Security professionals gone wild!

News.com provides a Maynor and Ellch-friendly recap of Ellch’s ToorCon diatribe (antler tip to Wi-Fi Networking News), with two accusations that assume facts not in evidence.

Apple at the time critiqued the two for not proving their case, but came out with patches for Wi-Fi flaws last week.

Mmm, sweet, delicious assumption of guilt! As a matter of fact, no one has proved that Maynor and Ellch provided meaningful information to Apple or that the flaws that Apple patched were the same they asserted they could exploit.

While some in the Mac community see the cancellation of Saturday’s talk as proof that Maynor and Ellch are frauds…

Yes. Mac users simply must stop beating their wives.

Oh, and Ellch goes off on Apple without revealing anything. But we should all be used to that by now.

Trackbacks Comments
  • Edge:

    Every time I beat my wife, she screams “Ou!”

  • There is nothing – NOTHING – on this planet stopping Ellch from clearing the air, save Ellch himself. He is not employed by Secureworks, so what can they do to him? He isn’t making any ‘Apple is going to sue me’ noises. What holds him back from revealing Apple as a liar? What stops the sooper-s33kr3t “hack” from becoming public?

    This is what : yet another convenient excuse – now Ellch claims he needs Maynor to do a live demonstration of the “hack”. The situation has now spiraled past parody. When we have to believe it takes two people to type a command into a shell, Maynor and Ellch have officially jumped the shark. But somehow, in some way us poor, unwashed masses just don’t understand.

    Some in the Mac community will view this as a win? Of course, you buffoon – you have never delivered the goods! How else were we supposed to take it? If you have the goods, release the information and redeem yourself. If you don’t, do us all a favor and just shut up and fade back into obscurity.

  • Billy K:

    Don’t these people (Ellich and Maynor) care that they are destroying their reputations in s ort of slow motion hari-kiri? I simply can’t understand this entire Kabuki thing. No one will ever take them seriously after this. Why would they willingly do this to themselves?

  • Scopi:

    John Ellch told me he’s built a car that runs a 100 miles on a thimbleful of water, but Apple won’t let him show anybody.

  • Let’s see…you say the first problem is the statement;

    “Apple at the time critiqued the two for not proving their case, but came out with patches for Wi-Fi flaws last week.”

    And you say the problem with the statement is;

    “sweet, delicious assumption of guilt! As a matter of fact, no one has proved that Maynor and Ellch provided meaningful information to Apple or that the flaws that Apple patched were the same they asserted they could exploit.”

    Ok, for someone who seems so concerned about ‘facts in evidence’ you sure take no interest whatsoever in working with facts in evidence. Where in the article you take the so called problematic statement from is there any claim of guilt of anything on Apples part? The only problem I see is that when faced with the fact that Apple made the claim the ‘two have not proven their case’ that you immediately see a possibility of guilt on Apples part and prematurely rush to their defence. A careful reading of the article will show in fact there is no claim of guilt against Apple and only those who fret about such a possibility of guilt hallucinate its existence. You simply have shown a complete disregard for ‘facts in evidence’.

    The second statement you take to task;

    “While some in the Mac community see the cancellation of Saturday’s talk as proof that Maynor and Ellch are frauds…”

    I may be mistaken about my assumption here; as you actually do not make a coherent complaint about exactly what you find wrong about it, but it appears you are sarcastically claiming that the statement is incorrect in some way, which would mean that “SOME” in the Mac community do not see the cancellation of Saturday’s talk as proof that Maynor and Ellch are frauds. Well considering you didn’t actually have the guts to say those words I’m not surprised as it would have either shown you to be wickedly ill informed or a liar.

    What’s all this nonsense you are going on about?? Maynor hasn’t proved the exploit exists so right minded persons do not put stock in the claim unless and until he does. End of story. You go on as if you let anyone point out there might possibly be two sides to the story a crime will have been committed. The fact remains; until such a time that Maynor provides proof the claim of a stock Macbook exploit, it is just an unproven claim. But the more you rail against stories that indicate it is also not a ‘disproved claim’ the more you make it look like Apple has something to worry about.

  • Where in the article you take the so called problematic statement from is there any claim of guilt of anything on Apples part?

    The quoted piece, of course. The Macalope isn’t sure why you can’t see the implied causality there. The first usage of the word “but” is

    to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned.

    Contrast is further defined as

    the state of being strikingly different from something else.

    The implication in that sentence is clearly that Apple’s patches were a result of Maynor and Ellch having “proved their case.” Back here in reality, their case has not been proved.

    On the second point, the Macalope is singularly unaware of any major Mac blogger who used the cancelation of the event to claim it showed Maynor and Ellch were frauds. Yes, he’s sure it was posted in comments on George’s blog, but the serious bloggers knew it was ordered by SecureWorks. If you insist on an explicit statement on the matter, the Macalope takes exception to the use of some minor comments by Mac fanboys as a representation of the thought of the community. Many more were far more staid than those some, yet their opinion was not quoted.

    As far as the Macalope lacking guts, he’d just point out that there’s a difference between style and timidity. Not that you’d know anything about style.

    What’s all this nonsense you are going on about??

    This post is from over two weeks ago and yet here you are trolling the comments. If there’s anyone who’s going on about anything, it’s you, David.

  • What I love is that now he is arguing YOUR points: that no proof exists. Before, he and Security Bitch were going on and on about how wrong everyone who claimed there was no proof actually were because Security |Bitch was sitting on information he couldn’t publicly disclose. Legal Eagle went through Gruber’s statements just as Gruber went through Maynor’s et all.’s statements, but his attempts at trying to point out logical faults were laughable. Now he’s trolling to give YOU ammunition for YOUR point that you were making all along, with the implication being that HE was right all along and you weren’t. This is classic. All of my lawyer friends do this: they take the opposing side just for the argument’s sake, then they switch and act like they made YOU switch to *their* POV. I have no idea if this is a character flaw in the types of people who become lawyers or something they teach in law school.

    PS: I’m mostly joking, but in all humor, a bit of truth creeps in, eh?

  • I suspect it just took him this long to use his amazing powers of logic to come up with this response.

Leave a Reply to David Burke