Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Hardware, TUAW Business, Security, MacBook, Blogs
Clarification on the MacBook Wi-Fi hack 'conspiracy'
Many say that 'perception is everything,' and this unwritten rule holds true in both journalism and the blogosphere. While I, having no formal journalistic training, will be the first to clarify that I am inarguably a member of the latter, it has come time for me to also clarify a few things concerning my coverage of, and pseudo-involvement with, this MacBook Wi-Fi hack drama.If you need a refresher: back in early August of 2006, Brian Krebs wrote an article for The Washington Post titled Hijacking a Macbook in 60 Seconds or Less (product misspelling maintained in the name of accuracy). In this video, David Maynor of SecureWorks demonstrated his ability to wirelessly hack into an Intel-based MacBook that was using a 3rd party wireless card. At the beginning of this video and again at the end, Maynor plainly states that he's using a 3rd party card and it is that card's flawed drivers - not Apple's - which allowed him to maliciously take control of Mac OS X. Naturally, some furious debates erupted across the net over just about every imaginable angle one could take on this demonstration.
Eventually, SecureWorks felt the need to clarify on their site (a disclaimer that has apparently been taken down) that the hack was done with 3rd party drivers - the subject of many debates since all MacBooks ship with built-in Wi-Fi, virtually negating the need to ever use one of these cards from what was, at the time, an undisclosed manufacturer (which further upset critics). This clarification, however, is what broke the dam in my opinion. In the video, Maynor was up-front about the drivers once at the beginning and again at the end, but never *during* the demonstration. This by itself isn't much to get one's mouse chord tangled over, but Brian Krebs's article was titled "Hijacking a Macbook..." not "Hacking Mac OS X via 3rd party flaws." While being blunt about what and how he hacked a MacBook in the Washington Post video, Maynor and his partner Jon "Johnny Cache" Ellch kept claiming afterwards that they also found this flaw in the software that ran the MacBook's internal Wi-Fi card - software written by Apple - but couldn't disclose or even demonstrate it because Apple was 'leaning on them.' For more on this, see Gruber's spot-on coverage at this search link of Daring Fireball as well as this coverage from the Macalope. To add to the confusion that helped ignite all this drama though, Krebs also wrote this in his original Washington Post article (emphasis is mine):
The video shows Ellch and Maynor targeting a specific security flaw in the Macbook's wireless "device driver," the software that allows the internal wireless card to communicate with the underlying OS X operating system. While those device driver flaws are particular to the Macbook -- and presently not publicly disclosed...
This is where I believe perception matters most, and why I titled my follow-up post as SecureWorks admits to falsifying MacBook wireless hack. I felt that Krebs, in the language he used in his article, as well as Maynor and Ellch, with their demo and fairly serious follow-up claims against Apple's security reputation, were misrepresenting what was actually going on in the name of pageview-fluffing drama. With a healthy 'I want to put a cigarette out in a Mac user's eye' distaste for the outer-fringe Mac community's attitude towards security, they blurred some of the details and pressed a hot-button of the Mac discussion, creating the perception of danger. Whether I'm right or wrong, SecureWorks' need to clarify the demo means something got lost in translation, and I wanted to point that out to bring another context to the discussion.
The reason I bring this all up is that George Ou of ZDNet, perhaps one of the few - or only - valiant defenders of Maynor and Ellch over the months is at it again, after catching up on his X-Files episodes it would seem. Ou's latest on the drama - which, believe me, I wish would go away just as much as you - is a claim that I, and other bloggers, were working with Lynn Fox (Apple's PR director) in a conspiracy against David Maynor and SecureWorks. While I'm flattered at the possibility of Apple even talking to me, the truth of the matter is that the company pretty much ignores TUAW, and most other Apple-related blogs, entirely. Honestly: Fox and I never exchanged so much as a "mwahaha" over email, or any other form of correspondence for that matter. I've never been contacted by anyone from Apple regarding anything besides the fact that one of my older PowerBook's warranties was about to expire, and that AppleCare would be a great way to stay within their graces. If selling that PowerBook on eBay back in the day so I could switch to an iMac denotes conspiracy in my blood, then by all means, Ou himself should probably be the one to strip me of my underhanded blogging credentials.
Until my eBay practices become a more significant matter of blogging ethics, however, I hope as much as the rest of you that this MacBook Wi-Fi hack topic can fade off into Google's archives where it belongs.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
steve kit said 1:24AM on 3-21-2007
It would have been the proper thing for OU to contact you and ask you about the post he was going to write before implicating you in this so called conspiracy.
The fact that he didn't and that you deny his 'conspiracy' makes him look worse.
Reply
Ondra Soukup said 5:05PM on 3-20-2007
Mystery solved. A**holes labeled right...true happy end ;)
Reply
Jettyboy said 5:44PM on 3-20-2007
While I personally could give a s**t about all this, by this time most people should recognize a small group of "Mac haters" that exist for some unknown reason, will attempt to discredit Mac users/Apple every chance they get. There are plenty of writers, reviewers etc. that use any semantical excuse for trashing Macs whenever and where ever they can, CNET.com is a good example of going to any extreme to discredit Apple and its products. People should ignore fanatics in any venue. Giving them space only encourages them. Use a Mac if it does what you need/want your machine to do, if not use a pc. Who really gives a shit what machine/software someone else uses? It's nonsense.
Reply
Quix said 5:17PM on 3-20-2007
George Ou also equated Apple advertising with Nazi propaganda. Whenever one has to stoop to the level of throwing the Nazi card in a debate, it demonstrates they have nothing substantive to say and should be immediately dismissed as a crackpot.
http://www.macalope.com/2007/03/19/sic/
Reply
Nick said 5:56PM on 3-20-2007
"... claim that I, and other bloggers, were working with Lynn Fox (Apple's PR director) in a conspiracy against David Maynor and SecureWorks."
I wonder why he should immediately assume that a journalist who says something favorable about a company should be in a conspiracy with it. It's not something that would immediately occur to most people. Presumably, George Ou, who spends much of his time making favorable comments about Microsoft, isn't doing so because he's conspiring with them. So why does he assume it must be different for everyone else? Why does the thought even occur to him?
I've some sympathy with David Maynor, who does seem to have been gagged by Secureworks. And I think we still can't be sure what really happened.
However, Maynor seems so friendly with George Ou, as to cast doubts on his objectivity. The "Joseph Gerbils" incident makes it clear just how lacking in objectivity Ou is, if that were not already plain to see. The association taints Maynor. Maynor's new home at Errata Security is running one post linking to Ou's lame piece defending Vista UAC and another defending Microsoft from criticisms made of its ludicrous OneCare product, which has been coming at the bottom of independent virus tests and merrily chomping its way through Outlook mail stores.
http://erratasec.blogspot.com/
Quite why Maynor's new firm is taking upon itself the mantle of Microsoft Champion eludes me.
Reply
DF said 6:44PM on 3-20-2007
Hang in there, David, and don't take Ou too seriously. He ripped Jim Dalrymple a new one in that article based on a word, "misrepresentation," Jim never wrote. (It appeared in a version of Jim's article published on -- and modified by -- Techworld.)
Reply
Dave Chartier said 10:38AM on 3-21-2007
DF and everyone else - thanks for the support! I think this is my first time being publicly attacked on any level, and the fact that it's an entirely fabricated accusation from *the* George Ou just makes it a riot.
Part of me really wanted to ham it up; maybe create some false emails from Lynn and make up some fake Mac publications with whom we were all coordinating with, but then I realized George might take it seriously. While it might be fun to see what happens, I would rather see this all this disappear like it's supposed to.
Reply
Jay said 10:41AM on 3-21-2007
This is pretty stupid/impractical. How many people / who is going to use a 3rd party wireless card with a macbook that already has built in Airport? Seems these guys need some way to handicap the mac first in order to hack in.
Reply
Currawong said 8:58PM on 3-21-2007
Isn't it obvious that Ou is another Dvorak, writing garbage to get more hits on ZDNet. If you want to punish this self-serving lunatic for his provocative insanity, stop linking to him or talking about him. If all bloggers did this, then ZDNet would be (hopefully) forced to reconsider paying people like him to write garbage to sell advertising for their site. I'm surprised anyone considers ZDNet credible these days.
Reply
NukemHill said 5:02PM on 3-23-2007
What's that old adage?
"If you're not making enemies, you're not doing your job!"
Keep that one in mind. You've become a big enough player that people are noticing you. That's a good thing! If you're not ruffling some feathers, you are playing too small.
Reply
againstdogma said 8:43AM on 3-24-2007
although i have been following this story for quite some time, i hadnt really looked in real detail until this morning. when it first came out there was the 'heart in my throat' oh no my powerbook may be volnerable feeling, followed by a wave of calm.
Its interesting that this thing has basically been the result of bad jornalism which has got reporters/bloggers from two different sites feuding. I have to say that from my experience with the press (large or small), there is a tendency to ignor 'minor' details - like the fact that noone who owned a macbook would ever go out and purchas a third party wireless card as they are standard - and the volnurability demonstrated was for a third party card.
I would post this on ZD net so that George Ou and some of the microsoft/anti apple zealots could read it, but have you ever tried logging on to their blogg. I mean they want Every piece of information about you - name, address, TELEPHONE NO!!!! what the f**k, i just wanted to express my opinion. not be hunted down in my bed by some stalker.
Anyway, I would be the first person to say that OS X is not impervious to attacks - no system is but apple do a damn fine job of keeping their guard down and not slacking on something that they built their reputation on.
It seems hilarious to me that it was pointed out that apple patched a number of vulnerablities shortly after the disclosure was made - I mean security releases are constantly being released. And the month of the apple bugs was attributed to this messy argument.
The fact that it was promised that there would be a 'month of the...' for other things has no bearing on the situation. Yeah right!
whatever.
Reply
againstdogma said 8:46AM on 3-24-2007
although i have been following this story for quite some time, i hadnt really looked in real detail until this morning. when it first came out there was the 'heart in my throat' oh no my powerbook may be volnerable feeling, followed by a wave of calm.
Its interesting that this thing has basically been the result of bad jornalism which has got reporters/bloggers from two different sites feuding. I have to say that from my experience with the press (large or small), there is a tendency to ignor 'minor' details - like the fact that noone who owned a macbook would ever go out and purchas a third party wireless card as they are standard - and the volnurability demonstrated was for a third party card.
I would post this on ZD net so that George Ou and some of the microsoft/anti apple zealots could read it, but have you ever tried logging on to their blogg. I mean they want Every piece of information about you - name, address, TELEPHONE NO!!!! what the f**k, i just wanted to express my opinion. not be hunted down in my bed by some stalker.
Anyway, I would be the first person to say that OS X is not impervious to attacks - no system is but apple do a damn fine job of keeping their guard down and not slacking on something that they built their reputation on.
It seems hilarious to me that it was pointed out that apple patched a number of vulnerablities shortly after the disclosure was made - I mean security releases are constantly being released. And the month of the apple bugs was attributed to this messy argument.
The fact that it was promised that there would be a 'month of the...' for other things has no bearing on the situation. Yeah right!
whatever.
Reply
David Maynor said 12:12AM on 4-05-2007
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Secureworks+admits%22+tuaw
1,070 posts to your headline that was completely fictions, that is when the dam broke in my opinion. You read a story, made up a sensational headline, and waited for people to repeat it like parrots. Then after all that you dare whine that George didn’t contact you? I must have missed the email from you back in August contacting me about your story. Jon and Secureworks must have missed it as well as well. Seems to me like you are reaping what you sowed.
The “update” that you point to as your only proof that Secureworks “admitting” to falsifying anything was the say thing said in the video twice. That didn’t stop you from twisting it to fit the story you wanted to write: that is was all fake and we were liars. You can defend your attempt to rewrite history anyway you want but you were wrong. Not just wrong but willfully malicious and false. And after proven to be incorrect you still have the gall to demand an apology from Ou, priceless. Tell you what, why not make a good will gesture and admit you twisted and lied and misrepresented the Secureworks update, and then George would surely have to respond.
So you have two choices here: admit Apple did contact you and that you are their puppet or that you decided on your own to lie about it. One makes you a corporate lackey; the other makes you a fool. The irony of you making up a story to prove I made up a story doesn’t escape me. You are what you accused Jon and me of: a fraud.
Reply
George Ou said 12:25AM on 4-05-2007
David Chartier disputes he was contacted by Lynn Fox and is complaining that I didn't check with him on this. That's hardly the issue here and I know for a fact from sources at Apple that Fox contacted the media and planted the "researchers admit to lying" story and handed out the so-called incriminating link to SecureWorks' website. The fact that Fox did or didn't directly speak with Chartier is completely immaterial and it's been established that Fox did speak with Dalrymple. Unless Chartier makes it a habit to routinely patrol obscure corners of the SecureWorks website, the information flowed from Lynn Fox to the media and it quickly made its way to David Chartier where he embellished and slandered two security researchers. Why didn't I email Charier and ask him directly? Simple, Chartier has been ignoring me when I ask him to explain why he slandered Maynor and Ellch and he had been deleting my posts on his blog asking him to explain the same question. Chartier now claims he never saw my posts but I explicitly remember my posts on his blog and remembered him dodging the questions on why he slandered Maynor and Ellch. Chartier can wipe my comments on his blog but he can't wipe it on mine and this thread still sits here with him dodging my question. http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10533-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=24430&messageID=459029&start=108
Chartier can say he never saw my posts all he wants but he dodged several of my posts on my blog and he erased my posts on his blog and now denies it. After all that, I wasn't going to waste my time trying to contact someone who dodges my questions and deletes my posts. He can't deny he slandered David Maynor and Jon Ellch and he won't answer to it. Unfortunately there are more than 1000 links on Google pointing to Chartier's slanderous blog stating that SecureWorks admits to falsification. Chartier and Dalrymple who were ultimately manipulated by Lynn Fox's planted story were the focal point of deception and that's why I'm calling these three people out.
Reply