It's where the Apple developers get together and talk development of Apple related products, and Apple gives them a sneak peak (a VERY LITTLE fuzzy peak) at their future plans.
I think Apple's experience with the (Motorola, was it?) last third party phone proved that it would be a risky proposition at best. Most people I heard griping about it were slamming how few songs it would hold. Add more flash memory, or a hard drive, and your power consumptioon would go up, so there goes your stand by time on the phone half of the device, especially if you spend a lot of time listening to music, or conversely, talking on the phone. Both functions take a lotta power. Put a big honkin' battery in there to make up for it, and you'd need an auxilliary power pack on yer belt!
I don't think it'll work. I do think tho, that the references to a phone in the iPod updates may refer to a bluetooth connectivity with the iPod. Didn't see what the references were, tho, so I could be off base.
I think this is just pure speculation. Fun speculation, to be sure, but speculation nevertheless.
Bring on the Reality Distortion Field! Its affect on me must be fading...
It also does not erase the numbers of product sold. It may change the bottom line, because an actual profit as reported can be diminished by such charges as they are speaking of.
But Apple still sold the same number of Macs and iPods as previously reported - *those* numbers will NOT change, and those numbers still reflect a growing business.
I can see why you used AC to make this comment, as nobody would ever admit to being this idiotic.
I can see YOU didn't read MY last post. Are you so stupid that you couldn't see that in spite of MY saying what I meant in each of MY posts, he just kept repeating his stupid idea about Bush just doing what he wanted even tho it's obvious to any high schooler that's sat through a class on Civics (or whatever thay call it these days) would KNOW that it was impossible, and indefensable?
Yours is a classic case of attacking one's opponent instead of rationally attacking his idea or position - and rather extreme at that!
I won't try to defend my position to you, it's obvious the very idea of there being a structure to our government bigger than one man is foreign to both of you, and at least *your* skull is too thick to understand rational argument!
Sorry you think that way - your comments in this whole line give the lie to your saying you don't hate him, and your "flip, off-the-cuff" comment just underscores your refusal to accept the fact that Bush couldn't do what you "wouldn't be surprised if he tried".
Your flippant comment about "You have my permission to get the last word" is juvenile, and an admission, along with your denigration of your own comments, that it was an ill-advised comment to begin with.
Call it an argument, a spirited discussion or whatever you want, but to just drop off like that is uncivil, as are your comments about me. I did not make similar comments about you, as I don't like to use the "attack the opponent" technique. My response was not to your denigration of Bush - it was to your flippant comment about his being able to ignore the Constitution.
Your stubborn attempts to defend that "flip, off-the-cuff" remark just expose your own political leanings. You shouldn't try to sound so superior.
I'll get more worried if these two "hackers" will prove that they can connect to my Mac WITHOUT ACCESS TO MY KEYBOARD. They claim that there is no need to associate the target with an AP, but then proceed to do just that. Since they had previously connected to the Dell through an open Terminal shell (which was left open), connecting to the shell wasn't a particularly difficult thing to do from the attacking Dell, which, by the way, turns out to be the AP the Mac didn't have to be associated with. ?????
I repeat - any script kiddie can access a laptop they have physical access to!
They set up the exploit by connecting the third party card to the mac, opening a Terminal shell ON THE MAC, connecting to the Attacking Dell's AP. (remember they said you didn't have to be associated with an AP?) They then attached to the running shell on the Mac and ran several tasks that anybody could run with no more than user permissions!
Yeah, anybody can get hacked if they allow access to their KEYBOARD!!!
I'm not surprised - since their "hack" depended heavily on their connecting to the dell FROM THE MACS KEYBOARD before they ran the hack file - over an already established connection!
This "hack" is a hoax. They never actually hacked into the mac.
I challenge you to get enough of the 50 states to agree on something as simple as the color of the sky to amend the Constitution. Bush couldn't get enough votes in Congress to get a flag burning amendment through, much less a marriage amendment. Now you think he can get an amendment through to repeal the two term rule? AND then to get the States to ratify it in enough time for the next election? Boy, you're a dreamer!
I repeat - running for Pres is NOT something under the control of people Bush can trust to get what he could want (according to your scenario). That is up to the States, and like I said, just try to get enough of them to cooperate with THAT one!
I watched the video, and whether it makes any sense at all, that is what he did. First, he plugs in the wireless card, then opens a terminal window and connects to the Dell - he mumbles something about it, then goes back to the Dell and connects to the shell. when he does you can see him type "cd remote" as he changes directories to one on the desktop of the Mac. that means he was in the home directory of the logged in user.
Whether you can or cannot use root as we discussed above really doesn't matter for the purposes of this demo. He never details the wireless networking settings on this video, although because he connects to the Dell from the Mac from within a shell in the Terminal window, it really doesn't matter.
Beyond this point he does NOTHING but things that could done by someone using only user privileges in the logged account, so I have no idea if he was really running as root at all! He never even uses that word.
I understand when someone's trying to pull the wool over our eyes. You are just trying to defend something you'd desperately like to see happen.
You obviously didn't pay close attention to the video.
I repeat: Let him repeat the demo NEVER TOUCHING THE MAC except to log in as a user account, and delete some system level files that require root or admin permissions, and I will take this much more seriously. Until then it is nothing more than a publicity stunt, and your defense of it only looks more like wishful thinking.
Oh, yeah, you're right, a process that has a vulnerability. Maybe so, but see my last post about this "exploit", and the fact that Mayner had PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE MAC - AND USED IT TO SET UP THE EXPLOIT! That makes your point moot.
You are right, I am not an expert - but see my post about the exploit in the video.
Of course, he could be running as root - he completed the connection to the attacking computer FROM THE MAC! Also, he created a shell FROM THE MAC so he had something to connect to after the connection was made.
If he could show that he was using the Dell to connect to the Mac using the Mac built-in card, with the current user on the Mac logged in as a user level account, and could give himself elevated privileges WITHOUT EVER TOUCHING THE MAC KEYBOARD, then maybe I would believe that he has discovered a valid exploit.
But anybody at the Black Hat conference could attack a computer in their sleep that they have physical access to, through a logged in account - with one hand tied behind their back - blindfolded!
And you've allowed your hate for Bush to color your knowledge of just how our system really works. Bush can "run" all he wants. If he doesn't get on the ballot in enough states to win in the Electoral College, he can't win. Period. As I said, just try to get enough states to agree to THAT. Ain't gonna happen.
This IS a Representative Democracy, and there ARE checks and balances. Whether YOU have faith in them or not, we are not talking about some law Bush can ignore at his leisure. This is a Constitutional provision that supersedes law, and it is enforced at more than the Federal level. I repeat, the FEDS do NOT control elections, states and local officials do.
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it. Getting enough people together in this country to ignore such a Constitutional provision would be much like herding cats...
Having just viewed the video, I am struck by one thing.
Before starting the attack, he set up the Dell as an AP. Then he went to the Mac AND CONNECTED TO THE DELL FROM THE MAC!!!
He didn't launch the attack from the Dell without having connected to it from the Mac, using a shell he created on the Mac, FROM THE MAC KEYBOARD!
This is bullshit. Anybody with minimal hacking experience can attack a machine that has voluntarily connected to their own.
THIS IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC VULNERABILITY! It is an attack launched on a Mac in order to garner publicity.
If this had been an actual dangerous condition, he could have initiated the connection from the DELL, created the shell, and deleted system level files from the Mac to prove he had admin or root level permissions.
This he did NOT do. He simply created a few files on the Mac (one of which was a TEXT file he called "password" to create a false feeling of a security issue, and then deleted the files, any of which could be done with simple user level permissions.
I repeat, this is BS.
He did not prove admin or root permissions had been obtained, and never stated that he had.
As I noted, the root account is not activated by default. That is a command used on the command line, requiring the use of a root password. On a Mac with default settings, just how does your comment relate to the manner in which this hack is supposed to "obtain full control of the Mac"?
And they did not note in this demo whether this hack obtains those privs. If the user isn't logged in as admin, does this hack still get root? They do not say - that's my point.
They still could have used default settings, but they stated that the settings were "not quite" default. Meaning, I suspect, that one of those default settings would have kept their hack from working.
They could have noted that the default would be safe, but that changing those settings were dangerous, with a promise to publicize those settings after the fix was out. I don't blame Apple from trying to keep these guys from splashing FUD all over the wires, if that's what it turns out to be.
Like I said, I still think their use of non-default settings was so they could use a Mac to get headlines. If I see otherwise later, I'll apologize.
I just get irritated with the Windows apologists that get just as smug as they accuse Mac users as being, and don't actually look at the technical issues, such as the non-default settings the demo used, or some of the other issues that have been brought up in this topic. They'd just rather dump on Mac users.
I see their point, I just think it's self-serving, and distracts attention from their stated purpose, which was to push for fixes. I would have been sympathetic if they had left off the idiotic jab at the commercials. Apple has never claimed that their system is unhackable, and the commercials do NOT allude to hacking at all.
They would have been better served if they had ignored Apple's pressure, and used default settings to prove their point. If they would have done that, I, for one, would have lined up behind them and asked Apple for an immediate fix - I do own one of those MacBooks.
But I have questions, previously posted, and am waiting for answers. If I get them, and they really do confirm what they said, then, and only then, will I get really upset with Apple.
If I get no answers, I will assume that the default settings would have kept their demo from working, and will assume the worst about their purposes.
That's fine, but there are still questions why they chose to conduct their demo using non-default settings, and their failure to specify just what those settings they DID use were, as well as exactly what privs thay gained from this exploit.
Until they show that this vulnerability is there on a Mac with DEFAULT settings, using the built-in card, this can only be seen as a blatant attempt to use a Mac as a headline attention-getter.
Sorry you have so little knowledge of the US election system. He wouldn't be eligible to even be put on the ballot, and if by chance, he could be, wouldn't be eligible to serve. Since the President is sworn in by the Chief Justice, who is head of the Third Branch of Government, that Justice's refusal to swear him in would doom that attempt.
Ever heard of checks and balances? Elections are run at the State and local level, and are NOT controlled by the Feds. State election boards determine who gets on the ballot. Good luck getting all 50 states to agree to put you on their ballots when you've already served your two terms! You couldn't get all 50 states to agree that the sky is blue...
It is a mark of pride that we can do, again, what Windows machines cannot. It is also a convenience, to be able to test things in a native environment, or prove to our Windows friends that one can run Windows safely, if you practice safe computing.
Of course, that'll mean that we'll have to spend all that $$$ on windows apps to KEEP that install of Windows on our Mac safe... so, DO I run Windows?
No, I'd rather spend that $$$ on something else - like REAL windows for my house!
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't there a saying or something about foxes and henhouses? Do foxes wear black hats?
Just how good would a black hat look on a red fox? Or do foxes come in black, too? That'd look pretty good...
World Wide Developer's Conference
It's where the Apple developers get together and talk development of Apple related products, and Apple gives them a sneak peak (a VERY LITTLE fuzzy peak) at their future plans.
I think Apple's experience with the (Motorola, was it?) last third party phone proved that it would be a risky proposition at best. Most people I heard griping about it were slamming how few songs it would hold. Add more flash memory, or a hard drive, and your power consumptioon would go up, so there goes your stand by time on the phone half of the device, especially if you spend a lot of time listening to music, or conversely, talking on the phone. Both functions take a lotta power. Put a big honkin' battery in there to make up for it, and you'd need an auxilliary power pack on yer belt!
I don't think it'll work. I do think tho, that the references to a phone in the iPod updates may refer to a bluetooth connectivity with the iPod. Didn't see what the references were, tho, so I could be off base.
I think this is just pure speculation. Fun speculation, to be sure, but speculation nevertheless.
Bring on the Reality Distortion Field! Its affect on me must be fading...
It also does not erase the numbers of product sold. It may change the bottom line, because an actual profit as reported can be diminished by such charges as they are speaking of.
But Apple still sold the same number of Macs and iPods as previously reported - *those* numbers will NOT change, and those numbers still reflect a growing business.
I can see why you used AC to make this comment, as nobody would ever admit to being this idiotic.
I can see YOU didn't read MY last post. Are you so stupid that you couldn't see that in spite of MY saying what I meant in each of MY posts, he just kept repeating his stupid idea about Bush just doing what he wanted even tho it's obvious to any high schooler that's sat through a class on Civics (or whatever thay call it these days) would KNOW that it was impossible, and indefensable?
Yours is a classic case of attacking one's opponent instead of rationally attacking his idea or position - and rather extreme at that!
I won't try to defend my position to you, it's obvious the very idea of there being a structure to our government bigger than one man is foreign to both of you, and at least *your* skull is too thick to understand rational argument!
Sorry you think that way - your comments in this whole line give the lie to your saying you don't hate him, and your "flip, off-the-cuff" comment just underscores your refusal to accept the fact that Bush couldn't do what you "wouldn't be surprised if he tried".
Your flippant comment about "You have my permission to get the last word" is juvenile, and an admission, along with your denigration of your own comments, that it was an ill-advised comment to begin with.
Call it an argument, a spirited discussion or whatever you want, but to just drop off like that is uncivil, as are your comments about me. I did not make similar comments about you, as I don't like to use the "attack the opponent" technique. My response was not to your denigration of Bush - it was to your flippant comment about his being able to ignore the Constitution.
Your stubborn attempts to defend that "flip, off-the-cuff" remark just expose your own political leanings. You shouldn't try to sound so superior.
I'll get more worried if these two "hackers" will prove that they can connect to my Mac WITHOUT ACCESS TO MY KEYBOARD. They claim that there is no need to associate the target with an AP, but then proceed to do just that. Since they had previously connected to the Dell through an open Terminal shell (which was left open), connecting to the shell wasn't a particularly difficult thing to do from the attacking Dell, which, by the way, turns out to be the AP the Mac didn't have to be associated with. ?????
I repeat - any script kiddie can access a laptop they have physical access to!
Actually, wrong.
They set up the exploit by connecting the third party card to the mac, opening a Terminal shell ON THE MAC, connecting to the Attacking Dell's AP. (remember they said you didn't have to be associated with an AP?) They then attached to the running shell on the Mac and ran several tasks that anybody could run with no more than user permissions!
Yeah, anybody can get hacked if they allow access to their KEYBOARD!!!
I'm not surprised - since their "hack" depended heavily on their connecting to the dell FROM THE MACS KEYBOARD before they ran the hack file - over an already established connection!
This "hack" is a hoax. They never actually hacked into the mac.
No, not in theory.
I challenge you to get enough of the 50 states to agree on something as simple as the color of the sky to amend the Constitution. Bush couldn't get enough votes in Congress to get a flag burning amendment through, much less a marriage amendment. Now you think he can get an amendment through to repeal the two term rule? AND then to get the States to ratify it in enough time for the next election? Boy, you're a dreamer!
I repeat - running for Pres is NOT something under the control of people Bush can trust to get what he could want (according to your scenario). That is up to the States, and like I said, just try to get enough of them to cooperate with THAT one!
You ARE a dreamer.
Oh, I get it all right.
I watched the video, and whether it makes any sense at all, that is what he did. First, he plugs in the wireless card, then opens a terminal window and connects to the Dell - he mumbles something about it, then goes back to the Dell and connects to the shell. when he does you can see him type "cd remote" as he changes directories to one on the desktop of the Mac. that means he was in the home directory of the logged in user.
Whether you can or cannot use root as we discussed above really doesn't matter for the purposes of this demo. He never details the wireless networking settings on this video, although because he connects to the Dell from the Mac from within a shell in the Terminal window, it really doesn't matter.
Beyond this point he does NOTHING but things that could done by someone using only user privileges in the logged account, so I have no idea if he was really running as root at all! He never even uses that word.
I understand when someone's trying to pull the wool over our eyes. You are just trying to defend something you'd desperately like to see happen.
You obviously didn't pay close attention to the video.
I repeat: Let him repeat the demo NEVER TOUCHING THE MAC except to log in as a user account, and delete some system level files that require root or admin permissions, and I will take this much more seriously. Until then it is nothing more than a publicity stunt, and your defense of it only looks more like wishful thinking.
Oh, yeah, you're right, a process that has a vulnerability. Maybe so, but see my last post about this "exploit", and the fact that Mayner had PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE MAC - AND USED IT TO SET UP THE EXPLOIT! That makes your point moot.
You are right, I am not an expert - but see my post about the exploit in the video.
Of course, he could be running as root - he completed the connection to the attacking computer FROM THE MAC! Also, he created a shell FROM THE MAC so he had something to connect to after the connection was made.
If he could show that he was using the Dell to connect to the Mac using the Mac built-in card, with the current user on the Mac logged in as a user level account, and could give himself elevated privileges WITHOUT EVER TOUCHING THE MAC KEYBOARD, then maybe I would believe that he has discovered a valid exploit.
But anybody at the Black Hat conference could attack a computer in their sleep that they have physical access to, through a logged in account - with one hand tied behind their back - blindfolded!
This not news, it is a publicity stunt.
And you've allowed your hate for Bush to color your knowledge of just how our system really works. Bush can "run" all he wants. If he doesn't get on the ballot in enough states to win in the Electoral College, he can't win. Period. As I said, just try to get enough states to agree to THAT. Ain't gonna happen.
This IS a Representative Democracy, and there ARE checks and balances. Whether YOU have faith in them or not, we are not talking about some law Bush can ignore at his leisure. This is a Constitutional provision that supersedes law, and it is enforced at more than the Federal level. I repeat, the FEDS do NOT control elections, states and local officials do.
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it. Getting enough people together in this country to ignore such a Constitutional provision would be much like herding cats...
Having just viewed the video, I am struck by one thing.
Before starting the attack, he set up the Dell as an AP. Then he went to the Mac AND CONNECTED TO THE DELL FROM THE MAC!!!
He didn't launch the attack from the Dell without having connected to it from the Mac, using a shell he created on the Mac, FROM THE MAC KEYBOARD!
This is bullshit. Anybody with minimal hacking experience can attack a machine that has voluntarily connected to their own.
THIS IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC VULNERABILITY! It is an attack launched on a Mac in order to garner publicity.
If this had been an actual dangerous condition, he could have initiated the connection from the DELL, created the shell, and deleted system level files from the Mac to prove he had admin or root level permissions.
This he did NOT do. He simply created a few files on the Mac (one of which was a TEXT file he called "password" to create a false feeling of a security issue, and then deleted the files, any of which could be done with simple user level permissions.
I repeat, this is BS.
He did not prove admin or root permissions had been obtained, and never stated that he had.
All the connections were started FROM the MAC!!
Sorry, this is just a publicity stunt.
But any sudo command DOEs require at least an admin password. and that is my point. This attack cannot proceed without a password.
As I noted, the root account is not activated by default. That is a command used on the command line, requiring the use of a root password. On a Mac with default settings, just how does your comment relate to the manner in which this hack is supposed to "obtain full control of the Mac"?
Again, the article did not say. That is my point.
And you guys call US smug?
The Mac community has always been quick off the mark to criticize Apple for its shortcomings.
Beyond that, I will not bother to answer your ravings, since you refuse to even try to use reason.
And this hack obtains root using that method how...?
And they did not note in this demo whether this hack obtains those privs. If the user isn't logged in as admin, does this hack still get root? They do not say - that's my point.
They still could have used default settings, but they stated that the settings were "not quite" default. Meaning, I suspect, that one of those default settings would have kept their hack from working.
They could have noted that the default would be safe, but that changing those settings were dangerous, with a promise to publicize those settings after the fix was out. I don't blame Apple from trying to keep these guys from splashing FUD all over the wires, if that's what it turns out to be.
Like I said, I still think their use of non-default settings was so they could use a Mac to get headlines. If I see otherwise later, I'll apologize.
I agree with your post.
I just get irritated with the Windows apologists that get just as smug as they accuse Mac users as being, and don't actually look at the technical issues, such as the non-default settings the demo used, or some of the other issues that have been brought up in this topic. They'd just rather dump on Mac users.
I see their point, I just think it's self-serving, and distracts attention from their stated purpose, which was to push for fixes. I would have been sympathetic if they had left off the idiotic jab at the commercials. Apple has never claimed that their system is unhackable, and the commercials do NOT allude to hacking at all.
They would have been better served if they had ignored Apple's pressure, and used default settings to prove their point. If they would have done that, I, for one, would have lined up behind them and asked Apple for an immediate fix - I do own one of those MacBooks.
But I have questions, previously posted, and am waiting for answers. If I get them, and they really do confirm what they said, then, and only then, will I get really upset with Apple.
If I get no answers, I will assume that the default settings would have kept their demo from working, and will assume the worst about their purposes.
That's fine, but there are still questions why they chose to conduct their demo using non-default settings, and their failure to specify just what those settings they DID use were, as well as exactly what privs thay gained from this exploit.
Until they show that this vulnerability is there on a Mac with DEFAULT settings, using the built-in card, this can only be seen as a blatant attempt to use a Mac as a headline attention-getter.
Windows fanbois...
"...simply ignore it and run again anyway."
Sorry you have so little knowledge of the US election system. He wouldn't be eligible to even be put on the ballot, and if by chance, he could be, wouldn't be eligible to serve. Since the President is sworn in by the Chief Justice, who is head of the Third Branch of Government, that Justice's refusal to swear him in would doom that attempt.
Ever heard of checks and balances? Elections are run at the State and local level, and are NOT controlled by the Feds. State election boards determine who gets on the ballot. Good luck getting all 50 states to agree to put you on their ballots when you've already served your two terms! You couldn't get all 50 states to agree that the sky is blue...
Au Contrare! (sp? I'm not really french...)
It is a mark of pride that we can do, again, what Windows machines cannot. It is also a convenience, to be able to test things in a native environment, or prove to our Windows friends that one can run Windows safely, if you practice safe computing.
Of course, that'll mean that we'll have to spend all that $$$ on windows apps to KEEP that install of Windows on our Mac safe... so, DO I run Windows?
No, I'd rather spend that $$$ on something else - like REAL windows for my house!