Dear George…

The Macalope is in receipt of your most recent missive and is somewhat bewildered.

You say, among other things, that the Macalope is “a site dedicated to bashing” you.

Including this post, the Macalope counts 4 out of his 14 posts that focus on you.

(Sadly, you have dedicated but a couple of measly comments to the Macalope. George, this relationship is never going to work if you aren’t going to put something into it.)

But 4 out of 14 is still just 29%. Is that a lot? The Macalope is kind of new at this. How much time do sites dedicated to bashing you usually spend on you?

Frankly, it’s been a busy week for the Macalope. He already has two people who think his blog is dedicated to bashing them – one who thought the Macalope was George Ou and now George Ou himself.

It’s like the Horny One stumbled into an episode of Three’s Company.

But, George, the Macalope was most confused when reading this:

So it appears he just proved himself wrong all along and my camp has been telling the truth all along. If Apple is now leaking to Mac bloggers that a wireless patch will come out and they’re changing the story that Maynor and Ellch are “frauds” to “unprofessional” for refusing to share exploit source code.

George, you have to get over these paranoid fantasies of the mighty Apple propaganda machine before they start to eat you alive and you begin to think that Apple’s responsible for everything bad in the world and you fall into a spiral of hatred until finally you do something really embarrassing.

The Macalope has not heard that a wireless patch is coming and has never said that he did.

As for “proving himself wrong”, the Macalope is just scanning back over his posts from the last week and a half and… hmm… no… nope. No, George, he can’t find the post you’re referring to where he said there was never any hack and that Maynor and Ellch are liars and that the MacBook is invulnerable and Steve Jobs is God and the Macalope’s dad can beat up your dad (which, nothing against your dad, wouldn’t be a fair fight as the Macalope’s dad is a 600 lb buck).

Just because some Mac users have said Maynor and Ellch are frauds does not mean that all have said it.

As a matter of fact, in relation to the code the Macalope said:

Maybe they felt they should be paid for their time to help reveal a problem with Apple’s drivers. And maybe they should. But the Macalope would suggest that getting the attention of a prospective client by publicly dissing them isn’t such a great business model.

The Macalope never said it would be unprofessional of SecureWorks to refuse to give their code away. He actually leaned in the opposite direction.

This might be the bit you’re looking for about unprofessionalism, George:

You [Ellch] and David Maynor shot your mouths off about a vulnerability in the MacBook and then backpedalled when angry Mac users demanded you prove the vulnerability exists. Now you claim you don’t want to confirm it because it wouldn’t be responsible.

Now, there is another possibility the Macalope neglected to consider. It’s also possible that Brian Krebs screwed up and reported something he wasn’t supposed to. There are certainly those who think Krebs is to blame. So, if Krebs reported something that should have been off the record, Ellch and Maynor are just guilty of being jerks, not necessarily unprofessional.

Which leaves the bit about what contact SecureWorks had with Apple. You said you attempted to get some more information about that out of Lynn Fox, asking:

Did SecureWorks or David Maynor ever attempt to indicate to Apple that an exploitable flaw exists in the stock Apple MacBook wireless laptop regardless of whether Apple believes this qualifies as “evidence” or not?”

Like, maybe through a puppet show or an interpretive dance?

It’s been a week since I asked this in email and I left voice mails. Fox refuses to answer.

You should probably take note that Lynn Fox isn’t the only one not answering certain questions.

And the Macalope can’t imagine why she doesn’t want to talk to you. Particularly when you’re such an impartial observer.

It sounds like Apple was too lazy or incompetent to do their own work after they were given the crash dumps and disassembled drivers and it’s sour grapes.

Is that what they were given, George? Who told you that? Isn’t that evidence? If you knew that’s what they were given, why didn’t you ask Fox why she doesn’t consider those specific items evidence?

So many questions, George. So many questions.

What’s so odd is that the Macalope doesn’t recall there ever being such a stir over a Mac security vulnerability before.

Apple’s had a few. A couple of them (that’s two, George) rather severe. But never such a controversy.

He wonders why that is.

Well, until we next lock horns, George. Oh, by the way, Tuesday’s not good for the Macalope. He’s getting his antlers filed. Have your people call the Macalope’s people.

Yours truly,
The Macalope

P.S. Oh, and, George?

Since when do journalists have “camps”?

[Edited slightly for grammar.]

  • Alex:

    Very amusing.

    Sidenote: why does the Macalope talk in the third person?

  • V M Respectable:

    Third person preserves the proper distance between us and the Macalope. We live in a world full of Ous; the noble Macalope, by contrast, lives in a realm of fantasy, partying daily with Big Foot and Santa. The closest we’ve come to partying with Sasquatch is when Uncle Leroy (fourth of the name) took off his shirt on Christmas eve in the tropical lands after having a few too many brandy nogs. We can never hope to be truly familiar with the Macalope.

  • Hmm, good answer!

    Also, the Macalope just likes the way it sounds.

  • jaygknight:

    mac a lope huh? – may be mac the knife?

  • Why did you leave out this quote?

    “But Apple took a shot across the bow of SecureWorks’ professionalism. They botched their delivery and then – according to the Macalope’s Apple sources – provided only vague information to Apple about how the exploit can be executed.”

    If you have inside Apple sources telling you this, it proves they have been made aware of a stock Mac exploit by SecureWorks. This proves what Krebs and I have been reporting is correct and the John Grubers and all the other people calling Maynor and Ellch frauds flat wrong.

  • Georgie-Poo: Don’t you think it’s a little sad when you getting paid to validate your stories — on websites that are set up to criticize you?

    Gosh, Mr. Macalope, I so am SO jealous that George-Poo came to play with you, and not me. But don’t worry, it’s OK. I’m just focus more of my fantasies on the Krebster.

  • V M Respectable:

    Gerorgie, old boy, you may have found it! At last! The key to bringing down the fabled Macalope! Unless…

    No, no, it can’t be! Unless the Macalope’s sources at Apple are Apple’s own communication with the press! Sources at Apple (M(r)s. Fox) told one and all (including the Macalope) that the professional security gentlemen had said nothing substantive to Apple about their exploit. Oh, dearest Lord in heaven, let it not be so!

    Or… no, it can’t be something even more sinister, can it? I can’t bear to imagine.

  • That occurred to the Macalope as well! George has been railing about how Fox’s statement isn’t a denial and then, when someone else says it isn’t a denial it somehow means Apple’s been lying all along.

  • Blain:

    I’m going to have to second the notion Jay Gknight (How *is* that pronounced?) suggested, or more, refer to it.

    While the Macalope is not Mac the Knife (otherwise, I would be afraid to click links), this sort of gonzo mac journalism and heavy use of the third person is a refreshing and very welcome thing. Especially after the three years since the last Naked Mole Rat Report last appeared.

    But come to think of it, how come the Macalope, the Gay Blade, and George Ou have never been photographed together? Coincidence, or Apple conspiracy? And do those black helicopters have larger hard drives and glossy screens?

  • angelo:

    You know, for some reason a link to this site was given at TUAW that stated “promising new mac blog”. All I see is hyperbole and a lot of big words thrown back and forth.

    Are you ever going to get serious about covering the mac, or is this a totally frivolous and self-serving blog?

  • George,

    It does not.

    All it proves is that SecureWorks contacted Apple and indicated to them that they believed there was an exploit. That’s it.

Leave a Comment