On 2007-04-16, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Monday 16 April 2007 09:53 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> __/ [ Linonut ] on Sunday 15 April 2007 22:42 \__
>>>
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, East belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> Wi-Fi Bug Found in Linux
>>>>> A major Linux Wi-Fi driver contains a bug that can allow an attacker to
>>>>> take control of a laptop--even when it is not on a Wi-Fi network.
>>>>> Peter Judge, Techworld.com
>>>>> Friday, April 13, 2007 01:00 PM PDT
>>>>
>>>> Can we have a link?
>>>
>>> The bug was fixed _before_ this became public. It's Madwifi, a wrapper to
>>> Win32 binary blobs IIRC, which only comes to show why binary drivers are
>>> unwanted.
>>>
>>
>> Is this correct - this is really a Windows driver problem?
>
> I'm watching a lot of discussions about it ATM. The reporters are being
> slagged off for not understanding the context, not realising it's an old
> (and already-patched) bug, and hyping things up in general.
They were probably trained at Camp MS-COLA-Troll. They would have
received teaching on the best shilling methods money can buy. It isn't
their fault they're uneducated.
--
You can make things foolproof, but not idiot-proof because
idiots are so ingenious.
|
|
