Hijacking a Macbook in 60 Seconds or Less, or maybe not

[tongodeon]

Yesterday there was a story about hacking a MacBook remotely by manipulating its wireless drivers that Slashdot picked up today. I was dubious, so I found the video. As I expected the story is a little misleading. The demonstration video that the articles mention starts with the researcher adding a third-party USB card that looks a lot like a

Comments

[tongodeon]

If they're in danger of getting their developer privileges yanked they've picked a pretty weird line to draw in the sand. Pick Apple hardware when any hardware will do, publicly accuse Apple drivers of being defective, publicly accuse Apple of attempting to suppress your accusations, but don't actually demonstrate your claims. You're telling me that Apple would have brought the hammer down if they'd actually *done* X but Apple's OK with them doing "everything up to and beyond"?

The whole scenario seems doubtful. Threatening corporations don't provide specific instructions and guidelines to guarantee the safety of the groups they threaten. They say vague things like "we've got a whole team of lawyers who do nothing all day but make lives miserable for people who malign our brand". No middle manager or junior lawyer wants to sign off on what sort of criticisms are acceptable or beyond reprisal when it blows up big enough that the higher-ups start hearing about it.

I can't find anything in the Apple Developer Terms and Conditions

[wisn]

> You're telling me that Apple would have brought the hammer down if they'd actually *done* X

That's plausible in the broad sense of, "A corporation may sue for defamation based on true allegations (eg, SLAPP)," but I have no recollection of Apple specifically doing this. Irrelevant but interesting: Notable litigation of Apple Computers.

[tongodeon]

A corporation may sue for defamation based on true allegations

I'm clear on the existence and utility of SLAPP lawsuits, I'm just unclear how "demonstrating true allegations" subjects these guys to any less risk than "making true allegations including allegations that those allegations had been suppressed but demonstrating slight variants of them with different hardware".

[wisn]

My point was that if Apple could potentially file a groundless suit to harass them into silence, they would be more likely to if there was actual defamation.

[tongodeon]

I'm with you on that, but why is demonstrating the exploit with Apple wireless "actual defamation" whereas making that claim and claiming that Apple is suppressing you and then demonstrating the exploit on OSX anyway somehow *not* "actual defamation"?

My point is that I can see what they've avoided doing, but I don't see how their alternative is any better. It actually strikes me as quite a bit worse.