hacked an AirPort driver, like the NEWEST link claims, then this is a story. However, since the past year has been filled with nothing but discrediting proof that he hacked a third-party adapter, and his video shows him inserting a third party wireless USB adapter, then I would have to guess that the Apple AirPort wireless adapter was never, and still isn't, threatened by hacking.
There is no cynicism in your post, just truth. This whole conversation is wrapped up with your post. Thank you! I still don't see what's so hard to understand that this guy hacked a third party device that was plugged into a Mac that NOBODY uses anyway, so it's a non-issue. Had he hacked the stock WiFi, he'd have a point. Hell, even suggesting that the same technique WOULD work on the built-in WiFi (but without actually doing it) would have more credibility than this. It is scary that all the anti-Mac crowd has to do is get catch a wiff of the words "vulnerable" and "Mac OS X" in the same sentence to be sent into a frenzy like they always do. Get back to me when you actually have something...thanks.
You are rubbing salt into the wrong wound. You need to find out what third pary wireless adapter he used, and rub salt into their wounds. Find me 5 Mac users who use that specific wireless adapter...no wait, find me 5 Mac users who use ANY wireless adapter other than the one that ships preinstalled, or find me somebody who can hack the Apple wireless adapter and I slit a big wound for you anywhere on my body, and you can pour as much salt in as you like.
Your post sounds convincing enough, but please correct my memory, in case I've forgotten something. He hacked a third party wireless adapter. EVERY Mac sold comes preinstalled with their own flavor of wireless adapter. This guy couldn't (or at least didn't) hack the Mac's built in wireless, he hacked a third party. Since nobody that uses a Mac buys third party wireless adapters, then this hack is no threat and is not Apple specific. What am I missing here?
Yes, it affected Apple, too, but It was a general "hack" that affected WiFi chipsets on other platforms, including non-Apple hardware, Windows, and Linux!
Considering it was a third party wireless device, it would only be logical that Macs would be the least affected by this hack, because very few Mac users (less than 1%?) would ever bypass the built in wireless for a third party solution. So this hack is more of a danger to Windows machines, which are far more likely to be sold without built-in wireless, thus requiring the user to puchase and install the device that allowed the hack in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is my recollection of the hack.
If this guy ever hacks a MacBook's built in wireless with typical user settings, then this would be an Apple story. As it is now, it is a story about how insanely obsessed the anti-Mac crowd is with trying to break OS X and only lends further credence to Apple's claim of OS X's excellent security (good enough for the Department of Defense and the NSA, in some cases).
Last nail? They haven't even started fitting Firewire with a coffin yet. The only thing dying in this equation is USB2, and thankfully so. So it is faster than USB...joy, my mouse, printer and keyboard all now react the same speed, regardless of the interface speed boost. What's the point of USB2 again? If it doesn't boost the speed of my peripherals at least as well as my existing firewire400/800 ports, then why do I need it? It IS a pity that iPods stopped shipping with firewire and went to USB2, but that was a business choice to have maximum compatibility. Too bad my newer iPods can't transfer 2 songs per second anymore, like they used to when they were firewire400. But like many others have said, USB2 is "good enough" so it is really hard to get excited about USB3, which will be "gooder enough?"
It's my understanding that USB is not a suitable video transfer technology because it doesn't send and receive data asynchronously like firewire does (or some terminology like that). USB is a one-way road whereas Firewire is two. Also, I've read a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo (that flies right over my head)about Firewire's cability to mark and catalogue digital film for proper frame alignment and "stuff"....ok, I'm done talking out of my a$$ now, I'll turn it back over to the experts.
You seem to be making the incorrect assumption that many others are making. He was not tasered because he asked stupid questions. He was tasered, because he didn't, a) shut up when told to, b) leave when told to and c) stop resisting when told to.
They were campus police. They have police jurisdiction for things that happen on campus. No wonder the majority of the posts on here supporting this idiot come to the faulty conclusions they do; they don't see facts and decide to make up their own minds about what happened.
Asking questions about secret societies, blow jobs, impeachments and easily discounted voter recount theories hardly count as "a few important questions that will affect yours and everyone else's future".
Unless, of course, we are all lining up for free BJ's in the Oval Office.
Question #2: Why not impeach Bush before he invades Iran, since Bill Clinton was impeached over a blowjob?
Because invading Iran is looking more like it will be the prudent thing to do in light of the current situation, and infidelity is not a characteristic deemed worthy for the position of President of the United States.
Then I would have tased the kid for such stupid questions anyway.
They were TRYING to take him outside, if you didn't noticed the female officer leading him away by the elbow, but he decided to make a scene, fight with cops, and got his sorry ass tasered for his efforts.
The taser was not "punishment", rather "enforcement". The kid wouldn't shut up, wouldn't leave, then wouldn't stop resisting. The cops are supposed to do what exactly? Say, "yeah, you are right kid, get back up there and badger the Senator some more!".
This appears to be a gross abuse of police force. Many more people should be outraged.
Actually, it appears to be a kid who doesn't know when his turn is finished and doesn't understand if you fight with a campus cop, you'll get tased, bro.
PERFECT post. The video of this incident will keep me smiling for months. The audio is especially tasty...'ooooowwwwwww oooooooouch wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.....I'm a giant puuuuuussssssssssssssy!"
Yeah, he'll get his 15 minutes. Plus, it will bolster his activist web site. I'd call it a ploy, but this is your typical know-nothing college kid trying to fight the establishment, so he believes in his cause, no matter how misguided.
My theory is that Apple is a cool company that cares about cool things, like music and digital video editing. Microsoft cares about uncool things, like spreadsheets and registry editing.
Gee, they should ask Napster how their business is holding up when they made the brilliant choice to rent music to people and make it NOT work on iPods.
I think your response is hitting on the deeper issue. No doubt that Ubuntu, when properly configured for specific hardware (or even setup for general-purpose hardware) is superior to MS Windows (any flavor). It might be technically better than Mac OS X too, but, (the deeper issue) SOMEBODY needs to step up and create a nicely packaged version of Linux that works exactly right with the hardware it ships on before users will see it being Mac-like, or worthy of getting away from Windows. Dell missed a HUGE chance here to be the first PC vendor that created a Linux varient tailored for their specific hardware specifications, that is right up there with the Mac out-of-the-box experience.
Fair enough, but I'm telling you, the average user doesn't have the patience to care one bit if it is an OS problem or a vendor problem and will chalk up the negative experience to Linux, not Dell. Hey, I never claimed it was fair, it's just the way it is.
Slashdot Mirror
So when, exactly did they meet to accomplish this challenge? Nice try, but still wrong.
In short, the only way this guy could clear up his lack of credible research findings would be to have hacked the actual built-in wireless card, or some other extremely popular (or stock) configuration AND removed all the cutesy, gimmicky biased remarks about Mac users in general. Instead, he used a third-party work-around to get in, then put all his eggs in the basket that assures us all it could be done without the work-around, as well...I promise...no seriously!
Too bad Apple patched it and he hid behind the NDA, because now we'll never know for sure if a stock MacBook could have been hacked.
So what happened? The original story was a lie? The new story doesn't have their facts straight? IF this guy hacked an AirPort driver, like the NEWEST link claims, then this is a story. However, since the past year has been filled with nothing but discrediting proof that he hacked a third-party adapter, and his video shows him inserting a third party wireless USB adapter, then I would have to guess that the Apple AirPort wireless adapter was never, and still isn't, threatened by hacking.
There is no cynicism in your post, just truth. This whole conversation is wrapped up with your post. Thank you! I still don't see what's so hard to understand that this guy hacked a third party device that was plugged into a Mac that NOBODY uses anyway, so it's a non-issue. Had he hacked the stock WiFi, he'd have a point. Hell, even suggesting that the same technique WOULD work on the built-in WiFi (but without actually doing it) would have more credibility than this. It is scary that all the anti-Mac crowd has to do is get catch a wiff of the words "vulnerable" and "Mac OS X" in the same sentence to be sent into a frenzy like they always do. Get back to me when you actually have something...thanks.
You are rubbing salt into the wrong wound. You need to find out what third pary wireless adapter he used, and rub salt into their wounds. Find me 5 Mac users who use that specific wireless adapter...no wait, find me 5 Mac users who use ANY wireless adapter other than the one that ships preinstalled, or find me somebody who can hack the Apple wireless adapter and I slit a big wound for you anywhere on my body, and you can pour as much salt in as you like.
Your post sounds convincing enough, but please correct my memory, in case I've forgotten something. He hacked a third party wireless adapter. EVERY Mac sold comes preinstalled with their own flavor of wireless adapter. This guy couldn't (or at least didn't) hack the Mac's built in wireless, he hacked a third party. Since nobody that uses a Mac buys third party wireless adapters, then this hack is no threat and is not Apple specific. What am I missing here?
If this guy ever hacks a MacBook's built in wireless with typical user settings, then this would be an Apple story. As it is now, it is a story about how insanely obsessed the anti-Mac crowd is with trying to break OS X and only lends further credence to Apple's claim of OS X's excellent security (good enough for the Department of Defense and the NSA, in some cases).
Last nail? They haven't even started fitting Firewire with a coffin yet. The only thing dying in this equation is USB2, and thankfully so. So it is faster than USB...joy, my mouse, printer and keyboard all now react the same speed, regardless of the interface speed boost. What's the point of USB2 again? If it doesn't boost the speed of my peripherals at least as well as my existing firewire400/800 ports, then why do I need it? It IS a pity that iPods stopped shipping with firewire and went to USB2, but that was a business choice to have maximum compatibility. Too bad my newer iPods can't transfer 2 songs per second anymore, like they used to when they were firewire400. But like many others have said, USB2 is "good enough" so it is really hard to get excited about USB3, which will be "gooder enough?"
It's my understanding that USB is not a suitable video transfer technology because it doesn't send and receive data asynchronously like firewire does (or some terminology like that). USB is a one-way road whereas Firewire is two. Also, I've read a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo (that flies right over my head)about Firewire's cability to mark and catalogue digital film for proper frame alignment and "stuff"....ok, I'm done talking out of my a$$ now, I'll turn it back over to the experts.
You seem to be making the incorrect assumption that many others are making. He was not tasered because he asked stupid questions. He was tasered, because he didn't, a) shut up when told to, b) leave when told to and c) stop resisting when told to.
They were campus police. They have police jurisdiction for things that happen on campus. No wonder the majority of the posts on here supporting this idiot come to the faulty conclusions they do; they don't see facts and decide to make up their own minds about what happened.
Wow. That was even worse than the obligatory car analogy. And I actually LIKE football.
Unless, of course, we are all lining up for free BJ's in the Oval Office.
If my kid turns out to be the shitbag this guy is, then I hope I kill myself first.
Then I would have tased the kid for such stupid questions anyway.
They were TRYING to take him outside, if you didn't noticed the female officer leading him away by the elbow, but he decided to make a scene, fight with cops, and got his sorry ass tasered for his efforts.
The taser was not "punishment", rather "enforcement". The kid wouldn't shut up, wouldn't leave, then wouldn't stop resisting. The cops are supposed to do what exactly? Say, "yeah, you are right kid, get back up there and badger the Senator some more!".
PERFECT post. The video of this incident will keep me smiling for months. The audio is especially tasty...'ooooowwwwwww oooooooouch wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.....I'm a giant puuuuuussssssssssssssy!"
Yeah, he'll get his 15 minutes. Plus, it will bolster his activist web site. I'd call it a ploy, but this is your typical know-nothing college kid trying to fight the establishment, so he believes in his cause, no matter how misguided.
In breaking news, we have learned that Microsoft Xbox 360 games WILL NOT WORK on the new Playstation 3.
My theory is that Apple is a cool company that cares about cool things, like music and digital video editing. Microsoft cares about uncool things, like spreadsheets and registry editing.
Gee, they should ask Napster how their business is holding up when they made the brilliant choice to rent music to people and make it NOT work on iPods.
I think your response is hitting on the deeper issue. No doubt that Ubuntu, when properly configured for specific hardware (or even setup for general-purpose hardware) is superior to MS Windows (any flavor). It might be technically better than Mac OS X too, but, (the deeper issue) SOMEBODY needs to step up and create a nicely packaged version of Linux that works exactly right with the hardware it ships on before users will see it being Mac-like, or worthy of getting away from Windows. Dell missed a HUGE chance here to be the first PC vendor that created a Linux varient tailored for their specific hardware specifications, that is right up there with the Mac out-of-the-box experience.
Fair enough, but I'm telling you, the average user doesn't have the patience to care one bit if it is an OS problem or a vendor problem and will chalk up the negative experience to Linux, not Dell. Hey, I never claimed it was fair, it's just the way it is.