The Active Network
ActiveWin Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | Career Portal | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 803  
 

Recommended Links:

robe dentelle

Now, you can buy real Instagram followers.

AWBridal Highly Recommend Wedding & Bridesmaid Dress Online Store

light tower

buy arabic Twitter follower

buy spotify real followers

A great website to buy Facebook followers from is BRSM. They have a great track record!

the Binary Option Robot

Get Windows Tablet & Phones at DHgate.com

neowin.net

Amazon.com

  *  

  Apple's Worst Security Breach: 114,000 iPad Owners Exposed
Time: 08:40 EST/13:40 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Robert Stein

The breach, which comes just weeks after an Apple employee lost an iPhone prototype in a bar, exposed the most exclusive email list on the planet, a collection of early-adopter iPad 3G subscribers that includes thousands of A-listers in finance, politics and media, from New York Times Co. CEO Janet Robinson to Diane Sawyer of ABC News to film mogul Harvey Weinstein to Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It even appears that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's information was compromised. It doesn't stop there. According to the data we were given by the web security group that exploited vulnerabilities on the AT&T network, we believe 114,000 user accounts have been compromised, although it's possible that confidential information about every iPad 3G owner in the U.S. has been exposed. We contacted Apple for comment but have yet to hear back. We also reached out to AT&T for comment. [Update: AT&T has confirmed the breach; an update appears below.] A call to Rahm Emanuel's office at the White House has not been returned

Write Comment
Return to News

  Displaying Comments 1 through 25 of 28
Next Page
  The time now is 6:44:00 AM ET.
Any comment problems or spammers? E-mail us
Spammers: Your posts will be deleted - do not waste your time!
#1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/10/2010 8:53:46 AM
I would think that the story below would be of more interest to AW readers, and it confirms what I've believed and said for many years.

http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/06/cyber-war-microsoft-a-weak-link-in-national-security.ars

#2 By 432 (209.167.107.58) at 6/10/2010 9:09:56 AM
I think the article title is misleading...this is an AT&T leak, not an Apple leak at all.

#3 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 6/10/2010 9:25:52 AM
#2: Exactly! I am not an Apple fan but "journalists" are supposed to report news; opinions should be expressed in the "Editorials"... unless you work for FoxNews.
It is an AT&T problem and the worst thing is that they did not warned the potentially affected customers.

#4 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 6/10/2010 10:07:21 AM
Clarke? Really?

Man... not only would I not advise taking a word of this seriously, it is so fundamentally flawed at so many levels, it is hard to imagine it made it to print.


#5 By 2960 (72.205.26.164) at 6/10/2010 11:43:07 AM
This is not an Apple Breach, it is an AT&T Breach.

Geez....

#6 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 6/10/2010 12:30:31 PM
"Apple bears responsibility for ensuring the privacy of its users, who must provide the company with their email addresses to activate their iPads. This is particularly the case given that U.S. iPad 3G customers have no choice in mobile carriers AT&T has an exclusive lock, at least for now. Given the lock-in and the tight coupling of the iPad with AT&T's cellular data network, Apple has a pronounced responsibility to patrol the network vendors it chooses to align and share customer data with."

"The security researchers were able to guess a large swath of ICC IDs by looking at known iPad 3G ICC IDs"

Sequential numbers? Isn't that Apple's fault?


#7 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 6/10/2010 1:36:56 PM
Latch,

I wouldn't think you'd be too worried about the good ol' US of A, you being a Canuck and all. I wonder does Canada use Microsoft's same "flawed" system?

Why aren't you directing ire in the direction of Ottawa?

#8 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 6/10/2010 2:12:45 PM
I always wonder about people with Bush Derangement Syndrome who latched on Clarke as some sort of anti-Bush hero:

"According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Clarke gave the final okay for the members of the bin Laden family living in the U.S. to fly to Saudi Arabia on Sept. 14, 2001. Clarke had initially claimed under oath someone in the Bush Administration had asked for the flight and he consulted with the FBI [8]; later He admitted that he alone authorized the flight. He told reporters I take responsibility for it. I dont think it was a mistake, and Id do it again."

"Scheuer stated that his unit, codename 'Alec,' had provided information that could have led to the capture and or killing of Osama bin Laden on ten different occasions, only to have his recommendations for action turned down by senior intelligence officials, including Clarke.""

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 14:16.

#9 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 6/10/2010 2:57:03 PM
#8, Exactly and there is so much more. Clarke was an egotistical goob. A top down - bottom up review of counter terror policy was ordered after Bush took office and because Clarke was so inconsistent, he was sidelined in favor of a more comprehensive policy and team, which sadly, was not fully completed, or formed by the time of of the 9/11 attack.

The facts are that the capability the US had spent 30 + years building, was so badly emasculated by the Clinton administration, that it was going to take years to rebuild it. In fact, the Clinton years were and still are called: "The years of emasculation"

One day I hope that it is possible for the real and true story to come out - when men were cashiered in favor of the weakest little worms ever to work in government. Suffice it to say that very few think much of Clarke.

#10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/10/2010 3:06:07 PM
#7: Our gov't uses the same crapware from MS that yours does. We're all in the same leaky boat.

#8,9: Can't fight the facts so we'll shoot the messenger. Not like I didn't see that one coming. It was worth it just to see parkkker and ketchum back in bed together.

#11 By 143 (216.205.223.146) at 6/10/2010 3:21:21 PM
The main breach with Apple is your wallet.

#12 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 6/10/2010 4:29:42 PM
#10 "Can't fight the facts so we'll shoot the messenger."

The article I link to and quoted from confirmed that Clarke was a liar, and not only that he had attempted to frame someone for his bad decision.

You are an impeccable judge of character. You love liars as long as they hate Bush or Microsoft.

#13 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 6/10/2010 6:28:16 PM
#8: Iketchum please; do you mean incompetents and, even worse, completely ignorants like Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, Franks ( the smartest of the bunch: he retired right after the invasion was completed and went under) or the worst of the worst, Paul Bremer: as ignorant and clueless of anything as arrogant?
The entire operation will be studied in history as a perfect example of what to avoid to do invading another Country.

#14 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 6/10/2010 8:39:06 PM
Fritz, the emasculation began in 1993 and before the end of the decade, the US capability was all but destroyed. It took well beyond 2005 to reverse it.

I do agree that not nearly enough force was used throughout Iraqi Freedom. The invasion should have taken place in early fall 2002, and involved 400,000 ground troops. I also agree that removing all former party officials and soldiers was a terrible mistake. Had the invasion taken place in 2002, chemical WMD would have been prevented from being moved to Syria and nuclear weapons program components would not have been spirited into Iran.

There was more than sufficient justification for invading Iraq. Corruption within the UN and specially within French and Russian companies, were the base for the political opposition.

On 9/12/2001, I wrote that we should not invade anyone, or any country, because the American people would only pursue victory for a few months and thereafter pursue comfort and complacency. I retired from federal service for the second time in 1996 - at the height of the emasculation. I did so with great sadness and in 1993, wrote a finding called: The Faces of Fundamentalism and the rise of packet based communications in support of terrorist operations. It called for the rapid type and classification of foreign terrorist communications as a means to direct imagery assets pursuant to remote air strikes - vice collection and processing of voice. It also called for and detailed the collection center responsible for managing collection and processing assets. It was political suicide and I knew it. Far too many people were vested in old ways and the administration had no interest in pursuing counter terror. My country wanted its post-cold war peace dividend - I maintained that the only peace dividend we should pursue was peace itself. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and especially Franks, wanted twice the ground units used - the facts are that we simply did not have enough combat ready forces. In the end, all the people of the world chose this. They all wanted the surplus and most voted left of center. Having failed, I wanted to go home and upon doing so, used the exact model I had proposed, to begin building federated/distributed systems over a decade before they became popularly known as "Cloud Services" - we've since added automated analysis systems that produce real-time visual and interactive business information products. The head most responsible for this mess is the one we can find in the mirror.

#15 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 6/10/2010 9:31:35 PM
#14: ... Correct as usual: not enough troops and no strategic plan for the aftermath.

I disagree that Rumsfield and Wolfowitz were looking for more troops; when Gen. Gen. Eric Shinseki said that he got "retired".

As for Frank he was an absolute idiot: he never studied De Gaulle, Tukhachevsky, Guderian etc.
Whoever plans and invasion on a desert terrain should know that mobility is everything; US forces waited days in the middle of the desert because shortage of supplies; in a "real" war, meaning against an enemy with efficient air forces it could have meant a disaster.

Besides the reasons that brought to the invasion the problem is that the mid-term result will be a disaster: time five years and Iraq will become a confessional state, exactly what happened in Afghanistan after the Russian invasion.
I am ready to bet a lunch with you about this scenario.....


This post was edited by Fritzly on Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 21:32.

#16 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 6/10/2010 11:00:14 PM
Actually, the halt was very beneficial. The US Air Force, using a range of very advanced weapons that drop one smart shaped charge per vehicle from a canister, decimated the last of the Iraqi armored formations that came out - thinking that they could use the storm as cover. These evolved into the BLU-108 unmaned system, but use the same shape charge.

They are from a class of "Brilliant" weapons (as opposed to smart). MG Vincent K. Brooks provided details at the time, but was not believed. The pooled press did not want to accept that it was possible to destroy an entire division in such a short time from the air, or with so few aircraft. The facts are, it is entirely possible now. It is worth mentioning, too that the US Army used its own version of such weapons - the ATACMS Block II/IIA Brilliant Anti-armor Technology (BAT), at the same time. Both delivery systems were validated. These emerged from LRIP in the late 90's and were specifically developed to see how far such weapons could be advanced. Where the 108's were not needed (such as against trucks or personnel) the AGM-154 system was used. These devastate troops in the open.

If we pull out if Iraq, I am sure your prediction will come true. If we stay, they have a chance as a democracy and to build a decent life. Either way, I'll take the bet.

#17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/11/2010 8:39:19 AM
#12: The article I link to and quoted from confirmed that Clarke was a liar, and not only that he had attempted to frame someone for his bad decision.

What you actually did was to use a smear against him as a red herring to distract from the issue. As usual. Plus, if you really believe that he authorized that flight all by his lonesome, with it being just a wild coincidence that the Bush family & Bin Ladens were tight, then you're either naive or deluded.

It is interesting to see you placing Microsoft higher than Republicans on your worship hierarchy.

#18 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 6/11/2010 10:15:03 AM
#17 "if you really believe that he authorized that flight all by his lonesome"

" later He admitted that he alone authorized the flight. He told reporters I take responsibility for it. I dont think it was a mistake, and Id do it again."

So now YOU are calling him a liar.

I claim he is a liar for claiming it was someone else who authorized the flight, and YOU are calling him a liar for claiming he did it himself.

One of us is right. Whichever one of us is right seems to still leave Clarke as a liar.

#19 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/11/2010 10:48:41 AM
#18: Newsflash: everyone's a liar. People lie every single day. Some tell the truth and then later lie to cover their bosses ass after getting reamed out for admitting the order came from the boss to begin with.

Please explain how Clarke covering for Bush invalidates what he's saying now about Microsoft? Or is it that he told a lie, therefore everything he says is a lie from that moment onward? Is that really how people work? Not in my experience, but maybe you're surrounded by sociopaths.

You haven't changed one single iota. You still use the same lame logical fallacies and misdirections you've always used.

#20 By 2960 (72.205.26.164) at 6/11/2010 11:50:18 AM
Thread, original topic, exit stage right LOL

#21 By 8556 (173.27.246.50) at 6/11/2010 12:12:21 PM
#19: I never lie and I almost always tell the truth.

ActiveWin might want to become ActivePolitics.

#22 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 6/11/2010 7:54:47 PM
#19 "Newsflash: everyone's a liar. People lie every single day."

And for some reason, after saying that, you want me to believe that Richard Clarke was not lying about Microsoft and you aren't lying about Microsoft?

LOL

#23 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 6/12/2010 10:44:23 AM
Richard Clarke isn't qualified to install an OS, much less comment about OS security.

#24 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 6/12/2010 3:54:29 PM
ketch,

"Richard Clarke isn't qualified to install an OS, much less comment about OS security"..... that's the funniest line I've heard in a while.

#25 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/16/2010 11:25:21 AM
#22: I'd be happy to entertain your notion if you could be so kind as to explain his motivation for deceitfully slamming Microsoft. You have yet to come up with anything more than "He's lying!".

#23: Ah yes, more ad hominem attacks. Just like parkkker, you slam Clarke because he dares to challenge your view of Microsoft/Windows. And, also like parkkker, you have bupkiss to offer to back your claims. Sad, and yet so familiar.

Write Comment
Return to News
  Displaying Comments 1 through 25 of 28
Next Page
  The time now is 6:44:00 AM ET.
Any comment problems or spammers? E-mail us
Spammers: Your posts will be deleted - do not waste your time!
Please Enter Your User name and password:

Sign Up For A User Name

 

  *  
  *   *
 
replica watches