« I wonder... | Main | One reason why Acrobat irritates me so »

That is MaynorAndEllch. At this point, I just think of them as the same person.

so in Brian Krebs' column, he's defending his work:

I cannot give this talk without Dave. A lot of people think that Dave just flaked out and missed his flight or something. That is not the case. Dave very much wanted to be here. The fact that SecureWorks/Apple managed to compel him not to means that they must have had something very compelling to stop him. I'm not supposed to talk about what that is.

First of all, no, it doesn't. It means nothing of the sort, unless you have proof of it. What it means is, his employer is working with Apple, and Apple is weird about talking out of school. That's all it means at the moment. You have proof of something else, show us.

Secondly, Why can't you? Sure, it's maybe not as interesting, but if you have real technical data, and you actually know what you're doing, you can most certainly give this talk without Dave. Lord knows, he did the video without you. Just do the song and dance, show the proof, answer some questions, and go have lunch. This isn't rocket science, people do it all the time.

You may not want to give the talk sans Maynor, but you are most certainly capable of doing so.

A little later, like three sentences, he says:

We give a talk saying that device drivers have lots of bugs. We demo one bug in Apple. A few days later, when Apple starts flaking on a patch, we tell them we are going to do a live demo of it at Toorcon, so it would be a good idea to get it patched before that.

Bullshit. You demo'd no such thing. You kind of demo'd a possible bug in a third party driver, then said that the same driver existed in the MacBook. You now seem all kinds of shocked that people got tired of waiting for some real proof and have decided that you're kind of full of shit. Well, them's the breaks. You either ante up the proof, or you get labled a bullshit artist. Of course, since there is evidently a patch issued for the vulnerability, you could have, at any time after that patch, posted your proof. You could have, of course, shown your proof to people more trusted in the Mac community, but since you think that Mac users are too stupid to get networking, you choose not to. (I wonder how Alan Oppenheimer feels, now that he knows he's too stupid to understand complicated networking stuff? I bet Stuart Cheshire is really broken - hearted to know that he's really a complete idiot about networking.)

Let's be clear here. Had MaynorAndEllch shown their attack on a stock Macbook, and allowed independent experts, (SO not George Ou) to verify it, there'd be no controversy. None. They would have been, as desired, feted as good guys, helping people out. Instead, they kept getting shadier and shadier about it. So now the whole thing is just a Hunter S. Thompsonesque murk of (counter)accusations and denials. Their entire reason for the video and its contents still lacks any semblance of logic, but they persist in using it. Kind of like a little kid who knows he's busted, so figures that if he sticks to his story, no matter how blatantly dumb, at least he won't get busted for lying.

At this point, no one but the two of them will ever know the truth of the matter, and since Maynor is being prevented from clearing this up, Ellch refuses to.

Oh, and the "Apple kept us from talking" thing early on? I'd still love to know how that worked.

Guys, just stop. Either make with the proof, or stop with rambling defenses. You have no real trust base anymore. Think about it.

Technorati Tags: Apple, Mac OS X, George Ou - Idiot, Security

Comments