funsec mailing list archives
Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed
From: Joel Esler <joel.esler () me com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:17:55 -0400
Summary of that long winded email: I'm smarter than you. You're wrong. Apple is guilty too. On Jun 10, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Nick FitzGerald wrote:
Joel Esler wrote:My only problem with the article is the inaccuracy of the headline. Gawker is known for their sensationalism. Frustratingly awesome.My only problem with your commentary on this is the inaccuracy of your use of the word "inaccuracy". Although technically "inaccurate" means only "not accurate", due to the tendency of (simpler) humans to conceive "accuracy" as a binary state (akin to true/false), common use of "inaccurate" tends to have a strong connotation of "false", and even "wrong" (with all its connotations). (Should we be surprised that Wikitionary suffers this misperception, unlike the professionally maintained dictionaries I checked?) You would have been more accurate (now, how can that be a meaningful utterance for something that ostensibly has binary state?) to have said: My only problem with the article is the less than fully accurate headline. Gawker is known for their sensationalism. ... Of course, that is not quite as sensationalistic as strongly connoting that Gawker was wrong... True, their headline was not fully accurate. But do you really not think that Apple must at least partly carry the can for this? After all, it was Apple that decided to make 3G iPads available in the US (and Canada I presume) via an exclusive deal with AT&T. If the devices were available across any 3G network, Apple's customers would have had to choose their carrier, and thus only those who chose AT&T (a presumably small number from what I've heard of that network's coverage, reliability and service) would have been exposed by this lack of security smarts at AT&T (well, we have to speculate and as you seem to be into sensationalism, let me assume that none of the other 3G networks are run by such security dullards as those at AT&T). Of course, the real reason behind Apple's choice of AT&T had nothing to do with "providing the most consistent user experience" and all that touchy-feely mush the fanboiz lap up, but had everything to do with making the device "more exclusive" and keeping the price rather on the high side (i.e. it was about making profits for Apple, and presumably the fixed-term service contracts had something to do with making profits for AT&T). So, I have no sympathy for Apple being socked with the full blame for something like this. If Apple really cared about its reputedly ever so valuable customers, Apple would have made sure that it was not teaming with a security-challenged carrier and thus inflicting that carrier's low standards on Apple's "valuable customers". (And arguably it would have made the device network agnostic to provide its ever so valuable customers the best range of choice to get the device and carrier deal that suited them...) Apple is at least as guilty in this as AT&T, because from a great deal of pre-existing commentary on the quality of AT&T's service in general, and from its direct past experince with the iPhone fiasco, it seems that Apple should have been more than aware of the potential for brand spoilage by partnering with AT&T. So, to label this anything other than a failure by Apple, and worse to only focus on AT&T's role in this (I'm not saying that Joel did this -- just that some are), is actually aiding and abetting Apple, maintaining the Jobs/fanboi circle-jerk that "everything Apple is perfect". Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
-- Joel Esler http://www.joelesler.net _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Juha-Matti Laurio (Jun 10)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed David Harley (Jun 10)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Dave Paris (Jun 10)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Dave Dennis (Jun 10)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Joel Esler (Jun 10)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Nick FitzGerald (Jun 10)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Joel Esler (Jun 11)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed David Harley (Jun 10)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Dan Kaminsky (Jun 11)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Joel Esler (Jun 11)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Randal T. Rioux (Jun 11)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Nick FitzGerald (Jun 12)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Joel Esler (Jun 13)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Rich Kulawiec (Jun 27)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Jeffrey Walton (Jun 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Juha-Matti Laurio (Jun 10)
- Re: Apple's worst security breach: 114, 000 iPad owners exposed Joel Esler (Jun 10)