I believe it was a reference to the wireless exploit found by Maynor and Ellch - it was a somewhat high-profile controversy since Apple issued a patch for the problem after denying the issue, and without giving the researchers any credit.
I know the Maynor flap was a "high-profile" controversy, but not every Mac security issue revolves around Maynor and Ellch. Plus, Apple never denied the issue as you say. The company's claim was that Maynor and Ellch did not provide Apple with enough details to identify the specific issue, so they conducted an audit of the AirPort software and eliminated the bugs they found. Whether you believe them or not, I don't really care -- the whole mess is long past its expiration date as it is. But let's not repeat the canard that Apple denied there was a security issue in the AirPort drivers.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
daliminator2000 @ May 2nd 2007 9:54AM
@Johnny
I believe it was a reference to the wireless exploit found by Maynor and Ellch - it was a somewhat high-profile controversy since Apple issued a patch for the problem after denying the issue, and without giving the researchers any credit.
Johnny @ May 2nd 2007 10:16AM
I know the Maynor flap was a "high-profile" controversy, but not every Mac security issue revolves around Maynor and Ellch. Plus, Apple never denied the issue as you say. The company's claim was that Maynor and Ellch did not provide Apple with enough details to identify the specific issue, so they conducted an audit of the AirPort software and eliminated the bugs they found. Whether you believe them or not, I don't really care -- the whole mess is long past its expiration date as it is. But let's not repeat the canard that Apple denied there was a security issue in the AirPort drivers.