On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:30:25 GMT, neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill
Massello) wrote in <1hjjclx.cj6fuu7y8jobN%neillmassello@earthlink.net >:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>It was because Pons and Fleischmann did have some credibility as
>scientists that their claim got any attention. Their credibility
>collapsed because their claim did, not the other way around.
>
>The details that Ellch and Maynor omitted weren't just those that would
>enable somebody to reproduce the exploit. They were also those that
>would allow some preliminary judgement about the nature and extent of
>the security threat. What chipset and driver did they use? We don't
>know. How was the target machine configured? We don't know. Why didn't
>they demonstrate the full extent of the exploit without first
>associating the target with the network? We don't know.
>
>It isn't "responsible and reasonable" to make alarming claims, provide
>essentially no supporting information, and present a glib but incomplete
>demonstration. It's a publicity stunt. This announcement and its
>accompanying "demonstration" were, at the very least, premature.

That depends on whether or not more information is being provided to
affected organizations, as claimed. Thus far there hasn't been any
suggestion that it hasn't, so I think this criticism is, at the very
least. premature. ;) The recent massive Intel security patch also
lends credibility to the claims.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>