Filed under: Hardware, MacBook
SecureWorks admits to falsifying MacBook wireless hack
[Update: To his credit, David Maynor did in fact state at the beginning and end of this video that he's using a 3rd party card and drivers in order to enable this exploit. It was later comments from David Maynor and Jon "Johnny Cache" Ellch, as well as the disclaimer SecureWorks posted, that prompted me to claim they 'admitted' to 'falsifying' this hack. While these parties might not have outright lied about what's going on here (a debate that raged back at the time), they weren't exactly clear on any of it either. I have written a new post clarifying some key points of this situation that will hopeful set this straight.]Remember those hackers in the Washington Post story who claimed to have hacked a MacBook's wireless drivers to gain control of it? Then remember the follow-up story where the author, Brian Krebs basically, um, how shall I say: 'slightly falsified' his way through backing up the original story with excuses that the flaw does exist in Apple's drivers, but Apple 'leaned' on them not to publicize this so they decided to use a 3rd party card? Finally, remember how, in the original article, David Maynor, one of the hackers, is quoted saying "We're not picking specifically on Macs here, but if you watch those 'Get a Mac' commercials enough, it eventually makes you want to stab one of those users in the eye with a lit cigarette or something." Boy, that sure doesn't betray any sense of 'I am going to lie, cheat and steal to prove whatever I want' bitterness, does it?
Sounds like SecureWorks, the company who sponsored all this Mac hackery, is finally fessing up to their falsification and admitting that they, in fact, did not find the flaw in Apple's drivers, and that they used a 3rd party card and software to facilitate the exploit. As
Now let's make one thing clear: we at TUAW aren't advocates of the 'Macs are flawless! Long live the prefection that is Apple!' philosophy that naysayers of this experiment are coming under fire for. We are, however, advocates of finding true vulnerabilities on the quest to make the Mac even more solid and secure. The problem here is that this experiment was not one of those quests for truth - it was a quest for, in the words of Mr. Colbert: truthiness. We're genuinely sorry you're annoyed by the commercials, Mr. Maynor (believe me: not everyone loves them), but that's why some genius some time ago invented the ability to change TV channels. Give that remote a whirl some time - it might make your life (and ours) a whole lot easier.
Thanks NotVeryPC
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
jack said 1:02PM on 8-18-2006
No, TUAW isn't an advocate of that philosophy but they seem to be perfectly in agreeance with promoting hackers who step all over the "soul of a Mac is its operating system" philosophy from Mr. Jobs himself.
Reply
Chris W said 1:05PM on 8-18-2006
You are not quite correct in claiming that the news is SecureWorks' admission that the attack in the video is on a MacBook with third party card and drivers. In fact, they state as much in the video played at the Black Hat conference. However, they also claimed that Apple's own software was vulnerable, and they have reported it to Apple. The news is that Apple claims that SecureWorks has not demonstrated the attack on Apple's software. So, someone is lying.
Reply
James Donevan said 1:14PM on 8-18-2006
A specious argument Chris. While Secureworks did acknowledge the use of a third party card at the time of the demonstration (presumably on realising the legal line they were treading/about to cross), their pre event publicity made no such acknowledgement and indeed was clearly intended to convey the impression that they intended to use a standard production machine.
Reply
michel said 1:14PM on 8-18-2006
it's just useless bias from every partie and TUAW is at fault here promoting FEAR and stupid sensationalism
Reply
Wheels said 1:17PM on 8-18-2006
But you are advocates of jumping on bandwagons and creating "crisis 2.0s" where there are none. Just as I said in response to when Dan Laurie wrote that blog: Crisis 2.0 comes from self-important bloggers who have a chicken little, the sky is falling, mentality and don't have the acuity to read a situation correctly.
Except for one writer, who I like a lot, this blog is successfully imploding on itself.
Reply
Bob S. said 3:16PM on 8-18-2006
You know, maybe TUAW could tell us whether or not there's a vulnerability, and how to plug it if so, and give up on this whole "Well, we didn't like the guy and we thought he was a dick so technically that kind of makes him wrong" non-story.
Just a nice little update. If you own such and such a machine, or run this particular version of OS X, and you have Apple's or this other networking card, it's insecure, and here's a workaround until the patch is released. That's journalism, kids, not "well he didn't tell the WHOLE story when he revealed it and he was PICKING ON THE MAC so it doesn't count."
Reply
Fred said 3:58PM on 8-18-2006
Um, am I not getting something out of this that Bob S. is? They were running the hack on third party hardware, with third party drivers. Why would you need a third party wireless card on a machine that has one built in? Here's your work around, get your computer fixed if the internal card dies! Are you even a Mac user, Bob? There's not a patch for the Macbook, because the problem is not with Apple hardware! And why would TUAW post the "workaround" if the problem is with a non Apple product?
Reply
pseudoprometheus said 4:43PM on 8-18-2006
Oookay, calm down folks. Need I mention that this is a blog, and not a news site in any official capacity? If you don't like what's being posted, don't whine and moan, just go somewhere else. (Really, I shouldn't even have to tell you this.)
Reply
Thayne Miller said 4:53PM on 8-18-2006
Also, I don't know if you guys caught this, but it seemed to me like the user would have to actually connect to the ad-hoc network before the vulnerability could even take place. I'm sorry, but apple's software warns you before connecting to an ad-hoc network to begin with. So really, if it doesn't even work with Apple's wireless cards, and Apple warns you of the risks, then how is this a threat? Surely I can come up with hundreds of scenarios like this where if you connect to an ad-hoc network of someone's machine they could do whatever they want, take packet sniffing for example. Duh.
Reply
Bob S. said 5:11PM on 8-18-2006
Mmmm, yup, Freddie, been a Mac user since '85, 'kay? (And hey, I loved the Macintosh, but wasn't going to drop more than two and a half grand on a 128K machine. I waited for the 512Ke.) Point is that not only is this a non-story, TUAW's doing a rotten job of writing it up. If you're unable to perceive the sarcasm in my first paragraph, you can hire me at standard freelance rates to explain it to ya, 'kay?
Reply
Jon said 5:38PM on 8-18-2006
Watch the mainstream media sidestep this. They only want sensationalist journalism.
Reply
J Vo. said 5:47PM on 8-18-2006
Bob S. -- your lack of knowledge compels me to laugh hysterically at the idea of someone paying you by the hour for anything.
My guess... you're a assistant IT manager for some middle school somewhere.
- J. Vo.
Reply
Paul Ingram said 6:03PM on 8-18-2006
I put the blame for this debacle solely on the shoulders of Brian Krebs, the Washington Post blogger, and his editor who created the initial headline. Krebs used the sensational aspect of the story "Apple's MacBook hacked" without asking the right questions or presenting this vulnerability as being entirely dependent on the use of a third-party wireless card using third-party drivers.
It was immediately obvious upon watching the video that this hack required a specific situation that could be avoided by smart users. Rather than point out how users could avoid the flaw, Krebs and the Washington Post went for hits.
Reply
ljbad4life said 6:22PM on 8-18-2006
something strikes me funny about this ordeal... some people say don't blame tuaw because its a blog site and it not a news site... krebs posted this on a blog too (right?) so how can someone give a waiver just based on the type of site, but villify another?
Reply
john said 6:43PM on 8-18-2006
Were the authors of these articles too lazy to actually watch the video? The researchers don't say anything about it being the internal mac card. They clearly say that the exploit was shown with a third party card.
Reply
David Chartier said 6:52PM on 8-18-2006
#15: Sure, we watched the video, but did you read the articles? Brian states that the problem is with the internal hardware, making up excuses that Apple 'leaned' on them to prevent them from publicizing this, without providing a shred of evidence, or a name - nothing. They reassured us the flaw works on the internal hardware/software that comes on the MacBook, but have now finally admitted that was a blatant lie.
Videos are pretty, but they aren't the whole story.
Reply
Fred said 7:12PM on 8-18-2006
It's Freddy if you must know 'kay? I guess I really must be missing the point here. Some guys said the Macbook had flaw, and that it could be easliy hacked. Then it comes out that it's really not that easy. THEN, it comes out that it's not so much that the Macbook is "hackable" but that if you knowingly do something that is unsafe, someone could get into your machine? That's shocking!!! DARN YOU TUAW!!!! DARN YOU TO HECK!!!! BTW where is that work around for blantant stupidity? I've been sticking forks in electrical outlets, and drinking drain-o all freakin day!
Reply
Paul said 8:34PM on 8-18-2006
Awesome. That's all I gotta say. Awesome. Airport rocks.
Reply
Jim Thompson said 11:35PM on 8-18-2006
The Maynor video is complete fiction. See here for details.
Reply
Jim Thompson said 11:36PM on 8-18-2006
Link missing in last post. (damnit!)
http://www.smallworks.com/archives/00000461.htm
Reply