XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: marianjones@helpfulpeople.com   
      
   Jolly Roger wrote:   
   >> I am not going to respond to the personal remarks.   
   >   
   > Uh huh. You can dish it, but you can't take it. You *regularly* insult   
   > everyone who dares to correct your bullshit with schoolyard insults   
   > calling them low-IQ morons, and the minute someone throws a little shade   
   > back at you, you fold and cry foul. You're a fucking pussy, and a   
   > weak troll.   
      
      
   I¢m not interested in trading insults with you Jolly Roger.   
   Yet, if you want to discuss the topic in detail, I'm here for that.   
      
   1. Researchers wrote that Apple's WPS implementation is highly insecure.   
   2. Worse, researchers said it's different from other WPS implementations.   
   3. The researchers said anyone can collect Apple's entire WPS database.   
      
   There Apple WPS implementation is so highly flawed, researchers said it   
   allows anyone in the world to track your access point with no restrictions.   
      
   So I tested it.   
   a. I modified common open source code and proved the researchers correct   
   b. Worse, I found my own BSSID (which has _nomap) in Apple's WPS database   
   c. Which, Apple has written to me they have no intention of respecting   
      
   Those are facts.   
   Which of those facts are you desirous to discuss with the rest of us here?   
      
   My assessment of those facts is that it is wrong for Apple to keep me, and   
   hundreds of millions of APs like mine, in their insecure WPS database.   
      
   I'm not at all surprised Apple's response shows that Apple's written   
   response is morally, legally and ethically reprehensible. Are you?   
   --   
   It used to be Apple only told the truth in court; now, it's not even that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)