On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:38:39 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
| On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:14:36 -0600, massello@newsguy.com (Neill Massello)
| wrote in <1hji9oy.1gssc3k1xfd159N%massello@newsguy.com>:
|
|>No information was provided about the configuration of the target
|>machine, nor was a satisfactory explanation given for having the target
|>machine connect to the network. Without that information, the dog and
|>pony show of creating, opening, and deleting files on the target
|>machine, as well as the "look no wires!" finale, are largely
|>meaningless. Until Ellch and Maynor come across with more information,
|>they should be regarded as the Pons and Fleischmann of wireless
|>security.
|
| With all due respect, they have considerably more credibility than Pons
| and Fleischmann, particularly given the recent massive Intel patch for
| Centrino. I think keeping details from the general public until vendors
| have a chance to respond was the responsible and reasonable thing to do.

As long as "a chance" is a finite time frame that cannot be extended beyond
what is "reasonable" as defined not by the vendor. But just what really is
reasonable can be hard to define. Maybe the driver has to be rewritten from
scratch because it had a fundamentally flawed design. That could take more
time than even the original project. OTOH, the vendor should incur whatever
cost that involves to get it done in the expected time frame.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-08-04-1314@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|